In 1876 when there was crisis in India and famine broke out, a lot of people died due to the price controls of food and not because there was famine in itself- (Mike Davis — Late Victorian Holocausts). Britain then monopolized the situation and created wealth out of peoples desperation to survive, a lot of people could not afford that survival however.
When we relate price controls in Nigeria, compared to the Charleston case and the one in India that I have mentioned, should our priority be the lives of the individual or the continuation of the economy? What if price controls were not set and at best the competition from various actors only reduced the gallon prices from $10 to $8, people would die of thirst. Though the explanation Baetjer depicted is somewhat understandable, do you think that had the prices not been fixed it would have actually done better for the people of Charleston in the long run? (I am assuming the fact that the Government who put a law against price increase of water were held responsible to provide more water since they were the cause of the first comers buying all water gallons in the first place — not minding the whole game politics of not taking action at all after the tragedy).
