I also thought of an example where a famine was averted due to government intervention.

The current hurricane in Belize. Had the government not stepped in and 'price fixed' the stores would have been depleted and cached by the few a week ago.

Why in major disasters do prices go up, when it is clear this is contrary to the best interest of the market? That without price fixing the majority of people will be left without. Why is this hands-off philosophy not held accountable for its failings? I must assume that the resultant famine due to price inflation by the individual resource owners is still a result of that government interference. ;)

Jim, are you really THIS dumb? Nobody can be this dumb and live long. There's no person called "market", therefore it has no "interest". It's a decision of the current resource owners - and when demand increases (as in the case of a major disaster), they *have to* increase their prices until the supply is equal to the demand (if they don't, the first buyers will sell what they bought on the "black market" to those who value it more). Basic economics, even US public schools must teach that much. The stores might have been "depleted", but the high prices would have made it profitable to sell food there, and someone would have done that. Furthermore, the expectation of high prices due to an impeding disaster would have created incentives for "hoarding" - that is, gathering as many resources as possible, which would have attracted imports BEFORE the disaster. Price fixing destroys any incentive for spending now in order to profit later. Dumb americans. Mark