The way I see it, this makes sense in a hypothetical world of perfect theoretical models (you may recognize this world as being the one inhabited by frictionless, perfectly spherical cows). In this world, scalpers cause the market to price in "stickiness" - the more critical an item is to the buyer, the more they'll be willing to pay - so the supply ultimately gets allocated to the most desperate of buyers, for the price of "your entire margin", or possibly "literally all you have", if the buyer's survival depends on it.
Maybe this makes sense in that theoretical world - where there's no inertia, no friction, no capital investment, no jobs and livelihoods tied to the outcome. But in reality, scalping seems to be the purest form of parasitism. In a crisis, scalpers' activities may kill perfectly fine companies (or people) who would've otherwise limped through the rough times and survived, upsetting an industry long-term, and it forces everyone to waste their money.
And even if you think that this kind of market culling is fine, I'm not seeing why all that money should go to the first asshole who managed to secure a large loan in time to buy off the entire stock of some good.
Maybe this makes sense in that theoretical world - where there's no inertia, no friction, no capital investment, no jobs and livelihoods tied to the outcome. But in reality, scalping seems to be the purest form of parasitism. In a crisis, scalpers' activities may kill perfectly fine companies (or people) who would've otherwise limped through the rough times and survived, upsetting an industry long-term, and it forces everyone to waste their money.
And even if you think that this kind of market culling is fine, I'm not seeing why all that money should go to the first asshole who managed to secure a large loan in time to buy off the entire stock of some good.