No, it comes down to who can afford it. Often, the people who need it most are the ones least likely to afford the gouging that goes on during disasters, as they often live in substandard housing or in areas more prone to flooding, collapse, and often don't have the means to get out in time to escape being trapped without the cash to pay the higher prices. Once again, there's the "solution" to the over-population problem.Take another example, where fresh water is hard to find in a local area where a disaster has hit, say some hurricane. If the price of fresh water does not sky rocket, then it would mean that the limited amounts of water would go to the people who first buy it instead of the people who most need it.
But who pays for it? Do only people with the money, most likely cash on hand, get injured?If hurricane Katrina hits and something happens to you and you need fresh water and gas to get to a hospital to survive, then the only way you can be assured you will get that water is if prices are allowed to go up. If government comes in and tries to control prices, then you end up with shortages. Then the people who most need the resources do not get them.