If you do, then it's because you are choosing to posture. There were no ad hominem attacks in my post, but an explanation of what was missing from your perspective and exhortation to broaden it with some specific suggestions.
Your suggestion was "read a few papers". Not "this part of what you're saying is wrong, and why", not "look at this paper that makes X argument", not anything of that sort - just "only someone who doesn't understand anything could possibly think that, so I won't rebut anything".
Incidentally, I think the consensus among economists that price gouging laws are bad is pretty strong, so I'm not even sure what sources you're suggesting I read. Econlib [0] has a piece on this, particularly on a survey of economists done by the University of Chicago Booth School. I'd expect their opinions on banning resale to be similar.
I'm not your personal tutor, nor am I obliged to gain your approval.
The Chicago school is famous for having a particular and extremely ideological point of economic view, and the blog you're quoting loudly announces its own firmly libertarian credentials.
You're right, you're not my personal tutor. Nor are you obliged to gain my approval. But when saying "you're wrong", a "why" is generally required to convince anyone - not just myself, but also anyone else reading the thread.
Yes, the Chicago school is biased. So is Econlog. But I was under the impression that their survey selection wasn't. If we're bringing up ideological biases though, the fact that your profile starts with "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" might be relevant to this discussion about economics... (And I would say that this is not an ad hominem attack, since it's directly relevant)
I'm sorry, what? Do you have a response, or only ad hominem attacks?