The outrage here stems from the fact that people do not perceive Uber as the corner grocery store, or some guy on the corner selling umbrellas at twice their cost when its raining. Uber is perceived, as most startups are, as a "good guy," an entity who would try first and foremost to help during a crisis before trying to make a profit. If they had done this (eat the losses) from the beginning not only could they have avoided the bad press but probably gotten enough good pr to increase their customer base.

Or more likely, it stems from the fact that some people understand economics and some don't.

You want prices to go up in an emergency, because it creates incentives to go beyond usual measures to provide supply. Anti-gouging laws are not just useless, they are mindbogglingly harmful. There's a good reason you don't set ceilings on prices during usual times: If the cost of supply goes above set price, there is no supply and people have to go without. The pricing mechanism still works and is even more important when there is an emergency. If conditions make providing supply hard and legislation limits the prices to a set ceiling, retailers aren't going to eat the cost of providing supply, they are just going to say that it's too hard and close up for the duration. If prices are allowed to rise naturally, it incentivizes not just going above and beyond to get goods where they need to be, but also stockpiling supplies before the disaster.

Price gouging is a good thing, because the choice is not between very expensive bread and non-gouged bread, but between very expensive bread and no bread. If there was enough supply to provide for all demand during the crisis, prices wouldn't go up.

However, here in Michigan after 9/11 (a place not directly affected by the disaster), gas prices shot up drastically, immediately. The governor stepped in and set gas prices at a controlled rate, with serious repercussions if the price limit was breached. That's an example of bad price gouging, in an area where that type of activity should be controlled. There was no immediate threat to Michigan's gas supply, nor to the Michigan transportation network. Prices were not going up as a result of increased risk in the market, but because companies knew they could incite a buying panic at a hugely inflated profit margin. They knew that when their supplies of highly profitable gas ran out, they could get more at the normal rate, then sell it massively inflated again.

What Uber is doing while operating in NYC right now is an example of increased risk. NYC is in a disaster zone. There is a massively increased risk to operating a business on the streets of New York currently. With the public transport out, they need more drivers. Depending on the area, they might need drivers willing to take the risk of operating on these streets. There is a risk to the continuity of their business, a need to fill demand with limited supply. Increasing prices temporarily makes sense. It's the tradeoff between everyone can afford it but no one can buy it versus some can afford it but all who can will be able to buy it.

If the government wants to limit the ability of the market to assess risk, maybe they should compensate Uber and other hire-car companies (aka cabs) to help offset the supply vs demand equation.