The reply in this post is the better point of this thread, so I will quote it just to make sure it doesn't get lost in the noise generated by the amplitude of the complaining. It offers a genuine opportunity to classically debate the merits of the general claim of this entire thread, but it will be missed...entirely.
I'm concerned that we would instead, prefer to perpetuate our secret love affair with that ever thorny contradiction, which looks something like this; continue marching to the Big Band sound of capitalism whilst waving a tall banner that says, "Capitalism For Everyone!". As soon as we see a price on any item that generates a knot in our emotional skivvies, rip off them bra's (gotta get it out through a shirt sleeve or you didn't do it right), let down that unkempt mane of 5am hair, drop the banner, and start screeching and demanding the intervention of some governmental authority, of which we usually express varying degrees of disdain based on whether we perceive they are on our side or the enemy, so that things can be, "...set right again...".
We should also hold steadfastly, with white knuckles and whale sweat, to the idea that the implicit power of the word 'no' (meaning you simply refuse to buy that item), should only be construed as; we can't have it (enter pouty face meme).
Being able to differentiate between the reality that a price has created tidal waves in your emotional ocean, and having access to the power of cognitive assessment on whether or not that 'mean ol price' is suitable to your endeavors...or not, are radically different standards that produce radically different responses.
Sniggly your being Smarmy.
Taking advantage of a difficult situation is not capitalism--it's price gouging. Hoarding is in large part responsible for the scarcity of everything that goes bang, but in part it's also the new gun buyers. They aren't necessarily hoarding.
