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.
Smarmy? Maybe. Sarcastic as the day is long? Brand me. I'd prefer we be specific, rather than swim in a pool of varying interpretations of price gouging, especially when those interpretations don't conform to the current standard that governs the behavior of men (law)? Take note; I'm not defending the pimp here. I just don't get offended and steer my boat into the rough waters of pure contradiction, when I'm FREE to abstain from dealing with that person. That encounter isn't a catalyst for a sudden switch in my ideology. It doesn't grant me permission to suddenly pole vault from conservative centered ideas, to blatantly hard left caterwauling for ideas that run counter to my conservative center (not accusing you if that needs to be said). No one is slaved to the transaction. No one. The person that enters a difficult situation with an eye on squeezing the most out of the lemon can certainly be considered morally reprehensible, and we tend towards disliking that person quite a bit. But, some kind of compass must apply here, and if that compass spins in circles and refuses land on anything but, "how I feel, when I feel it, and then I'll be fine...", then it's not a compass. It's some kind of politically bi-polar pile of chaos. The best mediator we have to gauge the existence of price gouging is law, not the 'as the wind blows' psuedo-notion that seems to have seized men by the nose ring.
The economic system we know as Capitalism does NOT explicitly exclude taking advantage of a situation. The person that has piss poor credit might get dragged across glass shards (financially) if they need a car, but when they hit that buy here pay here lot, and they hand over cash that amounts to 3 times the value of the car, they leave with a car. It is not a single sided, single benefit endeavor.
e
