[kodyo]

Sellers have a moral imperative to figure out how much their stuff is worth by charging as much as they can.

When people stop buying what they’re selling, we know the product or service isn’t worth it, so the price comes back down.

[pwinnski]

If you're selling luxury goods, then sure, exercise your imaginary "moral imperative" all you want.

When you're selling something people need to survive, like food or medicine, your moral imperative runs in the other direction, and profiteering at the expense of deep need is immoral in the extreme, especially if there are factors preventing competition so you have a captive market, like increased corporate concentration or a government-enforced monopoly.

[harimau777]

According to what morality? Most religions and secular philosophies that I'm aware of don't believe that.

[gruez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism

[kodyo]

Economic ideas that embrace human freedom and human flourishing are likely to consider truth a virtue.

You won't find it in Marx, Keynes, etc.

[denton-scratch]

Defining "truth" and "virtue" is like nailing jelly to a wall; nobody agrees on what they are. That's why economists like Marx and Keynes didn't try to measure them. Essentially nobody that aspires to any kind of rigour appeals to truth and virtue.

[93po]

This reliance on the free market falls apart instantly when there is collusion and price fixing, and the conditions we're seeing with increased prices is literally the textbook example of evidence of price fixing.

The only reason capitalism isn't 100% broken is because of regulation. Therefore we must accept that pure free market forces are not the morally superior path.