It's basically, because everything else has gotten more expensive. Labor + fuel + wear and tear on equipment + raw materials.
Inflation of a single thing, will have effects on anything down stream of that thing.
And then there is the "greed" aspect, though overstated, where a company will see that costs have gone up in other sectors, so they raise their accordingly. This has been claimed, but I'm not sure how much it actually happens.
Don't forget taxes (tariffs) have also increased substantially. Even if a supplier isn't paying tariff's, if their competitors are they can often just raise their prices, or their prices go up due to the supply/demand shift.
Saying "greed" comes from people who fundamentally believe economics doesn't exist, or don't understand it. Everyone in the economy is "greedy". Consumers want to pay the lowest possible prices, and producers want to generate the most profit. Nobody starts a business to be a charity, and businesses will always set their prices to maximize profits.
If prices have gone up, the question to ask is why. Is there not enough competition? Have input prices risen? Why are consumers willing to pay more? Saying greed is just a bullshit boogeymanization that politicians like to spout.
Exactly - this is literally econ 101, no appeals to "greed" needed.
As they say, the cure for high prices is high prices. You already saw this in a number of different areas. Fast food prices outpaced what people were willing to pay, so people stopped eating out and businesses needed to adjust accordingly.
Your line of reasoning is downplaying the fact that we don't exist in a world with perfect markets or rational consumption habits.
There are multiple clear cut examples of producer collusion and oligopoly formation in the past few years - including in the food industries (see eggs and pork in the past 5 years). Food being essential for life means consumers can't interact with the market rationally, just like they can't for insulin, transportation that enables income, and so on.
If everyone charges $20 for a burger, people will still go to McDonalds. In such a state, no individual place would dare charge $10 again. Why cut revenue to nearly half? It’s not like they have the capacity to sell 20x the usual volume…
I’m not convinced that basic economics works when output capacity isn’t fully scalable.
Same reason no lawn care team tries to deeply undercut competitors - they can only mow so many! (Barring that they hire more helpers)
Because, to quote Jeff Bezos, your margin is my opportunity. And did he ever squeeze every drop from that opportunity. Just ask the brick and mortar stores in your street.
> I’m not convinced that basic economics works when output capacity isn’t fully scalable.
Economics works for land, which isn't scalable.
> Same reason no lawn care team tries to deeply undercut competitors
That works right up until Fred down the road loses his job, and then it dawns he could be making more money with his mower because of those sweet fat margins those other lawn care people thought they could keep all to themselves.
Sure and now after having become the Shoggoth monopoly, Amazon is now increasing fees. Squeeze your competitors out via unlimited money and then begin to squeeze your customers after you become of the lone poles in the forest.
This is what people seem to forget... you don’t need monopolies or collusion for markets to be uncompetitive. Collusion works fundamentally because participants aren't competing with each other... not for the fact people made a secret agreement. It is entirely possible for markets to be completely uncompetitive even without a monopoly or any collusion going on.
Your examples here are better known amongst economists as the Bertrand–Edgeworth model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%E2%80%93Edgeworth_mod...)