Need a one page canvas post and also one page reply to a friends post?

Question: Pricing strategies may result in prices that deny certain consumers or business the ability to purchase and or enjoy the offering. Is there a moral price? What do you do in situations where someone needs a product but the cost of providing it is prohibitive? Should profit levels be a factor in determining the price of an offering? By this I mean that if a firm is making 35% profit should their prices be reduced by law so that they only make 15%?. What are the unintended consequences of having a law like this?( Need my one page post)

My friends post( need a reply post for this one): I do believe there is a “moral” price but it cannot simply be defined by the retailer. Consumers willingness to purchase a product is ultimately what sets the price of the product. As long as there are customers who are willing to pay a higher price than someone else for a particular product, firms will continue to set premium prices on their goods. And they should be allowed to. As long as they are charging higher amounts for quality goods and there is no monopoly or predatory pricing, I don’t see why it would be considered immoral. If someone needs a product but the cost of providing it is prohibitive there is probably a lower priced substitute for that product on the market. An example of immoral or unethical price setting would be something like Horizontal Price Fixing which is illegal because it eliminates the decision process for consumers and reduces competition in the market.

I do not believe that profit levels should be a factor when determining the price of an offering. Firms should not have to (by law) be forced to reduce their profits. Competition in the market already does this naturally by allowing consumers and firms to interact freely. When the government intervenes by placing laws that interfere with profitability it can create a dangerously slippery slope in the marketplace . This could cause for unintended shortages and surpluses which would otherwise be non existent if the market was allowed to operate freely. It also discourages competition within the market because it eliminates the incentive to be bigger and better than other firms. This in turn diminishes innovation.

The Robinson-Patman Act prohibits anti-competitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination. So long as there are laws in place that limit firms from being able to create monopolies on their products, I do not see a strong case for why they should have to alter their profits.