Comment by majormajor

Two possible reactions to a competitor raising prices:

* let's not raise our prices and try to gain market share

* let's do the same and see if we can all just bring in more top-line revenue

Two possible actions when your costs go down compared to your current prices, but nobody has lowered prices:

* let's stay where we are, no need to be the first to make a move, we have nice fat margins right now

* let's get aggressive and lower prices

These are all rational actions. A "greed" aspect of inflation only requires most players in the market to take the actions that keep their prices higher.

The high-school-econ level common belief is that companies will predominantly choose the "let's go for more competition!" price move. But ... why? Competition is stressful and higher-effort than coasting and maintaining the status quo, especially when your profit margins for the status quo are now healthier than they were 4 years ago. Especially since it isn't guaranteed to work out financially better for you.

The "invisible hand" is limited in terms of forcing players into the price-cutting competition unless people are so broke that they can't keep going. But if it's the difference between saving 5% and saving 6% of your income, or the difference between putting an extra $100 on your credit card debt every month or an extra $110... there's no overarching benevolent force here that should make you think companies won't be as greedy as possible.

The "anti-greedflation" argument you're making is basically just "they would lower prices if they could" and that's patently false for the vast majority of products in the vast majority of transactions. They will avoid lowering prices until there's no alternative.

Mercedes being more expensive than Honda is not an example of "greedflation" - it's an example of consumers making decisions on other things than the instantaneous lowest price". And in a world where you agree that consumers aren't always motivated by price, you should see how that extends to "price wars won't always result in the instigator being guaranteed to win significant market share" and* sellers not always being motivated to favor market-share over all other metrics.