Quite frankly I don't care if people agree with me or not, it's an opinion site not a popularity contest. Toning down opinions for the sake of not ruffling feathers is the work of politicians, and I'm not one of those.

You've also interpreted meaning to my comment which did not exist. 'Considering those less fortunate than you' has zero to do with understanding dynamic market pricing. Anyone who implies a morality to price action misunderstands the entire principle. Uber doesn't increase prices to laugh at people who are priced out of the market. They increase prices to encourage more supply. Anyone who reads a moral side into the argument will never have a balanced thought about it, and is always going to be wrong.

Recognize that none of the arguments we make here are deductive logic, rather they are entirely persuasive. You fail to be persuasive because you express hate and disgust where it's not necessary or appropriate, hence your arguments fail where perhaps they could succeed. If you don't care whether or your arguments succeed then why bother responding? Your opinion is what it is and nobody will ever change it and you should have no need to ever express it, it's just wasted words. Of course this is silly and you do care if people agree with you or not.

Anyone who refuses to consider morality when it comes to economics and price action is always going to end up at a horribly misguided and perverse world view; you retract your ability to do moral reasoning in order to be 'objective' but miss that the assumptions you've made to even have a market economy exist in the first place have moral weight. You cannot ever escape ethics and morality unless you resign yourself to only discussing technical cause/effect in a particular system and never making any human judgments about it, anyone in it, or any effects of it.

I think you use faux economic objectivity as a shield to protect yourself from the consequences of the actual moral judgements you are making about the less fortunate. If economics says morally reprehensible things will occur then economics is /wrong/ and it is our moral responsibility to force a solution other than the market one to that particular problem.

You look at the intentions of the rich (which are wholly irrelevant) but never the consequences of their actions; it was never the intention of the plantation owners to enslave people, rather, they just wanted free labor to more efficiently produce their products. A noble goal, yes?