>Because you will not die without the hot new video game. Could you expand on this? If we are looking at pricing discrimination that still allows them to buy

>Because you will not die without the hot new video game. Could you expand on this? If we are looking at pricing discrimination that still allows them to buy it, then they aren't going to die either way. If it is immoral to use their life to make money, then selling it at any more than cost is immoral, and potentially even selling it at cost is immoral since that cost includes some amount of niceties that aren't required to produce the drug. (does the person making the drug really need to earn that much, couldn't they do with a bit less pay?) Also, given that even if you fully minimize costs and sell the drug exactly at cost, there are still some who can't afford it, so if you want to maximize the number of people who can afford the drug then pricing discrimination is still preferable. If upping the price in one region lets you lower the price in another (remember, we are already selling it exactly at costs), and the people in the first region has more income to spend on drugs, is that not the far more ethical than demanding it be equal costs to everyone even when people in poorer areas end up being denied the drug due to pricing? In effect, the pricing discrimination is a tax on the richer individuals buying the drugs to allow poorer individuals to buy the drug (within the hypothetical where you are selling it at cost). I guess even deeper then is the question if the person making the drugs should even be profiting off the work. They need to eat and have a place to sleep, but if they require more than the bare minimum salary possible aren't they now increasing the cost to product the drug, resulting people having to pay more to live, just so they can have more money? Of course, there is the issue that if they can't make enough money to attract them, then they'll pick a different line of work. Is it wrong or immoral for them to do that? To demand a certain level of compensation or they work elsewhere, even though they could survive off of less money while making the drugs at lower cost? If the end worker can demand a premium despite the impact on the lives of those who depend upon the drug, why can't others involved in the production of the drug? Overall, it makes a nice sound bite, but I don't understand the actual reasoning implied.