> The market was very good at increasing profit when demand was larger than supply. That's what it's supposed to do. Then in the absence of regulatory barriers

> The market was very good at increasing profit when demand was larger than supply. That's what it's supposed to do. Then in the absence of regulatory barriers to entry, new suppliers enter the market to capture those profits, until the profits aren't so big anymore because there are more suppliers. One of the things that messes people up here is that they want consistency but don't want to pay for it. You have a competitive market which is providing low prices until there is a supply disruption. Then prices are temporarily high. If you wanted to you could have bought insurance or futures etc. so that you would always pay a consistent price, but then you'd be paying a higher price than the market on the days when supply is good so that you could pay a lower price when supply is low. People then complain about that too, but those are your options; if you pick the "don't buy insurance" one then you're exposed to events, but you should be the one who gets to choose. And maybe if you're poor you don't want the insurance, what you want is to have the lower price most of the time and cut back your usage when the price is high. But either way, that should be something you get to decide instead of something somebody decides for you.