I think you're both spot-on.
The disconnect is partly lexical from the way I am reading either perspective. I'm not trying to play ref, here, but reading all others' posts, I'm obviously getting a different perspective than any others reading (or writing) the same posts. If I may offer how I am seeing a connection between the apparent disagreements, I may have a lead on where they actually fuse together.
Definition of greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.
(
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed)
Yeah, this is somewhat subjective, given the use of "needed," but defining perceptions of behavior in a social context does not invalidate the more mechanical, or objective aspects at all. Greed is there alright, and no, it does not contradict anything more objective anyone else has said.
P&P has presented a very objective set of assertions, backed by a lot of real, empirical and historical information.
These assertions are validated by many "experts" and textbooks and are commonly held to be "for real." All of this detail is valuable to all of us, even if we are already aware of the theories, law, principles, etc. of economics, as it reminds us to apply reason before acting. It provides some moral support, as we ride this out - subdues panic and angst to a degree.
Todd sums it all up rather succinctly as "greedy businessman and greedy customers."
Now, Todd has omitted a lot of detail there, like a lot of us curmudgeonly old coots will do, especially when frustrated and losing the patience to explain it all to 1) people who don't care; 2) people who won't "get it:" or 3) people who already understand. Having omitted the detail does not imply that the detail is not there, nor that the detail is not valid.
GREED, I think, IS a part of this. I believe it defines what drives the people driving the market. It IS an INTEGRAL part of the market. Think prohibition and the ensuing boot-leg market, or Soviet-era black markets. Someone wanting or needing something is the impetus for providing that something. If one breaks even in the process of providing that something, it's not worth providing. The definition of "greed" has a catch-22 in the word "needed," because NO free market will spawn or thrive based on stopping at the level of "need." Breaking even is senseless. Ther has to be something in it for someone to do the providing and the wider the margin, the more motivated the provider is to provide. It's all about GREED. If it weren't for greed, the system wouldn't work. We'd be waiting in lines for beer, bread and primers and we'd get just what the "State" would give.
Yes, greed IS a social or moral concept, which seems to defy the purely objective aspects of the situation, but there's no reason what is happening objectively cannot fit the social or moral description as long as it meets the criteria, and I think it does,...
BUT, the social definition of what is going on does NOT invalidate the objective aspects - doesn't even put a dent in them. They go hand in hand - one defining the situation objectively and the other defining the situation more emotionally.
Oh, yeah, and I'm not immune either. I am royally PO'd about the situation and do not think terribly well of those "artificially" jacking prices, but then I expect it too. No one is in any business for the sake of the "greater good" or to "serve humanity," it's all for profit, and mo' is better and that is greed.
These are not two opposing concepts - they are the same thing, just seen from different perspectives. There are guys at the shows I will nod at, but not engage in conversation. Those are guys I KNOW bought 22 LR at WM for $20/550, specifically with the intent to resell it at a profit (without an FFL) at the shows and they mark it up 500%. Scourge of the earth to me. Greedy, fatherless son to me. I despise those guys. Aside from not having an FFL to "do business," but that doesn't mean that he's not a functional part of a free market, subject to the predictable casuses and effects. It doesn't make him a "bad businessman." I have something of a grasp on most of the concepts discussed, but yeah, I still call THAT guy "greedy." The way I personally describe his behavior in a social context does not negate the laws, theories or principles commonly accepted regarding the economy or free markets.
It goes hand in hand - I think.