A recent tragedy in India revealed more than just fear — it exposed the cold mechanics of markets under stress. This essay explores how crises, consumption, and capitalism intersect, raising uncomfortable but necessary questions about ethics, empathy, and the systems we’ve built. No easy answers — just honest reflection.
A Tragedy That Shook a Nation
Recently, India experienced a tragic terrorist attack that deeply shook the nation. Fear spread quickly, prompting thousands to flee the affected area. The surge in demand for travel led to a dramatic spike in flight ticket prices — in some cases, they tripled or even quintupled.
This price hike, fueled by genuine human distress, left many unsettled. It was a stark reminder that in moments of vulnerability, economic forces can operate with indifference — and sometimes even cruelty. The anger was not only over the expense but over the lack of empathy embedded in the system.
It wasn’t simply about the price increase. It was about the realization that in times of collective suffering, the systems we rely on can operate without humanity.
The Broader Pattern: Not Just in Crisis
This indifference extends far beyond moments of public tragedy. Similar patterns are evident across societal behavior and business practices at large.
In times of market disruptions, companies, even highly profitable ones, often prioritize short-term profitability by laying off employees instead of redeploying or reskilling talent. In these moments, where empathy and long-term vision could guide leadership, short-term financial metrics often take precedence.
This behavior mirrors our collective energy consumption, where the threat of climate change looms large. Despite the undeniable environmental risks, short-term incentives — such as cheaper energy or immediate growth — dominate decisions, prioritizing convenience over sustainability and ethical responsibility.
A similar pattern emerges in credit card consumption, where businesses market loans as “gifts,” promoting instant gratification while encouraging spending beyond one’s means. These models profit from debt, burdening individuals who will ultimately face the consequences of living beyond their financial capacity.
The same dynamic plays out in investing, where short-term trading is marketed as a quick route to wealth. But the ethical dilemma remains: Is it right to treat investing as a game of instant returns, disconnected from long-term value and real-world consequences?
Just as price surges during fear or layoffs in tough times reflect short-term profit at the expense of humanity, so does reckless credit consumption and short-term trading.
Introducing the Parties Involved: A Complex Web
The situation becomes more complex when we try to identify the actors involved. It’s not just a case of villain versus victim; it’s a web of interconnected players, sometimes invisible at first glance.
- Businesses and Managers: They balance profitability, operational viability, and public trust. In times of crisis, they must decide whether to prioritize the immediate survival of the business or uphold ethical standards, even at the risk of short-term harm.
- Investors: Often unseen but highly influential, investors push for returns, resilience, and growth — sometimes demanding results over much shorter timeframes. Their expectations shape corporate behavior, which may lead to decisions that conflict with public interest.
- Customers and Society: Society demands ethical behavior from businesses while also seeking availability, affordability, and convenience. Businesses must navigate the contradiction between market efficiency and humane behavior.
- Regulators and Judiciary: These guardians of fairness often react to events rather than anticipate them. Regulations tend to follow reality, not foresee it, struggling to keep pace with rapid changes in the market and the ethical dilemmas they create.
- Lenders and Financial Institutions: These entities fuel economic growth, embedding expectations of financial discipline and return within the businesses they support. But this can lead to a focus on efficiency and short-term profit, often at the expense of ethical considerations.
Each of these actors influences and is influenced by others, creating a complex system far more intricate than it might initially appear.
Acknowledging the Complexity: No Easy Answers
It’s tempting to seek simple answers: businesses should act more ethically, investors should show more patience, society should be more resilient. But the reality is much more complicated.
Decisions are not just about ethics; they are interwoven with survival instincts, competitive pressures, human biases, and systemic inertia.
For instance, a business focusing solely on doing good may not survive long enough to continue making ethical decisions. An investor who demands short-term returns may inadvertently create pressures that lead businesses down morally questionable paths. Regulators may act too quickly, stifling innovation before it can flourish.
These dilemmas are not new. They have surfaced throughout history, each time testing our collective consciousness in different ways.
This echoes the moral questions raised in All My Sons by Arthur Miller, where characters are confronted with the consequences of decisions made in the pursuit of self-interest — decisions that have devastating implications for those around them. The businessman in the play justifies his actions as necessary for survival, but at what cost?
Some may dismiss these as overthinking, believing the market will “self-correct” in the end. But for me, this represents a serious attempt to confront these questions — to understand the uncomfortable realities we face, rather than letting cynicism or blind faith obscure our understanding.
The Questions That Arise
In the wake of such events, difficult questions arise — and none have easy answers:
- Is supply and demand fair when desperation distorts choice? When a family flees danger, is it still a “voluntary transaction” in the spirit of free markets, or is it something far more complex?
- Should businesses act differently in times of human crisis? Where does pragmatism end and empathy begin? Should businesses place human needs above profitability, even if it risks their long-term survival?
- What role should regulators and society play? Can we create safeguards to prevent exploitation without stifling innovation? Can we balance ethical behavior with market efficiency?
- As investors and stakeholders, what expectations should we have? Does the relentless pursuit of ROI — faster, bigger, now — inadvertently foster the very issues we later criticize?
- How do managers navigate these conflicting imperatives? To lead effectively is to survive, but does survival always require compromise on ideals?
- Is over-optimization hollowing out the human spirit in our systems? In medicine, real estate, and technology, are we optimizing outcomes at the expense of human connection?
- If the system eventually self-corrects, is the interim damage justified? Does the pain endured before market forces “correct themselves” leave scars too deep for society to heal quickly?
These are not rhetorical questions. They are persistent, complex, and disturbingly real — dilemmas that reflect a society growing in self-awareness but still fumbling in practical application.
A Balanced Take — Step by Step
Human Progress Exists — But Flaws Persist
Humanity has made remarkable strides. We’ve solved monumental challenges, created life-saving technologies, and transformed economies. But progress is not without its flaws. The unintended consequences of innovation — exploitation, inequality, and environmental harm — often emerge only after the fact.
Flaws and Short-Term Manipulations — A Reflection of Human Nature
In theory, supply and demand should balance itself out. But in practice, moments arise when market forces are manipulated by businesses, investors, or individuals. In these moments, the market doesn’t reflect pure efficiency; it reflects human nature: greed, fear, and urgency.
Take the flight price hikes after the terrorist attack. While increased demand is expected, was the sharp rise in prices justifiable when lives were at stake? The market responded, but did it serve society?
Maybe Imperfection is a Necessary Correction
One way to view these imperfections is as part of the system’s natural self-correcting mechanism. The Universe 25 experiment in 1971 gives us a striking example. Researchers provided rats with everything they needed — food, shelter, and safety. At first, the population thrived. But overabundance led to chaos and eventual extinction.
This suggests that overabundance and market manipulation can lead to breakdowns, forcing society to face uncomfortable truths. These imperfections, though painful, may catalyze necessary change. It takes time — longer than we may like — but systems do eventually find balance.
Everyone Walks a Tightrope
At the heart of these dilemmas is a delicate balance that all parties must navigate:
- Managers must balance empathy and profitability. Short-term cost reduction might be necessary, but long-term human-centered approaches are essential for sustaining trust.
- Investors push for faster growth and returns, but do these pressures obscure the societal consequences of their investments? Can they prioritize long-term impact over short-term profit?
- Regulators face the task of preventing exploitation while allowing growth. Can they keep pace with rapid change? And when intervention happens, is it ever too late?
Conclusion: A Question, Not an Answer
Ultimately, we are left with more questions than answers. The intricate relationships between businesses, investors, and society cannot be easily untangled — and perhaps, they shouldn’t be.
It’s easy to criticize businesses, investors, or society for their actions. But the truth is, we all play a part. While assigning blame is tempting, it’s more necessary to understand these issues in their full complexity.
The pressures businesses, investors, and regulators face are real. They drive decisions that may not always align with our ideals, but they also foster progress — even if it’s imperfect.
The real challenge lies in how we respond to these flaws. Do we see them as opportunities to learn and innovate, or let them become barriers to progress?
Perhaps the challenge is not finding the perfect solution, but navigating the gray areas with integrity, compassion, and awareness. As we continue to grow, the questions will remain. And how we address them will shape the future we create.
Quiet Reflections 