Having been raised in a family fed by a small business and a country driven by capitalism, I'm inclined to disagree with some of the people here. I view my personal financial management as a business. If I have an opportunity to make money because that door is open for me, I will often walk through it, unless the investment is unjustifiable. When I have the opportunity to purchase something that I know will have a excellent profit margin, I will do so. As Ripster tries to make clear with his graph, the demand is out there, and I then have the supply. I will take advantage of that. I don't view it as exploitation; I am in no way forcing the buyer to purchase the caps from me. They are doing so of their own volition.
Sordna was definitely on to something when he suggested that those who are angered by the inflated prices should not purchase them, but likewise they are correct in that it will have a minimal effect because they cannot stop those who are not irked by the pricing. If change was to be enacted, they would need to unite and boycott resellers. However, a key aspect of successful boycotting is united belief in the cause, and due to the exclusivity of the caps, that would definitely be hard to achieve.
I personally don't care for the skull caps, and have not bought any because of it, even though I know the market is there. I don't have the finances to invest, even with an almost definite return, so I don't. Would I if the opportunity presented itself and all prerequisites were fulfilled? Most likely. While I agree that the idea of price hiking can be "ethically wrong" as someone put it, I feel that only applies to bare necessities, or things that are basic human rights. A keycap? I'm going to do what is best for me.
