[jrowen]

Is it clear that this will not go in a direction that actually pushes back on wealth inequality?

It seems distasteful on the surface of course but could it be macroeconomically a good thing?

Obviously the fatal flaw is that capitalists are running it for their own gain but logically how would it play out?

[citizenpaul]

I think you answered your own question.

This is like the ultimate version of going back 1000+ years economically and socially. Where a merchant would size up how desperate or rich they thought you were and charged you based on that rather than a reasonable price.

It wastes the time of the poor whom must be willing to walk away without anything when they can "afford it" and further deepens the problems when you are desperate.

Except now they can also spy on you 24x7 and buy information from other spys while they make their decisions and have 100% information asymmetry. Now they also HAVE to charge you more to make back the money they spend spying on you rather than just running a normal business.

You already answered your own question though. It is the peak of exploiting power wealth disparity, there is zero chance of it being used beneficially.

[jrowen]

On some level though it does jive with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Do you have an issue with textbooks being cheaper in India?

If we live in a more socialist future where there are mechanisms to prevent corporate greed from accelerating wealth inequality, I feel like it could find a beneficial equilibrium. I think, given the choice, most [non-luxury] businesses would rather have more customers than price out poor people entirely. They would be subsidized.

Put another way, do "one price for everyone" and "customer blindness" benefit rich people or poor people more?