You realize we used to own most of those, right? And the public voted for politicians who sold them for next to nothing?

To be fair I skimmed the article and I don't see the: "we let them sentiment in it" ... I think that may be a bit of editorial liberty.

The articles does seem to empathize with us:

Advice for consumers for much of the past year has boiled down to either trying to cut back on expenses, or increasing income, but Stanford says it's misleading to put the onus on consumers to solve inflation, since they're the ones bearing the disproportionate burden of it.

(food companies all raise prices.)

And then some smaller company goes, "wait a sec, you're telling me I can increase my market share a bunch if I don't raise prices? Cool, let's do that. I can make a bunch of money on volume." And then some other company does the same thing, and so on until they all do. UNLESS an input into that industry has gone up in price and they all have to raise just to stay afloat. Then we're back to talking about inflation, supply chains, and money supply instead of companies just choosing to raise prices due to greed or something.