True, but as I pointed out here, businesses could simply start charging for things they used to give away for free.
This is somewhat misleading…they used to give product ‘Y’ ‘for free’ ? or isnt is that they gave product Y as part of a package, Customers bought X+Y package at cost Z. The banks proposition was to have the customer pay $Z, and get X, oh and you also get Y ‘for free’ !
(thats called marketing , but there are no ‘free lunches’)
The same argument that says Business can’t shift the tax on Y directly onto the customer (but rather are incentivised to disinvest, reducing supply, and only then indirectly increasing sale price) . shows that they couldnt arbitrarily charge more for X either.
So when you see the price of X rise, like bank services that used to be part of a package. Just think how bad its gotten, that a product that could piggy back as a marketing tactic on the back of a main product, is now better split off and treated as its own product, allowing product Y to remain marginally more appealing to any customers who still want Y, but not so keen on paying extra for X+Y