Maybe cut one of those three out.

Demand is relative. When the USSR collapsed, NATO countries, especially European members, dramatically cut military spending below the minimum mandate they agreed upon, which contradicts the Russophobia narrative. A reason why for "high demand" is that since the US was picking on small, weaker countries, it never had to face an adversary in a war of attrition. Instead, the US military during the unipolar moment. Uncle Sam focused on high-tech gadgets that focused on precision while gutting the true and proven kings of battle, like artillery and their dumb shells. Even the M777 shoots a high-tech GPS guided 155mm shell. Because the US government never provided checks on pricing, no bargaining, the US hyperinflated the costs for military procurement. Things that should be reasonably priced with their military contemporary equivalents, are ludicrously priced. Paying more for less. There is your price gouging there. They have done it to themselves. This is more than just attributed to higher income. The military suppliers purposely maximize profits over volume, and only produce just enough as not to lower their profit margins than necessary. American politicians won't tell you about this, because their profligacy creates its own constituency, and a revolving door of politicians becoming lobbyist, and vice versa. You know, like Nikki Haley, who some moderate democrats find apparent qualities about her.