How do you think people would react to rationing?

[Seadog]

I just watched The Pacific, great little docu-mini series about the US war in the Pacific to help me get through quarantine. In one scene, the soldier is on leave in Australia, and the girl's family he's having dinner with is simply amazed that he as able to secure a leg of lamb for dinner.

It got me thinking, since I've already started reading about farm worker shortages in Europe and Canada, how do you think that would go over if rationing came to pass in the west?

If the last month is any guide, it shows that people are short sighted, self interested, and will happily sell their neighbour down river if it ever marginally improves their short term comfort and chance of survival. People were hoarding in a FOMO induced panic, limits for canned goods and rice are being flagrantly ignored until stores have to pay someone to stand over them yelling at people to respect the sign, and quarantine orders were being sometimes entirely disregarded.

Even worse, despite living in the greatest time of plenty ever, it's also the most materialistic era ever, where everyone gets a prize, the idea that there may be a limited number of prizes doesn't even enter the conversation, and even not having a cent to your name is no reason not to buy and consume more energy and food than an entire 3rd world village. If everyone is  special, how will they react to being told no you simply can't have more than half a pound of bacon per month, since someone is more special than you, and they need it more?

[Cranky]

Generally, we do rationing by making things more expensive.

Therefore, a true rationing system makes things more accessible to lower income people, as long as there is enough to go around - poor children were better nourished In Britain  during WWII than they had been before the war.

There may or may not be enough to go around at this point - the issue is that it isn’t safe to go to the store.

We had some serious shortages during the 70s, but it was less fraught because it didn’t feel dangerous to go to the store, IMO.

[Seadog]

Interesting take. Obviously the difference is that it was more self induced shortages since so much was needed for the war effort.

If prices increase due to shortages, how would we ensure people have basics like food without some way of maintaining the price? And if the price is maintained, how would we prevent things like hoarding? While I may have sounded pessimistic about today's generation, my grandmother said hoarding and black-marketeering were real problems back then as well.

The silver lining was that people were healthier. I read a book called Good Calories, Bad calories by Gary Taubes, and he talks a lot about "diseases of civilization", such that when you have plentiful high energy hormone altering carbs at the ready(ie corn syrup), diseases like diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and a host of others become far more prevalent. Ironically by having less access to food due to imposed restrictions, people were living longer.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Like everything else, most people will comply and try to help each other out. A small percentage will be jerks, and an even smaller percentage will try and take advantage of the situation.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Official , generalized rationing like there was in WW2? In the US, you can forget about it. Compliance would be minimal and you’d just give rise to a thriving black market. I strongly disagree with the idea that the government would do an equitable or particularly competent job over a wide range of goods. That said private, informal rationing such as we have now where quantities of say milk or canned goods are limited is fairly effective. The important difference being that the seller is voluntarily imposing the limit and is willing to enforce it since it’s their own decision.

[maizefolk]

Generally, we do rationing by making things more expensive.

I agree that is generally the case, but the usual system doesn't really work in disasters.

In a freshman economic lecturer's view of the world, the run on toilet paper would have caused the price to spike, whether 2x, 20x, or 100x, until it started to be possible to find it on the shelves again because the increases price was enough to decrease daily demand for toilet paper back to the amount of toilet paper that gets manufactured in a given day.

Instead prices haven't really risen -- although they are starting to modestly increase for food through decreases in sales and discounts -- because companies selling to the general public know that raising prices in a disaster would get them marked as price gougers and cause long term damage to their relationship with customers after the disaster passes.

[TomTX]

That said private, informal rationing such as we have now where quantities of say milk or canned goods are limited is fairly effective.

As a side note, the milk shortages are completely a supply chain problem. The dairy farmers are literally dumping milk they cannot sell. Millions of half-pints consumed at school every day not being consumed.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I do not think the  consumerist body politic will be accepting of rationing.

[Seadog]

Like everything else, most people will comply and try to help each other out. A small percentage will be jerks, and an even smaller percentage will try and take advantage of the situation.

Official , generalized rationing like there was in WW2? In the US, you can forget about it. Compliance would be minimal and you’d just give rise to a thriving black market.

This is exactly why I thought it was such an interesting thought experiment. Back to back posts saying "sure, nearly 100% compliance", next to "forget about it, we're each out for ourselves".

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Like everything else, most people will comply and try to help each other out. A small percentage will be jerks, and an even smaller percentage will try and take advantage of the situation.

Official , generalized rationing like there was in WW2? In the US, you can forget about it. Compliance would be minimal and you’d just give rise to a thriving black market.

This is exactly why I thought it was such an interesting thought experiment. Back to back posts saying "sure, nearly 100% compliance", next to "forget about it, we're each out for ourselves".

Well, first of all, I live in NZ which is a completely different culture to the US.
Secondly, I've experienced rationing after a disaster, and I don't think that other poster has. Going from his/her posts on a number of threads, I think the sum total of his/her life experience may be hollywood films.

When things get really bad, networks count for more than anything else. The lone survivor, Mad Max style street warrior doesn't last long. Networks come from people looking out for each other.

[Milizard]

By the ridiculous way people in my state are reacting to stricter shopping and boating limits, I think they'd be up in arms about rationing. It's too reminiscent of Communism for them, I'm sure.

[Cranky]

I don’t see anything at this point that requires rationing beyond what the stores are doing by limiting how much you can buy of certain high demand/low supply items.

Rationing in the US during WWII was focused on sustaining the war effort. The things that were rationed were either imported (like sugar) or needed for the military - gas, tires, silk. It wasn’t all that equitable, either. My grandfather had a small business and he got extra gas and tires and sugar throughout the war.

If this lasted a long time, years not a few months, I’d say that what would help more would be limiting shopping - every household gets one shopping trip/week, and you’ve got to hand over your coupon before you go into the store. That would cut down on the number of people I hear saying that they stopped at 3 or 4 places and then picked up a pizza.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Like everything else, most people will comply and try to help each other out. A small percentage will be jerks, and an even smaller percentage will try and take advantage of the situation.

Official , generalized rationing like there was in WW2? In the US, you can forget about it. Compliance would be minimal and you’d just give rise to a thriving black market.

This is exactly why I thought it was such an interesting thought experiment. Back to back posts saying "sure, nearly 100% compliance", next to "forget about it, we're each out for ourselves".

Well, first of all, I live in NZ which is a completely different culture to the US.
Secondly, I've experienced rationing after a disaster, and I don't think that other poster has. Going from his/her posts on a number of threads, I think the sum total of his/her life experience may be hollywood films.

When things get really bad, networks count for more than anything else. The lone survivor, Mad Max style street warrior doesn't last long. Networks come from people looking out for each other.

While I don't particularly appreciate the personal remarks, I'll reply. I've worked disaster relief in the past, and I've also been through my share of hurricanes myself as has my extended family. They got hit head-on during Katrina. Some real Kodak moments there.  And yes our culture in the US is different to that of NZ. 

Here is how disasters work in the US in my personal experience. Either you have the necessary supplies ahead of time, you get them from your family or friends if you urgently need them (your network), or you do your best without. That's why preparation and keeping a supply of essentials on hand is important. Depending on where you're at and the circumstances, the supplies you should've obtained beforehand might be available for a price. Stuff like gasoline or generators.  Charities help fairly quickly. Help from FEMA is for the days and weeks after the crisis has hit. Water and food is usually not an issue because it is usually the first relief stuff sent, and power outages mean food needs to be cooked or it will need to be thrown out.  So lots of BBQs. And businesses are often very resourceful and creative. As are a lot of Americans. 

As for a long term situation where the government implements rationing, I don't believe it would work here. When I was very young, the Arab oil embargo hit and formal rationing was considered but not implemented.  Price controls on gasoline caused widespread shortages and you had to wait in line for up to 10 - 15 gallons of gasoline. I remember that you could purchase gasoline through informal channels.  Our government finally did the rational thing and got rid of the price controls.  And gasoline became  widely available. 

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Like everything else, most people will comply and try to help each other out. A small percentage will be jerks, and an even smaller percentage will try and take advantage of the situation.

Official , generalized rationing like there was in WW2? In the US, you can forget about it. Compliance would be minimal and you’d just give rise to a thriving black market.

This is exactly why I thought it was such an interesting thought experiment. Back to back posts saying "sure, nearly 100% compliance", next to "forget about it, we're each out for ourselves".

Well, first of all, I live in NZ which is a completely different culture to the US.
Secondly, I've experienced rationing after a disaster, and I don't think that other poster has. Going from his/her posts on a number of threads, I think the sum total of his/her life experience may be hollywood films.

When things get really bad, networks count for more than anything else. The lone survivor, Mad Max style street warrior doesn't last long. Networks come from people looking out for each other.

While I don't particularly appreciate the personal remarks, I'll reply. I've worked disaster relief in the past, and I've also been through my share of hurricanes myself as has my extended family. They got hit head-on during Katrina. Some real Kodak moments there.  And yes our culture in the US is different to that of NZ. 

Here is how disasters work in the US in my personal experience. Either you have the necessary supplies ahead of time, you get them from your family or friends if you urgently need them (your network), or you do your best without. That's why preparation and keeping a supply of essentials on hand is important. Depending on where you're at and the circumstances, the supplies you should've obtained beforehand might be available for a price. Stuff like gasoline or generators.  Charities help fairly quickly. Help from FEMA is for the days and weeks after the crisis has hit. Water and food is usually not an issue because it is usually the first relief stuff sent, and power outages mean food needs to be cooked or it will need to be thrown out.  So lots of BBQs. And businesses are often very resourceful and creative. As are a lot of Americans. 

As for a long term situation where the government implements rationing, I don't believe it would work here. When I was very young, the Arab oil embargo hit and formal rationing was considered but not implemented.  Price controls on gasoline caused widespread shortages and you had to wait in line for up to 10 - 15 gallons of gasoline. I remember that you could purchase gasoline through informal channels.  Our government finally did the rational thing and got rid of the price controls.  And gasoline became  widely available.

Yeah...

and so again, from someone who has actually experienced rationing post-disaster, most people will comply. Why? Because everyone gets some. That's the point of rationing. I have queued for hours for petrol, with hundreds of other people. I believe the top amount you could get at the time was $20, which is about quarter of a tank. A lot of people would want more, sure, but no one got nothing. There was grumbling but at the end of the day everyone is in the same circumstance and that is generally perceived as "fair". Supermarkets had tables outside the front door selling basics. You could get bread, milk, baby supplies, toilet paper, that sort of thing. Again, you could have something, but not everything you may have wanted. And everyone got some. We have the same here now in supermarkets - you can buy anything you like, but not more than two of a similar item. So you can get toilet paper or flour or baby wipes, but you can't take more than you need..... and everyone gets some.

There will always be people who try and con the system or take advantage, no matter where you go. But we're a social species, and we've been through a bazillion disasters as a species. Individuals in a network do better than ones without a network. Communities that pull together do better than ones that don't. We're all the offspring of the communities that worked. Don't underestimate your fellow man in times of crisis. Feel free to underestimate him in times of non-crisis, because honestly he's a bit of a dick most of the time.

[Schaefer Light]

Instead prices haven't really risen...because companies selling to the general public know that raising prices in a disaster would get them marked as price gougers and cause long term damage to their relationship with customers after the disaster passes.

That's because your average consumer is a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the law of supply and demand.

[maizefolk]

Instead prices haven't really risen...because companies selling to the general public know that raising prices in a disaster would get them marked as price gougers and cause long term damage to their relationship with customers after the disaster passes.

That's because your average consumer is a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the law of supply and demand.

We can try to explain to people that their worldview is irrational, unlikely to produce the outcome they want, and they should change it.

Or we can make our own choices based on what we know about how people will generally tend to react to those decisions, whether their reactions are rational or irrational.

My personal experience, in a lot of different contexts, is that the first approach doesn't accomplish a whole heck of a lot. And it's helpful to understand as much about the ways human beings are rational or irrational, and why, so I can do as good a job at the second approach as possible.

[bigblock440]

Instead prices haven't really risen...because companies selling to the general public know that raising prices in a disaster would get them marked as price gougers and cause long term damage to their relationship with customers after the disaster passes.

That's because your average consumer is a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the law of supply and demand.

Or, because price gouging is illegal in most (all?) states.   

[MayDay]

If I was the Queen, I'd set up something like bags of rice and beans and oil for every person, to ensure everyone had enough food to survive.  And then jack up prices on everything else, to ration it. 

I do not think the US would respond well.   

Speaking of coronavirus, I would like to see them shut down literally everything, close all stores, etc.  The only people who can go out are medical employees, and as many as possible must stay and sleep at work (thinking nursing homes, etc) and not leave.  For 2 weeks.  And if you run out of food/TP/etc, you call the government and they drop you off a pack of rice and beans.  Really stop this think in its tracks instead of dragging it on and on. 

I do not think the US would respond well to that either.

[Plina]

I think we are a long way from rationing. The price of food will probably go up if the farms don’t get the workforce needed. If we have learned anything from this virus it is that money talks when it comes to securing the stuff we need. There will need to be a serious food shortage before rationing is introduced in the western society and before that millions of poor people have starved to death in poorer countries.

Would we adapt to rationing. Yes, of course we would if we didn’t have a choice. People are adaptable in need.

[Seadog]

If I was the Queen, I'd set up something like bags of rice and beans and oil for every person, to ensure everyone had enough food to survive.  And then jack up prices on everything else, to ration it. 

I do not think the US would respond well.   

Forget who it was, but there was a comedian once who had a bit about how so much of the world is starving, the west is so obese. Starts talking about having to eat rice. "This is what they had to eat on Survivor. That's what having enough to eat, but merely surviving on rice is to Americans. A hardship to  be endured! Merely surviving is a game!"

[Schaefer Light]

Instead prices haven't really risen...because companies selling to the general public know that raising prices in a disaster would get them marked as price gougers and cause long term damage to their relationship with customers after the disaster passes.

That's because your average consumer is a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the law of supply and demand.

Or, because price gouging is illegal in most (all?) states.   

Price gouging laws are ridiculous.  The government shouldn't get in the way of a transaction that both the seller and buyer have agreed to.