Reply #32: It depends on the objective of the rationing.

[TahitiNut]

If it's solely to reduce consumption, then the reduction target should be normalized and a median monthly consumption calculated by CLASS of ration allotment. The ration would then become a 'gray market' entitlement, where those with lesser needs than the ration for their class can sell their surplus ration.

From an economic perspective, it makes more sense to enact rationing (by fiat) than allow private global corporations to fatten their coffers by imposing "price-rationing." If it's done under the corporatist model of "free market" controls, then solely the wealthy are enriched by the supply restrictions. If done by ration cards (a la WW2) then the people who reduce their consumption the MOST (usually the working poor) obtain a marketable entitlement - their excess ration.


We had ration cards in Viet Nam ... for cigarettes, beer, and booze. The guys who didn't smoke could sell (or give away) their cigarette rations. The guys who didn't drink could sell (or give away) their beer/booze rations. The military met their objective of keeping a lid on the amount of such items they had to supply (and limit the amount that went into the black market) and the grunts could benefit by not being consumers. It worked.