Uh, what? Did this get cut off somewhere? [1] It sounds like the author's concluding that the fixes aren't the same. Daley says that the fix for the bank run i

Uh, what? Did this get cut off somewhere? [1] It sounds like the author's concluding that the fixes aren't the same. Daley says that the fix for the bank run is for the government to step in as a guarantor and provide the cash to depositors withdrawing, then says that that's not possible for toilet paper, and thus it should do a quantity limit ... with no further economic analysis except that it worked somewhere. Those are, like, the opposite solutions. Government (or the central bank, in this case[2]) can easily loan money out of thin air, but it can't do the same for toilet paper. At most, it could commandeer suppliers or initiate its own manufacturing, which breaks the economic similarity. Similarly, the solution for toilet paper (quantity limit) doesn't apply to the bank run case, as bank insurers don't do a quantity limit. Arguably, the deposit insurance maximum is a kind of quantity limit, but Daley doesn't offer it as such, and it's known in advance, and unrelated to customers' legal right to how much they can access, so is non-analogous in several respects. Since no defense of quantity limits is given beyond (as above) that it worked once, the title is bad and the argument isn't well supported. [1] For the record, here's what I see as the last paragraph so you know if I'm missing something: >The second solution is to ration the commodity – putting limits on the amount a customer can buy. Imperfect though these buying limits are, they are feasible, as shown by the restrictions put in place by Australia’s supermarkets. https://www.afr.com/companies/retail/coles-joins-woolworths-in-rationing-toilet-paper-20200305-p5471r https://www.afr.com/companies/retail/coles-joins-woolworths-... [2] Let's not break into the debate about whether the Federal reserve is private or not; it really doesn't matter for purposes of this topic.