4 ms·

After reading this article, I want to stock up on more food for myself and my five dependents. Double our reserves of biscuits, cereals, frozen meat, frozen bre

After reading this article, I want to stock up on more food for myself and my five dependents. Double our reserves of biscuits, cereals, frozen meat, frozen bread, canned food, preserves, long-life milk, honey, multivitamins, MREs, etc etc. Is this panic buying? Is it OK? Does it hurt other people? I’d be interested to hear some different points of view.

globular-toast 6y ago
You know it's panic buying and you know it will harm other people. That's why you want to do it yourself. You know that if others do it and you don't that it will harm you. So you take the "can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and do it yourself. Is it wrong for an individual to "join 'em"? No. Is it wrong that individuals feel the only way to be safe is to "join 'em"? Yes. But that's not a problem you can solve by yourself. The tragedy is that much of the food being stocked up in people's homes will go to waste as they don't have the facilities or knowledge to store it properly. Food suppliers have way better storage facilities than you do at home. They know how to keep food available all year round. There's also plenty of food to go around as should be blindingly obvious by observing the waistlines of people around you and that's including the fact that the food supply chain already has a ton of waste built in. Tragedy of the commons.
rightbyte 6y ago
As long as you eventually eat it, it is fine I guess. It is like energy and power demand on the electical grid. You lower the peak power demand.
OscarCunningham 6y ago
I don't think many other people are panic buying at the moment, so doing it now won't hurt other people by creating a localised shortage.
sneak 6y ago
It is indeed "panic buying" by the definition, but it need not be panicked. It is prudent to have a few months of supplies on hand if you know you're going to need them.
grumple 6y ago
> After reading this article, I want to stock up on more food for myself and my five dependents. You should always have some amount of food reserves. Space allowing, at least a few days of food. Canned and dry goods with long shelf lives - eat the oldest of this first during regular usage and refresh the stock so you don't end up with 5 year old canned goods. > Is this panic buying? A little, yes. There's not much risk of long-term food insecurity in the first world (at least not in the US). There are occasionally disasters that affect us short term - think hurricanes, floods, electricity outages, earthquakes, winter storms in Texas. I'd advise being able to get through those. > Is it OK? Does it hurt other people? It can hurt others. At the beginning of the pandemic there was a lot of panic buying. Part of that was an overreaction, part profiteerism, part of it was the world being unready to pivot to consumer goods (like with toilet paper). Do it gradually. Don't go out and buy out a canned goods section at your local supermarket.
- dmingod666 6y ago
  Not that I suggest but I heard a nice quote a while back "If you must really panic, panic early"
- jerf 6y ago
  "It can hurt others. At the beginning of the pandemic there was a lot of panic buying." On the other hand, having a stock on hand already can be helpful. It means you won't need to join the panic buying, because you're already stocked, and you stocked at a time when the system could easily handle it. It is a good thing for everyone to have some supplies on hand. It makes all of society more resilient against all sorts of disasters. It means that if your area finds itself in need of emergency services, those emergency services may not have to go to you, leaving them for someone else who may be in more trouble (e.g., someone who was at the epicenter of whatever and legitimately had their supplies totally destroyed). It is the socially responsible thing to do to have some vital supplies on hand and be able to survive independently for a few days on as few services as possible in your area.
dgellow 6y ago
Given that you don't know how the future will be, instead of doubling all your reserves right away, which definitely sound like panic buying, you may consider a less aggressive approach. Don't just buy everything right away, instead focus only on the most important type of food you need and slowly increase your reserve by buying a bit more when you do your groceries (you buy rice once every 2 weeks? Consider buying a few more kg each time and add to your reserve). And once you're good with rice/noodles/cereals you can do the same for other stuff. I call this FCA, aka "Food Cost Averaging".
Aachen 6y ago
It's never bad to have a little extra if you have the storage space and rotate through it. If that unlikely hurricane comes, or whatever your area might suffer, you don't have to be a pepper to be a normal level of prepared. But don't panic buy. Don't now go to the store and stock up massively. Put in an extra shelf-stable item, and next time you go shopping do it again, but don't panic now. That's how you create a food shortage. Even if you add "only" 10% extra to your purchase, I think that's what happened with toilet paper. I purposefully didn't buy any, figuring the crazies would get their fill soon enough, but a month later it was still going and we were trying not to be in the store more than once a week to prevent that being a spreading place but could now only buy 2 rolls at a time per family and many stores were completely out. Of course, we didn't even have to ask neighbours yet (some neighbors will have had to spare, not as if the rolls all disappeared into thin air) so it wasn't bad in any way in the end, but this panic behaviour is unnecessary and very quickly detrimental, even when a majority of people understand it's unwarranted.
- pcl 6y ago
  > not as if the rolls all disappeared into thin air No, they were going down the drain.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
This article and the associated study are about food costs in developing nations like Indonesia. The article mentions that inflation in the United States is much more pedestrian: > In the U.S., prices rose close to 3% in the year ending Jan. 2, according to NielsenIQ, roughly double the overall rate of inflation. Buying and storing food is an inherently inefficient process relative to buying the same food as needed. You would end up spending more to build and maintain food reserves than you would save against inflation. Far more. The article doesn’t suggest that we’re at risk of running out of food.
carapace 6y ago
You have five dependents, stock up. In a crisis bad enough that your prudence and foresight significantly affects other people by depriving them of food you can give them some of your food. But in that situation you're probably done for already, and should have gone up in the hills, eh? John Titor said something that scared the shit out of me. Paraphrasing, it was something like, "If you want to survive, move to a place three days further out than a starving person can walk." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor "John Titor is a name used on several bulletin boards during 2000 and 2001 by a poster claiming to be an American military time traveler from 2036." ) If you're worried about the collapse of civilization then, no, stocking up is not going to help as much as just getting way the hell out there in the woods and being self-sufficient. You'll be rolled by starving people. ("People always raid before they starve." https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geopolitics-in-a-hotter-world-ubc-talk-transcribed-sept-2010/ https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geo... ) For disasters less severe than that, then YES! Stocking up is the responsible thing to do and we should all do it as a matter of course, virus or no virus.
- owenversteeg 6y ago
  "three days further out than a starving person can walk" sounds cool if you're posting fake apocalypse theories on the internet (aka John Titor), but is generally pretty terrible advice. First of all, there are an enormous amount of cars in America and there are roads nearly everywhere. The furthest spot from any road in the lower 48 US states is in Yellowstone, 21.7 miles from the closest road: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42104894 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42104894 Even assuming that there's some kind of enormous EMP that kills all modern cars, there are plenty of pre-80s cars around and around a third of Americans have bikes. You can cover some serious distance on a bike if you're motivated enough (aka by hunger.) There are millions of horses in the USA, not to mention other animals and tools you can use for transportation (canoes etc.) If your bet is to hope that your fellow members of the most adaptable species on Earth won't get to you, you're generally screwed. If you plan to use force (say firearms) to hold back your place, well, that'll attract attention from anyone else (if you look at failed states, you're likely to see roving bands of criminals with more firepower than you.) There are fairly few examples of people who made their apocalypse preparations and actually rode out the local serious disaster in their bunkers, so to me, it's obvious what your best bet is - to simply live in a safe, sane and successful society.
helij 6y ago
Even in normal times you always need a month supply of everything. During pandemic or any other major crisis event it's probably best to keep 3 months supply of everything. That's not panic buying. That's planning for your and your dependants safety and wellbeing. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

globular-toast 6y ago

You know it's panic buying and you know it will harm other people. That's why you want to do it yourself. You know that if others do it and you don't that it will harm you. So you take the "can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and do it yourself. Is it wrong for an individual to "join 'em"? No. Is it wrong that individuals feel the only way to be safe is to "join 'em"? Yes. But that's not a problem you can solve by yourself. The tragedy is that much of the food being stocked up in people's homes will go to waste as they don't have the facilities or knowledge to store it properly. Food suppliers have way better storage facilities than you do at home. They know how to keep food available all year round. There's also plenty of food to go around as should be blindingly obvious by observing the waistlines of people around you and that's including the fact that the food supply chain already has a ton of waste built in. Tragedy of the commons.

rightbyte 6y ago

As long as you eventually eat it, it is fine I guess. It is like energy and power demand on the electical grid. You lower the peak power demand.

OscarCunningham 6y ago

I don't think many other people are panic buying at the moment, so doing it now won't hurt other people by creating a localised shortage.

sneak 6y ago

It is indeed "panic buying" by the definition, but it need not be panicked. It is prudent to have a few months of supplies on hand if you know you're going to need them.

grumple 6y ago

> After reading this article, I want to stock up on more food for myself and my five dependents. You should always have some amount of food reserves. Space allowing, at least a few days of food. Canned and dry goods with long shelf lives - eat the oldest of this first during regular usage and refresh the stock so you don't end up with 5 year old canned goods. > Is this panic buying? A little, yes. There's not much risk of long-term food insecurity in the first world (at least not in the US). There are occasionally disasters that affect us short term - think hurricanes, floods, electricity outages, earthquakes, winter storms in Texas. I'd advise being able to get through those. > Is it OK? Does it hurt other people? It can hurt others. At the beginning of the pandemic there was a lot of panic buying. Part of that was an overreaction, part profiteerism, part of it was the world being unready to pivot to consumer goods (like with toilet paper). Do it gradually. Don't go out and buy out a canned goods section at your local supermarket.

dmingod666 6y ago
Not that I suggest but I heard a nice quote a while back "If you must really panic, panic early"
jerf 6y ago
"It can hurt others. At the beginning of the pandemic there was a lot of panic buying." On the other hand, having a stock on hand already can be helpful. It means you won't need to join the panic buying, because you're already stocked, and you stocked at a time when the system could easily handle it. It is a good thing for everyone to have some supplies on hand. It makes all of society more resilient against all sorts of disasters. It means that if your area finds itself in need of emergency services, those emergency services may not have to go to you, leaving them for someone else who may be in more trouble (e.g., someone who was at the epicenter of whatever and legitimately had their supplies totally destroyed). It is the socially responsible thing to do to have some vital supplies on hand and be able to survive independently for a few days on as few services as possible in your area.

dgellow 6y ago

Given that you don't know how the future will be, instead of doubling all your reserves right away, which definitely sound like panic buying, you may consider a less aggressive approach. Don't just buy everything right away, instead focus only on the most important type of food you need and slowly increase your reserve by buying a bit more when you do your groceries (you buy rice once every 2 weeks? Consider buying a few more kg each time and add to your reserve). And once you're good with rice/noodles/cereals you can do the same for other stuff. I call this FCA, aka "Food Cost Averaging".

Aachen 6y ago

It's never bad to have a little extra if you have the storage space and rotate through it. If that unlikely hurricane comes, or whatever your area might suffer, you don't have to be a pepper to be a normal level of prepared. But don't panic buy. Don't now go to the store and stock up massively. Put in an extra shelf-stable item, and next time you go shopping do it again, but don't panic now. That's how you create a food shortage. Even if you add "only" 10% extra to your purchase, I think that's what happened with toilet paper. I purposefully didn't buy any, figuring the crazies would get their fill soon enough, but a month later it was still going and we were trying not to be in the store more than once a week to prevent that being a spreading place but could now only buy 2 rolls at a time per family and many stores were completely out. Of course, we didn't even have to ask neighbours yet (some neighbors will have had to spare, not as if the rolls all disappeared into thin air) so it wasn't bad in any way in the end, but this panic behaviour is unnecessary and very quickly detrimental, even when a majority of people understand it's unwarranted.

pcl 6y ago
> not as if the rolls all disappeared into thin air No, they were going down the drain.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

This article and the associated study are about food costs in developing nations like Indonesia. The article mentions that inflation in the United States is much more pedestrian: > In the U.S., prices rose close to 3% in the year ending Jan. 2, according to NielsenIQ, roughly double the overall rate of inflation. Buying and storing food is an inherently inefficient process relative to buying the same food as needed. You would end up spending more to build and maintain food reserves than you would save against inflation. Far more. The article doesn’t suggest that we’re at risk of running out of food.

carapace 6y ago

You have five dependents, stock up. In a crisis bad enough that your prudence and foresight significantly affects other people by depriving them of food you can give them some of your food. But in that situation you're probably done for already, and should have gone up in the hills, eh? John Titor said something that scared the shit out of me. Paraphrasing, it was something like, "If you want to survive, move to a place three days further out than a starving person can walk." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor "John Titor is a name used on several bulletin boards during 2000 and 2001 by a poster claiming to be an American military time traveler from 2036." ) If you're worried about the collapse of civilization then, no, stocking up is not going to help as much as just getting way the hell out there in the woods and being self-sufficient. You'll be rolled by starving people. ("People always raid before they starve." https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geopolitics-in-a-hotter-world-ubc-talk-transcribed-sept-2010/ https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geo... ) For disasters less severe than that, then YES! Stocking up is the responsible thing to do and we should all do it as a matter of course, virus or no virus.

owenversteeg 6y ago
"three days further out than a starving person can walk" sounds cool if you're posting fake apocalypse theories on the internet (aka John Titor), but is generally pretty terrible advice. First of all, there are an enormous amount of cars in America and there are roads nearly everywhere. The furthest spot from any road in the lower 48 US states is in Yellowstone, 21.7 miles from the closest road: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42104894 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42104894 Even assuming that there's some kind of enormous EMP that kills all modern cars, there are plenty of pre-80s cars around and around a third of Americans have bikes. You can cover some serious distance on a bike if you're motivated enough (aka by hunger.) There are millions of horses in the USA, not to mention other animals and tools you can use for transportation (canoes etc.) If your bet is to hope that your fellow members of the most adaptable species on Earth won't get to you, you're generally screwed. If you plan to use force (say firearms) to hold back your place, well, that'll attract attention from anyone else (if you look at failed states, you're likely to see roving bands of criminals with more firepower than you.) There are fairly few examples of people who made their apocalypse preparations and actually rode out the local serious disaster in their bunkers, so to me, it's obvious what your best bet is - to simply live in a safe, sane and successful society.

helij 6y ago

Even in normal times you always need a month supply of everything. During pandemic or any other major crisis event it's probably best to keep 3 months supply of everything. That's not panic buying. That's planning for your and your dependants safety and wellbeing. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.