> But unlike state rationing which makes everyone equally unhappy by doling out less than anyone wants So first up, upper class goods like champagne, caviar an

> But unlike state rationing which makes everyone equally unhappy by doling out less than anyone wants So first up, upper class goods like champagne, caviar and dining out at restaurants was not rationed so saying everyone suffered equally is not true. > except of course the poor who often find under rationing their quality of life goes up: this happened in the UK in WW2) To describe rationing as a quality of life improvement that did not upset the poor is insulting frankly. It implies the poor obtained a benefit by losing food choice. It feels like the type of dehumanisation that has people saying that slave labourers benefit from the exercise. I am quite old, and I can tell you that the scarcity mindset of the war permanently scarred my grandparents and parent relationships with food and waste in ways that would be unrecognisable today. I wonder if you think rationing meant the poor were given a more equitable share but that is not the case. You still had to pay and food prices rose during the war. At best there is the argument that lowering meat and sugar improved people's diet but there are counter claims based on disease rates. It is a claim skewed by modern issues with obesity instead of contemporary health issues from being underweight. A suet pudding and steak and kidney pie would be like medicine for those at the sharp end. Not to mention, the shortages often hit the healthy things like fruit and veg. Having to queue with your ration book and come home empty handed was not a quality of life improvement. There were some health improvements from essentially the opposite of rationing e.g. government catering engineered with calorie targets for workers supporting the war effort.