[EdgarVerona]

To bgorman: (apparently I can't reply directly to you, there's some nesting limit in Hacker News [EDIT: apparently not? I see a "reply" button now where it didn't exist before? odd])

>I would much rather be able to buy one package of toilet paper for 50 dollars versus being able to buy zero for 5 dollars.

Yeah, because you have 50 dollars to spend on that. What's a person supposed to do who is only barely making ends meet? Do they forsake eating so they can wipe themselves? Underpay their rent? Go into debt so they can wipe their ass?

My point here is that this isn't an either/or situation. There's other alternatives, though some people won't like it.

Rationing - at least by stores if not by the government - is one that we don't like these days, but that has worked for us in historical times of trouble.

This law is meant to be another alternative. It's certainly not perfect - I'd have taken rationing initiated by stores over that - but it is an alternative to the "pay 50 for a roll or not have a roll at all" options.

[gruez]

>apparently I can't reply directly to you, there's some nesting limit in Hacker News [EDIT: apparently not? I see a "reply" button now where it didn't exist before? odd])

AFAIK it's an anti-flamewar mechanism. Successively deeper comments require longer cooldowns before replies can be made.