The Waterbury Democrat., 1943-01-20


and hot on geopolitics.
To keep IL simple, say we just
stick to one line Of groceries -
canned fruits ard vegetables. AS
you have no doubt read, they are
to be rationed some time this year,
maybe by March /, maybe not till
April /. One Of the Jobs Of the
government information specialists,
the newspapers and the radio BARI
tone spellbinders Is to educate the
public as to how this works and
why it's necessary. Not-so-good q
Job has been done.
In the first place there was a
rather bad official boner In an
nouncing that rationing Of canned
goods would be on the basis Of an
average Of 80 pounds - now url-
officially raised to 40 pounds - Of
canned goods per person per year.
1t may divide up automatically
that way, but practically, 1t doesn't.
Canned goods aren't to be rationed
by the pound, they are to be ra-
toned by the can. Can sizes vary,
the commonest being the No. 2 can
Of 20 OF. content and the No. 2 IL
can of 20 OF. content. But as glass
Jars Of different sizes ere replacing
tin cans. those figures don't mean
anything either.
Furthermore, canned goods are to
be rationed on the point system.
Scarce items will have high point
values, items which are plentiful
will have low point values. AS an
example, II your point allowance
for q given period were is points
worth Of caned goods, and If as
paragus was fi@sd at two points per
can and corn was fixed at four
points per can, the shopper could
buy % eight cans Of asparagus,
or 90 four cans Of corn, or 81
four cans of asparagus and two cans
Of corn. The weight In none OF
these three cases would necessarily
be the same, so the idea that people
will get only q certain number Of
pounds of canned goods Is entirely
misleading.
1T WAS PENCIL WORK
The way this figure Of SO or 40
pounds per person per year got into
circulation was. perhaps excusable
though confusing. Somebody just
took q pencil and paper and divided
the total tonnage of all the canned
goods that could be produced by all
the people that would consume
them, and the answer came out 80
pounds. ....t ....
It was an easy figure and 1t was
something that could be compared
with the only statistics available on
what consumption of canned goods
had been in years previous.
But here again some additional
explaining Is necessary. Per capita
consumption Of canned goods varies
with income as we'll as with geogra-
ply. A 194l Department Of Agri-
culture study indicates that fami-
lies with incomes of less than $1,000
year consumed on the average
about IS .'ounds Of canned goods
per capita per year, while families
In which the Income was over $4,000
year consumed an average OF
about 1l2 pounds of canned goods
per capita per year
UNFAIR, IN a WAY
To rule arbitrarily that consUmp-
ton would have to be reduced to
nm average Of 40 pounds a year
would there fore mean that the low
income families would get about "a
per cent Of That they we're used
to, while the upper-inconle brackets
would get only about So per cent
of their normal consumption.
The geography part Of 1t will FOO
you. City people aren't necessarily
the big consumers of canned goods
because modern metropolitan mar
kets give city jewellers better va
riety OF fresh fruits and vegetables
all the year round than country
people get.
In getting this canned goods ra-
, tionlng underway. the rationing Of
ficials are playing safe. They'll cut
down allowances till inventories arc
built up in the stores and the kinks
OF the system smoothed out. Later
they can then liberaliZe the allow
| anceS.