This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm not sure we should include this. Rich Farmbrough 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

May I ask why?

How is "Panic Buying" a football/soccer-related term?

It seems that this article is being used as a medium to express bias - editors are using the examples to write against policies they disagree with. So, the aricle says that there is "panic buying" of incandecent lightbulbs because gov'ts are banning these "popular products" and there was panic buying of guns in 2008 because Americans were scared Obama would ban them. Look, I personally have no idea if that's true or not, but we need to be careful and be sure to at least cite these examples and the description of "panic buying". theBOBbobato ( talk) 03:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Panic buying is a pejorative term, implying irrational behaviour. In a changing operating environment, the assessed risks to supplies of previously unnecessary goods may make accumulation of these items strongly rational.

The term "panic buying" isn't applied evenly across the economy. A consumer purchasing an item is a "panic buyer"; the same behaviour to seize resources to meet expected needs isn't labelled "panic buying" when conducted by businesses or governments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK1LW ( talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Panic buying and hoarding express common human behavior in times of crisis. Early in COVID-19, as the pandemic crisis intensified, toilet paper was one of the emblematic cases of panic buying. Panic buying happens in every income class, but there is a significant positive correlation between average income per capita and panic buying. High income class bought more toilet paper than low income class.<Yoshizaki, H.T.Y.; de Brito Junior, I.; Hino, C.M.; Aguiar, L.L.; Pinheiro, M.C.R. Relationship between Panic Buying and Per Capita Income during COVID-19. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9968.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibritojr ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

In what way is this conversation being in relation to a Football term ?Some clarification would make this Article more useful for the reader. DeanACapitano ( talk) 01:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

An edit regarding the ethics of panic buying was repeatedly deleted by drt1245 (page does not exist), who has reported me for disruptive editing The edit is as follows.

It is those consumers with sufficient disposable income, storage space and private transport, who are able to indulge in panic buying. Typically, those with less available cash, credit, or free time, are disadvantaged by the unethical behavioural panic of others ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

What is the motivation of those who seek to air brush away ethical responsibility at this time of global crisis? Such parochial limitation does not serve the cause of science well. Those claiming a monopoly of truth by scientific hegemony, would do well to listen to interdisciplinary thought, and ethical concerns, if their minds can possibly be opened to it. Domskitect ( talk) 06:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ Domskitect:. I undid your additions because they were not impartial and did not have reliable sources. Also, I am not the only one that reverted your edits. A Wikipedia admin did as well.

Your first edit contains no citations. Additionally, describing it as "unethical behavior" is an opinion, not a fact.

Your second edit was the same as the first, with the same issues.

Your third edit added as a source, a video that a nurse had posted to social media. This definitely does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, even if it was re-posted by The Guardian.

Your fourth edit was the same as the previous, with the same issues.

Your fifth edit was the same as the previous, with the same issues.

Because of this, and your lack of response to my warnings on your talk page, I reported you for edit warring. Later, you added some sources. The first source is an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source. The second source is a letter to The Guardian, not something written by The Guardian itself. The third source is an article about the panic-buying that is occurring due to the coronavirus outbreak, but does not support the claims that you made. - drt1245 ( talk) 14:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply