Rendered at 12:07:43 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
5555624 44 minutes ago [-]
Why not just make it yourself? It's just flour, water, and salt. It's far easier than yeast-based breads and easier than most quick breads, too. Two ingredient (self-rising flour and heavy cream) biscuits are about the only thing that's easier.
samirillian 25 minutes ago [-]
> Proper hard bread couldn’t be home baked.
rob74 55 minutes ago [-]
The article gives an interesting overview of the history of hard bread, but doesn't mention how Newfoundlanders eat it today. In a fish soup? With tea? Pure? Or all of the above?
Mistletoe 9 minutes ago [-]
> A large portion of those biscuits would have gone into the traditional dish fish and brewis. Pronounced “brews,” brewis is made by soaking hard bread in water overnight then boiling it to soften it before serving it with salt cod.
I don’t think we realize how good we have it these days.
bregma 1 hours ago [-]
Without fish and brewis Newfoundland is just... a big rock.
Simulacra 2 hours ago [-]
Wow, this is actually interesting, I had not heard of people eating hard attack since the American
Civil War. But looking at a map, it doesn't look that difficult to get to, so I'm curious why not just fly it in?
chocochunks 2 hours ago [-]
Because no one else really eats it or makes it. AFAIK that Purity factory is the only one in Canada making it and outside of Newfoundland it's hard to find on a normal day even in the rest of Atlantic Canada. And when you do, it's the Purity version shipped over. It's very much a Newfoundland food.
charcircuit 2 hours ago [-]
>Grocery stores across Newfoundland and Labrador have been struggling to keep hard bread in stock since a fire at the Purity factory in March put a crimp in the company’s baking operations.
Is it really that hard to raise the price to keep it in stock?
inigyou 1 hours ago [-]
How does that solve the problem?
I love how in economics, a shortage can be solved by increasing the price instead of by increasing the quantity. It really makes you understand that the field of economics uses stupid definitions of words.
charcircuit 50 minutes ago [-]
If you are trying to slow down sales to the point that you are able to consistently replenish stock before the last batch sells out, raising the price will reduce the volume of hard bread being sold. At some point the volume should be low enough that it stops going out of stock.
wvbdmp 47 minutes ago [-]
Just “having hard tack in stock” isn’t the objective to solve for, though.
I’m actually skeptical this shortage affects people too badly, since the stuff lasts forever. Probably enthusiasts have enough in their pantries to last them through a temporary factory downtime?
inigyou 42 minutes ago [-]
Well if the goal is to avoid you out of stock, just keep one more packet in the back room and never sell it.
That clearly isn't the goal.
pjc50 2 hours ago [-]
You know what's really oversupplied in this subthread? One sentence contrarianism.
(not that I haven't done it myself occasionally, but guys you really are not helping anyone here including yourselves)
close04 2 hours ago [-]
Raising the price doesn't increase the supply, it just selects who can access it. Most of the people will still not get it, just for a different reason.
mhluongo 2 hours ago [-]
A higher margin increases the incentive for people to make more, though.
wvbdmp 50 minutes ago [-]
Probably not, right? Demand is already there. The factory is already incentivized, it’s just damaged and needed time to get back to full capacity. A contender isn’t just going to spring up because prices are temporarily high.
Even if you already had a factory that could easily be converted to this product, you’d have to factor in the switching cost, opportunity cost, shipping, marketing and regulatory stuff. This likely offsets the consumer’s willingness to pay extra during the shortage, and as soon as the original factory is back, they’re going to price you back out. They’re already operational, as per the article.
rcxdude 46 minutes ago [-]
In the longer run, maybe, but if the factory is already working to rebuild then arguably that incentive is already met and it's more just the time it takes to get capacity back up, which is not as flexible with spending money on it as people would like.
inigyou 1 hours ago [-]
Would you make a hard bread factory if the price was higher? How high?
card_zero 2 hours ago [-]
That implies that everything with a price is always out of stock.
close04 7 minutes ago [-]
I don't know where you got that honestly.
The situation here is that there is a temporary supply shortage. If you raise the prices to drop sales and always have stock it means you priced out most of the people. You narrowed your market only to the few who can afford it and those few are slowly going through that stock.
bluecheese452 2 hours ago [-]
It implies no such thing.
card_zero 2 hours ago [-]
The presence of a price "selects who can access it", hence there's not enough stock to give it away for free. (Sometimes deliberately.)
wvbdmp 49 minutes ago [-]
There’s plenty of stuff you couldn’t get rid of if you gave it away for free. You seem to be ignoring demand.
watwut 2 hours ago [-]
Wut? That makes no sense.
1 hours ago [-]
squigz 2 hours ago [-]
No, it implies that everything with a price and a supply issue will likely still face that supply issue even with a higher price.
card_zero 2 hours ago [-]
Everything with a price has a supply issue.
squigz 2 hours ago [-]
No, it doesn't.
card_zero 2 hours ago [-]
Oh, OK.
squigz 2 hours ago [-]
I'm really glad we sorted this out.
charcircuit 49 minutes ago [-]
It doesn't increase supply, but it slows down how fast the supply sells out. This allows there to always be supply available for purchase.
close04 2 minutes ago [-]
> it slows down how fast the supply sells out
This is not the goal. The only mitigation that could make sense is to impose limits per person or household to avoid someone hugging all the supply.
> This allows there to always be supply available for purchase
By the very few who can afford it, by definition of raising the prices until the products barely sell. If you have 100 items and 1000 people you guarantee that at least 90% of people won't get an item. It doesn't matter if it's because there is none left, or because it's too expensive. If you're hungry because the shelf is empty, or the shelf is full but you can't afford it, what's the practical difference for your stomach?
lurk2 37 minutes ago [-]
This has nothing to do with this board's subject matter.
criddell 26 minutes ago [-]
This board is for the discussion of "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
I don’t think we realize how good we have it these days.
Is it really that hard to raise the price to keep it in stock?
I love how in economics, a shortage can be solved by increasing the price instead of by increasing the quantity. It really makes you understand that the field of economics uses stupid definitions of words.
I’m actually skeptical this shortage affects people too badly, since the stuff lasts forever. Probably enthusiasts have enough in their pantries to last them through a temporary factory downtime?
That clearly isn't the goal.
(not that I haven't done it myself occasionally, but guys you really are not helping anyone here including yourselves)
Even if you already had a factory that could easily be converted to this product, you’d have to factor in the switching cost, opportunity cost, shipping, marketing and regulatory stuff. This likely offsets the consumer’s willingness to pay extra during the shortage, and as soon as the original factory is back, they’re going to price you back out. They’re already operational, as per the article.
The situation here is that there is a temporary supply shortage. If you raise the prices to drop sales and always have stock it means you priced out most of the people. You narrowed your market only to the few who can afford it and those few are slowly going through that stock.
This is not the goal. The only mitigation that could make sense is to impose limits per person or household to avoid someone hugging all the supply.
> This allows there to always be supply available for purchase
By the very few who can afford it, by definition of raising the prices until the products barely sell. If you have 100 items and 1000 people you guarantee that at least 90% of people won't get an item. It doesn't matter if it's because there is none left, or because it's too expensive. If you're hungry because the shelf is empty, or the shelf is full but you can't afford it, what's the practical difference for your stomach?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If this article generates substantial discussion and doesn't veer off into pointless arguing, it qualifies.