Rendered at 14:38:51 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
GavinAnderegg 1 days ago [-]
G’day b’y! Who’s yer fadder? Newfoundland is a very special place. Here’s an example of that “right some t’ick” accent if you haven’t heard it before: https://www.dialectsarchive.com/newfoundland-5
5555624 1 days 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.
The only real question is which kind of flour to use. I'm sure it ought to be whole wheat or a blend of whole wheat and white.
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
In the 1700s.
criddell 1 days ago [-]
> It was made from a special winter wheat flour and slowly dried in a kiln or an evaporation loft
Maybe the flour is difficult to buy or most people don't have a way to dry the bread? Being on the ocean, St. John's is a pretty humid place.
brazzy 1 days ago [-]
Today as well. You need special equipment and a lot of time to remove all the moisture without burning it.
Sure, you can probably find a way to achieve a "good enough" result with normal household appliances, especially when it doesn't actually need to be stored for years and you're just going to soak it again for some tranditional recipe.
But it's a lot more effort than most people want to invest when they just want to replicate that recipe.
buu709 1 days ago [-]
I live in the same city as the factory mentioned in the article. It's hard enough to even make croutons this time of year due to the humidity. My wife is a fairly experienced/talented home cook and over cooked two batches last week trying to get them right.
1 days ago [-]
rob74 1 days 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?
grovesNL 1 days ago [-]
Yeah basically all of the above, especially fish and brewis, soups/stews, etc. Usually you soften it in some way before eating it.
bregma 1 days ago [-]
Without fish and brewis Newfoundland is just... a big rock.
Mistletoe 1 days 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.
Hugsbox 1 days ago [-]
They love fish and brewis these days, too.
Simulacra 1 days 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 1 days 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 1 days 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 days 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 1 days 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 1 days 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?
charcircuit 23 hours ago [-]
"struggling to keep hard bread in stock" the article says it is what the stores are struggling to do. It is the objective they are failing at.
brazzy 1 days ago [-]
Why would they stockpile it when they're used to just buying it in the supermarket?
It's not bought for its long-shelflife property anymore, it's basically just an ingredient in some popular traditional local recipes. Sure, those recipes emerged because the shelflife used to make hard-tack a reliably available source of calories, but that's basically gastronomical skeumorphism.
inigyou 1 days ago [-]
Well if the goal is to never be out of stock, just keep one more packet in the back room and never sell it.
That clearly isn't the goal.
appreciatorBus 1 days ago [-]
Raising the price doesn’t “solve” shortage and no one in economics makes that claim.
Instead, the claim is more limited - that even in times of shortage if you want to make sure that the item in question is still available, raising the price will accomplish two things: it will encourage marginal production and discouraged marginal consumption.
Without prices, the only mechanism you would have to accomplish the same effect, would be a political decision about who did or not deserve to have hard bread, while you work out the production issue.
In both systems, you’re doing rationing, just by different means.
Whether under capitalism or collectivism the way you solve a shortage is always the same - you produce enough for everyone who wants the thing.
The difference is the presence for absence of the feedback mechanisms like prices. The problem with collectivism is that once you get rid of prices, there is no explicit feedback mechanism. There may be implicit mechanisms such as a waitlist, but ultimately the decision to increase production is turned into a political decision. I doubt many people care if production decisions about hard bread are made by politicians or business people, but in more consequential areas, such as housing, we have a century of experience of what happens in production decisions are collectivized and politicized. (it is illegal to increase the national stock of interior residential floor space by even one square foot without prior political approval, I.e. rezoning, variances, etc.)
criddell 1 days ago [-]
The GP provided a great example for why metrics are often shit.
Raising the price fixes the metric (is it in stock?) but doesn't fix the actual problem.
appreciatorBus 11 hours ago [-]
Sure, but price is both a mechanism and another important metric.
Nursie 1 days ago [-]
The problem with the capitalist mechanism here is
- the producer has already repaired the factory that will restore supply shortly, so the signal is effectively useless
- your customers are going to remember that you gouged the shortage situation
pjc50 1 days 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 1 days 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 1 days ago [-]
A higher margin increases the incentive for people to make more, though.
wvbdmp 1 days 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 1 days 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 days ago [-]
Would you make a hard bread factory if the price was higher? How high?
mhluongo 1 days ago [-]
I'm not a hard bread expert but at high enough prices, I know plenty of enterprising people with kitchens.
inigyou 1 days ago [-]
Cool are they licensed for commercial use?
card_zero 1 days ago [-]
That implies that everything with a price is always out of stock.
bluecheese452 1 days ago [-]
It implies no such thing.
card_zero 1 days 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 1 days 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.
card_zero 19 hours ago [-]
I considered that. It's a fair point, there are things that you couldn't give away, but almost always somebody would want them, if the price was zero. Hard bread, for example, would become like a natural resource, full of calories, to be turned into nicer bread.
watwut 1 days ago [-]
Wut? That makes no sense.
card_zero 19 hours ago [-]
Which part? You see this depends on your prior assumptions about how much stock there should be, and those are based on the state of affairs that you're used to and that you consider to be the natural order of things. But if you imagine that the proper natural order of things is for everybody to have as much of everything as they like, to squander profligately, then there's always a shortage of everything, relative to that state. On the other hand, if you consider the natural order of things to be that hard bread is very expensive, then raising the price (to stop it being too cheap) would indeed remove the shortage. You see? I'm saying that declaring a shortage is a kind of mild Chauvinism, an assumption that what you're used to having is proper and correct. But of course that might be true, in a way.
1 days ago [-]
squigz 1 days 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 1 days ago [-]
Everything with a price has a supply issue.
squigz 1 days ago [-]
No, it doesn't.
card_zero 1 days ago [-]
Oh, OK.
squigz 1 days ago [-]
I'm really glad we sorted this out.
close04 1 days 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 guarantee you 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.
How does that help the situation? At the end of the day some people will have the bread (because they were in the store early, or because they have money) and other won't.
Raising prices in this situation only helps make more profit, extract more from the existing market. It does nothing to solve the problem of people having bread.
urcturpurs 1 days ago [-]
Of course it helps, pricing increases make it more attractive to build more supply.
close04 1 days ago [-]
Not in this case. You're citing Economics 101 without addressing the situation from the article.
The current primary supplier had a temporary setback caused by a fire in mid-March and operated at reduced capacity, before going back to full capacity in July. Whatever flexibility competitors had to increase capacity with little to no investment was probably captured. A few months of marginally improved prices won't incentivize any competitor to invest. Hard bread isn't the kind of product that can command a big price before customers lose interest.
charcircuit 1 days 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 1 days 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?
charcircuit 22 hours ago [-]
>This is not the goal.
It is what the stores are having a hard time accomplishing.
>the shelf is full but you can't afford it
From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available. How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
close04 7 hours ago [-]
> It is what the stores are having a hard time accomplishing.
It's a proxy for what the stores have a hard time accomplishing. The goal is to fulfill demand. Do you genuinely need the explanation why a store's goal is to sell not "have on shelf"?
> From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available
I guess I do need to explain. Now I'm starting to think this is intentional hard headedness :). If the goal was just "have X on the shelf" they'd put one item and price it like gold. Or put it really high on the shelf. Goal achieved. When the authors of these articles say "have on shelf" they assume the reader is reasonable and intuitively makes the connection to "fulfilling demand, people able to buy".
> How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
You're right. What the article is discussing is how much people can buy. If there is no supply then people aren't buying. But make no mistake, the buying is important, not the being on the shelf. Maybe some stores put the breads in a basket ;).
lurk2 1 days ago [-]
This has nothing to do with this board's subject matter.
criddell 1 days ago [-]
This board is for the discussion of "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
The only real question is which kind of flour to use. I'm sure it ought to be whole wheat or a blend of whole wheat and white.
Maybe the flour is difficult to buy or most people don't have a way to dry the bread? Being on the ocean, St. John's is a pretty humid place.
Sure, you can probably find a way to achieve a "good enough" result with normal household appliances, especially when it doesn't actually need to be stored for years and you're just going to soak it again for some tranditional recipe.
But it's a lot more effort than most people want to invest when they just want to replicate that recipe.
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?
It's not bought for its long-shelflife property anymore, it's basically just an ingredient in some popular traditional local recipes. Sure, those recipes emerged because the shelflife used to make hard-tack a reliably available source of calories, but that's basically gastronomical skeumorphism.
That clearly isn't the goal.
Instead, the claim is more limited - that even in times of shortage if you want to make sure that the item in question is still available, raising the price will accomplish two things: it will encourage marginal production and discouraged marginal consumption.
Without prices, the only mechanism you would have to accomplish the same effect, would be a political decision about who did or not deserve to have hard bread, while you work out the production issue.
In both systems, you’re doing rationing, just by different means.
Whether under capitalism or collectivism the way you solve a shortage is always the same - you produce enough for everyone who wants the thing.
The difference is the presence for absence of the feedback mechanisms like prices. The problem with collectivism is that once you get rid of prices, there is no explicit feedback mechanism. There may be implicit mechanisms such as a waitlist, but ultimately the decision to increase production is turned into a political decision. I doubt many people care if production decisions about hard bread are made by politicians or business people, but in more consequential areas, such as housing, we have a century of experience of what happens in production decisions are collectivized and politicized. (it is illegal to increase the national stock of interior residential floor space by even one square foot without prior political approval, I.e. rezoning, variances, etc.)
Raising the price fixes the metric (is it in stock?) but doesn't fix the actual problem.
- the producer has already repaired the factory that will restore supply shortly, so the signal is effectively useless
- your customers are going to remember that you gouged the shortage situation
(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 guarantee you 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.
How does that help the situation? At the end of the day some people will have the bread (because they were in the store early, or because they have money) and other won't.
Raising prices in this situation only helps make more profit, extract more from the existing market. It does nothing to solve the problem of people having bread.
The current primary supplier had a temporary setback caused by a fire in mid-March and operated at reduced capacity, before going back to full capacity in July. Whatever flexibility competitors had to increase capacity with little to no investment was probably captured. A few months of marginally improved prices won't incentivize any competitor to invest. Hard bread isn't the kind of product that can command a big price before customers lose interest.
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?
It is what the stores are having a hard time accomplishing.
>the shelf is full but you can't afford it
From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available. How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
It's a proxy for what the stores have a hard time accomplishing. The goal is to fulfill demand. Do you genuinely need the explanation why a store's goal is to sell not "have on shelf"?
> From the store's perspective it is still in stock and supply is available
I guess I do need to explain. Now I'm starting to think this is intentional hard headedness :). If the goal was just "have X on the shelf" they'd put one item and price it like gold. Or put it really high on the shelf. Goal achieved. When the authors of these articles say "have on shelf" they assume the reader is reasonable and intuitively makes the connection to "fulfilling demand, people able to buy".
> How much people eat of it is separate from what the article is discussing.
You're right. What the article is discussing is how much people can buy. If there is no supply then people aren't buying. But make no mistake, the buying is important, not the being on the shelf. Maybe some stores put the breads in a basket ;).
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If this article generates substantial discussion and doesn't veer off into pointless arguing, it qualifies.