A pub must serve drink. It doesn't need to serve food.
In Ireland that distinction matters. It generally will affect other things, like what time and how loud music will be played, how the tables and chairs will be organised and what type. It will often affect opening hours and the price of a pint. Gastro pubs also tend to be much larger.
In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs, possibly why that lady couldn't see the difference. I personally love micropubs and they never serve food other than crisps and maybe a toastie.
I feel like a pedant but I get that dude in his 20s and had to speak up.
> In North America it seems the vast majority of "pubs" are gastro pubs
To be fair, at least in the US, anything calling itself a "pub" is already going down a marketing/branding road and it almost certainly means they're going to try to evoke an Irish or British sensibility.
Inflation comes from the monetary supply not government spending. If you want lower inflation, you increase interest rates to discourage loans and mortgages.
Not al all in this case. This is all caused by lower physical supply of oil, gas, diesel and fertilizer from the Iran War. Tightening the money supply will not fix this.
Tightening can "fix" this. Monetary supply isn't the cause of the inflation, so a monetary supply fix will cause nasty secondary effects, but tightening the monetary supply will lower inflation. It'll work by destroying parts of the economy, reducing demand. Oil prices might still go up, but prices of other things will go down because all the unemployed people are buying less stuff.
In that case, the word "inflation" is overloaded by describing two very different things.
Thing one, low interest rates result in higher availability of money, causing prices to go up due to increased monetary supply.
Thing two, scarcity of a resource (diesel) causes price of that resource to go up. The resource happens to run the backbone of our economy, so most other prices go up as a result.
These are not the same, as the first is the weakening of the currency against some theoretical static "value", and the second involves the currency keeping its same "value", and instead it is the goods themselves which require more of that value to be produced/sold.
The end result (prices up across the board) is the same but the mechanism is very different.
Inflation _is_ the "prices up across the board". It's a measurement. The causes you described are causes of inflation while not being inflation itself.
There's a floor for oil, gas, and fertilizer consumption and we're nowhere near it. What that floor looks like: getting the car out only to go to work or the hospital, zero new SUVs and pickups sold for an entire year, not growing corn for ethanol etc.
Reducing money supply will reduce the amount of money available to spend on oil, gas, and fertilizer, thus reducing the demand of those things to match the lowered supply.
> Reducing money supply will reduce the amount of money available to spend on oil, gas, and fertilizer, thus reducing the demand of those things to match the lowered supply.
People and businesses need to buy gas and oil. It is not discretionary spending. They also need to buy food, and food prices are not higher because of the money supply, nor because people are buying more food, they are higher because oil prices are higher.
Also, all that lowered spending you cited will mean closed businesses and economic collapse. Say goodbye to AI as well.
You cannot control inflation caused by a supply shock by rising interest rates.
> People and businesses need to buy gas and oil. It is not discretionary spending
Not all of it is non-discretionary - as in people die or get hurt if it doesn't happen. Definitely not in developed countries. I've already described what "bare minimum" use looks like, and rich countries are nowhere near that.
> Also, all that lowered spending you cited will mean closed businesses and economic collapse
That is correct. It does, however, "fix" inflation. When more people are poorer, they have less money to spend.
> You cannot control inflation caused by a supply shock by rising interest rates.
Supply shocks can always be dealt with by destroying demand. This may result in a degraded quality of life. But it will fix inflation.
Who buys the hundreds of trillions in government bonds? The USA has a lot of buyers, they’re lucky as that’s not the case everywhere. Sometimes the spending is too out of control and there aren’t enough organic buyers. That’s when central banks come in and go brrrr and money supply increases.
If you bomb your supply chains, no amount of interest rate manipulation will make it come down (supply shock through destruction of capacity)
If you make all doctors/lawyers to undergo recertification, medical costs will skyrocket (supply shock through regulation)
If you deport all your construction workers, bringing construction to a screeching halt, housing costs will skyrocket (supply shock through xenophobia)
tl;dr The Big(0) cause of inflation are capacity (supply) and other stupid governmental responses to it. (printing more money)
Interest rates actually come way below these factors.
Interest rates will never discourage corrupt governments from printing (borrowing) more money and giving them to the mass .
If you bomb your capacity to produce oil and consumers must pay more for oil that money comes from elsewhere i.e less video games. That is simply a price increase not inflation. It would like confusing the weather and climate. Inflation is defined as the "general increase in prices".
If you add money to the existing finite amount of money you get inflation.
Yes and no. At the end of the day, there is a certain natural demand for goods/services and a natural production capacity.
Suppressing demand below natural production capacity is just chopping of your own arm. That's why Interest rates are the Big(O) factor it is made out to be. It is always government policies
-- allow economy to operate at full capacity
-- don't print (borrow) money more than full capacity
The ICC is just a made up organization - it only has power, like any international entity, to the extent that it can utilize that power. With countries such as China, Russia, and the United States not being signatories to the ICC if the ICC were to, oh, idk, prosecute Xi Jingping for the genocide of Uighur Muslims China would also execute similar actions as the US or Israel.
And even in cases like Maduro who is a wanted criminal and I believe would be easily proven to have committed crimes against humanity, the lack of public indictment and backlash against the United States for bringing that piece of shit to justice discredits the ICC. It can’t be an organization where it applies universal human rights declarations only when Israel is involved. That’s stupid and that’s exactly why the organization is a failure.
As well as big sounding words, 125 countries have signed up. The US is sanctioning it because they are worried it's a threat to their power to do as they wish.
Yea sure but the countries with power say no. If the ICC wants to prosecute Maduro or the IRGC they should do so. Until then who cares what they think?
I wonder why Trump sanctioned it then? Don't suppose it could be related to an arrest warrant in 125 countries for the guy he rolls out red carpets for?
Can you elaborate? I have a M4 Max with 128 GB RAM that I bought in 2024 with AppleCare+ (€500) for €7k. I estimate I would get €4k to €5k if I sold it second hand today. So it hasn't appreciated in value in any meaningful sense but it has very slowly depreciated in value. Normally a 2 year old laptop would strictly lose at least 50% of it's value.
Legally this is the same as having a dog that bites someone. You hold the owner/guardian responsible, in this case it's either the subscriber or Anthropic. You don't start making arguments about how nonsensical it is to fine a dog or put it in jail.
'Rarely read' might be a better expression rather than rare. At least compared to 'Cracking the Coding Interview', 'Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs' etc.
reply