In my area Subway has coupons in the newspaper every weekend. Typical is $3.95 for a 6" sub. $6 for sandwich, chips and soft drink. Burger King has similar coupons. $5 lunch is hard to come by but lunch price is extremely competitive here.
I know this is a financial site, so youāre covering the financial details of your purchase. But inquiring minds want to know, how did the food taste?
'38Packard
I would not buy if it tasted bad/wrong. I bought 4. Make your own decision as to what I thought about the tasteā¦ Third one for dinner tonight.
Not a Subway customer, so I have to ask; is the 6" sub really a 4.5" sub? Iām thinking the stuff doesnāt go all the way to the end - or gets sparse at least.
'38Packard
ā not sure a 6" sub would do it for meā¦but at 3.95ā¦
1 Like
AIR the length of the Subway 6" sub was an issue a few years ago. Many places now just say āsmallā. But I notice the BOGO bonus āsmallā at Penn Station is now a 3 incher. Had a small at Firehouse subs recently. Also a 3 incher.
Costs keep going up. Subway still labels theirs 6". Might be limited menu though. And much depends on what you put on it.
No. Just had another 12" Subway sub. The ends are a bit ālackingā on the fillings, but once past the first inch (at each end), no problem. One sub leftā¦
1 Like
Ah, does raising interest rates somehow create more money to deposit? Does raising interest rates create more profits which enables higher dividends, higher wages, higher tax receipts? Usually it does the opposite! Raising interest rates will slow the economy and will cause FEWER deposits overall.
Remember former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle who was convicted of child sex tourism and possessing child pornography and is currently serving time at the Federal Correction Institute, Englewood?
I bet he knows how long 6ā is.
One of the reasons so many banks failed in 2008 and 2009 was because they were not able to or chose not to diversify their loan assets. This is particularly bad in small communities where a bank may have a single branch.
We donāt want a bank to be forced to hold all their loans. Doing so will either require small banks to join larger banks to protect themselves (from the local factory going out of business) or would lead to even more failures when acute financial crisis hit those small communities. Increasing interest rates to attract more deposits from the now unemployed factory workers is not likely a winning strategy.
1 Like
Higher interest rates paid on deposits should increase the amount of deposits received, thus making a significant portion of those funds available for lending.
āDoes raising interest rates create more profits which enables higher dividends, higher wages, higher tax receipts? Usually it does the opposite!ā
Being paid higher interest rates means projects that are marginal are abandoned because of the high risk/low reward offered to investors. Thus, higher interest rates DO create higher tax rates (dividends are taxable income). Plus, the additional money loanedāas a result of those higher depositsācreates additional profit for the bank AND for the businesses that borrow the money. Remember: The bank will ONLY lend to businesses that can document how they will repay the loans they receiveāAND they will be profitable as a result (otherwise, they would not bother to borrow AND the bank likely would refuse to lend). More profit means they can also pay higher wages (over time). With profit sharing, workers get higher pay as a result of more profit.
1 Like
The issue here isnāt higher interest rates in general, itās one bank raising its interest rate on deposits.
A bank raising the interest rate they pay on deposits is not a macroeconomic thing. Itās microeconomics. It doesnāt create more money to deposit, it attracts deposits from other alternatives so the bank can increase their deposits and thereby increase the loans they make which increases the bankās profits.
And that goes back to the fallacy in a previous post of yours:
Thatās a non-sensical question. You are looking for a macroeconomic impact because of a single bank. There is no macroeconomic impact from a single bank. There are microeconomic impacts.
In your hypothetical here, it is the bank that would have to stop growing, not the whole economy. The economy can continue to grow if new banks start up. It can also grow if the government prints some money and then spends it. (Gotta be very careful with that tool, of course.) And the bank itself can grow (and contribute to the growth of the economy) by attracting more deposits.
āPeter
1 Like