Startup Step by Step Answered by A. Jisen on Quora How do you make your own business out of zero? The best way to make your own business out of zero depends on a number of factors, including your industry and what you're specifically interested in. However, some tips that may be helpful include: 1. Figure out your target market - Before you even think about starting a business, you need to figure out who your target market is. Are you targeting people who are already in your industry? People who live in your area? People who have a certain income level? Once you have a better idea of who your target market is, it will be much easier to create content and marketing campaigns that are relevant to them. 2. Stay ahead of the curve - No matter what industry you're in, there will always be new trends and technologies that you need to stay on top of. Make sure to keep up with the latest trends so that you can stay competitive and attract new customers. 3. Be prepared to start from scratch - No one has an infinite amount of money, so it's important to be realistic about how much money you think you'll need to start your business off right. Make sure to have enough financial reserves so that you can cover initial costs (such as website design costs or advertising), as well as future expansion plans.
Startup Step by Step quora.com How does Netflix make enough money when they spend millions on new shows and movies? If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it… well… a few times. A business does not survive because it makes a profit. Many profitable businesses have gone under because they lack what it takes to keep going. Businesses survive on cash flow. And the main source of cash flow for Netflix is its subscriber fees. Heck, they don’t care if you don’t watch anything as long as they get your (what is it $10?) each and every month. Lots of entertainment services from HBO to Spotify also use this model. And here’s where we get to the other half of the equation — borrowing costs. Look, as long as banks are giving you money, why not take it if you can afford to pay the interest? Netflix only has to make enough money to pay the interest payment on its loans. I have no idea if or when it has to repay principal amounts, but that answer may be “never.” A bank may just lend them more money or refinance at a higher rate of interest. And here’s the thing — paying interest on those loans is probably cheaper than paying royalties to other companies. And every single entertainment company borrows money to produce content. Every. Single. One. Did you think Marvel Studios saw the budget for “Endgame” and said, “Well, we better get to the bank and withdraw this week’s production budget.” Nope. They borrowed the whole kit and kaboodle (and probably charged the interest to the production company). So, as long as the money is coming in, why use your own capital to produce content? Eventually, the winners will pay for the losers — that’s common in the content business too.
Daily Wire Crowder Contract Math According to Robert Barnes The now infamous Cancel Culture Clause in the Crowder contract proposal from Daily Wire... If Crowder got a strike, he lost 25% of the contract's value forever. If Crowder was kicked off the #BigTech platforms (Youtube, Facebook, Apple, Spotify), he lost an additional 60% of the contract's value forever. (FYI: the contract didn't reverse those penalties if Crowder was reinstated.) If Crowder didn't produce an episode, he owed Daily Wire another $100K per episode (with over 750 episodes required under the 4-year contract, that amounts to over $75M). Additionally, the contract gave Daily Wire exclusive monopoly on all Crowder content of all kinds for the entire length of the contract (which Daily Wire could unilaterally make into a 6 year contract). Daily Wire made all $ from ads, subscribers, merch, and any Crowder content, with no royalty or revenue sharing to Crowder. Daily Wire key 100% of all Crowder derived revenue, including subscriptions (which Crowder estimated to be over $140M over the contract's 4 year term, by itself), march, memberships, ad revenue, etc. Crowder contractually could not produce any content that all the $ didn't go directly to Daily Wire. In other words, Daily Wire's Cancel Culture Clause in the Crowder contract could make Crowder pay Daily Wire for the privilege of taking all of Crowder's content and all the profits from his content.
Anyone tried making money with the crypto license maybe? I read about it a little here and it seems to be not so complicated. Would appreciate a feedback from people who did it in the past.
I think that developing my business is the most important thing I want to do this year. As I have been saving up my savings for a long time and was on my way to working for myself. I have tried many options. I tried to invest in cryptocurrency, but unfortunately it didn't work out. I rather lost my money than make any money. So I decided to open my own online store. I found a lot of different applications that would help me make my business more marketable. WhatsApp Business integration on UseChalkboard, one of them.
A Failed Bank, A Breach in Trust: Nation’s Second Largest Bank Failure Provokes Massive Worldview Questions BY R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR. When you talk about a matter of vast worldview significance that comes out of the blue and catches people by surprise and hits them where it counts. That is to say in the bank account. On Friday of last week, federal authorities shut down a major bank and what now amounts to the second-largest bank failure in the United States history. The bank in this case is in Northern California known as the Silicon Valley Bank. It's considered a moderate size bank. It's not one of the largest banks in the country covered by even more strict banking requirements and regulations, but this came as a big shock. It came as a big shock to the entire financial system and of course, it sets off a wave of tremendous concern about the health of banking in the United States. Now, most people who know very much about the banking sector were rushing in to say, "There should not be much contagion about this. This is not a major failure of banking. This is not 2008 all over again. This is not the Great Depression in 1929. This is something that is limited to this one bank and to an understandable if regrettable set of financial circumstances." We are talking about the failure of a bank and there are a lot of Americans who might not be aware that banks can actually fail. The largest bank failure of all, took place back with the financial collapse of 2008. But one of the things we come to know about humanity is there are panics, there are catastrophes, and then we move on. And when it comes to our financial lives, one way or another, we tend to move on and the money continues to move either to or through banks. This raises some really big worldview issues, and we're going to be looking at the failure of this bank. We're going to be looking at the government response. We're going to be looking at the history of banking, and we're going to be looking at how all of this functions in a moral and social context, because banks are financial institutions. But there is no getting around the fact that the major currency of all economics is trust. And trust is what is required for a bank to exist, and trust is what is required for a bank to operate. And a lack of trust is what leads to the collapse of a bank or an entire banking sector. In this case, one bank. Officially, what took place on Friday is that officials of the federal government, in particular over the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation known as the FDIC, went in and took custody of the bank. They stopped deposits, they stopped withdrawals, they took control of the entire operation, and basically they federalized the reality that had been known as the Silicon Valley Bank. It is now a matter of federal concern. Now, the FDIC you'll recall, prevents the entire collapse of the banking industry. It also prevents the entire collapse of customer deposits there in covered banks. The FDIC covers up to $250,000, but there were accounts in the Silicon Valley Bank that were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So we're talking about something that is way beyond FDIC coverage. There's something more to what took place on Friday with the FDIC. When the Feds stepped in and took control of the bank, they actually froze all the deposits, they froze all the accounts, they then set up a new temporary bank known as the Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara there in California, and they transferred all of the accounts to that new bank. Now, as of Friday, what was announced is that depositors up to the covered $250,000 would have access to their funds by sometime on Monday morning, but at least by last night, officials of the Biden administration were indicating that the coverage, through one means or another by the federal government could include coverage of all the deposits to full value. That's going to be extremely controversial and we will need to take a closer look at why that is so. Now, as we think about this, there are going to be some terms we're going to need to use. Terms that have a deep worldview significance, even though they basically come from the banking sector. One of the most important of those words is moral hazard. In ethical terms, a moral hazard is what amounts to a financial or business incentive to do something that is not good, and that could be extended to something that even more fundamentally is not right, or it could also be applied to something that is not economically safe. Moral hazard means more than anything else in this situation. Someone comes in to rescue someone from a bad business decision. Someone comes in to rescue someone from a bad business plan. Someone comes in to rescue someone from doing something that would be financially damaging or devastating. And the moral hazard category means, that when someone steps in to rescue in that kind of situation, the hard lessons of what doesn't work and shouldn't work and isn't right are not learned. Another word you're probably hearing is one that you thought was related to illness, to the pandemic, to COVID-19. Many Americans heard the word contagion, but in this case, the contagion is not viral or bacterial. It is instead a contagion of financial problems all based in the collapse of one financial institution that leads to a collapse of trust. That means there's a run not only on this bank but on other banks, and other financial institutions and sectors of the economy suffer by this contagion. Another way of describing it would be the spread of a kind of financial panic. But perhaps at this point it would be interesting for Christians just to think about how banking came to be. And by the way, there are people who say, "Why don't we just go without banks?" And the answer to that is, well, try it. It really isn't possible in the modern age, but it is also very interesting to note that banks became very important and in some ways to many sectors of civilization. They became almost essential, a matter of millennia ago. So as you're talking about banks, most people tend to think of a place where there's a lot of money stored inside, but actually they are financial institutions which are at least intended to preserve and to enhance wealth and savings. There's more to it than that. By the time you get into merchant banking and modern commercial banking, there is a lot more to it than just the bank trying to encourage deposits, using those deposits in order to invest those monies in order to gain a margin, in order to offer to consumers something of a financial incentive to keep the money in their bank, in terms of interest and the entire system we now know with loans and mortgages and all the kinds of issues that are involved with the financial sector in the banking industry. It is extremely complex, but the bottom line is actually quite simple. You might think of a bank at one level as a cooperative that enables people to preserve their investments, to improve their financial standing, and if nothing else, to have a place to put money and to put value with at least the theory of preserving it if not putting it to work. As you look at the development of banking, you come to understand that it becomes necessary for a couple of reasons. Number one, the banking industry has helped to ascertain value go all the way back. It's not necessarily called banking back then, but when you look at the development of currency, what it really represents is some effort to try to create a way to save and to trade in a way that is recognizable, based upon some representation of value. The moment someone said, "Look, I'll give you these two rocks with these marks on it in trade for that cow." That's how currency basically came to be devised. Over time, it was not just local, it was not just private, it became corporate, it became governmental, and by the time you get to our own time in the United States, most currencies in the 20th century and beyond are issued by federal central banks or they're in the name of nations. In Western civilization, some people would argue that the very first bank you might call a bank, was actually that established by the Knights Templar in about the 12th century, the beginning of the 12th century. There had to be some way of moving money once you did have the aggregation of money into fortunes, and once that became at least translatable into some form of currency or at least into gold, you had to have somewhere to put that gold and you wanted to find some way of putting that gold to work. Furthermore, lending became, at least at one point in Western civilization, very much a part of the banking industry, and that was when the Christian church came to terms with the fact that laws against usury did not forbid all commercial banking operations. The Medicis, many the other most famous family names in Europe were involved one way or another in the banking industry. For the Medicis, it was actually what was known as the Medici Bank of Florence, and that was established by the way in the year 1397, and it is believed to have operated for almost exactly a hundred years until 1494. The first of joint stock company arrived in the year 1553. No question, it was in London. It was known as The Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands. The Dutch got in on the banking industry and on the stock exchange. By 1602, the Dutch East India Company was itself permitted and commissioned to print both stocks and bonds, which amounted to a different form of currency or at least a different form of exchange. Bank notes were circulated here in North America by the 1690s in the name of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Bank of England was established in 1694. That's just about four years later. The Bank of Scotland was created just one year after that. One of the great controversies in American history was over whether or not the United States should have itself a national bank, and it did until it didn't, until something like it had to be created once again. Banking across entire vast areas such as the continent really didn't become possible until you had the development of more modern transportation and communications. Indeed, some modern political developments as well. The Rothschild family by the beginning of the 19th century was big time into banking across all of Europe. The Bank of France was established in the same year and not by accident, by Napoleon Bonaparte. In the United States, you not only had the emergence of many different banks and of local control over some of the banking system, more state control, eventually more federal control. By 1913, the Federal Reserve Act had created what became known as the Federal Reserve System, and that became the central bank and the central banking system in the United States. And it is in the name of that central bank and by its authority that legal tender is issued in the United States, and at least control over the currency is, well, theoretically or hypothetically, it is in the hands of the Federal Reserve System. One big change that came in terms of banking in the United States, it arrived in the year 1971. What happened then? Well, then President Richard M. Nixon unilaterally took the United States off of what was known as the gold standard. The gold standard meant that at least in theory, all of the banking reserves in the United States were backed up with gold bullion and of course, most famously stored at Fort Knox, not far from where I am speaking to you today on The Briefing. But by 1971, President Nixon had come to a Keynesian economic conviction, that the economy needed to be freed from the limitations of the gold standard. And so we have been off the gold standard since that year in 1971. So what is behind the currency of the United States government? What is behind the full faith and credit of the United States government? Well, what's behind it, is the United States government. And thus there are people who say, "Well, that's not good enough. What is behind the United States government?" And in this case, basically whatever assets the United States government may be said to own or might be confiscated, but by the time you get there, you are already broke anyway. The reality is that for the vast majority of people in the United States, both banking and the use of currency are just decidedly essential. There's no way around it. There are those who tried to come up with an alternative to that kind of currency, and that's why cryptocurrency, at least in part, that's why it was developed. But needless to say, cryptocurrency has not, A, resolved the problem, nor B, has it become a genuine replacement in the sense that more people are using crypto than cash. Now, most people right now would evaluate their cost benefit analysis. They would look at their bank account, they would look at the balance, and they expect to see it represented in good old U.S. dollars. But here's where from a Christian perspective, we need to think about this for a moment. What is most essential to a banking system? Let's think about it. What is most essential? Well, is it money? You might come up with some other way than say, paper currency or coin to evaluate and to measure, to keep a record of value. You might use, as I said, some kind of carved stone. You might use some little piece of metal, you might use some kind of document you would write, but the point is you have to come up with some medium of exchange. There has to be something that exists in the place of currency, because you simply can't carry around all your corn and all your cattle. You can't carry around all your wealth in your pocket all the time. At least let's hope you have more that can be carried around in your pocket all the time. And so things are translated into value and that value is often expressed in currency. But then again, even if you have a piece of paper or you have an electronic record of that currency and of your balance, you're not carrying that around. And so you really are trusting someone who you hope is trustworthy and is being watched by regulators. You really are counting on the fact that someone is protecting that value, at least as much as might be humanly possible in a fallen world. To put it another way, a collapse of a bank is a horrifying thing. Now, there will be all kinds of analyses about first of all, the Silicon Valley Bank and how it got into this much trouble. The bottom line is, it got into trouble one way and say the moderate term, and in another way, in a very fast short-term, very short amount of time. The longer-term problem, is that it was having to pay out more than effectively, it was taking in as you look at the interest the bank was having to pay, versus the interest it was itself earning, because the bank was holding an awful lot of long-term treasury bills that weren't producing a lot. But in order to stay solvent and to stay in business, they were having to offer payouts that simply were not sustainable. The more acute, the faster problem was that once word got out that the bank might fail. Well, it really did fail. It failed fast because you had so many people trying to take out so many millions and billions of dollars simultaneously far beyond what the bank had on hand. That is called classically a run on a bank. But then things are going to get very, very interesting today. Federal regulators indicated last night after a whole lot of speculation and argument over the weekend that the federal government, one way or another was going to stand behind the total value of the accounts, that were a part of the Silicon Valley Bank and are now a part of this new temporary, federally controlled bank. And so the federal government we are told is going to back up not only the $250,000 through the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation, but also the totality. And the reason for that people are going to say is, "Well, look at all these Silicon Valley companies. Look at all the value. Look at the damage to the entire economy, and look at the employees that aren't going to get paid. Look at the collapse, which could lead to a contagion, which could lead to a vast financial crisis. And we don't want to go back to 2008." But at the same time, there are going to be others in a very, very heated political debate that just has to take place who are going to say, "Look, you have just rewarded a bank and you have just rewarded an entire banking system, in this case for what was very bad behavior, very bad investment patterns." Now, you're going to have politicians say, "Look, we are saying that the depositors are going to be protected, not the officials at the bank and not the shareholders of the bank itself." But what's really interesting is that by last night, there were huge loud voices of criticism about this moral hazard and about the federal government ensuring one way or another all the deposits in this bank. You had people on the right and people on the left saying, "That's not fair." You had people on the right conservatives saying it because they don't believe the federal government should step in, in this kind of case and reward bad behavior. But you also have people such as Senator Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist and officially independent senator from the state of Vermont. Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, very much man of the left, not certainly of the right. He came out and said, "Look, this amounts to a bailout of the very, very sexy, very, very popular Silicon Valley crowd. You don't see this kind of buyout of other people." The one thing that is going to put both parties and the leaders of both parties together is a determination not to be blamed for some kind of banking collapse, much less one that would spread beyond this particular bank there in the state of California, but there are others who are going to be pointing fingers very, very fast.
What is the eurodollar... really? (It's going to take me a while to wrap my head around this topic.) According to Investopedia, the term eurodollar refers to U.S. dollar-denominated deposits at foreign banks or at the overseas branches of American banks. Because they are held outside the United States, eurodollars are not subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board, including reserve requirements.