vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I personally find this exactly analogous to the ""dot com bubble"", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding "".com"" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many ""penny stocks"" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new ""store of value."" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown."
As you can imagine, this company did not survive very long...  The business model for this type of software is normally based on subscription revenue, which is typically 70% of turnover. The company had subscription revenue of just 30% of turnover due to piss poor customer support, and it soon collapsed as the market was saturated, when there were no more gullible customers left.  The product still survives, but with just a handful of customers...
"There's no such thing as ""unlimited resources"".   Rephrase your question and explain the limits under which you want to work, to succeed.  Final note: if you have unlimited resources, why would you even start a business or work on anything? Got it?"
The only reason this happened is that they believed they could get away with it. Take that belief away, things work out.  Bail them out and crucify the managers and make the shareholders bear as much of the loss as possible - and bankrupt the bigger ones. Really be nasty about it, make them serve as an example.  Don't mess the smaller guys. Those are small fry, they were fooled along with the others.
So now businessmen A, B and C all get their loans and are able to start their businesses, but they're all in the same line of work and need to utilize the same resources. So now instead of just businessman A buying materials he has two other buyers looking to utilize a scarce amount of resources. The price of those resources is now higher since supply is limited but demand has tripled. So now businessman A can only make 40% through his business, B can make 5% and businessman C loses money in his venture. A and B pay their loan back but C is unable to. Ignoring interest, for the sake of simplicity, the bank has essentially broken even. Before leveraging up they loaned out $10 and got back $10. After leveraging they loaned out $30 and got back 20. So the problem you're seeing is excessive credit permitting ventures to be undertaken that should not have been allowed to be. The problem is interest rates that are not set by the market, but by a centralized bureau who couldn't possibly have enough information to determine what the cost of financing should be.
"Hit you local library and pick up a copy of ""Critical Business Skills for Success"" by The Great Courses.   It's a 30 hour audio book, but is an amazing business crash course. I wish I would have found it before trying (and failing) my own business."
Working with recent Harvard and other MBAs, I can testify that most (not all, but most) are bullshit artists and clueless.  Very few are business smart. Actually, very few of them are interested in growing a business or building a business. Most of them are about making money for themselves, the hell with the business and customers.
If your argument is that employment by start ups drives the economy at large, I have to ask, if the economy is operating less efficiently (by supporting start ups in replacing the market share currently held by much more efficiently operating large companies ~) by employing more people, how is this healthier for the economy as a whole? Supporting start ups is good but it has to be done in such a way that it doesn't hurt existing business just for the sake of making jobs. The size of a company doesn't make them bad as long as they compete fairly with everyone else in the market. ~ caveat being where large companies do not form an oligopoly (ie Comcast, TWC, etc...) which is obviously inefficient to begin with which is largely a product of bad politics rather than market forces
Keep in mind a good lawyer will have the contract cover the five D's: Its really best to lay these things out ahead of time.  I watched, first hand, two friends start a business.  When they were broke and struggling the worked very well together.  Then the money started rolling in.  Despite exceeding their dreams they were constantly at each other's throats fighting and bickering over stupid stuff.  In the end, because they had decent legal docs, they both were able to pull money out of the business.   Had that not been worked out they would have destroyed the business so that no one would have profited.
Because BB is really a decentralized marketing company that supports individual retail stores.   It would be continuing to use typewriters instead of email; while still employing typists.  Xerox had the same problem: they were a copy machine company and the sales workers got paid by each paper copy was made.  They R&amp;D the paperless office PARC (mouse, GUI, laser printer, etc...)  and can't make it work because it conflicts with their core business.   BB would have had to buy back all the franchises. The ONLY thing BB could do was to go out of business.
"Things don't just happen, you have to make them happen, you have to do the marketing and sales - link up with your prospective customers. And you have to have a well designed and well operating business. The key to good business management is ""do unto others as you would have them do unto you"" - ie. look at your business from your customers' perspective."
But some of those -- just as some of the ""part time"" or ""on the side"" businesses -- can take on an (unexpected, unplanned) ""life of their own"" and grow into substantial enterprises that employ hundreds and even thousands of people over multiple decades. AFTER THE FACT, the owners will often (at least publicly) claim that it was ""all part of the plan"", but in several cases where I know the founder/owner personally... I know from private conversation that THAT simply wasn't the case. &gt;A business owner, on the other hand, has processes/equipment/staff/IP in place that generates income whether or not she gets out of bed in the morning. You are speaking of someone who has achieved a CERTAIN level of success, and a certain SIZE of operations. &gt;These are different people with different goals and cannot be lumped into the same demographic block. Any and all ""blocks"" are going to be subjective (and in a very real sense the dividing lines placed at rather arbitrary segments) -- a particular named ""block"" will be very true from ONE point of view (with lots of things that correlate and appear to be uniformly applicable)... and yet fallacious from another (where there is again a whole spectrum of distinctions)."
"I'm afraid the great myth of limited liability companies is that all such vehicles have instant access to credit.  Limited liability on a company with few physical assets to underwrite the loan, or with insufficient revenue, will usually mean that the owners (or others) will be asked to stand surety on any credit. However, there is a particular form of ""credit"" available to businesses on terms with their clients.  It is called factoring. Factoring is a financial transaction   whereby a business sells its accounts   receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third   party (called a factor) at a discount   in exchange for immediate money with   which to finance continued business.   Factoring differs from a bank loan in   three main ways. First, the emphasis   is on the value of the receivables   (essentially a financial asset), not   the firm’s credit worthiness.   Secondly, factoring is not a loan – it   is the purchase of a financial asset   (the receivable). Finally, a bank loan   involves two parties whereas factoring   involves three. Recognise that this can be quite expensive.  Most banks catering to small businesses will offer some form of factoring service, or will know of services that offer it.  It isn't that different from cheque encashment services (pay-day services) where you offer a discount on future income for money now. An alternative is simply to ask his clients if they'll pay him faster if he offers a discount (since either of interest payments or factoring would reduce profitability anyway)."
Fiscal Year 2011 was a record-setting year for the SBA in total small business loan volume. While the economy may still be in recovery from the Great Recession, you can read about some Good News in my article from the December issue of Scotsman Guide. Don’t forget that unless an extension is granted, the refinance provision of the SBA 504 loan will expire in September 2012.
"Another aspect is decision makers must CONSTANTLY re-evaluate not only the current climate, but the future.   I'm not sure if anyone noticed but the economy and consumer confidence is in the toilet. If business owners arent careful it very well could collapse and in the end if it does fail there is nobody else responsible but themselves.  So in times of success, yes the business owners reap profit, but in tough times so too do they have to take full responsibility and consequences of reality. Salary employees have no such liability, they go to work at 9am and leave at 5pm and while most want increased responsbility because that usually yields increased competition, most have no interest in taking true responsibility for the company's health.   As the sole principal of the company it is wholly his choice what direction and decisions to make for the company. I guarantee you his decision will not be based on vengence or grudge but rather weighing incentives to continue, and being an older gentlemen decide it's no longer worth it and retire.   I've personally see many smaller companies do this in the past 10 years. ""Why go through the stress? I've got cash. I'm going to sell or close the company and retire."""
Lot of factors in play. We use a lot of local produce but we need the volume to support, so if all you have is a few pallets it's not worth the logistical cost to get it out to the stores. We also inspect all of our produce so it's not as simple as delivering it direct to our stores because we do not know the quality. Smaller farms will usually try to get with a packer or broker so they can sell as much as they can without having to do the business side themselves.
The irony endures: business supports Republican intransigence on stimulus and regulation as business lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce fight every effort to spur growth. Yet the markets, funded by these self-same businesses, demand further government intervention and spurn stimulus efforts they deem insufficiently robust. At some point one would hope this inherent contradiction between what businesses are doing politically and economically would become apparent to a wider audience but the mainstream media remains too frightened to report anything for which they could be 'Rather-ed.'
If you own fancy stuff, you can borrow against it (home, car, boat, etc.). - Asset: Your Charm and Winning Smile. If you have a good, solid business plan (written down and professional looking), ask around and see if you can find an investor. It could be friends or family, but it could also be someone who is looking to invest. Be professional, and be sure to draw up the appropriate business docs if you do a partnership or take a private loan. - Asset: Your Government. If you live in the US, there are federal programs that offer Small Business Loans. Check out sba.gov for more info. You will need a business plan and will have to meet the criteria of the loan or grant. Not sure if your Ecommerce business will meet the criteria, as the intent of these types of programs are to spur the economy by allowing small business owners to hire workers. But its worth checking out.
And it is pretty important to avoid losses, as it is their money directly. Relatives of owners may be safe from firing, but they are not safe from family retaliation like taking away television privileges. And they may also think of the effect of business losses on the family. Large stores can fire cashiers, but they are chronically understaffed and almost none of their cashiers will consistently follow a strict protocol. Since fraudsters only need to succeed once, an inconsistent application is almost as bad as no application. They might charge the cashiers for fraud, but then they would have to pay the cashiers more than minimum wage specifically for that reason (e.g. a $50 a month bonus for no fraud). For many of them, it's cheaper to risk the fraud. And large stores can't mix owners and relatives of owners into the mix. It's hard to say who owns Safeway. And even if you could, the relationship between one fraud transaction and the dividend paid on one share of stock is tiny. It would take thousands of shares to get up to a penny.
But their market share dropped, meaning their top line growth was from general growth in the ridesharing/transportation industry overall.  Their losses dropped because they increased prices. But if that's accompanied by a loss in market share, then their central thesis is disproven, namely that they can capture market share via subsidy and then slowly raise prices.   It shouldn't be surprising that it failed, either, given that transportation is mostly a commodity to people.
First of all, bush was a liberal. He expanded the federal government to a size that had never before been reached. So yes, liberal policies fail.  Speaking of which! Glass steagall's repeal was the biggest reason for the financial crisis. Clinton repealed it. Obama didn't reinstate it.  Liberal policies never DON'T fail.
There are circumstances that exist that didn't come from you but allowed you to be successful.  You ought to be able to recognize those circumstances and not work to destroy those same things that enabled your success just because now you've made it.  Ie, a healthy economy, a healthy society, amongst other things.
Since the transaction was not your bank's mistake (but a decision by the Indian government) why should your bank bear the cost of the unsuccessful transaction? Your bank charged a fee for a service that you were willing to pay for. You might be able to negotiate a full or partial refund, and I have done the same with my own bank for fees that I didn't feel were appropriate.  Your bank will agree or not based on how much they value your business. If you are an otherwise profitable customer, they may agree to refund the fee.
Yes, you can be honest and succeed.  Dishonest business people also succeed, many times.  The key, whether being honest or dishonest, is that you have be smart on how to do that and who to do it with.   You should be honest with smart and knowledgeable customers: you will win their trust and loyalty. But being honest with your vendors is not always a good idea.  You can be dishonest with clueless customers, as long as you make sure you don't get into trouble (legal) with them. They may not be repeat customers, but not every business is about repeat customers.
I've definitely seen a lot more small businesses pop up where I live (Silicon Valley) as I was growing up. In a busy, urban environment people really do like convenience. And in an age where people dislike the power of huge corporations, a small business is a good f-u to that sort of status quo.  Also the title is a little misleading since it mainly talks about the issues restaurants are suffering from lately. I could see a lot of more people ordering online in this day and setting. And of course, it's a rich-people thing because the food can also be quite pricey.
"Government should have worked  the same way.   Use as hard terms as possible for ""too big to fail"" banks. If they can't take it and go bankrupt, purchase the liabilities and assets and run government owned bank next  gradually selling stock next 10-15 years."
Yeah, not all small businesses are barely scraping by.   On another note, I know in some places restaurants, regulations and laws have been introduced which lowers minimum wage for tip earners (like servers). It's an interesting thought but I'm not sure how well it works.
The chance of failure is likely perceived as small because the market price is trading close to the deal price. When the deal vs. market price gap is wider, the market would be less sure about the deal taking place. Note that when you tender your shares, you have not directly sold them when they are taken out of your account. Rather, your shares are being set aside, deposited elsewhere so you can no longer trade them, and later, should the conditions be satisfied, then you will be paid for your shares the deal price. But, should the deal fall apart, you are likely to get your shares deposited back into your account, and by that time their market value may have dropped because the price had been supported by the high likelihood of the transaction being completed. I speculated once on what I thought was a ""sure deal"": a large and popular Canadian company that was going to be taken private in a leveraged buyout by some large institutional investors with the support of major banks. Then the Global Financial Crisis happened and the banks were let off the hook by a solvency opinion. Read the details here, and here. What looked like a sure thing wasn't. The shares fell considerably when the deal fell apart, and took about four years to get back to the deal price."
a bank doesn't lend you money if it hasn't made sure that you can repay your debt in full (plus interests). That's not entirely correct. The bank issues a lot of loans and expects almost all people will pay their debts. The few people who go bankrupt and cannot pay are (more than) compensated for by the people who do pay their debts. The same holds for brokers, e.g. here is an example of the rates they calculate when you trade on margin, effectively borrowing money from them.
To piggy back mbhunter's answer, the broker is going to find a way to make the amount of money they want, and either the employee or the company will foot that bill. But additionally, most small businesses want to compete and the market and offer benefits in the US.  So they shop around, and maybe the boss doesn't have the best knowledge about effective investing, so they end up taking the offering from the broker who sells it the best. Give you company credit for offering something, but know they are as affected by a good salesperson as anybody else.  Being a good sales person doesn't mean you are selling a good product.
The thing is with automation is scale. You need a size of business to justify the capital cost and if plant goes down, you need to be able to afford the downtime (multiple machines) otherwise you will have issues particularly in retail.  The largest franchises may have little problem affording burger robots but smaller ones?
"I'm going to go with ""ridiculous notion.""  :) The vast majority of businesses are legitimate, run by honest people trying to earn a living for themselves and their employees.  These days, almost all of them accept credit cards.  Crooked businesses are a very small minority. When a bad business over charges you, you dispute the charge, and you get your money back.  But that's not all that happens.  The bad merchant pays penalties for this, and if it happens more than a couple of times, the merchant loses their merchant account with their bank, which means that they lose their ability to accept credit card payments anymore.  A crooked business is not able to rob people via credit card for very long at all. A whitelist would certainly not be able to include every legitimate business.  And a blacklist would never be able to be kept up-to-date, as bad businesses come and go continuously; as soon as a business was added to the blacklist, they would lose their merchant account and would no longer need to be on the list. What you are describing is very rare.  My brother once had a bad experience with a tech support company where they were repeatedly charging him for a service they never performed.  But a credit card chargeback took care of it.  If that company made a habit of that, I'm sure that they got in trouble with their bank. Instead, the most common credit card fraud happens when crooks use your credit card at perfectly legitimate businesses.  But your whitelist/blacklist wouldn't help you with that at all."
I'm retired.  a LONG time ago a biz friend make note that once a restaurant failed in a location, that location was cursed forever for a new restaurant.  ours is a HUGE/famous beach resort with big bucks everywhere.  I watched and for 40+ years, friend has been right
This is why charities and churches exist.   Businesses exist first and foremost to accomplish the goals of the owners. For most publicly traded companies, it is pretty safe to assume that the number 1 goal of the owners is to make money. Paying your employees more than they are worth is not a good way to make money.
"I think it's hard to say. Companies are going to be much more likely to fail, but every now and then one will be knocked out of the park and become the next pintrest.  I do worry it will attract confidence men. It's easy to ""lose investor money to incompetence."""
His business isn't producing anything of value. In fact a quick search and all I can see is people complaining about high stress sales people and payments larger than their mortgage and never being able to use the time share they are paying for. If he is having troubles it likely has to do with his business plan being complete shit.
It seems too simple, but at the same time I feel that I'm over thinking/complicating things. My biggest fear is being sued or something. I feel like business ownership involves exposing yourself. It's like you're playing in the big leagues and every crooked person or competing business is out to get you. I'm not an expert on business law but I feel like that's something you largely acquire from business ownership and at the same time is something that you need to have an extremely firm grasp on or you'll get eaten alive. If I am over-complicating things and being overly cautious, what stops others from starting up small businesses? My second fear is getting busted for breaking some unknown law. In any case, I don't want to loose all of my hard-earned cash to anything accept a bad business plan.
I disagree and thankfully so does basic economics. If a business that is not successful shutters, then the needs that that business was fulfilling will be provided by a new business. The market usually finds a way.  And no one is suggesting that random, arbitrary minimum wage increases are wise, simply that it makes no sense to have a minimum wage that doesn't mandate a livable salary.
This is the worst business model for creating cash flow there is. Where does the actual business begin when all you are doing is teaching people to get more people? I went to a Herbalife smoothie bar once, I realized that they aren't there to make money off smoothies but to get customers to open their own shops. When people realize what it is, they never go back. If you want to start a business, start a business, Amway is not the answer. You aren't your own boss.
My guess would be in the short term, local small businesses around these big-boxers get squeezed from rising wages, but in the long-run, they're still playing Amazon's game. And yet, it's the small retailers that don't have to get caught up in the Amazon race.
If you have the skills and the desire, you can start small as a side business while working a regular job. Get client referrals from friends and friends of friends that utilize your services. I know a few small business owners who started companies exactly that way. Eventually their side gig, became their main gig. Some sold out for millions and others are enjoying what they do, and now employ other people to assist them.