The 2000s were a startup winter after the dotcom bubble burst. In those days you were extremely lucky if you could raise over $100k in funding and in revenue $100m was the ultimate fantasy. ZIRP was the 2010s
Yes, and also tariffs are a strategy to appeal to nationalists. This group is fine making the tradeoff of a worse economy if it means putting your nation's people first
O1 would probably want to see a huge number of followers. An OG model with a large following is someone with a huge amount of agency. Probably the highest agency sex worker of them all. Impossible to traffic
Increasing supply would see your property value rise astronomically. Suddenly there would be developers wanting to build a 30 storey building in place of your single family unit. The ROI on that 30 storey would be high enough for them to give you multiple millions of dollars for your land. What would decrease is the beauty of the neighborhood, but people can be taught to appreciate the beauty of highrise buildings
Two big leaps in your answer: 1. that the person paying more is rich and 2. that the person paying more likely doesn't care about the band
The way I see it, it is also highly likely that the person paying more is of average income and just convinced themselves to pay more because they are superfans
I'm also black and growing up I had the impression that "woke" referred to left-leaning conspiracy theorists and activists. 9/11 truthers and gay rights activists were the main woke groups of the Bush era
What you are talking of is only possible in companies where the founder didn't take VC investment. Once you take VC money, you get on the treadmill of infinite growth to satisfy investors. That makes companies do strange things in pursuit of this impossible goal. Like hiring for the sake of showing growth in headcount, hiring people to branch into unrelated verticals, hiring people with big resumes just to say you have them on the team etc
One thing I've come to realize is that the larger your social circle, the more prone you are to comparisons and hence lifestyle creep. You can see this where the careers that involve a lot of socializing (sales, entertainment, law, finance etc) are known for having flashy people. And the careers that you can do as a loner (programming, quant, researcher etc) are known for having miserly folk
And it's also bad for business. I think people on either side of the aisle underestimate just how tilted the other side can get when you go against them