![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
Nope. Diplomatic immunity results in “being asked to leave”. If they refuse they then become “persona non-grata” and only then they can be expelled. I think.
Nope. Diplomatic immunity results in “being asked to leave”. If they refuse they then become “persona non-grata” and only then they can be expelled. I think.
Society as a whole needs to agree to take action and, unfortunately, human nature is such that people will only take action AFTER shit materializes and all members of society are affected. Right now the climate issue is such that the rich can simply pay more to mitigate direct individual impact, so they don’t care. Also, USA and China each contribute to almost 45% of total emissions, action should be focused to bring their emissions down first. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-data-explorer
Some people see guilds as a form of worker union providing job protection but they are also oligopolies for business owners, resulting in higher price for goods and less employment opportunities overall due to the “you got to be a member so you can do business” aspect of it
But historically if an incumbent decides to run for another Term. No party ever Has primaried them.
And this lack of pragmatism and adherence to “tradition” when the republicans openly don’t stick by those rules will cause the Dems to contribute to the coming of fascist amerika
Just writing to say that I admire your tenacity
this is true. but regulators still hold CROs accountable for that .
Tough situation for banks and people working inside them. For those clamoring that it is 2008 all over again, it is, because the way markets and companies work has not changed (and a bank is just another type of company).
Suppose you are a chief risk officer of one of those banks before Covid hit. You have been hired by the CEO so you need to play with the CEO to advance his/her agenda. Other banks are lending more and more to commercial real estate developers as there is demand and they are paying their loans on time. Your own bank’s board of directors and CEO are putting pressure to join the market and lend more to those property developers otherwise you own bank’s profit will look lower than the competition. You know that, by doing so, the concentration of loans in that sector will become quite high but, if you keep resisting, the CEO and/or the board will find someone more amenable who doesn’t seem to panic when every other bank is making money. Then you cave in. You decide to approve more business going to those loans although you caveat that this might exceed risk appetite and gets the board and CEO to formally approve it as well.
Now the bank is proudly going with the flow and investors are not complaining anymore.
Is there a similar limitation placed on the judiciary?
Possible