Why have a different category that sounds like "unserious" to german people? I can see people in procurement departments say "oh no, we don't deal with UG".
Ok, so first of all, the UG was only introduced in 2008 - which even for some of us middle-aged people is more "it's relatively new" than "GmbH has existed decades before I was born".
Second, not that I claim to be any representative, but this "UG is weird, unknown, not serious"... I have personally not heard that for about 10 years, so yeah, absolutely true when it was new.
Third, it's still relatively rare I'd say. You stumble over one every couple of months or years, in my experience mostly online shops without their own manufacturing (but maybe that is where I am looking) - if you just look at what tradespeople have on their vans: Nope, never. Always GmbH or GbR/single person.
But I have no insight into procurement departments.
You’ll find that many people don’t have 25k€ to invest in initial capital of a business, but that are perfectly capable of running a business regardless. 5k€ is fair for plenty of endeavours, and more should be required for riskier businesses.
People seeing a GmbH as more serious is just a cultural aspect, I’d say.
First, you can trivially store years of nuclear fuel, which you can't with fossil fuels.
Maybe this is already complete, but at one point of lot of it was from decommissioning nuclear weapons, so it wasn't "we need them for fuel", it was "lets make use of this waste material and provide a financial disincentive for nuclear proliferation".
Finally, the West has plenty of sources for Uranium, and given plants already have years of fuel onsite, it is never a pressing problem.
You missed the "mainstream" qualifier from the parent. I am afraid nothing you described here could be considered mainstream, although I'd like to see these things becoming mainstream.
California's law apparently only applied to B2C, but there was an FTC rule that applied to B2B as well which has been paused by a federal appeals court while they consider if the FTC followed the law in making the rule.
> But at the same time, the budget for justice system needs to increase. It should be most probably the strongest branch of the government. Delayed justice is one of the most common ways of injustice.
The judical branch should very much NOT be a part of the government itself, but a fully separate branch.
> Corruption within private companies is irrelevant, as the main ones to suffer from it are usually shareholders.
As we have seen in the past, we have the same, if not worse, power imbalances in private companies as in the public sector. I would therefore not call it irrelevant, but agree that the Justice system can help here if appropriatly staffed.
> Monopolies are not always a negative outcome on a free market if the company in Monopoly situation reaches that position by offering better products within the law. However they can be specially dangerous when they're artificially created by the Government (e.g. allocation of a common resource to a specific company --> corruption almost always follows).
Do you have a single example for a company who did not over time monetized its monopoly power to the detriment of the customer?
> The judical branch should very much NOT be a part of the government itself, but a fully separate branch.
If you don't give that entirely separate branch any executive power, it cannot enforce its rulings. If you do give it separate executive power, there is nothing to rein it in when it becomes corrupt.
I was thinking about this yesterday. For the US system, what if the top roles of an independent Prosecutorial Branch were appointed by the Judicial Branch, but Congress would control them by using the budget and impeachments? The President could still work with the appointees on setting the overall agenda and priorities. Executive control could be enforced with allowing or denying cooperation with executive agencies.
But Prosecutorial would have to be its own branch to avoid the current SCOTUS crushing on the "unitary executive" theory.
Correct. If you conceive of the “rule of law” as being the operating system kernel on top of which the rest of society runs, then there are no checks on the law enforcers and interpreters.
