Distinguishing between the capitalist and the entrepreneur, it must be the current Government who strictly prohibit entities request the staff of administrators and partners guarantee, that if they insist on not paying, they will not likely get funds. And if the Executive does not wish to do so to face them in open field, that has nothing, so based on sentences correct imbalances of precise instructions to the judiciary, that independent and impartial and protect the borrower. Certainly to modify the order, as a lawyer I attest that can operate directly on the rule of law or the jurisprudence in its development. And it wouldn’t be the first time that the Executive chooses to this via legislative sui generis. At least to me I found it quite plausible his influence with regard to the relaxation in demands to understand accreditation a dismissal for economic reasons, reflected in the more recent jurisprudence. Avoided, Sibylline way, direct confrontation with the unions, assuming a flexibilization of the dismissal in any rule. One way or another, political power is who should read the primer to the banks, and recall his role as capitalists. If a posteriori must minimize risks, have all sorts of wits financial, insurance and reinsurance that properly used derive benevolent.
What fixes you to the Bank stay with a family residence? Possibly nothing, if we look at the overall guaranteed debt of the business, often extremely higher. Therefore, which we might call firm involvement, all you get is Suomi for ever the entrepreneur, without throwing compensator side effect for anyone. Unfortunately, so far the banking entities are the owners and masters of our country, and any Government has seemed like mere dolt. Rafael Linares. Attorney labour law and mercantilist.