Shell companies and such are perfectly legal, as are the bizarre and arcane financial instruments that Wall Street invents. All sorts of shady things are. I would be surprised if the accountants don't win awards.
It's necessary because we developed a climate and culture of of this sort of behavior that has started to expand at an accelerated rate. And once it wins or loses one avenue of control or tax imposition, it goes looking for other avenues, no matter how small or stupid. The really bad wins just feed it even more.
I am quite sure these "societies" see what is going on elsewhere and then sit around brainstorming until they can come up with some next ridiculous claim to power and cash prizes. Think outside the box! (Can a fart that reminded people of some melody be considered a public performance? And under which rules can we demand compensation? Is this a sheet music thing or a you stole my song thing? We demand 80% of the cut from your fart.)
Except the bigger companies that do large scale solar, that get the big subsidy money, that sometimes fail to produce. That like to site in competitively environmentally destructive ways. Those, traditional big energy will at least play ball with.
I certainly have not seen the process through inception, but it seems like a lot of regulatory normalization involves raising protections or price-setting across the board while destroying environmental law from the outset. And yes, the empowering of corporations to control and make profit at the expense of people, countries, and the world certainly increases with the lobbying and the fact that some companies and industry groups get a seat at the table as stakeholders, none of this has any apparent positive effect on the total cost of trade by removal of tariffs (the theoretical point of the whole thing).
Maybe they were trade deals, once. But i am not overly convinced. Maybe it is a matter of perception.
True, this, among many other things normative to genders in reporting, and everywhere else, as we are yet instilled and even inculcated with this culturally.
It's possibly true that the reporter's intent was to show the extreme frustration in the situation and would report on men equally, but all too often this is not the case, and we can word things more carefully when it is. Particularly in a communications field.
Yes, it is an hilariously poor attempt at wording when the claim is for separation. It kind of leaps out and bites your nose as a mix of incompetence / phoning it in, a sort of fk you, and a have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too mentality.