Equality of opportunity creates wealth. Equality of outcome creates poverty, starvation, death, labour camps. (What you obviously wish for)
Corporations are people. So what you're saying is, if it were down to an individual. So please tell me which individual. Your family? Would your parents trade humans? Your children? Would they do that too?
Human rights laws can be. We don't need massive surveillance and stop-and-search.
Nobody advocates for trickle-down economics. It doesn't even exist. Also, UK wage growth is due to UK productivity. Watch this: youtube.com/watch?v=U3BOg4U1R_I
Economic mismanagement by governments will always happen because people aren't good at managing money that isn't theirs. It will always happen. A fool with their money soon parts. And you'd want to trust and hope that a politician wouldn't waste everyone's money.
This is false, and at this point, you've made things up to fit your agenda. This is a laughable statement that you've made and is not worth arguing against.
It's not about generalising. It's about understanding that humans will always behave in the same way. We're not magical and we're really just as predictable as Apes. Our behaviour is predictable, and outcomes too. Government is not different from business because they're both run by individuals, HUMANS. It's not corporations that are greedy. It's humans. If government controlled everything, it would be the SAME a 1 giant corporation controlling everything. The fault does not lie with business. The fault lies with human beings. And saying "generalising" is just a way for you to avoid understanding the behaviour of a group of individuals.
To cover generalising a little more, although not to dwell on the examples
Here are two facts:
Women tend to prefer working lower paying roles.
Men tend to be less emotional
Tend = tendancy = inclination. i.e. not all, but most.
Now, this is generalisng. But it's also a fact because it's the majority outcome. The majority (and inevitable) outcome of having government control is bad. Put Hitler in control of your entire government and see what happens. Because bad people exist, they will always exist, and no individual should have that power. It will go bad fast.
I had planned on not replying to this comment and yet here I am. Your misogyny at the end of that section is laughable.
The point about corporations being people is by definition incorrect. Corporations are entities, imagined by people. They themselves are not people. They outlive the people that run them, e.g. Apple did not die when Steve Jobs died, someone else simply took his job and therefore Apple itself is not a person.
I don't agree with mass surveillance or stop and search either, but completely dismantling a state to create a society with no security infrastructure would obviously be ridiculous. We live in a world which is not perfect, and states cause nearly as many issues as they solve, but in terms of security we are more secure as a planet now than we have been at any point in human history (not including environmental security, an issue perpetuated in part by corporate interest), so that must count for something.
If we don't have trickle down economics then what do we have? That was the structure advocated by Thatcher and Reagan our current society is based on it. Trickle down is simply a term do describe exactly what Hannan discusses there i.e. taxes being cut from the top and their spending benefitting the rest of society. There have been shifts in how it works but ultimately trickle down is the best term we have for what they advocated. In that video his point about the convenience service providing for consumers misses out entirely how this benefits the workforce. (Also Daniel Hannan is perhaps the most pro-state nationalist establishment figure you could have chosen, not the libertarian I imagine you wish him to be).
Individual politicians spending money is not the system I am advocating. Perhaps this is how government currently works, but in a properly run democracy (Scandanavia has seen some successes in this dept) spending is done to the benefit of the public. I agree that finances are mismanaged, especially by those who don't want to see that money spend (current conservative government), but when run by an efficient government it can be highly effective.
Are you saying that the diplomatic corps is not an excellent example of a well run state institution?
You seem to have a faulty philosophy there. Humans do not all act in the same way all the time. People are fundamentally different due to a vast, incomprehensible number of genetic and environmental factors and suggesting that they all act the same out of greed is an idea stuck in the 17th century.
I have never suggested putting one person in control, you are answering points which you've made up yourself.
Misogyny? Go look at some statistics for once in your life.
Here's a quick observation: I'm sitting at work right now.
There are
All 8 female project managers (and the others that aren't in today) are highly capable and intelligent people, but they've chosen lower paying jobs. I've asked a couple of them why. They've essentially told me the stress and time of a job role in their area of interest isn't worth it, and this enables them to use their free time to do other things they'd like to do. Essentially, their happiness matters. And a high-paying job doesn't bring happiness.
Additionally, we're in the process of hiring another developer. Most applicants are male.
The two female developers are both high ambitious people that have high career goals. But as you can see, from this real-world example AND actual measured statistics that the ratios differ between genders. Fucking misogyny. Yeah. Statistics are sexist. I knew my example would trigger you.
EDIT:
Oh, and my last job. A team of 6 developers. 2 female. One is married with a family, and therefore works 10am to 4pm. One is a junior who was working in fashion (low paid too) until recently.
Finance, Dev, and Print/Web Design were dominated by majority males (due to the ratio of applicants).
Evidently there are fewer women in significant positions (e.g. CEO, Editorial roles etc) than there are men, this is true. The difference of opinion here is explaining why.
What you have essentially said is that women are somehow hard wired to not take on hard jobs. Is this true?
Or do you believe that a society in which women are told not to have ambition, strive for equal pay or take similar roles to men is the fundamental problem?
The fact that I cannot distinguish between these two in what you have written there explains what I mean when I say you 'generalise'. You have made sweeping statements e.g. 'women prefer lower paying roles', 'there is no such thing as a well run state institution' or 'its humans who are greedy' whilst barely explaining any evidence or reason for coming to these conclusions.
I have, admittedly, made similar generalisations e.g. corporations don't care for individuals. My point there is that profit is nearly always the driving factor. If major corporations cared for individuals, BP would stop drilling for oil, BAE would stop exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia and Ford would stop selling diesel cars. But the hit to profit would be so disastrous that the resulting death of a few thousand (perhaps hundreds of thousand in BP's case) is seen as acceptable.