Skip to main content


Showing posts from July, 2018

The Case for Corporate Personhood

 Corporations take a lot of heat and one of them is the concept of corporate personhood. I hear it from left wingers that hate corporations and even from libertarians trying to fit in with the narrative (though a left winger hates a corporation in a totally different way). I find the arguments against corporate personhood to be quite manipulative and utterly unhelpful. My plan is to make the case for corporate personhood here and simply explain why it’s not even that controversial. It’s important for me to make the distinction between two separates parts of corporate law, as two arguments are needed here. There’s the aspect of personhood rights and the other is limited liability. Personhood Rights I think this is the easier argument to make despite many people having issue with it. Many, especially on the left, view these rights as special rights. That these corporations are given rights that people have and that shouldn’t happen because they’re businesses. The reality of it i

The Case for Governments Open Bidding

 The process of creating and building a structure requires a different approach as a consumer. I’m arguing that the government should do contract bidding in the marketplace and be transparent with the people. As a regular consumer, if you have a problem with your car, you can go pick up the parts online, take it to a variety of different mechanics and service it in the future at a different location. A consumer can look around at a variety of features, benefits, prices, timelines and a near infinite amount of other metrics. What is Contract Bidding? When it comes to buildings, infrastructure and many of the items that the government builds there is a different approach. The way it works with private business is that they solicit bids from private contractors for various stages of the process. For example, architects will be contacted and will provide a cost to design, a timeline, a portfolio and whatever other information the government requests of them. This works for a varie

The Case Against Expanding CPP

 There has been a lot of discussion lately regarding the expansion of the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP), so I felt this was an appropriate discussion. CPP is a program for people living outside of Quebec aged 18 to 70. Anyone earning work income have to pay into the CPP program. Currently, as an employee, you’ll pay 4.95% of your pre-tax income to CPP with a basic exemption on the first $3500 up to a total income of $54,900 (as of 2016 - this is an indexed to inflation number). This equates to a maximum of $2544.30 for 2016 as an employee. An employer also has to pay into the CPP program, for the employee, the same amount. This amounts to a max of $5088.60 for 2016. The push for expanding CPP has been mainly been from large unions; such as CUPE and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). The desired CPP expansion from the CLC is to double contributions. They also wish to increase CPP replacement rate (essentially pay out) to grow from 25% to 50% (also doubling). The argument for this expansi

Trade Deficits are not Bad

 The narrative around trade deficits in society is wrong. It's something driven in by mainly left wing politics and generally viewed as a negative thing. The concept really took place in the United States where it has had a trade deficit for a long time. In Canada, we've had a trade surplus for a long time, but deficits are happening and in the future we'll most likely have them all the time. Trade deficit and trade surplus are an oxymoron Let's think about what the word trade means. A trade is when two individuals or groups/businesses exchange goods or services. This trade is mutually beneficial for both parties; meaning that each party trades for a more preferable outcome than their current state. The concept of deficit and surplus with regard to trade isn't a fair measurement, especially with regard to arbitrary lines in a global marketplace. If you look within the country, most seafood is purchased on the coasts. Just because a Saskatchewan wheat farmer

The Case for First Past the Post

Something that is going to become a big topic in a few years, whenever the LPC decides to act on their election promise, is to change the way our votes are counted. The current system of elections we have is known as the first past the post (FPTP). It's a really easy system to understand. We have constituencies (also known as ridings) for a specific geographical area and the person that receives the most votes win. When I was younger and in school, I took a lot of political science courses just because it interested me. I had the chance to learn about other electoral systems like the United States, Italy and Germany. The main criticisms of FPTP is that people end up winning seats without getting a majority of votes in their riding. For example, some will complain that more ‘left of center' votes were cast, yet the Conservative Party won. Another example is that voting for your preferred choice, if more fringe or small, is essentially throwing your vote away. These