More Letters to the Corinthians

Jokes You’ll Never Hear

Part of being in comedy is witnessing a lot of jokes. Many of which the public will never hear. Here are a few of my favourites. For example, one time I was in Phoenix to see a famous headliner (Maria Bamford). The crowd was pumped and the emcee was excited she was there.

After welcoming the audience he said, “Okay, let’s get this show started by bringing up some local talent. This young lady has only been doing comedy for a short time so make her feel comfortable. Say hello to Sarah Johnson.” Everyone applauded and this young college kid took the stage. Dressed in jeans and a hoodie she looked like a nice girl, from a wholesome family. Then came her opening line.

I know I look like I’m only twelve, but don’t let that fool you. I shag like I’m sixteen.

It was the line of the night. Headliner and all.

Travis Robinson

Travis was an engineer by day and a slow talker on stage. He almost had an air of depression about him. This joke was told maybe five or six times and I was lucky enough to catch it.

When I was young, I didn’t have porn like you kids today. All I had was this Playboy puzzle my dad used to keep under his bed. So every time my parents would go out, me and my brother would put it together. But back in those days ladies didn’t landscape the way they do now. So when we were sorting out the pieces it was like “muff, muff, muff, sky!”

Andew Iwanick

Andrew is a Ukrainian comic from Edmonton and one year placed second in the newcomer competition at Just for Laughs. Like Andy Kaufman, you never know where he’s coming from. Here’s a joke he did only once. It was my favourite from 2009.

A lot of people come up here telling stories about drugs and sex, but I’d like to talk about my grandparents. (Crowd goes ahh.) Grandpa is so funny because he always says the same thing. You could say “Hey grandpa, it’s snowing outside.” And he’d say “That’s right grandson. And you know why it’s snowing outside?” You’d say “No grandpa, why is it snowing outside?” And he’d say “it’s because of the Jews.”

Dave Stawnichy

Dave really prides himself on being a stand up. By day, he’s a caretaker at a Catholic grade school. Ask him the difference between a caretaker and a janitor and he’ll say “$6,000 a year plus the ability to speak English.” Anyway, Dave has some beauties.

While cleaning our teenage son’s room my wife found some adult magazines under the bed. But these weren’t the Playboy / Penthouse type that we are used to. These magazines were about bondage and S&M. So she calls me up and says “Dave! What should we do?” I said “I don’t know, but just don’t spank him.”

He has another that only worked during the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Though most women hated it, this joke was technically brilliant.

Have you heard the latest controversy over the royal wedding? Kate Middleton is thinking of wearing Lady Diana’s ring. And ladies, have you seen this ring? It’s a 12-carat sapphire, surrounded by 37 crown cut diamonds, accented by tiny little shards of windshield glass.

Texas

Of course, all great lines don’t come from a comedy club. The best are found in real world experiences. Here’s my favourite from a regular person.

I was in Dallas, drinking in a bar. I didn’t know the people around me and somehow the topic of gay marriage came up. This was back in the 80s and I must have said something derogatory. A gentleman beside me delivered the greatest defense for gay marriage I’ve ever heard. Complete with cowboy hat, handlebar mustache, and plaid shirt he said:

Hey mister, you ever slept with a man? Because I have and let me tell you something. They’re hairy, they’re boney, and they stink. So anybody who’d want to do that a second time must be in love.

I dropped my beer.

Krog

In the beginning there was a caveman named Krog who lived in a hut down by the river. Often Krog would evaluate his life and conclude he had everything he could need—for his essentials were only air, water, food, and shelter. Air was easy because it was all around. Water was good since he had the river. Food was a pain because it took an average of 10 hours per week to hunt and grow. And because his hut was already built, it only took a few hours per week to maintain. He was happy.

But living in this self-made paradise made Krog lonely. One day he went into town and found himself a mate. They instantly fell in love and were married. Then Mrs. Krog moved in.

After the first year, Krog asked what she thought of their slice of heaven and sweetie replied, “Well everything is nice and all, but ever since the wedding we’ve gained bushels of weight so maybe we should start wearing clothes.” Krog took one look at his burgeoning belly and went off to plant cotton and build a weave—thereby added clothing to his basic needs. After the second year, Krog asked again. And sweetie started with, “Well everything is nice and all, but it sure would be great to have a soft comfortable bed to sleep on along with a few tables and maybe a really funky couch.” So off Krog went to invent the furniture industry. After the third year Krog thought, do I really want to know? But asked anyway, which could have been a mistake because on this very day sweetie was in a bad mood. She said, “Well I’m kinda sorta happy, but I’m tired of going down to the river to get water so why don’t you build me a direct pipe. And while you’re at it, it would be nice to have some light around here because every time I get up in the night, I’m always tripping over s#!$. And hey, what about some heat—I’m frigging freezing!”

Now Krog had a problem, a big problem. He’d already added loads of hours to his work week by inventing clothing and furniture—how could he possibly provide more. And then to him an idea did occur.

Specialization of labour

Krog went to town to present a new plan to the townsfolk. “I say rather than all farming and building and maintaining our own homes, how about we specialize and just do one thing or the other? This way we’ll attain greater outputs, which will afford us a higher standard of living.” Then after selling everyone on the idea, Krog suggested that instead of using this excess to build bigger homes and grow more food, they use it to produce more necessary goods like clothing and furniture (which he showed and the women went wild). “Furthermore, if we invent a little technology we’ll have even more labour capacity, which will allow us to run a water company, an electric company, and to explore for natural gas to yield heat.”

His presentation went so well they went on to invent things like money and punch clocks, and every townsperson signed up for a forty-hour work week. Triumphantly, Krog walked home. But there was an inherent problem with his brainchild—specialization of labour. Sure it increased outputs, thereby affording everyone a better standard of living, but it took away people’s ability to simply provide for themselves. Plus it committed everyone to public work.

Why we work

(Here we’re talking about public work, not making your bed in the morning.) We work for two reasons: to make money to provide for ourselves and to play our part within society by providing for others. The first is obvious but the second is theoretical. I work for you and you work for me, and together we both get more. It’s actually quite beautiful (and really was a good idea). You spend eight hours a day working for others in return for the benefits of others working for you.

Whether it’s eating, watching TV, or sitting on the sofa, almost everything that sustains you is the product of other human’s labour. The entire economy is built around people providing goods and services for each other, which means every piece of raw material and every labour hour spent is eventually for the benefit of some one.

Command economy

Getting back to Krog, things started out smooth but as time went by there were two problems:

Deciding what everyone should do
Ensuring everyone had a job so they could derive income

The first problem became evident when people discovered they had too many carpenters and not enough plumbers. Sure everyone’s trim looked nice but the toilets were backing up. So they added administration to ensure we’d have enough of everything. This was called a command economy and its purpose was to ensure everyone was performing a job and drawing a wage.

Market economy

As time went by this administration became impossible to maintain and there were labour surpluses and shortages. Plus many were getting upset that everyone was being paid the same. Some argued their jobs were harder so they deserved more.

At the next town hall there was so much shouting and complaining that the convener, Sir Adam, yelled, “scr#@ it!” and declared we’d be better off managing our own affairs. He suggested a market based system where people work wherever they like and wages act as an attraction to occupations where they are needed and a deterrent from those already full. This idea was quite revolutionary so everyone said, “Okay, let’s try it.”

New problems

Shortly after adopting this new strategy, labour surpluses and shortages subsided along with the complaining about how we were paid. But two new problems arose:

The division of strong and weak
Private enterprise

Krog’s original idea was for everyone to be better off. But what happened was people started being paid for what they produced, not just their time. So if within an eight hour shift one maid cleaned more rooms than another, she got paid more. And this was going on everywhere. As a result, the strong were paid more than the weak and we arrived at a division in living standards.

We also found issues that came with private enterprise. Like companies were put in charge of things like safety standards, some people were making wads of cash, and nobody was sure of what government should do.

Summary

We’ll talk more about these problems later. For now, remember this:

The economy was invented by a guy named Krog (mostly because of his wife).
Specialization of labour increases outputs (which affords everyone a higher standard of living) but eliminates the freedom and ability to survive on your own.
A command economy doesn’t work.
A market economy solves the problems of a command economy but creates its own. These problems are the division of strong and weak, and the inherent issues of private enterprise (which we’ll discuss next).
Money is simply the exchange of labour (and it’s all about labour).
Technology greatly affects outputs.
Economists mostly strive towards greater outputs (i.e., standard of living). They don’t concern themselves with other parts of society, like what is fair.

Hate

Emotions today are definitely running wild, especially when directed toward the President of the United States. With Donald, you can’t help but feel something. But are political sentiments out of control and spreading anger where it doesn’t belong? Many are now using the term hate.

In my church we weren’t allowed to hate. Father John called it an expression of evil—warning of its power. Granted strong feelings are certainly part of nature, but Plato’s dictum was that life’s a battle between feelings and reason. And emotions rarely act alone. When you learn to love, it usually spreads. Making the world a better place. Unfortunately, things work the same way with our darker side. People are now turning their anger for one to core supporters and anyone with something positive to say (like, friends and neighbours). Let’s start with his base.

The base

Not everyone makes $80K/year, then hooks up with a partner whose parents front them the deposit on a house. There are loads of paycheque-to-paycheque people who rent. These are the folk often described as Trump’s base.

In 2016, many (including people of colour and yes, legal immigrants) were looking for work. They saw Trump as a better bet to provide jobs. We then witnessed the proof behind the pudding. President T delivered more jobs, at higher wages, with greater take home pay, and didn’t touch entitlements (pensions, Medicare). But instead of being treated like any other group that voted for itself, they’ve been labeled as “racist pig farmers bolstering swastikas.” And sore losers employed banjo sounds as their inference.

Racists? In a country that voted twice for Obama? How many are there? And who are the real constructive racists, those living and working with minorities or clued out suburbanite do-gooders wishing to feel good? Don’t kid yourself, do-gooders also voted for themselves.

The rich

“Ya, but the Republicans gave a tax cut to the wealthy.” Are you sure? In the US, the top federal tax bracket was reduced from 39.6% to 37%. In Canada it’s 33%. Should we bash Canadians?

Provinces and states then add to the federal rate. Our provinces add more and provide healthcare. American states add less and don’t. It’s just a different system that they’ve been arguing about for years. If states add back the 2.6% (as per Arizona 2020), you’ll have nothing to say. Leave it to them.

Cages

“Screw you. Trump puts babies in cages.” “Everyone is bad who supports such a person.” Really? How much research did you put into this topic? How long do they stay there before the whole family is released into America, bypassing millions waiting in line? Is this the first administration to use separation as a deterrent? And what’s the current system anyhow? Is it the same as Canada’s or much more generous?

More important, WHAT DO THESE CAGES LOOK LIKE? Are they kennels used to house dogs or big gymnasiums like with flood victims? Bottom line is: if you view someone as favourable, you look into outrageous claims. When you have a penchant for dislike, you don’t need many details.

Summary

We’re all emotional. That’s the way it is. And everyone has times when they wish to lash out. But remember what Plato said: life is a balance between reason and emotion, and reason must win. Propaganda artists go straight for the heart because that’s easy. This time they’ve gone too far. Hate is a dangerous emotion that can bring down nations. Adults must rise up and act according to values. Don’t respect just the people you voted for, do it with everyone. And always let reason be your guide.

Since we’re talking politics, let’s end with a story about Justin. One day, in junior high, future PM had lunch with his dad at the House of Commons cafeteria. A member of the opposition walked by and Justin made a snide remark. Pierre said, “In politics, you never disparage the person. Only the position.” Father then took son by the hand and introduced him to the Conservative member. Now you can’t blame Justin for his action—he was just a kid. I did the same thing when I was 12.

The Human Condition

Alts say life is a trip that gets explained to us at the end. So what is it we’re supposed to be doing on this journey? The answer may lie in the aspects of life that are common to us all—the human condition.

Everyone gets a body, has a childhood, experiences dating, and goes to school. We all have friends, encounter nature, and eventually get a job. And everyone feels a myriad of emotions. Protestant or Hindu, rich or poor, that’s the way it is. And most of what occurs in this lifetime is the same. Imagine a tall building or a multi-level ship. You flourish by travelling between floors. Each one is a separate experience. For example, floor eight could be money. Floor ten could be love. So keep wandering and pushing buttons until they say time is up.

Body

Maybe we don’t all eat lobster but we do all eat. Maybe we don’t all compete at the Olympics but we do all compete. And maybe we don’t all have multiple lovers but everyone tangles up with someone.

Eating—we have our favourites and things we don’t like.
Sleeping—some toss and turn, some like a baby.
Fashion—from dressing to how we style our hair.
Physical—hiking, playing sports, building a model, or taking a stroll. And whether by bus or by car, we all experience motion.
Health—we have sick days and times we feel great.
Senses—in addition to taste, we get to see, hear, smell, and feel. So whether it’s colours, sounds, scents, or texture—it’s all part of being here.

Nature

We’ve all felt water and played with animals. Some like to garden, some like to camp. In the end, everyone has a relationship with nature. From petting a dog, to walking in the wilderness, all of these make up a level. Wind, rainbows, flowers, and hills—lots to perceive out there.

People

Relationships are obvious. We meet loads of people. Friends come and go, family stays. Friends are typically going through the same phases in life as we are (e.g., high school), family is different. And there are neighbours and workmates. We all get along.

Family—everyone has parents and relatives.
Friends—everyone makes friends or acquaintances.
Romance—those who invoke infatuation, attraction, and heartache in us.
Teachers—many have a mentor influence over you.
Co-workers—connections between people you work with.
Cell mates—you can get a good one, you can get a bad one, some call them spouses.

Experiences

There are also many experiences we have in common. Take for example:

Birth—everyone has a birthday (and better yet a star sign).
Entertainment—different dials for pleasures and fun.
Money—everyone has a relationship with money.
Music—some have a deep connection with rhythm.
Fantasy—most bond to some genre of film or novel. Others make it up.
Learning—like it or not, you’re going to learn something.
School—we all go.
Suffering—can’t forget the Buddha since everyone eats it sometimes.
Travel—we don’t always stay in the same place.
Work—no matter how lazy, eventually we assume an occupation and come to know the difference between doing a good job and not.

Emotions

We feel a cast of emotions. Happy and sad is just the start. Courage and fear, anger and calm. Trust, pride, shame, and envy. Frustration, pity, kindness, and disgust. Sure, love is a big one but don’t forget the ones that rile you up (like passion) and those that bring you down.

Then add in characteristics that determine your actions. Aristotle called them virtues and said their development was the education of emotion. Integrity, humility, loyalty, and forgiveness. Compassion, generosity, ethics, and patience. These are greater than emotion by means of depth.

Dynamics

Along with various sensations there are many dynamics. Sensations are physical feelings (waterskiing), emotional feelings (laughing, crying), intellectual (learning, solving a problem), primal (hunger), and spiritual (ever watch Ghost Whisperer?). Dynamics are two-dimensional planes that we also operate on (see Taoist symbol).

Summary

Realizing you’re bound within a body is easy to imagine since you can only bend in certain ways. Seeing how you’re trapped within personality is a whole other affair. You can only do so much. Fortunately, we also have souls—and remember, everything gets explained to us at the end.

Plato said the mind can be broken into three: spirit, reason, and animal. Spirit is the soul (easy). Reason is what figures things out and decides how to live. And animals are for all-you-can-eat buffets. All three cover physical and emotional needs. The theory goes like this: souls enter this world by inhabiting a body and personality—just like boarding a car on a midway. Angels help you on, take the tickets, and buckle you in. Then you go through oodles of adventures and one day return to the mother ship (where they explain it to you).

Maybe not every person is covered by a soul, perhaps some are just actors. And maybe souls also exist within animals and objects. Who knows? In the meantime, everyone is going through similar sorts of events. Yes, everything isn’t exactly the same, it’s more like getting ten paints from a palate of twenty. But regardless of what you’re handed, it’s good to acknowledge that you’re living the human condition.

This concession is great for conversation, keeps your ego in check, and says don’t be a dolt. Dale Carnegie made a fortune by telling people about the first one. Maybe you’ll gain riches from all three. No matter, there’s lots to do.

Truth

Lots of people have trouble arguing these days, especially with so much to fight about. Some feel it’s a duel to the death and somehow family honour gets involved. They go after each other tooth and nail until somebody has to pull down their pants. It’s crazy. So here’s the news: arguing is the way to get closer to truth. You must engage.

If you want to get Greek about it, how do you think philosophy got started? Plato, Aristotle, and the boys were not geniuses. They just pushed each other until finding something worth writing down. And this pushing came mostly from friends (each other).

So fighting is good and a healthy way to spend time, but if done incorrectly you can lose pals. A situation that can be avoided by using three simple rules: social issues aren’t science, you must continually hone views, and an argument is never over. You keep fighting and honing until never reaching the end.

Science

In the world of science, whenever someone makes any sort of claim the community goes about its best to prove them wrong. Only after surviving this barrage of meticulous testing is any one claim deemed to be actual fact. But when it comes to social situations, how do we discover truth in the absence of certainty? There’s nothing to measure and we can’t generate tests that continually yield the same results.

Answer: the very same way. Do your best, put it up for examination, and wait for sparks to fly. Then after getting ripped apart a few times, jump back up and make adjustments. This way you get closer to rock solid. Yes, the process is frustrating but it’s the only way.

Honing

In comedy, you can’t get good unless you perform before small crowds. With large ones, there’s always some group that’s laughing. But with 20-30 people, you can hear the difference. Less than half isn’t the same as 75-90%—the line between A-jokes and B’s. But once you hone your act, roars will be thunderous back on the big stage.

Making an argument is the same sort of thing, you don’t just do it once. It’s not like writing a speech. With comedy you get to practice and perform, over and over. Now think of lawyers arguing the same case in multiplicity. Each time they present, statements can be refined until delivering only A-type material. Lots of work, but totally cool when done.

Approach

We’ve all seen TV courtrooms so we basically know the format. It’s not a verbal fist fight. We’re hosting a sensible discussion with some awesome points. But for seekers there’s a difference. Our lawyers aren’t just trying to win, we’re engineers searching for truth.

Write down allegations, address them one by one, and list agreed upon facts. Then when getting to the details, recognize the hard work. Not as entertaining as entertainment, but fun the same way. Defendants are usually charged with multiple counts, so settling one doesn’t finish the whole case. Participants should be respectful and try to agree. And it’s okay to table things. The goal isn’t about winning, it’s to better one’s truth.

What screws people up is emotion. Something a real court dismisses. So before starting any new fight please make a choice: are you looking for emotional validation or searching for truth? Because if it’s truth you desire, put feelings aside. Emotions cloud logic and cause PsD. No sense tackling an issue when your mind’s already made up.

Summary

People are dying to argue but we really don’t know how. There isn’t a common system and feelings get messed up. But for those who partake there’s one golden rule. No getting pissed off. If you enter the ring, be prepared for conflict. Not everyone sees things the same. And though we’ve been taught to be well-mannered, sometimes the gloves come off. It’s just the nature of the game. But in the end, it’s worth it. (And what else do you do when retired.)

Adversaries are not enemies, they’re friends. And nobody ever loses when both parties win.

An Irish argument differs because it’s mostly based in fun. The idea is to make everything up. But a genuine disagreement is more serious and a true test of will. Buddies get called out, which helps make the point. And pushing people to do better is one of the nicest things. So grab a shovel and come digging. We’re headed for the centre of the Earth. Sure we’ll never get there, but at least we’ll live trying.

Feminism

Established in the 1950s, we still have government programs dedicated to the advancement of women. Are these departments still worthy of public funding or is it time women should stand on their own? A good question that deserves an answer. Let’s start by defining the term weak. It can only result from three factors:

gender intelligence
cultural norms
nature

When it comes to the first, Jordan Peterson says there’s no difference between the sexes. He says guys are a little more this way and women a little more that, but on the whole, intellectual differences are negligible. So point number one is out.

Culture

Cultural norms were real, certainly in the 1800s, but are they still applicable today? Back in the day, large families were hosted on farms with men and women performing different duties. It goes without saying that both involved a lot of work, but men primarily did the farming while women helped out and then cared for the home. Once we got to the 80s, with women fully engaged in the workforce, those roles changed.

When discussing this new system within a mixed group, a fellow said, “In my house we use the rule of sidewalk in, sidewalk out.” (Referring to older style homes where a sidewalk dawned the front of every doorway. So guys cut lawns and trimmed bushes while gals vacuumed, etc.). A lady replied, “If my husband came home with that attitude I’d put a sidewalk right through our living room.” Times they were a changing.

There are many valid reasons for why things were the way they were. If men were responsible for family income, why wouldn’t they be the first to access education in a world with only limited spaces? And back then, nobody really had a problem with it. As a result, women were later to get the vote. But remember, as per the article on British History, there was never a time when all men could vote and all ladies could not. Achieving the vote was a gradual affair for both sexes. And in places like Wyoming, pioneer women were given the vote the day the state was incorporated (1869). Just like men (for state affairs).

The past is the past, and things have changed due to modernization. People of my age group bore witness to the second half of feminism. During my lifetime, women had equal access to education (for example, in my college residence there were 160 girls and 140 boys) and equal access to employment. As a result, women now dominate certain industries. For example, if you break business down into three categories: sales, product, and admin, you’ll see sales is 50/50, men dominate product, and women are the majority in admin.

On a side note, women dominate sales positions where the primary purchasers are female (e.g., household goods) and men dominate the area of industrial goods. So women sell to women and men sell to men. Currently, sales positions are evenly split, but there is a pay gap due to product positions paying better than admin. For example, entry level labour jobs in the construction industry pay better than entry level clerks at an insurance company.

Women in the 60s were often paid less for the same job (say, a store clerk) because certain employers felt the principle behind dual income families was somewhat cheating. That because a wife held a job, the family had an advantage that led to a nicer home. So some of this was straight discrimination and some was in response to the new society. And remember, most of the guilt early working mothers felt was not from hubby, it came from parents (especially, moms).

Anyway, the past is the past and here’s where we are. The greater majority no longer live on farms, there’s lots of room within education, everyone gets to vote, family sizes are smaller, and almost every kid is placed into daycare. We’ve arrived. So does Canadian culture now play any significant role in determining gender occupations or wages?

Many say no. That as gender bias was no longer required, it gradually washed itself out. And today we’re left with only nature to blame for various outcomes.

Nature

For those who agree, we have only the last alternative. That even though ladies are just as smart and now have equal opportunity, they’re somehow disadvantaged simply because they’re women. Good question which brings a divided answer.

Ask any of the new “female majority doctors or school principals” if they belong to the weaker sex and you’ll get a cuff in the head. They don’t appreciate the insult. But ask the not-so-successful in the workplace and you may get a different response. Which brings us back to the original question.

Alberta didn’t have a ministry for the advancement of women for 23 years before the NDP brought it back. Should it be back and what if the Conservatives (if elected) reverse this decision? To help with your opinion, consider the following:

there are just as many economically disadvantaged men (and they don’t have an agency)
a waitress makes more than a waiter
retail store clerks all make the same

Summary

Lots of talk these days about the patriarchy; mostly coming from postmodern feminists still trying to make change. They say modern society is a long way from ideal. Sure, equality of opportunity is good but we also need equality of outcome. Meaning girls should bring home the same paycheck as boys, regardless of work.

For them, administrative postings must be reclassified to generate the same pay as even dangerous positions that involve braving the elements, oftentimes out of town (e.g., construction jobs). And they may start asking female part-time workers to pick up their game to 40 hours just to make numbers look better for some professor.

So here’s the question. Where’s the report card and when will this whole affair be over? Are we 60% of the way there? 70%? 40%? And who’s in charge of making the final assessment? Is there going to be a referendum, voted on by only women, that eventually says enough?

There’s no question society has changed over the past 70 years and that much progress has been made. But sometimes these things go overboard, specifically when a cause doesn’t know when it’s finished. It’s easy to make gains in an affluent society when you have truth on your side. You just highlight an injustice and provide a viable solution. But once all that stuff is done, adversaries still need a job. Always a problem with issues.

Personally, I feel we’re there and don’t see a reason for reinstituting a provincial agency to promote women. But my voice counts only for one. What do you think?

The Corporate State

There’s a movement going on for companies to go beyond their regular duties. That in addition to providing goods and services they must also spend on social responsibility. Free marketers like Milton Friedman call this hogwash. Charitable contributions and furthering the public good aren’t suitable territories for business. Plus it’s your money, so John Q Public is being overcharged for undemocratic causes. A good question that’s only now coming to light.

Competition

Let’s start with the way it’s supposed to be, according to theory. Without a doubt, the coolest term in economics is creative destruction. It describes the role of competition. It says if company A makes a better widget, it will attract more customers and profits, then Company B must either adapt to this new condition or perish. Net result: better value for the consumer and greater efficiency for the system.

The competition model works well because business, in its quest for survival and profits, will always try to outmaneuver the other guy. Take for example what Costco has done to traditional retail. Their model, along with that of Amazon, reworked the way we receive goods. By providing similar products at lower prices, thousands of classic retailers have been destroyed because of diminishing market share. But this theory no longer works in some places. Take for example our big six banks. They’re technologically so adept that as soon as one gains any sort of advantage, the others quickly catch up. It’s like competition is only one step behind. So in reality, no big bank in Canada is going to fail. (And if so, just one.)

The business world has matured and its landscape has changed. In many sectors, this paradigm has secured a number of players success and guaranteed gain. For example, Tesla can enter the car market but the other 6-7 organizations are there for good. One may drop off, but based on Tesla’s results the others will simply adapt. So many of the enterprises you know today in industries like, oil and gas, power generation, materials, automotive, banking, transportation, and insurance are here for good. Bottom line: creative destruction doesn’t always get to do its thing.

History

Before continuing with our new system, let’s take a look at the past. Back in the day, corporations had to compete for their dough. There wasn’t room for excessive profits because everyone had to sell for as low as they could. People didn’t have the money to overpay for anything and emotional quality hadn’t yet been invented. It was a different time.

But as things progressed, people stopped caring about absolute price and wild-style competition. Together this all but guaranteed certain industries gains. Customers started to pay crazy amounts for designer t-shirts and the number of actors in certain spaces started to shrink (i.e., mergers and acquisitions). So in certain markets, a limited number of players now charge higher than required “market prices.” Prices that people are now willing to pay.

Without full competition and money sensitive consumers, no one is pressuring down price. So if you don’t care, they don’t care — and some establishments are really raking it in. All of which has led us to social business warriors calling for a cut.

Co-opolies

In certain industries, dominant players now act as cooperative monopolies. Formerly known as oligopolies, these huge corporations perform in mature industries protected from destruction (thereby guaranteed above appropriate returns). This is the current state of capitalism. So here’s the issue: should banks be able to bill you an extra nickel every time you incur a charge and then donate it away; or should they offer the lowest possible price and let you decide what to do with the savings?

Milton says lowest possible price. It’s not the bank’s money nor is it their position to choose. New economic thinking says that extra nickel isn’t there for the sake of some cause. It’s the consequence of operating without full competition so they were going to overcharge you anyway. As a result, why not take a piece of the profits.

Social responsibility

New economic thinking has won and certain organizations had to agree. New rulers then laid down the law. We’ll continue with the current system as long as you agree to the following:

Pay your people well, to ensure a middle class (see Unions)
Create a charitable foundation, to direct money where governments can’t go
Align your corporate message with the established social direction

Pretty serious stuff. As a result, Amazon has raised its minimum wage to $15/hour, Costco is at $14, and Walmart’s on its way past $11. All without public intervention. And don’t forget white collar wages. Second and third, every big company now has a foundation and the universal message in advertising is consistent. (Everywhere!)

Summary

Free market theory should always be respected, even when it doesn’t apply. But the business scene has changed and ol’ Milton is dead. He’s right that charity is not the natural disposition of commerce. Business is designed to make money (and destroy). We don’t like to think about the other guy. But in an economically advanced system, certain organizations are no longer justifiably self-serving units. They need to play a larger role in the world.

Corporations have been given social responsibility and are now in charge — just as much as governments. And they’re superseding government in many ways. Business controls wads of cash and is loaded with talent. What a great idea to merge efficiency and practicality with the emotions of do-gooders? Better approach against problems and it’ll teach companies to love. (Not a bad plan, when they have all the money.)

There’s a saying “the quickest way to profits is to overcharge customers or underpay staff.” It’s a tradition well known. Woke corporations are now undertaking their post. Gracefully run a co-opoly with all the responsibilities that entails. The new forward. And don’t worry, they’ll never build an army, administer legalities, or take control of currency. Governments will always play their part. One that’s dutifully defined. (As long as we keep an eye on them.)

Corporate Tax

Lots of talk these days about corporate tax rates. Since everyone is chatting, let’s take a moment to blow your mind. Corporate taxes aren’t what you think and the philosophy behind them is changing. Let’s start with an income statement.

A standard statement looks like this: after sales are recorded and expenses are paid, you’re left with two values: “profit before tax” and “profit after tax.”

Income	100 million
Expenses	50 million
Profit Before Tax	50 million
Tax (at 26%)	13 million
Profit After Tax	37 million

Which number do you think corporations manage to? It’s profit after tax. So when the Royal Bank does its forecasting they see financials like this: in essence managing tax like any other expense.

Income	100 million
Expenses	63 million
Profit	37 million

This means tax is factored into price just like any other cost. So if taxes go up, prices go up. And if taxes come down, so does price. It seems strange at first but you’ll see that corporate taxation is just like adding GST. Companies don’t actually pay it, people do.

History

The Canadian tax system, both personal and corporate, started in 1917. Before then, government got its funding from import duties and excise taxes (on items like fuel, booze, and cigarettes). In the early days (up to the 60s and 70s), combined provincial and federal rates on large corporations was in the neighbourhood of 48%. This rate has since dropped to around 27% (it varies by province) and we now have GST—so you could add another 5.

It’s not that governments are dumb, we’re still learning. And the field of economics is rather new so theories continue to evolve. Corporate taxes are inflationary because they get hidden within consumer price. That’s why they’re being reduced. If the government increases taxes, companies simply increase price. And if taxes go down, the market system says prices do too. In the end, it’s just a rate of money collected by business for government. Companies don’t actually pay it.

Government services get paid for by you, the public. That’s it. There is no magic bullet. And you can either contribute through income tax or pay at the pump.

GST

The practice of value-added taxation, which Canada borrowed from abroad, is also quite interesting. GST is a good idea. Why? Because it doesn’t matter if companies make a profit. Nor does it care if you use fancy loopholes on your individual return. There’s no way around it. The idea behind a value-added tax is brilliant and its worldwide adoption is growing.

Summary

Everything is a balancing act with taxation no exception. Canadian governments have a number of ways to collect revenue to ensure services get paid. Our multi-faceted approach works well and our system is tight. You can always argue about lowering rates but the structure is sound.

Our friends to the south are different. They recently reduced corporate tax rates, coming in line with modern economic thinking. The reasoning was to make America more competitive in a global world. The old system was blocking them from doing business internationally because foreign customers didn’t want to pay for American healthcare. So making this move was the right thing to do. Now what they need is some form of GST. Just wait for that fight.