Articles & Analysis

• how to budget patriotically
• what we are doing
• what could be done
• and how to position yourself for best outcomes

Thesis question:

What is the correlation between the increase of pages in federal regulation and the change in real GDP per capita in Canada  from 2019 to 2023 and is the relationship stronger than the relationship of interest rates and productivity. 

Hypothesis:

I hypothesise that as regulations increase in volume the GDP per capita will decrease and will have a negative correlation, and a larger negative correlation than CORRA (canadian overnight repo rate) interest rates correlation on gdp

Subquestions:

1. Will increases in provincial regulation correlate with decreases in labour productivity (measured as real provincial GDP per capita per hour worked), suggesting that higher regulatory burdens negatively impact both business performance and worker productivity?
2. Has real canadian gdp declined with regulation pages increasing
3. Will interest rates have a stronger correlation to the impact of GDP per capita

Defining population:  The population I am looking into is the population of Canada, populations of the provinces of ALB, SK , NL, BC, ONT ,QC, MB, NB, NS, PEI and the gdp of each province, the provincial average time of working and the federal gdp. I will also be taking the data for the Canadian overnight repo rate average. This data sample will span from 2020- 2024.

  Now that the number of regulations is standardized per 1000 people it shows a weak negative correlation of higher productivity being associated with lower regulation. Originally PEI had the fewest total regulations with low productivity. When considering the regulation per 1000 people of those in pei it has the highest regulatory burden per capita and lowest productivity. ⅔ of the most regulated have low productivity, out of the top 3 least regulated provinces, ontario alberta and BC all three have high productivity. 

Comparing the correlation coefficients:

Analyzing the number of regulations to the productivity of provinces alone showed almost no correlation with a weak positive bias (0.121 from the excel but I calculated 0.145)

Analyzing the number of regulations per 1000 people to the provinces productivity shows a moderate negative correlation( -0.496). This can prove that regulations per 1000 people to provinces productivity is more strongly correlated than the latter and that high regulatory burden can hinder a province’s economic productivity. 

What is the average productivity per province and what is considered above average. 

To find the answer for this I calculated the central tendency and spread and standard deviation.

Knowing that 68% of the provinces should be within one standard deviation (mean+or- standard deviation. That means the range to fall into one standard deviation is 50.09$/hr to 71.27$/hr

Now lets compare and see which provinces are below and above the line 

The provinces above: ALB, SK

Within: NL,BC,ONT QC, MB,NB

Provinces below: NS,PEI

Has real canadian gdp declined with Amount of national regulations increasingFederal reg to gdp

Table:

Graph: showing a strong negative correlation of productivity as regulations increase and a bar graph showing how much regulations have been increasing over 4 years since 2020

Calculation: line of best fit by 2030 we will have this many regulations and this will be our gdp

Conclusion: As regulations have shown to be increasing dramatically since 2020 to 2024 we have seen a strong negative correlation with national productivity. This can prove that an increase in regulation might have impacted productivity as my hypothesis proves. This can be true as increased regulation requires businesses to increase working hours on non gdp increasing activities causing a reduction in productivity ( dollars earned / hour of work federally) as a result.

Will interest rates have a stronger correlation to the impact of GDP per capitaInterest rate data

Table

Graph:

Conclusion: this graph looking at the correlation of average interest rates with productivity nationally shows that as interest rates increase the productivity of the country decreases as well. 

Scatter plot to find correlation:

Correlation coefficient for interest rate impact on federal productivity= 0.827

While the correlation coefficient for regulation increasing on federal productivity is 0.9984. 

With this data we can assume that the increase in regulation is more impactful to the productivity of our economy.

Comparing interest rates is important because that is the main tool to encourage and deter consumer spending and business investment into the economy. Lower interest rates show more productivity but I believe the manipulation of rates may work in tandem with a reduction of regulation during economic down turns to stimulate the economy through more encouragement of business investment especially if the correlation is seem to be larger than traditional attempts with interest rate manipulations. 

They both achieve the same goal of when inflation is high and governments want to regulate consumer spending and business investment. With regulation increases businesses are less likely to invest and expand due to an decrease of income per working hour decreasing productivity and slowing the economy and GDP output. This is seen by the dropping productivity correlations. When Interest rates increase, businesses are less likely to take out debt to further invest into the economy, slowing the economy shown by the dropping productivity. When inflation is low and the government wants to encourage business investment into the economy, lowering business regulations and interest rates are both shown to do that effectively as seen by increased productivity in both cases. This study showed that regulation nationally may have a stronger correlation and can be used as a government tool to stimulate or dampen productivity.

Conclusion: 

 I used three different questions to answer whether or not an excess of regulation was harming the GDP of Canada and whether or not controlling regulation can impact the economy the same way that interest rates do. My graphs showed the negative correlations between the amount of regulation and the productivity of different provinces. 

Biases that were presented were a lack of yearly data to make my findings consistent and more reputable. There are also so many different factors that could impact a gdp that more specifically correlated field studies on industries that are directly impacted by regulation would be stronger for correlation factors.

For the future I think I need to do a controlled focus of a whole province like New Brunswick or many small towns where we remove the concept of debt and interest and remove it completely with increases and decreases of bureaucracy. For this to work I would need to quantify how much increasing and decreasing regulation would impact my controlled group so I can assume future impacts. Could there be loan sharks of paperwork and bureaucracy? I want to operate a small town like Ottawa and make it like Singapore (which is 74$ usd/hr of productivity while Canada is at 54$/hr usd) shifting the sample group away from debt and towards a productivity based future. I think I need more of an economist’s education to fully understand the intricacies of what that would entail and how politics and society beliefs play a role.  

Culture moves markets. It’s not logic, not models, it’s narrative. And this is a concept companies like Apple have been using for decades to increase productivity.

what is torontonian culture? explain why it is awkward and beautiful and not stuck up and human and community driven but still a bit socially awkward. some victorian houses but we arent affraid to put random bits of modernisim. even if it dodesnt match our shoes

 A friend and I were having a debate about the current stagnation of national productivity when he made these arguments.

“It’s the endowment effect of living in a first world country, even if you replace what was lost, the fire is still going to rage.”

And, when I asked “If that’s the case then why don’t people work harder

“When there is no reason to keep going, economic incentive is always going to fail.” 

Anybody who has commented over archingly on economics throughout the centuries will always tell you “this is like a time like no other.” and in every other extent i would disagree except in the case of wide spread discouragement. 

The hierarchy of needs can be considered to understand the mental narrative of a person who has the potential of productivity but fails to meet that potential.

1. Survival state: When physiological and safety needs are not met collective productivity is not considered
2. Pessimistic state: When there is no external validation and reason to endure struggle, why struggle for great feets. 
3.  Productivity is created from the sages esteem and hyper productivity from self actualization 

Surprisingly, sitting next to us was someone in mark carneys political campaign who gave us some insight to how incentives are 

When things arent garuneened housing and girlfriend endowment – if something is lost even fi you replace it the fire is still going to reage- they wont be content

• This can only helped with alignment group alignment- polarization increase- calms the internal fire – reasons to live and reasons 
• People want a dictortr, king, rally, calm the fire, 
• If there is no reason to keepgoing something is going to break

Politics has been the scapegoat from individual accountability for a long time, so of course you are disappointed, you havent been contributing.  Re working your frame of mind not only increases the opportunities available to you, but to your community. 

Every founder I talk to in any industry all struggle in hiring quality. There is a quantity in the applications, but hiring the people who they feel they can trust to delegate something attached to their brand is tough. A large conglomerates profit reduction if quality is not met is drastically smaller than someone whos brand revolves around them. 

Today a friend and I were debating the root cause of discouraged workers, and for the past 3 years, this topic seems to be something we can never agree on.

 He compared  the needs of an individual to a candle where an individual candle is often small and pleasant but a group of candles all with different smells clashing together, all fighting to be the main scent is intolerable. He explained how people are insatiable, always fighting for a cause that at the end of the day was pointless. 

There is an untapped market hidden inconspicuously within Ontario that can greatly impact the lives of its most marginalized communities at risk of adversity related to poverty. Unlike cultivation with other materials, this market has leaves no negative environmental impact, improves the average Ontarian’s security of life, and could bring in 54 million CAD into the hands of those who are at risk of homelessness, drug abuse, and exploitation. To be able to retrieve this untapped potential, I am proposing for immediate consideration of legalizing the profit incentive for organ donation within Toronto Ontario.

The human body is capable of greatness, creating life, and inventing never-before-seen technology. Yet the human body has been under restriction from its full potential within today’s society. Time and time again, new situations are brought upon us and we adapt, it’s the basis of evolution and how we got to where we are right now. When there’s an economic issue that has increasingly been jeopardizing Torontonians livelihoods, we must evolve.

Toronto always seems to always be facing an uphill battle between supply and demand. Where there is a housing crisis, red tape and arbitrage in our parliamentary and regulatory system pushes any solution far from the hands of those who need it. Millions of Torontonians are healthy candidates, but there is always a wait list longer than people on it can afford.  There is not an issue of a lack of supply within living organ donations, but there is little incentive to donate. 

The system I propose would resemble much of the current organ donation system, with the addition of adding monetary incentive to those donating as a private payment between the two parties. OHIP and insurances would cover the procedure as the current system does, and within the two parties, a payment of municipally regulated prices up that could be upwards of in the tens of thousands of taxable income would be paid to the doner. On top of adding taxable income to feed into our public support systems, we have reduced wait times on the list of those who need donations, but must rely on the public system to better conditions. This system does not replace the current public waitlist of individuals looking for donations, but will relieve the long list wait times by allowing those who have the means to take matters into their own hands. This hybrid of public and private makes it so everyone has the freedom to choose life in a safe and government-regulated way. No one wants or should have to die knowing you could have survived if there was just intervention.  

Adding that financial incentive adds equivalent or greater value to many Ontarian lives. In today’s economy, money feels like it’s directly attached to human survival. Young adults exiting post-secondary education have been stretching themselves thin on a survival basis trying to pay off unprecedented levels of student debt in recent years (Statistics Canada, 2020). All while managing the high cost of living in Ontario, the quality of life drops significantly with this burden. The financial post has been warning us since the beginning of September 2024 how student housing has not kept up with the student demand increasing the cost of housing. Only 10% of students who need student housing receive it. Many students choose to take on predatory payday loans and lines of credit just to survive.  

With your support, you would be able to support your citizens who are already the most vulnerable in society. CBC describes this as the “‘Gateway Debt’, that perpetuates social inequality and prevents people from achieving financial independence” (2023). When debt is paid off, young adults can set themselves up for a financially stable future. Young people can begin investing in the markets for their retirement to grow their wealth. Would you rather a college student become homeless, or let the student exercise their right to bodily autonomy for their and others guaranteed prosperity? The increase of money in the economy will drastically become apparent when our freedom to autonomy is legalized. Assuming all of the 1400 people on the live organ transplant list currently were to be given their organs for a payment of fifty thousand dollars, that equals roughly 54 million dollars into the economy and 54 million dollars used to help our most vulnerable communities. Even a fraction of that potential is great. 

Addressing the concerns that this system can lead to the exploitation of the lower class as they are most likely to be attracted to such incentives. The issue of exploitation comes into play when the seller’s incentive is overshadowed by third-party greed. When a potential seller sells through an unprotected and unregulated system, organ brokers leave the seller short-changed while the broker turns a larger profit to their clients. The Candian Health Act being a non-profit system inherently protects the safety of the seller as the power is left completely in their hands and no one but them has the incentive to sell. Every powerful Canadian health organization understands the lives on the line and wants immediate intervention to supply the demand for organs. Adding the compensation component won’t risk the safety of Canadians or the nonprofit system of the Canada Health Act. The incentive will complement the Canada Health Act when it gets over-strained when demand exceeds supply. As for safety, The government of Canada themselves says that, “Research suggests that individuals living in low income have a lower life expectancy, have higher rates of suicide and are more likely to suffer from diseases affecting the heart, chronic conditions and mental health issues” (2022). Comparatively, John Hopkins Medicine explains how “living organ donations do not change life expectancy” (2024). It seems that living in poverty caries more of a risk to health than incentivised donations.

Incentivizing organ donation is not exploitation, but freedom. It is the definition of Canadian freedom to be in charge of one density, financial freedom from predatory high-interest debt, and freedom to know that if needed, support won’t be waitlisted. To remove the freedom is to judge the people’s ability to make the right decision for themselves. It’s patronizing to not only the citizens of Ontario but also the government you forged throughout your time in office. There are no victims in defended autonomy. 

As a reasonable man yourself, in the practical sense, the choice is undeniably clear. The benefits of giving the gift of life with receiving an incentive trump any of the little potential risks to the seller. An Individual should have the choice to actively participate or not participate in this system and should not be penalized for choosing their prosperity. It is now up to you to see if you can hold up to your commitment of Ontario first.

Complexity should not drive us away from prosperity. The reform the people are looking for lies in your hands, and I encourage you to go where no one has gone before. With the resources available to you, the ability to directly and indirectly, save lives and set up your citizens for prosperity has never been closer to a reality. We can make the right decision and cement ourselves forever in Canadian politics as relentless for Torontos greatness.

Goal: Corperate income tax that could be reduced to zero, government funded interns