The Globe and Mail’s article “Higher Mortgage Rates Would Hit Households Hard: BMO” is centered around a survey conducted recently by the Bank of Montreal. The survey suggests that nearly seventy five percent of Canadian households would be under financial pressure if mortgage rates were to increase “modestly.” This places a the Bank of Canada governor in a tricky situation. Low interest rates are said to be the cause of the nation’s high debt levels, but increasing the rates could diminish economic growth.

This is an extremely troubling situation for Canadians. Low rates have allowed many homeowners to get into the market but just barely. Jim Flaherty, Finance Minister, tightened the rules around mortgage this past summer in this Vancouver Sun article. This restricts the market, but it keeps consumers out of debt. Nearly all those surveyed said debt was a major issue for Canada. If low rates are the cause for debt, then rates should be raised, right? But with sixteen percent of homeowners saying they would be on the brink of being unable to afford their homes if rates were raised, this poses a huge ethical dilema. Raise rates to keep potential consumers out of debt or keep rates low to help existing debt carriers manage their finances?

This Time article sparks some interesting thoughts on sports team worldwide. Sport teams have a certain prestige about them and people have always been willing to pay big bucks to say they own a team. However, prices may finally have hit a ceiling. Many of the big players in the owners world are getting out and selling their teams. Philip Anschutz, owner of the NBA NHL and MLS team in Los Angeles, Randy Lerner former owner of the Cleveland Browns, John Henry, owner of the Red Sox and Liverpool, have either sold or are looking to sell their teams. These men are considered some of the savviest in their business. Prices of teams are up 11% from a year ago while the economy is in a weak state causing some unease as to when they may topple, and the relationship between management and labour in the sports world is consider to be the worst in business. These factors are making some predict that prices might swing the other way.

It’s always been fascinating to me about how much money is involved in the sports world. The sports market is an interesting one. People are always willing to pay enormous prices to watch sports live, and with no competition besides the other team, the market is always there for you. People even pay large Pay Per View charges to watch sports on TV. It’s an incredibly isolated market.

In a post on Jeremy Sugden’s blog, he speaks of an ethical law decision related to business. Should whistleblowers be exempt and free from any charges that they are confessing and giving evidence to? Jeremy refers to an article from the Washington Post in which one man blow the whistle on a Swedish Bank that was helping American clients evade taxes. He was part of such activities until he came forward. The IRS rewarded him with $104 million but he was sentenced to three years in prison for his actions.

It’s quite an interesting dilemma. The IRS has a reward system in place to encourage people to come forward and yet the US judicial system will prosecute you if you do come forward. It appears rather contradictory. I suppose there are incidences when people have never participated in the activities they are giving evidence towards, but you would imagine the best evidence and the best witnesses would be the ones highest up and most involved in the illicit actions. I think it would be best for whistleblowers to be free from any charges as jail is a strong deterrent to stay quiet. At the same time, I believe the reward is crucial because people could stay at their job and make money instead of the reward. If they come forward, the company certainly won’t want them back as an employee and now they are out of a job and money.