About the SNC-Lavalin Mess in Progress

[dewline]

It looks to me like Trudeau, Butts, Wernick, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould all have legitimate reason to believe they're telling the truth to the best of their understanding and legal capacity to do given the oaths and contracts and such they're all working under.

I have my suspicions as to what sort of life experience Wilson-Raybould's had that led her to suspect the worst from second one of the request to change portfolios.

Comments

[notasupervillain]

When the King says "yeah I said will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest but honestly I never meant that as undue pressure" ... I tend not to believe him. Especially when the King is Justin, and has been known to interpret reality in his favour before.

That said, please can this be enough of a fig leaf for him to win the next election? I'll vote for his party. My issue set is now down to "not racist, not purposefuly destroying the economy, cares about climate change at least a little bit" and the Liberals still tick those boxes. I'm scared of Andrew replacing him, as he only ticks one of the three.

[sabotabby]

I'm dead curious to know which box?

(Slightly sarcastic, as I'm guessing the second one, but the pattern always seems to be that the economy worsens under conservative governments because loathe as I am as a Marxist to admit it, Keynes was right about a lot of things.)

[notasupervillain]

The Canadian right-wing might damage the economy by accident, sure, but they're not nearly as inventive as the Brits or the Americans.

Not yet, anyway.

(Of course it's obvious when you say it, but I hadn't considered that anyone would attack Keynes from his left flank, I'm so used to the objections coming from the austerity crowd.)

[sabotabby]

I'm softer on Keynes than most far-left types, but teal deer is that it works in a limited capacity but doesn't overcome the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. And in practical terms, as long as capital accumulates in fewer and fewer hands, Keynesian economics is always a temporary measure even though I'll accept the argument that from a purely economic point-of-view (i.e., economists seldom question the problem of limitless growth and what it means for the planet), it generates the most prosperity for the most people.

[notasupervillain]

To be fair, my knowledge of Keynes ends with Econ 1102, but I was never taught him as anything other than a way to get out of recessions. Which his theory is great at. If he proposed any solutions to the problems of wealth concentration, I never learned about those. It's not really a problem that increased government spending without commensurate increased taxation is designed to fix.

[moon_custafer]

Not an economist, so I’ll admit my reaction to any mention of Keynes is to visualize this rather nice sketch of him as a young man that was in a book on portraiture that I used to have.