Let there be no doubt, Trump is the symptom, not the problem. Vance is the President in Waiting (I predict he will be POTUS after the November elections), and he will be far worse then Trump ever could be. Trump is knee-jerk, Vance is cold and calculating.
But the good news is, based on the mud-slinging the Republican party is doing, they are really. really afraid they will lose the Senate AND the House in November, and they are trying to shore up support in America for their failed policies. They really, really need this trade deal, and Carney knows it. Unless they get a trade deal before November, the American political scene will look very, very different.
…neoliberal doesn’t mean, “Federal Liberal Party of Canada.” It is a set of politics that emerged in the late 20th century which rearticulates the classical liberal, “laissez-faire” rationalizations for massive wealth stratification and privatization of public works as an attack on the more welfare liberal policies and programs of the post-depression era. Reagan is the most famous advocate for this form of economic policy and is often (wrongly) credited for its formulation. It is characterized not by “small government” as many of its advocates say, but by the privatization of previously state-owned or operated programs and services. Canada’s “mixed” economy is a great example of this form of policy exactly because it follows the philosophy that public capital is more efficiently spent through private hands, or at the very least through the logics of capitalist efficiency. So, when you see Conservative and Liberal governments defunding say, education or medical in favour of privatized “efficiency,” that is an element in neoliberal politics. Or, when you consider that Carney’s “sovereignty” fund is essentially a funnel moving public wealth into privately owned fossil fuel and mining corporations. With that in mind, it means that even policies related to business are subject to the capitalist imperatives of profit maximization, infinite growth, and simply the private wealth interests of individual policy makers.
So, I’m not sure why the Avro Arrow project failed, but I know it was cancelled in 1959, roughly a decade and a half before the neoliberal era that I am describing. From what I recall, the second proposal during the Harper admin was cut due to to concerns over cost, which would potentially reflect neoliberal rhetoric, but I don’t know enough about aircraft design to speculate on whether that was a realistic estimate of it. But, the fact that Canada does supply its airforce with an assortment of privately owned companies for British-, Euro-, and American-made planes exemplifies how investment in those companies also creates an incentive for any investors in the admin to vote against a nationalized project.
Look up terms before you say shit like this or presume to know better than others when you clearly should be questioning how you understand these things.
Edit: Notice how they didnt comment under this one, but rather my response to a different commenter.
Avro failed because it was overtime, over budget and even if they did finish it, it was already out of date.
And then Eisenhower told Deifenbaker to shut it all down. The PC party always represents US interests in Canada. Mulroney then sold off Canadian assets and sucked Reagan harder than Nancy.