Canada's budget officer sees 8.5% drop in GDP
Mr. Page told the House of Commons finance committee that, based on private-sector forecasts and his own assessments, he expected GDP to contract by about 8.5% in the first quarter of 2009 and by 3.5% in the second quarter.
In the budget, the government cited private-sector forecasters as saying GDP would shrink by 0.8% in 2009 as a whole.
"We provided a different, more detailed outlook for the first half of this year because we think that what we're seeing now is actually historic, in terms of quarter to quarter declines," Mr. Page told the committee.
A different outlook?? Nowhere in the article does it quote the source of Page's numbers. Or is he just pulling numbers out of his butt. I went to a source called Statistics Canada, here is a historical look at what has been happening to our GDP.
Here is what he said about the 4th quarter GDP for 2008:
OTTAWA -- Canada's economic performance in the fourth quarter of 2008 was actually much worse than suggested by a 3.4% decline in gross domestic product, the parliamentary budget officer said Wednesday.
We can see the breakdown of 2008 into quarters by Stats Canada:
He said our GDP decreased by 3.4% in the fourth quarter of 2008, Statistics Canada says it decreased by .8%, he is nitpicking the worst number and ignoring the less scary data. When you look at the data, our GDP increased by .5% in 2008. The guy is counting on Canadians being stupid. He wants more money for his department, I suggest this is not the way to get it.
What is this guy smoking, even in 2008 the GDP was positive, yet the guy is telling us that GDP WILL decline by 8.5% in the first quarter of 2009??? If he was from BC, I would think that he was smoking some of that BC Bud. Then he goes on to predict/scare us by saying it will further decline by 3.5% in the next quarter? That means from January to June of this year, our GDP will decline by 12%. Holy space cadet, the guy should be fired for shear stupidity.
44 comments:
Just wanted to beat the trolls here this a.m., but Page's budget has been reduced by one million dollars. He comes from the finance dept, but I think he is another liberal trouble maker. I know, PMSH appointed him. I will say that on ctv late news, Tom asked, how can we believe him when he says he doesn't get all the information from the govt.
Fife replied with something he thought was smart.
Where to begin...
"He said our GDP decreased by 3.4% in the fourth quarter of 2008, Statistics Canada says it decreased by .8%"
You conveniently left out the following explanation from StatsCan:
The change is the growth rate from one period to the next. The annualized change is the growth rate compounded annually. The year-over-year change is the growth rate of a given quarter compared with the same quarter in a previous year.
You keep comparing apples and Canada Geese. Historial (or in your case hysterical GDP) does not predict future GDP!
My mother had a saying: Better to keep you mouth shut and thought of as stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt.
But, how is Page's info supposed to be a surprise. We're in a global recession so of course our GDP will decrease. Kevin Page's star is quickly fading, unfortunately.
"Kevin Page's star is quickly fading, unfortunately."
What do you base this on?
Page was appointed by the CPC but he was a senior bureaucrat in the Finance Dept. To get there he would have had to be in the Civil Sevice for many years and go through many promotions.
It is not too great a leap to assume that most of his tenure was under Liberal Governments, his promotion would have been Liberal ones and his affinity is most likely Liberal.
The CPC took a chance and he turned out to be a sleeper weapon for the Liberals, activated only after it was too late to reverse the decision. Cheers.
SQ - I have two eyes, two ears, and a brain. It's easy to see. In time, you may see it, as well.
"But, how is Page's info supposed to be a surprise."
Since when was surprise part of Page's job description East?
That's a weak thought strawman you have going there.
"We're in a global recession so of course our GDP will decrease."
Stating the obvious? Great analysis. Much more astute than Hunter, who doesn't even bother with such basic factoids.
"Kevin Page's star is quickly fading, unfortunately."
Drive it home with unfounded nonsense.
Way to go!
We've talked about Page before in these threads. I support him and his work. Why view the guy as a Liberal "sleeper weapon"? When you could write to economist PMSH and ask him to account for the discrepancies between Page's critique the Conservative "action plan"? Accountability friends, accountability. You either reason it out or you take it on faith.
I love how you some think you are neutral and objective if you regurgitate Harper's view but must be a Liberal if you disagree.
When across the world but definitely also in Canada most economists, the IMF, most large investors, the current and the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Conservatives' own Budget Chief, etc etc etc are saying it is going to get much worse before it gets any better... well, the only obvious thing we can conclude is that the cash poor Liberals have bought off all of these analysis.
Much better to deliberately misread Statistics Canada website information. Or at least easier.
How dare they disagree with Harper's efforts to get re-elected, er, I mean, with the predictions of our self-declared "economist" Prime Minister. I mean, don't they know that Harper once got a degree in economics almost 20 years ago?
Forget that none of his economic predictions have ever been even close to correct. This time (as in what he said last week, he must be right. Because he's the Prime Minister. And he has a degree. In economics. That is less than 30 years old.
Actually, all kidding aside, Harper did once get a political-economic prediction correct. Nearly twenty years ago, Mr. Harper then only a student economist wrote the following in his 1991 Economics MA thesis:
“Aggressive government intrusions into the free-market economy should be avoided because they are usually just political ploys for re-election."
He got that one bang on as it applies to today's federal government.
Come to think of it, that is a very very long time between instances of getting it. Are we going to have to wait just as long for him to get it right again? Good thing he's not going to be given even one more year to get it wrong again. The time on this government is mercifully quickly counting down.
SQ - I have two eyes, two ears, and a brain.
OK, well that's a relief. We have now established that East of Reality is indeed some form of animal, fish or fowl, all other evidence to the contrary.
And I know what you are all immediately thinking, that having a brain is contra-indicative of being a Conservative, but I have long maintained that the scientific consensus on this biological theory overstates the case. I think the mere physical presence of a brain is consistent with being a Conservative. It is the lack of use of the brain that indicates the existence of that increasingly rare specicies of homo Conservititus.
Tomorrow`s lesson: whether conservatives and Conservatives are separate species that sometimes interbreed for better control of taxpayer funds for personal pork or whether they are merely different breeds of the same species. Much new evidence has come to light in this regard in the United States and Canada.
Ouch. The silence is deafening. Should we expect some well reasoned responses to Ted and SQ?
Come on gang, you're always crying about the lefty trolls who lack all ability to present intelligence and facts to the discussion.
Let's hear what you've got besides
" PM Harper is knows all, sees all and will be PM forever and ever and ever..."
"Ouch. The silence is deafening. Should we expect some well reasoned responses to Ted and SQ?"
This will happen when Hunter has a discussion about why Dear Leader thinks we can't win in Afghanistan. Follow shortly after about Conservative responsibility.
Hunter, great post.
Page came out with predictions/reports just before and one after the government budget in January.
Perhaps someone with the time and smarts could compare Page reports to Page reports.
I am betting, David Page's reports have changed dramatically too,
along with the IMF and every economist that thinks they are smarter than the other.
Saw a clip of Page at the committee hearing. He was shaking Mulcair's hand with McCallum at his side.
Boy are the opps ever enjoying this!
The $1M cut, if I remember right, was actually a revised 'increase' and it is the Parliamentary Library that sets Page's budget,
not the Government.
'The silence is deafening. Should we expect some well reasoned responses to Ted and SQ?'
Well Martin, first a person would have to read the posts from these trolls....which most of us don't.
Ignore
ignore
ignore,
until they are banned.
Oh, it's bad, really bad.
No really, bad, bad, bad.
10% unemployment
bankruptcies
food banks, welfare, employment insurance....
Yet Canadians remain optimistic!
Oh my, why are all Iffy's efforts to make PMSH wear this recession, not working?
Why can't the 2 David's break Canadian spirit? (Page and Dodge)
Could it be that Canadians are not stupid?
Wilson you sound just like that COn MP from Burlington:
"How come you didn't show us any positive stuff that Canada's doing?" Conservative MP Mike Wallace said. "We're in better shape, wouldn't you agree, than our American friends? Is there a reason that you've only showed us the negative?"
Since when is it cool to be doing better than some other country's crappy economy? Since when would someone hired to provide Parliament with expert independent analysis, need a reason to report bad or disturbing news?
PMSH and honcho Minister James Moore
directly responsible for 800 jobs lost at CBC. I'd say Canadians know who's wearing the recession.
BTW I believe it's courteous and customary to shake hands with people at the conclusion of business. How would you propose the ministers behave toward one another?
"I mean, with the predictions of our self-declared "economist" Prime Minister"
I think he has a piece of paper from an actual University that also declares him to be so.
* BA - University of Calgary 1985
* MA - University of Calgary 1991
Also his "predictions" have actually been right on.
http://www.dose.ca/news/story.html?id=a2b500e4-558a-4475-a15f-f6a69d4e857e
Remember back then he was being called "pessimistic" by you and your ilk?
Alberta Girl, you are just too funny.
So the guy has a piece of paper from almost two decades ago showing he was a student in economics. Did he hold a single job ever as an economist? Has he ever published a single paper in economics? Did he teach a single economics class? Would you hire a doctor or an engineer or even an auto mechanic because they had a 20 year old piece paper saying they went to school and nothing since then????? Oh, it is to laugh.
And then you trot out this too repeated "we are going to face challenging times" as evidence of his great economic ability. I would definitely not called him overly pessimistic back then. In my work, I was already seeing an economic tsunami in the works in the US (something conservatives like SDA blamed on the media).
Yet, when things actually started showing some signs of being challenging, when it mattered, Harper starts spouting that we will "never" have a recession or a deficit (we were already in deficit) and there are "good buying opportunities out there", then a few weeks later we "will have a recession" but will have a surplus, then a few weeks later we "may have a depression" and likely (likely?!) a deficit, then a few weeks later a record setting deficit even Trudeau would not have allowed, then it's merely a "cyclical downturn" and we are already on the way out.
This guy is all over the map. Very disconnected with reality and with the lives of ordinary Canadians. When we needed clarity and leadership, we got Harper instead.
I don't think Dear Leader ever had a real job, did he? Working for "wingnut welfare" doesn't count.
Nope. He's a career politician/pundit.
Come to think of it, it's almost as if the current administration is AGAINST expertise.
The PM appointed a chiropractor to be the Minister of Science and Technology. The Heritage Minister recently had trouble identifying Atom Egoyan with The Sweet Hereafter, (no slight knowledge of Canadian Culture deficit there) Canada's Minister of International Trade and the Asia-Pacific Gateway is qualified because...? No experts here, to name a few. But perhaps there is something unique they each bring to their job we should know about.
I suppose we could all engage in a 'he said' 'we said' debate..but, in due time we will see whose prediction was right.Will it be the fear mongers, or the ones with a more pragmatic approach, coupled with cautious optimism??
I do believe the PM is right when he states that Canada is well positioned to recover faster than many other nations.We were one of the last to be hit by the recession of all the G20 nations, so we may see the turnaround a little quicker through the summer.
We will see.
Btw, where (what?) is the Liberal plan ?
"Come to think of it, it's almost as if the current administration is AGAINST expertise."
C'mon..the same could be said for many Liberals in the previous Paul Martin govt, or the one before that.
Ministers, regardless of their political stripe, do not always have to have direct experience in the portfolio they tend to.They often are chosen for their position due to other qualities they bring to the table.
For example (sadly..) how many ministers of national defense have actually served in the military?
We were one of the last to be hit by the recession of all the G20 nations, so we may see the turnaround a little quicker through the summer.
I have to say, I've been really puzzled by this statement.
For one, it is not factually correct. Although you could point to some economic indicators saying we were one of the last, there are just as many that say the opposite. More importantly, when it all happened all about the same time, does entering last by a couple of weeks or so really make any difference?
For two, on what economic basis is this claim made? I just don't understand the economic support here. The way our economy works in particular there is the old adage if the US sneezes Canada catches a cold. As Harper himself said, the US needs to start to get out of this before we do; in other words, you need a strengthening US economy with buyers buying our goods... which means Canadian recovery would necessarily lag behind the US.
In the 1990s recession, we entered later and pulled out later.
Not trying to take a partisan shot with this one (for a change) but I am genuinely a bit baffled by the premise that there is a first in first out concept applied to an economic recovery.
Can anyone explain it?
As for the expertise, I don't think you need the expertise and it does not necessarily help. Look at how incompetent Gordon O'Connor was as Minister of Defence.
In our system, we have civilian heads of department spending for a reason.
What is important though is that a minister not hold views that are diametrically opposed to or antithetical to the portfolio, like putting a communist in charge of industry or finance, an anarchist in charge of justice, a Creationist in charge of science, or a Conservative in charge of government.
Hi Kursk.
Re: the whereabouts of the Liberal plan
I have a hunch it's not advertised on CanWest newsprint.
Re :"Ministers, regardless of their political stripe, do not always have to have direct experience in the portfolio they tend to.They often are chosen for their position due to other qualities they bring to the table."
I concede that to a point.
However, PMSH's Minister selections for this Cabinet seem egregiously out of whack with actual credentials. The Heritage Ministry in particular under PMSH has been completely lackluster. The current dude has insufficient knowledge of Canadian culture, as evidenced recently in Quebec. Indeed former Harper Ministers of Heritage are almost completely off the radar. Where are Oda and Verner now?
Re: Minister of Defense and military experience...
As exemplified by (the Russians are coming!) current minister and the war we'll never win against the insurgency. It is very sad.
Heh. Ted, you got your shot in at the end.
Ted said @ March 26, 2009 7:05:00 AM:
"Are we going to have to wait just as long for him [PM Harper] to get it right again?"
No, Ted, we have to wait for so-called experts like you to read from other sources, not just the Liberal songbook.
For example:
Here’s what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development stated in Nov. 2008 in its Economic Outlook No. 84:
"Excess capacity and lower commodity prices are alleviating inflation pressures, allowing the Bank of Canada to boost its expansionary stance. The general government is expected to move into deficit in 2009 and 2010, a largely cyclical outcome that is not alarming [my highlighting] and leaves room to absorb eventualities but underlines the need to keep a lid on discretionary expenditure increases."
Also, the same OECD in its June 2008 Economic Survey of Canada stated:
“Canada’s economic performance has been among the best in the OECD as a sound policy framework has enabled the country to take advantage of strong global growth and soaring terms of trade. …
Tax cuts have been a good use of budget surpluses, but there is plenty of scope left for efficiency-enhancing, revenue neutral tax reform." [my highlighting]
Then, in the TD Quarterly Economic Forecast Sept. 25, 2008
“With GDP growth in the second quarter at a mere 0.3% annualized and growth in the first quarter revised down to -0.8%, we now estimate that real GDP growth will come in at a slight 0.7% in 2008. In 2009, economic activity is expected to expand at a tepid 1.2%. [my highlighting]
There are three main contributing factors to this continued weakness in the Canadian economy.
First, we believe the global economy is on the brink of a mild recession. This, in addition to weakened demand from the U.S., will eat into Canadian exports.
Second, a cooling in housing and employment will undermine domestic demand growth.
Lastly, tighter credit conditions will likely slow both business and consumer expenditures. Once a world recovery takes hold in late 2009, we can expect a sustained recovery in Canada with real GDP growth of 2.7% in 2010. ...”
See? Even the TD experts predicted a mild recession.
And this from the Scotia Bank 2009-10 Economic and Market Outlook (December 17, 2008)
“Previously enacted fiscal stimulus — in the form of tax cuts and spending increases — is already working to support our economy. [my highlighting] Additionally, several Provinces have brought scheduled tax cuts forward as well as implementing new tax relief. Unlike the ad hoc, deficit-financed U.S. initiatives that have been escalating in recent months, Canadian governments have focused on longer-term, productivity-enhancing investments.”
Then, this from the IMF in its Press Release No. 09/73
March 11, 2009:
“… More generally, however, Canada is better placed than many countries to weather the global financial turbulence and worldwide recession. …
Second, the authorities responded proactively to the crisis. The IMF supports the strong fiscal package announced in January, which was large, timely, and well targeted, and it will buoy demand during the downturn. [my highlighting] The focus now is appropriately on implementing that package. …”
Please notice the date of that press release: March 11, 2009.
The PM and his Fin. Minister may have been saying no recession and no deficit in September and October, maybe even as late as November '08 when his government brought down the Economic and Fiscal Update, which had some expenditure cuts and no major stimulus package.
At that time, the government was even thinking of eking out a small surplus according to the forecasts valid at that time. However, all of that dissipated with the rapidly changing global conditions.
And since they were at that time and now continue to be the government, a Prime Minister and his Finance Minister cannot sound alarm bells, because that kind of negative talk can influence the markets even more adversely. That is not the role of a responsible government. Nor should it be that of a responsible opposition.
So all your bluster about the PM and his government not "getting it" is just that ... bluster, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Was PMSH not the first to indicate we were headed for a depression? I was alarmed by that?
I meant to say I was alarmed by that. No question.
Gabby, I also think you'd be hard pressed to say Ted's comments signify nothing. It undermines your credibility saying so.
Gabby:
But none of that makes him right as claimed. Indeed, it should all make us question him - and other predictions - even more.
The point of the post was that Page is a Liberal stooge because he disagrees with Harper's rosy picture. But we pay him to give an honest and real assessment of the economy.
Even if you want to take your view that Harper should lie about the economy - which I don't buy - to keep everyone, I don't know, happy in ignorance? the bureaucrats have no and should have no such obligation. Indeed, they should be feeding the government and public only with accurate information and projection, not spin. That is what separates their function from a politicians function.
And wrt the IMF that Conservatives recite over and over and over again, notice how it doesn't say anything about getting better. Rather, notice how you don't quote the portions where it says things will get much worse before they get better.
Ted, first of all, saying that Canada will probably be one of the first countries to recover is hardly painting a "rosy picture."
The PM simply stated that Canada will fare well after this major economic downturn. Others (not Canadians) have pointed to Canada's relative strengths, so why not celebrate them, instead of trying to talk down the economy even further? You know, self-fulfilling prophecies and all ...
“Even if you want to take your view that Harper should lie about the economy …”
Just like one of your soul mates, accusing the PM of lying. How nuanced! How broad-minded, liberal, and progressive, eh?
I don’t want “to take” anything, Ted, I deal with supporting documentation from valid sources to support my replies to accusations like yours, which seem to be motivated by nothing other than hatred of anything remotely connected with Harper. Continue to stew in your hatred - that really helps things, right?
“… notice how it doesn't say anything about getting better …” I suppose you and your travelling companions have a crystal ball that lets you see into the future.
Forecasts are not hard and fast predictions. Given a set of X circumstances now, it is probable that Y will be the result. But the situation has been and continues to be volatile, so no one can say with any absolute certainty. But you can, of course :-D
I didn't accuse Harper of lying Gabby. I accuse him of incompetence.
I said you seem to be advocating that he should lie about the state of the economy, which is a view I reject. I prefer honesty from our politicians.
Also, it is BS that that is their approach. They only care about staying in government and keeping power for themselves. Most economists were predicting a major global recession by September and Harper was dead wrong in telling us that we would never have a recession. His prediction was laughable then and tragic now.
Because he continues to try to paint this rosy picture of our economy and was strongly defending his bizarre predictions again today.
Back when they were trying to blame problems on Ontario, the Conservatives had no problem bashing Ontario and saying it was "last place" you should invest in. Was that not "kind of negative talk can influence the markets even more adversely"?
You see what I mean, given the circumstances, these guys will say anything and do anything to save their own jobs.
"... you'd be hard pressed to say Ted's comments signify nothing."
Mystereeoso, it was simply a little Shakespearean allusion. Relax ... and look up "hard-pressed."
=====
"Was PMSH not the first to indicate we were headed for a depression?"
No, he said the same errors that were committed during the Great Depression, like protectionism, should not be repeated.
From a CBC Nov. 2008 report entitled Budget deficit 'essential' if economic stimulus needed: Harper
"... Harper also used his speech to send a message that a freer trading system is the best way to restore global economic prosperity, saying the world is entering an economic period that is "potentially as dangerous" as anything the world has seen since 1929.
The Great Depression of the 1930s was not caused by a stock market collapse but by government policies and protectionist trade barriers that followed the crash, Harper said.
He criticized policymakers of that time for allowing the banking sector to contract and deflation to take hold, then trying to manage the problem by balancing government budgets instead of providing financial stimulus."
"Back when they were trying to blame problems on Ontario, the Conservatives had no problem bashing Ontario and saying it was "last place" you should invest in."
Another inaccuracy. Flaherty was urging - in rather strong language, I'll admit - the Ontario government to lower its business taxes, because that would help entice investors to the province. He did not say, as you claim, Ontario was the «"last place" you should invest in."»
What he did say was Ontario was the last place business people might consider investing in, given the high business taxes.
Big difference between should and might.
A distinction without a difference Gabby. Especially if you are trying to claim that politicians should not talk down the economy or investments for fear of self-fulfilling prophesy. You can't have it both ways.
Holy moley, you see no difference between "should" and "might"?
" ... the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity ..."
Whereas "might" is used to:
• express possibility: They might be at the station.
• express advisability: You might at least thank me.
• express polite requests for permission: Might I speak to you for a moment?
And on that note, since we appear to be speaking a completely different language, I give up.
It is an exercise in futility to discuss anything with someone who's in a Hate Harper Huddle. I'll go use my time on something more worthwhile, like watching paint dry.
Gabby, the inference you seem disinclined to make is that it's a stretch (overrearching) to say Ted's comments signify nothing. And it is a big stretch. He has your argument over a barrel.
Re:"I deal with supporting documentation from valid sources to support my replies to accusations like yours, which seem to be motivated by nothing other than hatred of anything remotely connected with Harper. Continue to stew in your hatred - that really helps things, right?"
Perhaps you could provide a defense of Hunter's remarks about Kevin Page's analysis. These ones:
"The guy is out on Mars pretending to be one of those rovers, collecting data. The problem is that his data is liberally skewed to promote the opposition scare tactics, or the reporter may have misheard what the guy said. Personally, I'm going with the guy on Mars option."
In all fairness, where are the valid sources and documentation to support these remarks?
Mystereeoso, what is "overrearching"?
Did you mean overreaching? As in
"1. conduct that exceeds established limits (as of authority or due process) overreaching by the prosecution barred a retrial because of double jeopardy>
2. the gaining of an unconscionable advantage over another esp. by unfair or deceptive means overreaching"
Or did you mean overarching? As in
"1. forming an arch above: great trees with overarching branches.
2. encompassing or overshadowing everything"
Whichever word you meant to use, neither word applies in this case.
I did not say "Ted's comments signify nothing."
What I did say is his bluster is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Perhaps the nuance eludes you.
You also ask me to react to Hunter's post. My intention in posting comments was to rebut something Ted said, and I presented documentation to support my point, that's all. You are free to try to disprove Hunter's arguments if you so wish. Good luck with that.
It almost sounds like you're saying "That's not fair!"
Gabby and friends, GREAT JOB!
I have given up even responding to the "Hate Harper Huddle" (that's a keeper). You can not logically debate the illogical. That's the problem Conservatives have, we like fighting with facts, the lefties fight with emotions.
How many of you caught the At Issue Panel tonight on cbc. Nanos said (re Page, Drummond etc) when you put two economists in a room you will get three opinions. They also said that Page does not have all the info needed, so, IMHO he is guessing. And as someone said, where is the evidence via reports, documents, discussions that any of these guys have used to make their opinions. That is all any of them have, their opinion. If all these experts are so great, why did most of them diss the PM when he made reference to the coming problems back in 2007. The PM was right then, and they were wrong. I think they are wrong now.
Gabby, I meant overreaching:
1. To reach or extend over or beyond.
2. To miss by reaching too far or attempting too much: overreach a goal.
3. To defeat (oneself) by going too far or by doing or trying to gain too much.
Selective reading again eh?
MaryT:
First of all, if they are all guessing, then why would Harper's overly optimistic view be any better, especially with his horrible track record of predictions?
Second, the post claimed that Page - because he disagreed with Harper and Harper must be right - is a Liberal stooge. There is no evidence of that. Page has actually been a lot more correct and truthful about the numbers ever since he was appointed by Harper.
Third, not sure who "they" are that were wrong in 2007. Harper said merely that 2008 was going to be challenging. Well, duh! "They" if you mean the US government, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Eddie Greenspan the former Fed Chair, most economists, most lenders, were all saying it was going to be "challenging" to different degrees. The suprising thing is that Harper didn't do a thing about it in 2008 to prepare us except to continue his record breaking spending and put us into deficit before the recession hit. And then when it was finally apparent to everyone and not just the economists that we were clearly headed for a recession and deficit, Harper says we'll never be in a deficit, we'll have a surplus and we'll never have a recession.
Bottom line: (1) Page is clearly not a Liberal just because he along with most economists disagrees with Harper, and (2) Harper knows even less about what he is doing then the experts.
Well, that is not totally true. Harper's very concerned about saving his own job. That drives everything for him.
Post a Comment