Kevin's Watch

I've got to run to work pretty quick myself, but my belief is that the nanny state was really more of a response to the Depression rather than to the Civil War.

[Edited as irrelevant to the new thread. )

--A

Oh no doubt the Depression and FDR's response to it had a great deal to do with it as well, but I believe that the groundwork for federal government interference was laid by Lincoln.

Av-That's entirely possible.

I thought that FDR's programs helped save the American economy / whatever from the depression? (I've always been sorta in favour of the way he did things myself, from what I kow aout it, which is far from exhaustive.)

That said, I can see how the idea works...it was alright for government to interfere then, so it set a precedent.

--A

FDR's programs did in fact put people to work, but they also extended the people's dependency on the government.

But necessarily at the time, surely?

--A

Meh, that's a whole new thread.

In brief, I think that a lot of good came out of FDR's jobs programs, but I think the long-term effects have been less than good.

The "nanny state" is kinda dependent upon the socio-economic system that you're in. By the Depression the industrialization and capitalistic claws were essentially too deep. What could people do? The agraian life of the preceding decades had faded and capitalism had forced people to either be part of its system or die.

"Nanny state" is a derogatory term and isn't in fact an accurate description. If you start out on that basis in a thread, you won't get an objective answer.

Most people believe and expect a government to own creating conditions where prosperity can be achieved by the people governed.

I don't know much about this. Was it the application of Keynesian economic techniques? Or am I way off?

I was gonna read the wikipedia article but it's unbelievably long. Can anyone just present a quick summary for those folks following along at home?

Edit: Ahhh, I see. This was split from another thread, right? Well I still don't know much about this so-called 'New Deal' or the 'nanny state'.

Avatar wrote:I thought that FDR's programs helped save the American economy / whatever from the depression? (I've always been sorta in favour of the way he did things myself, from what I kow aout it, which is far from exhaustive.)

That said, I can see how the idea works...it was alright for government to interfere then, so it set a precedent.

--A

I'm under the impression from stuff I've read that FDR didn't necessarily save the american economy. Rather, he kept it from dying, and WWII is what really pushed us back into the green; because people were being fed, getting employed, etc, they weren't dying. I don't have the packet anymore, but something which I read in my US history class last year indicates that much of the numbers indicative of america's weakness during the late hoover years hadn't changed much after 4 years of the New Deal.

Also, there were a number of safeguards put into place (in terms of how banks run and such) that help such a thing from happening on the same scale again.

Finally, one should note the importance of the other Roosevelt. Lincoln expanded the executive powers; the Populists (best represented by Teddy Roosy) were the first to admit economic inequality and apply government to fix them. The New Deal was pretty simply just inheriting populist party doctrine, but applying it on a wider scale because of how bad things were during the depression. And, like the populist party after WWI, its influence faded as the country stabilized and people became less worried, in a better situation, etc.

Yes, this was split off from another thread. Damelon can edit the title if he wants, I can't anymore.

Basically, where Cail and I were going was that (I might have left it in the other thread) FDR's plans created an increased dependancy on the government.

I was thinking along the lines that WayFriend seems to be headed...isn't it the responsibility of government to create an environment in which people can become prosperous?

And fair enough maybe Holsety...perhaps he kept it from dying instead of saving it, but at least it didn't die. People were employed, could eat and spend money, until the next boost came as a result of WWII.

--A

Ya, basically, when there was a big push for industry again and such, it would've been a problem if the population had drastically declined (IIRC there was a negative population growth during the depression anyway).

Great post Holsety.

Av's right, it's the dependency on the government which I don't like. The government certainly can foster an environment in which people can be prosperous without employing them (low taxes, fair trade, etc).

But in this instance, when the environment didn't exist and the people still needed it, I think that there's nothing wrong with the government working to create that even artificially, by employing people, or at least creating the need for employees.

--A

The problem with that is that once people become accustomed to the government meeting their needs, they become less inclined to do for themselves.

Not to mention, it's always a bad idea to expand the scope of the federal government.

I'll ertainly grant that it can become a problem once people get used to it, sure. And I'm no fan of government growing and extending its tentacles into all sorts of things.

But what were the alteratives?

--A

That's the million dollar question.

I don't see any myself off hand. His plan worked. And I think it was to his credit that he could sell a quasi-socialist model, that worked in keeping the economy and more importantly, public morale, on the go.

--A

Actually, Avatar, not to diss FDR, but while his New Deal initiatives worked excellently in the short term, the actual economic growth was fairly small (but it was growth). What changed everything was World War II - this brought huge economic growth and began America's dominance of international politics and military hegemony.