Monday, December 30, 2013
Canada: King's Responses to the Depression
Again, consider how Canada experienced the Great Depression with your previous knowledge of the United States. Pay particular attention to Prime Minister Mackenzie King's speech on p. 153. How would you evaluate King's response to the depression? How would you compare it to Hoover and FDR?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
He was the Prime Minister (Liberal Party) of Canada from 1921 to 1930. First term struggle to work with the Progressive Party and his own Liberal Party, especially on the issue of tariffs (which prairie progressives wanted lowered). MacKenzie King’s government presided over a period of unrest among farmers in the Prairies as farm prices declined. He also faced growing dissent from WWI veterans who expected their sacrifices to be compensated during difficult economic times. The early depression years saw massive surpluses of wheat—over of about a hundred million bushels. The 1930s were also years of natural disasters. Droughts hit the prairies starting in 1929. The unemployed and the prairies farmers were the largest groups on relief in the decade but there was another category of relief recipients, the "single, homeless, unemployed." Hoover and FDR at least tried harder than King did.
ReplyDeleteCanada was in desperate need for relief. Mackenzie King had, “introduced old-age pensions in 1926, welfare provisions [were] mainly the responsibility of provinces, municipalities or private charities.” It was clear to all that relief, though it would prevent starvation, would not help the economy. Minister Mackenzie King’s stated that there will always be unemployment and that the people of Canada do not have a, “right to say there is any national unemployment problem in this country.” Mackenzie King goes on to further state that the Canadians should not lend money to other governments. Minister Mackenzie King believed that the government would recover without government intervention. In comparison, Hoover pulled money out of the economy when in reality; he needed to be putting money into it. On the other hand, unlike King, FDR wanted the government to be getting involved.
ReplyDeleteOverall the King's response to the depression was more or less laid back. I agree with what Lauren said also. Prime Minister Mackenzie King was more or less laid back because he did not want the government to get involved. Along with what Lauren mention Mackenzie King stated that there will always be unemployment and that the people of Canada do not have a "right to say there is any national unemployment problem." It was definitely smart of Mackenzie King to sate that the Canadians should not lend money to other governments during this time, but it also had to have been kind of common sense. Hoover and FDR compare because along with Mackenzie King, Hoover was more or less laid back, while FDR was more of the "doer" type. FDR wanted to enable special plans to get the government back on track while Hoover and Minister Mackenzie King believed the government would recover in time and on its own.
ReplyDeleteI thought Prime Minister King;s speech was boring and lacked the wittiness of a natural public speaker/leader. He showed a complete lack of empathy towards those of the Tory government's need for financial aid after the stock market crashed. He also displays such disregard as to say he "wouldn't give them a 5 cent piece" because their policies were so "diametrically opposed" to his government. Talk about petty politics. This also relates to the hands off approach of President Hoover who thought almost no aid should go out as it wouldn't solve any of the problems of the Depression. President Roosevelt was the opposite of Hoover and King as he was more hands on, trying to soften the the impact of the Depression on people with policies and legislation.
ReplyDeleteI think Prime Minister King was doing a bad job in his speech. 1. He didn't show support and empathy for people who lost a lot and need aids immediately; 2. He didn't provide any actual solution (yes he said some, but seem not necessary compare to FDR); 3. His speech is not that easy to be understand (well I don't understand him). On an opposite side, FDR was working harder than Prime Minister King because instead of saying what's going on, FDR gave more useful solutions and actually acted in order to fix the problems. Yes, there were unemployments and miseries, but focus on how to save more people and fix more questions should be the things a ruler should do.
ReplyDelete