Monday, December 30, 2013

Bennett vs. King

As King loses the 1930 election and Canada moves into a conservative administration under RB Bennett, we see a key transition in policy towards coping with the depression.  How might this change compare to the one the United States experienced in 1932 when they replaced Hoover with FDR?  How did Bennett's policies differ from King's?  How effective were his early measures?

15 comments:

  1. Bennett believed in capitalism and in free-enterprise system. The big difference between him and King from my point of view is that at least he tried to do something that could have been efficient or could have changed something. In fact he says "Mackenzie King promises you conferences, I promise you action. He promises consideration of the problem of unemployment; I promise to end unemployment." and it is true because I feel that King didn't really do anything to change at least the minimum while Bennett did things such as putting $20 million dollars towards the emergency relief and raising significantly the tariffs on imports in order to protect Canada's industries from the competition (specially Europe).
    However he tried, Bennett's plans made the depression worse and a lot of riots started.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bennett in my opinion was a way better leader then King because like Laura said he tried to do something which very important. King was just sat back and hoped things would change. King believed that they could be independent while that was not the way to go. But however Bennett miserably failed and made the depression worse but he tried and had ideas just the wrong ideas.But the change compared to the one the United States experienced in 1932 when FDR took office was totally different because he improved the depression and he had the right ideas while Hoover made it a lot worse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. by defeating William King in the 1930 election Bennett had the task of taking office during the Great Depression. Bennett tried to fight the depression by increasing trade within the British Empire and imposing tariffs for imports from outside the Empire, promising that his measures would blast Canadian exports into world markets. His success was limited however, and his own wealth and impersonal style alienated many struggling Canadians. Bennett was not the vocal leader that was needed to give those who were struggling hope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bennett had significantly more going for him than King. As Laura said, King was offering to address issues of concern, and Bennett offered to solve them. Bennett had proof that he was contributing to the country to positively reinforce it and King had just his word, which in politics isn't enough. Bennett issued taxes on imports, and hoped that Canada would begin to really make an impact with their exports. Like Sifiso said, i feel that his wealth and overall attitude is what caused a good amount of lower class Canadians to feel a divide.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bennett became the new prime minister and he tried his best to deal with the Great Depression. Bennett actually took action and even criticizes the king when he says, "Mackenzie King promises you conferences, I promise you action. He promises consideration of the problem of unemployment; I promise to end unemployment." However, he helped individuals more than he helped solve the real problem. People wrote letters to him, asking for help, and he replied and helped as best as he could. But when the people wanted Bennett to take action and help the country as a whole, he refused.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unlike Hoover and King, who did not take enough actions for the Great Depression because they thought it was best for the federal government to do nothing since they thought that economy would right itself if left alone, even though Bennett's early action was a little bit timid, he did take actions that made the economy of Canada better. Not only did he pass Public Work Construction act thereby creating jobs, he took advantage of the Imperial Preference with Britain increasing trade with britain by 60 percent. Plus, Bennett helped the depression mostly by making the Bank of Canada, which was a stable banking system that not only prevented the effects of the Depression from getting worse but also helped the economic recovery of Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The change from King to Bennett compare to the change from Hoover to Roosevelt, the biggest difference I notice is that King had very low tariff but Hoover rose tariff to deal with the Depression. When FDR and Bennett took over the U.S. and Canada, they lowered and rose tariff respectively. King, in my mind is this guy who doesn't do anything at all. Hoover somehow wanted to help the America to be out of the depression but he didn't have the correct method. Like the reading and Jason said that Bennett's policy was a little timid in the early stage. His policy actually helped Canadian economy and prevented the Depression to get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree on how even though Bennets policy failed and made the depression worse/stay the same, he still did more than king because he did more than just sit back and wait for somethign to happen. Just like everyone said, king really did not do much of anything at all. And when Bennet and FDR tookover they both did more than the previous rulers had. FDR managed to make a complete turnaround in the american econmy and depression, and Bennet didnt seem to do as much for canada but he did end up doing something.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This change in Canada does not really seem like as effective as the one in U.S., although both changes did bring change into their economy. R.B. Bennett still did not pay enough attention on individual finance. He preferred changes on a bigger scale such as lower tariffs. Overall, FDR did make more changes than R.B. Bennet did. He is relatively more active and care more about individual finance situation. which won him many popularity. Furthermore, FRD was way more sophisticated in his public image than R.B. Bennett were.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Canada was making changes based on things that were happening from the depression. After King lost the election they moved under Bennett and a lot of things started changing in Canada. This can be compared to the US because Hoover and FDR were two completely different people with different goals for their country. Bennett was a conservative and King was a liberal. Bennett basically just wanted the citizens of canada to fix everything by themselves without any help from the government. King was going to help more and involve the government more. His early measures were kind of affective because he did want to fix the government but he didnt really know how and what he did at first wasn't helping but as it went on it became more affective.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Overall for some reason I really do not understand this question or the reading however I will try to answer the question as best as I can. I agree with almost everyone when they say that Bennett was a great leader and he unlike king was in it for the people and not the power. Even though I guess you could argue that Bennett didn’t care about the people that much either, compared to king he was a much better leader. However Bennett never really did anything to address the Great Depression all he did was pay off the people by sending them money whenever they needed it. What Bennett did was just dig the country into a deeper hole and in the long run just handed his problems off to the next prime minister.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The most significant difference I see is that Bennett, unlike King, actually tries to DO SOMETHING. King's policy was to just back and watch and let the depression run its course. Similar to FDR, Bennet tried to stimulate the economy and make more jobs. The government was now recognizing, reacting, and adapting to the Depression instead of just ignorantly sticking to its old practices and policies as if nothing was wrong.

    ReplyDelete