They were already in a recession, they didn't have the declines that we saw in the US because they didn't have far to fall.
The British didn't recover faster because of their welfare policies, they recovered faster because they went on a war footing years before we did.
The US didn't come out of the depression until we went a war footing, sent half the male population overseas and that resulted in a massive drop in unemployment, just as it had in Britain.
They didn't have a market bubble artificially inflating the per capita income... which you admit in the next sentence:
Again, proving my point that the British didn't fall as far as the US because they didn't have as far to fall.
More than simply reparations, Germany lost large swaths of land with vital natural resources to the treaty... Yet you argue that it was the welfare state that collapsed Germany while you claim the welfare state helped Britain...
Less than 30%.
On the one hand, you say the Brittish welfare state (which was found inadequate, reformed and expanded to be more like the German model) helped them in the great depression. On the other hand, you claim the German welfare state collapsed the nation during the same depression... Perhaps you should make up your mind as to whether welfare states help, or hurt, a nation hit with a depression.
Of course not, you have no defense of the policy.
Yet you fail to see how that has a negative impact and leads to bank failures?
Now you're arguing against strawmen. The fed printed more money than we had gold to back it. You cannot argue against that fact. Rather than changing the policy of the fed to no longer allow them to print more money than we had gold to back it, the gold standard was abandoned and we began using fiat currency - perfect for the type of Keynesian economic policies you support.
