I remember an interview in which Noam Chomsky explained the historical origin of the term 'nanny state' was coined by some  economist and is was NOT used as a pejorative. 

Rather, is was used to affectionately describe the function of the state for wealthy capitalists/ industrialists. The nanny state was there to protect corporations from market discipline, creating socialism for the rich (bailouts) and free market capitalism for the poor (unemployment). https://chomsky.info/19960413/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJUWDdvZhJY

The idea was that they could take financial/investment risks that, if they went belly up, could be rectified by being bailed out by the state. They always had their nanny to help them out. It had nothing to do with generalized never ending legislation and control of the plebs, or socialism/communism ideas.

For example, Tesla could be described as a corporate welfare queen.

So from that perspective, it makes sense to say that the ability of governments to print money creates trust. It does, but of course in doing so, creates moral hazard. People feel more safe if they believe the government is always there to bail the banks out or give plebs free money to stay home when there's a nasty cold going around or something.

So, I suppose what he's saying is true. Sadly.