Compare the great depression with today's economy. like jobs, business closing, bank closures, stock market, laissez-faire, new programs?

There is no comparison. During the Great Depression, you had the stock market crashing to 80 percent of its value (it has crashed by "just" 40 percent of its value from 2008 to 2009). You had one out of four adults unemployed, compared to less than one out of 10 today.

You had most of the nation's banks closing, compared to almost none today. This time, thanks to the government safety net, and the backing of the "full faith and credit of the United States," this recession has, so far at least, been nothing like the Great Depression. A more apt comparison is the recession of 1979-83, but in 2009 we're (so far) doing much better than we were then: jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2009/03/this-r... The reason this recession is getting so much ink and hysteria is that it does mean there will have to be dramatic changes in the behavior of Americans -- no more living off of credit cards, no more depending on a housing bubble to finance spending through home equity loans, no more easy credit.

Essentially, the economic gains of the middle class since the 1980s have come not from income gains but from easy credit. That is going to have to stop. The question is, how will we make economic gains in the future.It appears we are experiencing DEFLATION in the short term, and with all the debt we're accumulating, INFLATION in the long term is likely.

One of the guiding principles of capitalism, this doctrine claims that an economic system should be free from government intervention or moderation, and be driven only by the market forces. Centered on the belief (termed invisible hand by the 18th century Scottish economist Adam Smith) that human beings are naturally motivated by self-interest and, when they are not interfered-with in their economic activities, a balanced system of production and exchange based on mutual benefit emerges. Laissez-faire (French for, allow to pass or let go) economics originated in the 18th century France where economists (then called 'physiocrats') such as Francois Quesnay (1694-1774) and Victor Riqueti-Marquis de Mirabeau (1715-89) became hostile to subsidies and discriminatory economic measures of then prevalent mercantilism.

They believed in a bountiful nature and innate goodness of humankind, and asserted that governments should leave the individual alone except when social liberties are infringed. In 19th century, this philosophy became the dominant economic thinking in the Western world. But soon its failings reflected in the great disparity in distribution of wealth, harsh treatment of workers, disregard for consumer safety, and spread of monopolies, became clear.

By the mid 19th century, opposition to laissez-faire economics began and governments in all industrialized countries intervened on behalf of workers and general population. Factory laws and consumer protection laws were enacted and growth of monopolies was checked. Early 20th century saw breakup of monopolies in the US and (after Second World War) nationalization of essential industries and services in Europe.

Keynesian economics (which advocates government intervention in the national economy) further undermined it, a process spurred by the great depression of 1930s. From 1970's, however, the pendulum swung back to laissez-faire economics (renamed 'market economy' or 'free enterprise') and brought deregulation of business, and progressive removal of trade barriers, which is continuing.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.

Related Questions