Thread: Why did the economic system stayed the same post 1929?

The Stock Market crash began thursday 24 october 1929. The crash signaled the beginning of the 10-year Great Depression that affected all Western industrialized countries and did not end in the United States until the onset of American mobilization for World War II at the end of 1941.

This is what happened almost 83 years ago, the economic system (based on capitalism, gold, money, minerals) hasn't changed since that time. This same economic system grew until 2007, when the credit crisis started.

Now it's 2012 and the USA is again nearing elections and the economy is going down again after four years of crisis with ups and downs. And a lot of political rethoric has been used and nothing has improved yet.
Will the economy start to improve post elections? (After they have gained power from this historical elections, to gain even more power, because back then it was about power too (crash caused political change in Germany and became an empire, done via depression and euforism, emotion of the people)

If the economic system was fundamentally changed there could be no same type of repeat (stock market crash), now a repeat of 1929 can happen again (if it happens will it happen in december, after elections when they have all the votes in their pockets?)

the economic system (based on capitalism, gold, money, minerals) hasn't changed since that time

Sorry, but this is garbage. The most interesting (and terrible) aspect of capitalism is its ability to evolve according to current economic demands. Government has of course been an integral economic agent leading that evolution.

There are of course hiccups. Neo-liberalism, giving us this current crisis, has been one.

Originally Posted by Xanadu

If the economic system was fundamentally changed there could be no same type of repeat (stock market crash), now a repeat of 1929 can happen again (if it happens will it happen in december, after elections when they have all the votes in their pockets?)

They did fundamentally change it. It was called Glass-Steagall.

And that was repealed in 1991 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation.

The protections were neutered and removed through lobbying, paid for by none other than the banks (gee, who'd-a-thunk).

The banks had been trying every year for 50 years in a row to get that legislation through Congress, and they finally found a bunch of elected nincompoops who were stupid enough to believe their bullshyott. And one fool-in-chief to sign it.

And the result is what you see in front of you. 15% unemployment, debt at 100% of GDP, banks draining our economy of a billion dollars a day, and no regulation and no oversight of the largest part of the financial sector, which is the credit default swaps. The total value of the paper money in that game is over 1200 trillion dollars, which is way more money than there is in the whole entire world! If you put all the GDP's of all the economies in the world together, they wouldn't add up to that much. How come there's no regulation on this piece?

Answer: lobbying. Our elected weasels refused to allow our government to watch the poker game.

The economic system hasn't changed because the rich don't actually really suffer from the boom and bust cycle, unlike the rest of us mortals.

Originally Posted by RedRepublic

The economic system hasn't changed because the rich don't actually really suffer from the boom and bust cycle, unlike the rest of us mortals.

We'd need a stagflation period that leads to a worker revolt. So far capitalism has been able to utilise government to minimise the threat. Right wing libertarians, being devoid of economic understanding, could- through ignorance- change all of that