Let's talk "scope"...

Because that is what is missing today, when we compare the current economy with the economy of 1930.

In one year, the market lost as much as 70% of its value. 30-40% of all cash reserves in the country ceased to exist, and 25% of all banks failed. Almost the ONLY portion of the economy that wasn't impacted in a massive way was the housing market... because the housing market wasn't dependent on a hyper-inflated credit system (as it was in the current crisis). The "credit crash" of '29 hit the investment market far harder than it hit anything else.

THAT kind of loss (70%) takes more than a matter of months to recoup. Couple this with the simple fact that the Depression of 29 was followed by another in 33-34 and a massive recession in 37, and we see the "era of the Great Depression" take shape, capped by the boom of the '20s and the production fire-storm of WWII.

Obama's repeated comparing of today with the Great Depression is inflammatory and unjustifiable. I don't know where he was during the recession of '79-80, but that was worse than this... and many of us WERE alive for that one, too. The closest we've ever been to '29 failings has been the 2000 tech-crash, were almost 40% of the NASDAQ evaporated with the bubble bust. The most we have seen it fall in this cycle (2008) is 18%... and while that is a HUGE amount of money to simply have vanish, the value of these stocks were artificially propped up anyway. That is the failing of speculation pricing, and that is the risk we all take when we allow entire sectors of our economy to base themselves on it.

In 1929, the speculation was on the stock market, and the risk was carried with easy credit on all market buys. In 2001, we saw the regulation of crude oil speculation removed, and the trend in price UP was steady and constant, regardless of availability. That same mentallity carried into the housing market (beginning in 1996, so give Clinton his due), and we saw unsustainable housing prices coupled with ARMs, "interest-only" mortgages, and "zero-down" financing on first, second, and third homes... absolutely unprecedented, and completely unsustainable.

These are my examples of "free market" running wrong... not necessarily of government intervention being right. In any of these examples, we can see that some government regulation would have averted a disaster... but that is with hindsight. I am more and more growing to appreciate the position that LESS government regulation is better... when it comes to artificially lowering prices or making certain commodities (like real estate, stock portfolios, crude oil reserves, etc) EASIER and more available to the "common man". If the average Joe on the street can't come up with 10-15% down on a house, he can't afford the house. If he can't pay for a car in less than 48 months... he can't afford the car. The Government removing these requirements with the sweep of a pen or the passing of a bill doesn't change the facts... period.