- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,596
- 475
- 126
Oh come on, really? He just manages to lazily pick numbers coming off a low and compares them to numbers tanking? Give me a break, lets at least call a spade a spade.
Just a guesstimate based a chart on the great depression wiki page. I would say 30-31 saw a contraction of about 10-15% in per capita income. While 33-34 probably saw a solid 5-8% in growth. We bottomed out in 1932.
Imagine what a different opinion piece he would have to write if he compared the first full year of the great depression to the first full year of the great recession?
That was my point in my previous reply. What is there to debate? I dont think anybody would argue the numbers didnt look good coming off the bottom in 33-34 while the numbers look bad on the downward slide in 09-10.
Interesting. Then those years aren't really a recovery and the main points of the charts are which people classified by income benefited the most from recoveries... kind of hard to say that 30-31 is a recovery. So, by the criteria in which data is chosen for the charts. Who benefited by category of income during the recoveries from the G.D. and G.R. the years 30-31 aren't really providing much data other than everyone was seeing their incomes go down.
Last edited: