<p>Yes. It is a fair comparison.</p>

<p>Human nature, market behavior and principles of finance and economics have not changed much in the recorded history of mankind. For example, the principles set forth by Adam Smith in his opus The Wealth of Nations are just as relevant today as they were in 1776 when the book was published.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-14T18:05:35.567Z
@downvoter Do you disagree? Downvoting without a reason doesn't help.
zengr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-15T06:38:05.623Z
I am not the downvoter but I do have some criticism for this answer: Surely one would have to look at the share of services in US GDP, the import to GDP ratio, level of debt etc. before concluding that the situation in 2016 is the same 1950. Just because some aspects are the same (basic human nature, we still have two legs, the planet is still called Earth) some important aspects may have changed.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-16T05:00:19.580Z
@denesp: It is unclear how much detail the OP requires given the somewhat general nature of the question.
FreeMarketUnicorn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-14T05:21:52.917Z
2016-07-14T05:21:52.917Z
FreeMarketUnicorn
<p>In the last 2 days, bond market has declined a bit. All major news outlets published articles like these: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/can-we-ignore-the-alarm-bells-the-bond-market-is-ringing.html" rel="nofollow">Can We Ignore the Alarm Bells the Bond Market Is Ringing?</a></p>

<p>Such an event in bond market occurred back in ~1950 (according to the graph on that article). The stockmarket had a <a href="http://www.stockpickssystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/historical-rate-of-return-1900-2000.jpg" rel="nofollow">major dip</a> around ~1932 due to the great depression but it has looked good since then till 2007.
Overall things also bounced back in <a href="http://www.shmoop.com/1950s/economy.html" rel="nofollow">1950</a>, <a href="http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1960.html" rel="nofollow">1960</a>, <a href="http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1970.html" rel="nofollow">slow down in 1970 due to energy crisis</a> and then it recovered after <a href="http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/recovery_1980s.htm" rel="nofollow">1982</a>.</p>

<p>I am not an economist but trying to understand how will the economy will behave when it will face a similar situation. Is it fair to compare 1950 US economy to 2016 US economy?</p>

<macroeconomics><stock-market><bonds>
Is it fair to compare 1950 US economy to 2016 US economy?
zengr
# Is it fair to compare 1950 US economy to 2016 US economy?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-14)

In the last 2 days, bond market has declined a bit. All major news outlets published articles like these: [Can We Ignore the Alarm Bells the Bond Market Is Ringing?](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/can-we-ignore-the-alarm-bells-the-bond-market-is-ringing.html)

Such an event in bond market occurred back in ~1950 (according to the graph on that article). The stockmarket had a [major dip](http://www.stockpickssystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/historical-rate-of-return-1900-2000.jpg) around ~1932 due to the great depression but it has looked good since then till 2007.
Overall things also bounced back in [1950](http://www.shmoop.com/1950s/economy.html), [1960](http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1960.html), [slow down in 1970 due to energy crisis](http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1970.html) and then it recovered after [1982](http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/recovery_1980s.htm).

I am not an economist but trying to understand how will the economy will behave when it will face a similar situation. Is it fair to compare 1950 US economy to 2016 US economy?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, stock-market, bonds


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-07-14. Score: -1

Yes. It is a fair comparison.

Human nature, market behavior and principles of finance and economics have not changed much in the recorded history of mankind. For example, the principles set forth by Adam Smith in his opus The Wealth of Nations are just as relevant today as they were in 1776 when the book was published.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @downvoter Do you disagree? Downvoting without a reason doesn't help.  
> **username_2**: I am not the downvoter but I do have some criticism for this answer: Surely one would have to look at the share of services in US GDP, the import to GDP ratio, level of debt etc. before concluding that the situation in 2016 is the same 1950. Just because some aspects are the same (basic human nature, we still have two legs, the planet is still called Earth) some important aspects may have changed.  
> **username_1**: @denesp: It is unclear how much detail the OP requires given the somewhat general nature of the question.  

---

