I'd take some extra volatility if in the exchange we got 6.8% real growth for a decade that included a recession, then another decade where the real economy doubled, and perhaps as long as a normal life span of above average real growth, combined with low inflation, decent government fiscal management, and a larger degree of personal liberty.
OTOH it was more than just a bit of extra volatility, and while economic growth was much better it was growth from a lower base. All else being equal, I'd probably prefer to live in a richer economy than a more rapidly growing economy that's much poorer, and won't even rich the level of the richer one in my lifetime. And the technology was worse, infrastructure less developed, racial and sexual discrimination where much worse (perhaps as a white male it wouldn't directly impact me, but still it wasn't a good thing, and not something I'd like to be around a lot of), so I probably would not want to live in the late 1800s (except perhaps temporarily, but then where talking about time travel rather than comparing time periods), but I could certainly live with the positive aspects of the period as noted in the 1st paragraph of the post, and if we could add that type of growth from today's level of wealth, combined with the other advantages, I'd accept the greater volatility if it was the only way to make it happen. |
