I think the 1987 crash was worse than anything witnessed in the 1990's, but I may be off base.  The 1990's were rampant with inflated tech stocks that were bound to come back down to earth.  Amazon.com and Yahoo were tremendous hits but like all good things, they came back to more reasonable levels.  The corrections in the stock market were healthy I would say except for what happend on 911 artificially stimulated the selloff.  Remarkably, though, the United States has recovered from 911 for the most part.  Stable leadership in the Federal Reserve can be credited I suppose, that and the hard working American spirit.

There is no comparison.  The stock market lost 90% of its value between 1929 and 1933.  Unemployment reached 25%.  There was no unemployment insurance, no welfare, no social security.  People begged in the street for food.  Thousands were thrown out of their homes and farms.  Read about the Okies, dirt poor farmers who lost everything then headed to California because they heard there might be jobs as laborers but were then turned away at the border – like Mexicans today.  Talk to people like my parents who raised families when you often didn't know from one week to the next if you would have any food or money.  The country was in many places on the verge of rebellion – when Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1932 they had machine guns on the roof of the White House.  The 1990's was primarily a matter of people falling in love with a bull market and stupidly investing in companies that didn't actually make anything, including a profit.  A few, like Amazon, worked long-term and made money.  Most went down the toilet because there was nothing there but smoke and mirrors.  The classic was some company that let you order groceries over the Internet and then they would go shopping for you and deliver the groceries.  The bottom line is that comparing the 1990's to the 1920's is something akin to comparing the situation on our southern border with the German invasion of Russia in World War II.

The stock market boom of the '90s was probably much more widespread than the '20s because more people participate, either directly or through pension plans, etc.  But the effects of the bust might not have been because it was a much more concentrated crash.  If you had all your money in tech stocks you were probably wiped out, like those folks who believed Ken Lay and put their entire savings into Enron stock, but for most investors, like myself, it was more of a glitch that didn't have much long term effect – IF you didn't panic and dump everything.  People tend to forget that the market is more for long term growth than quick profit.  The big players can make quick money because they can afford to gamble but for most of us the gambling should be restricted to the casino.  But while the 90's bust was somewhat limited the 20's bust crushed the economy as a whole because EVERYTHING was built on smoke and mirrors and instead of just a segment.

My great-uncle lost $80,000.00 in the 1987 crash and didn't even blink an eye.? He told my father that he hadn't planned on using that money anyway for many years so by the time he was ready to use it, he would have it all back plus some.? He was right. 😉

If your great-uncle has that much money I hope you're being really, really, really, really, really nice to him.

Too bad.  One of my favorite bumper stickers is something to the effect that “I'm spending my childrens' inheritence.”  That's an attitude I like.  It's why I like Warren Buffet.  A multi-billionaire who insists his kids earn their own living.  Too bad Paris Hilton & Nicole Richey's parents didn't insist they go out and get a REAL job, then we might not be inflicted with even more insipid, brainless television.  Wait, isn't that last phrase a triple redundancy?