Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Stock market crashes aren't just dramatic headlines—they're windows into capitalism's fundamental tensions between speculation and stability, innovation and risk, individual profit-seeking and systemic fragility. When you study these crashes, you're being tested on your understanding of how market psychology, regulatory frameworks, and economic interconnectedness shape capitalist systems. Each crash reveals something different about how markets fail and how institutions respond.
Don't just memorize dates and percentage drops. Know what caused each crash, how it spread, and what systemic changes followed. AP questions often ask you to compare crashes by their underlying mechanisms or analyze how government responses reflect evolving attitudes toward market regulation. The pattern you'll see: capitalism's creative destruction sometimes destroys more than intended, and each crisis reshapes the rules of the game.
These crashes share a common origin: prices became disconnected from underlying value as investors chased rising markets, assuming growth would continue indefinitely. When the gap between price and reality becomes unsustainable, corrections are swift and brutal.
Compare: 1929 vs. Dot-com—both involved speculation divorced from fundamentals, but 1929 was fueled by leverage (borrowed money) while the dot-com bubble was fueled by venture capital and IPO mania. If an FRQ asks about speculation, 1929 shows credit-driven bubbles; dot-com shows innovation-driven bubbles.
These crashes originated in specific sectors but spread throughout the economy because of interconnectedness—when major financial institutions fail, they take others down with them. The problem isn't just bad bets; it's that everyone made the same bad bets.
Compare: 2008 vs. 1987—both revealed systemic vulnerabilities, but 1987 was a technical failure (trading mechanisms) while 2008 was a structural failure (financial products and incentives). 1987 recovered within two years; 2008's effects lasted a decade.
Not all crashes come from within the financial system. External events can expose how fragile market confidence really is—and how quickly fear spreads when uncertainty spikes.
Compare: COVID-19 vs. 2008—both triggered massive government responses, but COVID was an external shock requiring demand-side support (stimulus checks, unemployment benefits) while 2008 required financial system repair (bank bailouts, regulatory reform). COVID's V-shaped recovery contrasts sharply with 2008's slow grind.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Speculative bubbles | 1929, Dot-com (2000) |
| Leverage and margin risk | 1929, 2008 |
| Technology/automation failures | Black Monday (1987) |
| Systemic/contagion risk | 2008, 1929 |
| External shock response | COVID-19 (2020) |
| Regulatory reform triggers | 1929 (SEC), 1987 (circuit breakers), 2008 (Dodd-Frank) |
| Government intervention scale | 2008, COVID-19 |
| Rapid recovery | 1987, COVID-19 |
Which two crashes best illustrate how speculative bubbles form, and what distinguishes the type of speculation in each case?
Explain how program trading in 1987 and mortgage-backed securities in 2008 both represent systemic risks—what do they have in common structurally?
If an FRQ asks you to analyze government responses to market failures, which crash would you choose to argue that intervention stabilized capitalism, and which might you use to argue it distorted market signals?
Compare the recovery timelines of Black Monday (1987) and the Global Financial Crisis (2008). What does this difference reveal about the nature of each crash?
The COVID-19 crash saw markets recover while unemployment remained high. What does this suggest about the relationship between stock markets and the real economy under modern capitalism?