-The modern industrial revolution was really only about 30 years old, manufacturing and technology was still primitive compared to today. We can produce much more with less; technological advancement will ensure there will always be enough "things" available, such as food, clothes, the basic neccesities.
Why do you think that "technological advancement" will ensure that there are always enough basic commodities available? Or if they are available, what makes you think that they will always be affordable to the average American?
Cotton and food have to be grown, fertilized, harvested and transported -- each step currently requires oil. What if oil prices went up by another factor of 5? That's something that could easily happen, given the decline in the dollar and increasing demand from Asia.
-The nation's infrastructure was still primative. Roads were knee deep in mud, much of the country didn't have electricity. Railroads were probably at their peak around this time, but they have declined dramatically, replaced with autos, trucks, airplanes.
Today, the nation's infrastructure is in a declining state of disrepair. Transportation is available, but costs will continue to increase with the price of oil. It seems possible to me that in the near future, air travel might only be affordable by the very rich. Don't forget that the production of cars and planes is intensely energy intensive, so prices for those "basics" will continue to increase too.
-Communication was slow. Snail mail was the norm. Some people had phones. No TV. Radio powered with batteries.
What would happen if people couldn't afford to keep their phones? What if radios and TVs were no longer affordable?
- The Federal Reserve learned its lesson, don't contract the money supply. Enough of us understand why it happened (but sadly too many still don't, they blame the "market"). If they try the same thing again enough people will be able to call them on it.
Bernanke studied the causes of the Depression at great length. He believes that it could have been prevented if the Fed had acted more aggressively, based on his Keynesian view of the world. According to the Austrian view, he's dead wrong. Amazingly, it looks like he'll get the chance to try out his theories (makes one wonder why he was picked to be chairman, doesn't it?).
Look, the basic situation is that wealth is a result of
production. America has moved most of its production overseas, and its wealth has followed. It has devolved into a service and consumer based economy. Wealth is not being produced, it's being spent. To make matters worse, Americans are borrowing to fund their spending. Plus, the government is now socialist and imperialist, with huge spending on social programs and in attempts to maintain the US overseas empire. I couldn't imagine a more precarious scenario if I tried!