A University of Chicago law professor compares current market speculation to the era before the 1929 crash, raising alarms about regulatory oversight.
William Birdthistle, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, has drawn a striking parallel between today’s financial landscape and the roaring 1920s in a New York Times op-ed. Using F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” as his cultural touchstone, Birdthistle argues that the Trump administration’s approach to financial regulation mirrors the negligent oversight that preceded the Wall Street crash of 1929. The comparison gained attention as markets continue climbing to new highs, fueled by speculative investments in artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies.
Birdthistle’s core concern centers on what he sees as a dangerous pattern repeating itself. When financial regulators sleep, he argues, fraudsters flourish, pumping froth into markets through inflated profits until bubbles inevitably burst. The professor contends that a century of hard-won economic lessons should inform current policy decisions, yet the current administration appears to be embracing what he calls “dissolute policies” that keep risky speculation flowing.
The community response to this warning has been decidedly mixed. While some observers share Birdthistle’s concerns about an impending crisis and point to troubling parallels with past economic instability, others push back with a more optimistic view of modern safeguards. Commenters note that today’s financial institutions and government tools differ fundamentally from those of the 1920s (beyond just having access to Google Sheets investment spreadsheets) and argue that the Federal Reserve would likely intervene with monetary stimulus long before conditions deteriorated into another Great Depression. This counterargument suggests that inflation, rather than deflation and collapse, poses the greater risk in the coming years.
The debate reflects a deeper tension in how Americans assess economic risk. Skeptics of the current administration worry about social and political instability stemming from unchecked financial excess, while others maintain confidence in institutional guardrails that have been strengthened since the last major financial crisis. Both sides agree on one point: the stakes are high, and the choices made now about regulatory oversight will shape economic outcomes for years to come.
What remains unresolved is whether Birdthistle’s historical warning will prompt policy changes or serve as a cautionary tale that goes unheeded. The answer may depend less on the strength of the analogy and more on whether policymakers choose to intervene now or manage the consequences later.
This news comes at a time when talk of the 29 market crash is in vogue. Andrew Ross Sorkin released the book 1929, released earlier this year. It covers the months leading up to and shortly following the crash. Those interested in tracking their reading habits can easily do it with a reading list speadsheet in Google Sheets.