"If you had asked people in 1929, 'Here is what is about to happen. How much would you pay to avoid the Great Depression from occurring?' The answer is they would have paid a lot. They would have borrowed money if it could be used to prevent the Great Depression"

Austan Goolsbee draws attention to the immense costs that societies face during economic catastrophes like the Great Depression. He invites us to imagine the mindset of people in 1929 if they'd truly understood the devastation looming over them: the unemployment, the widespread bank failures, the loss of homes and savings, the unraveling of confidence in the very future. In that context, people might strategically weigh how much they would give, if it were possible, to prevent the disaster. The rhetorical question underscores the value people place on social and financial stability, especially in retrospect, when the actual consequences of inaction become painfully clear.

The observation reflects on how humans tend to underestimate or ignore impending risks, only grasping their true magnitude after disaster strikes. The willingness to "pay a lot" or even borrow money they didn’t have points to the concept of societal insurance or collective action, societies sometimes must incur costs today to forestall far greater harms tomorrow. This concept, often debated in the realms of fiscal policy and risk management, supports strong interventionist measures when warning signs of crisis emerge. Goolsbee addresses an implicit criticism often leveled against policy responses to prevent or soften economic downturns, chiefly, their apparent cost or the national debt they may incur. He suggests these costs should be measured not only in immediate fiscal terms but also in potential suffering averted.

Furthermore, the statement deals with the value of foresight and preventative action in public policy. It serves as a lesson from history that reminds us how, in the face of existential threats, preemptive spending or borrowing can save nations from exponentially greater losses. In summary, people would be willing to take bold steps to avoid catastrophe if they had clearer vision, and this attitude should inform current and future policy decisions, urging us to consider the real cost of inaction alongside immediate expenditures.