[Rolated to Making the Connection] Economist Peter Temin of MIT argues that, "If the crash of 1929 was an important independent shock to the econormy, then the crash of 1987 should have been equally disastrous." Source: Peter Tornin, Lessons from the Great Depreseion, Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press, 1989 p. 41. Which of the following events would be considered an "important independent shock to an economy"? A. An increase in the Federal Funds rate. B. Intlation. C. A stock market crash. D. The breakout of war in the Europe. What reason might Temin give to support his argument that what happened to the economy following the crash of 1987 is evidence against the crash of 1929 being an important shock to the economy? A. The market decine in 1929 was twice as large as the market decine in 1987. B. The market decline in 1987 was twice as large as the market decline in 1987. c. Economic condtions were more severe after the crash of 1987 because the decline in the market was twice as large as in 1929. D. Economic conditions were more severe atter the crash of 1929 even though the decline in the market in 1987 was twice as large as the decline in the market in 1929. Christina Romer would argue that the impact of the crash of was more severe because of its effect on as well as the regulations in place at the time