The key difference is that the '87 crash was mostly a response to the overall economy, while the recent Nasdaq crash is about changes in technology. The broad stock boom that developed in 1986 and '87 because investors were enthusiastic about the robust economy was squashed when strong growth and inflation fears prompted the Federal Reserve to jack up interest rates. As a result, stocks have not all moved together. In fact, different sectors have often gone in opposite directions. The Nasdaq crash didn't lead to a wider collapse.
Growth rates are in parentheses.
Growth rates are projected for five years. For much of this year, the Nasdaq soared as investors infatuated with the promise of endless growth bid dotcoms and the hottest tech stocks up to unprecedented levels. Meanwhile, Old Economy stocks stagnated or fell, undercut by worries about creeping inflation and the possibility that higher interest rates would slow the economy in the second half. Then, when shareholders started to worry that first-quarter earnings would be disappointing, they started dumping the high fliers, which then came back closer into line with the rest of the market. So it would be easy to dismiss the tech wreck as a case of what goes up must come down.