"boom and bust" cycles create opportunity, and the Democrats seems to believe it must be controlled, also. Do they have any proof that a government controlled, steadily expanding economy will help the poor more than capitalism?

The reason communism ultimately fails as an economic system is that it runs counter to human nature. Sorry, but humans are motivated by greed and fear much more than they are by altruism. Obviously, there are exceptions, but for the most part people look out for themselves and their family first and foremost. This is particularly true In the economic area. If long hours, hard effort, and high risk gets little more results than short hours, little effort, and low risk, then most people opt for short hours, little effort, and low risk and the economy goes into the dumps.

To a large degree the cycles in the market are the result of a tug-of-war between greed and fear. Sure, government stupidity like guaranteeing subprime mortgages can override the cycles, but it's public confidence in the economy that normally drives the cycles. That confidence is driven in part by the news media. When times are good any economic bad news gets air time and eventually it erodes public confidence and there's more and more bad news. At some point people just get tired of hearing the bad news, tune it out, and start spending and investing again. By then any good news gets air time and eventually it bolsters public confidence and there's more and more good news. When people get tired of hearing the good news the cycle starts over again. Apparently someone told Obama about this and he's been talking positively about the economy lately.

The idea that you can control the market in such a way as to smooth out the highs and lows while retaining the benefits of the market is just another liberal pipe dream.

Lets see would you define Greed as someone who makes about $250k a year and donates less than .33% of their income to charity?

If so than Joe Biden is greedy.

That means that Good Ole Joe donated about $800 a year to charity for each of 2006 and 2007. WHAT A GUY!!!!

Reading the above article, you would never guess that the marginal Federal income tax on the highest income brackets during the 1950's was twice as high as it is now. That was a decade with one of the fastest growing economies in American history, of which most of it occured under a conservative Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. There's a lot of factors which affect economic performance, one of which are tax rates. But to imagine that if a country will slash income tax rates on the affluent that prosperity will be sure to follow flies in the face of history.

It's evident that the negative connotation of greed has been co-opted and used as a whipping boy by the left. By emphasizing this,it's become easy to demonize "big business" in order to promote the agendas of social and economic equality.

It then forms the basis for implementation of that despicable tenet of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

All of which ultimately leads to a life totally controlled by the government. If you doubt this, then I suggest you pay close attention to the upcoming legislation proposed by the Dems.

There will always be those who can be labeled "greedy". But EVERYONE is guided to some extent by 'self-interest'. Unless they have a death wish.

"But to imagine that if a country will slash income tax rates on the affluent that prosperity will be sure to follow flies in the face of history."

Context, Steven, context. In those years we were still paying for a little incident called WWII. In addition there was a long pent up demand for consumer goods. Prior to the 'little incident' was something called a Great Depression. And to throw another wrinkle in, there was a large amount of rebuilding going on in Europe and the far east.

Does anyone really want someone like Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd or Barney Frank dictating their economic life and circumstances? That's were Obama is headed.

That was a decade with one of the fastest growing economies in American history, of which most of it occurred under a conservative Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower.

The late 40's and 50's were a time of great optimism fueled by winning WW2. That optimism not only translated into strong economic growth, but also the baby boom. Contributing to economic growth was the pent-up demand for manufactured goods that were not obtainable during the war. American goods were not only the best in the world, but often the only ones available because most of the nations in Europe and Asia were in shambles into the early 50's. America was also the largest exporter of oil in the world.

With so much optimism and so many economic advantages of that time, the high income tax rates for the highest brackets could be sustained without slowing the economy. It's a mistake to assume that high tax rates won't show our economy now that we live in far more competitive world. One we helped build and still protect at great expense to U.S. taxpayers.

Steven
"a lot of factors which affect economic performance, one of which are tax rates. But to imagine that if a country will slash income tax rates on the affluent that prosperity will be sure to follow flies in the face of history."

How do you explain the record breaking influx of money into the treasury from the years of the Bush tax cuts?

How did JFK increase revenue to the govt?

Your statement should read

"But to imagine that if a country will slash income tax rates on the affluent that prosperity will be sure to follow is apparant in the face of history."
'

BTW after WW2 and hte Korean war it was extremely hard to have women barefoot and pregnant at home vs in the workplace. More people worked which increased the amount of money for households to spend which increased demand which increased production.

It's called the "Greater Fool Theory"

"Greed in and of itself is not a good thing, but allowing people to keep a satisfactory portion of what they create has always been the single greatest incentive for entrepreneurs to take risks and create capital."-ml

You cannot win hearts and minds against the rolling socialist zeitgeist by painting your shield "greedy" green and marching under the banner of _CAPITAL_.

Not on the Field of Marx, you can't. To wit, you "allow":

"And JUST LIKE THE FREE MARKET ENTREPRENEURS that they despise, socialists have a curious habit of NEVER BEING SATISFIED WITH WHAT THEY HAVE."_m.l.

You shouldn't grant to the socialists that which isn't true. For MOST entrepreneurs, business is the MEANS to and end, that END being "Happiness". Thus the unfortunate business failure rate (even in the best of times) due to businessman's enjoyment of the APPARENT security that Happiness entails.

So your Truth is NOT self-evident, but is an old "saw" of scientific Marxian dialectics.

Wizbang, despite itself, is INTERESTING.

Okay, let's talk about greed. How about greed for political power? Is that a dangerous form of greed? Are there any Democrats who are politically greedy?

Let's talk about altruism. Do Obama, Pelosi and Reid do what they do because of altruism? Do people vote for Democrats because of altruism? Are they altruistic when they vote for they guy who promises more government handouts? Are they altrusitic when they vote for the guy who promises to increase taxes only for the income brackets they will never see?
http://www.rightklik.net/

Leftists prefer to replace greed...with envy.