Morality in a free market

Are the markets moral? Should we expect them to be? Moral according to whom? 
If they’re not moral, are they immoral? Amoral? Or value-neutral?

• Morality describes the codes of conduct put forward by a society. It can refer to a system of conduct to which all rational persons, regardless of culture, would subscribe. Morality deals with our sense of fairness and our sense of responsibility to others. Implicit in morality is the idea that there are right ways and wrong ways to act.
• A market is any structure under which commerce takes place: the purchase of land, stocks, airline tickets, vegetables, sporting events, whatever it may be. These structures begin as neither moral nor immoral. They are indifferent as water. Markets are meant simply to be vehicles for finding the most efficient way to balance supply and demand. The freer the market, the less encumbered by regulation, and the more efficient it should be. 
• From a social standpoint, unfettered markets can lead to situations most of us would consider immoral: vast populations of have-nots, a ruined environment, plutocracies and other dystopian scenarios.
• How can we influence markets so that they can help us build the kind of world we believe we should have?The misalignment between markets and morality -- public good versus individual rights. How markets should be governed is a discussion about capitalism itself. Capitalism has brought so much to so many in so short a time. Is it perfect? No. 
• Even as our free-market system has raised living standards to levels once unimaginable, the backlash against the markets has gotten louder. The Occupy Wall Street movement is the most visible example. Most of the protesters say they aren’t against the markets. They’re against injustice and inequality and that the system is rigged against them. They say it’s criminal for a CEO to make several hundred times the earnings of an average employee. 
• It’s disgusting for a company to shut down a plant, throw workers out on the street, and, destroy a town’s economy for no reason other than that a cheaper source of production has been found elsewhere. Only government can make the markets work in the public interest and not in their own interest.
• Something in our society is out of whack. The stock market is up but people don’t have jobs. The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing. There’s an international super-class traveling the world in private jets, living in a series of penthouse apartments, while the rest of us can only shake our heads, grow embittered, and soothe ourselves with reality programs that exploit some of society’s most pathetic individuals so that we can feel superior to somebody, thereby mitigating our doubts about our own positions in the socio-economic hierarchy. 
• All systems tend to perpetuate themselves, to act in their own self-interest until curbed by some other force. John Ruskin believed that honesty wasn’t just the best policy; it was the only policy that would allow an economy to steer clear of chaos. Many corporations have learned that corporate social responsibility isn’t just charity. It fosters long-term value. Business is the most powerful force in the world, and when approached in a certain way, it promotes both economic and social good.
• Honesty fosters trust, and trust allows markets to function. When trust fails and when no bank would lend money because it didn’t trust the credit-worthiness of any potential counterparty -- markets crash.
• Those with great power and wealth have a responsibility to use it for good. Having accumulated more wealth than several men could use in several lifetimes, Mr. Bill Gates has devoted his fortune to initiatives aimed at eradicating disease and poverty in some of the world’s most backward geographies. 
• In the liberal democracies of the West, the free-enterprise system is not designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. And the markets, in the purest sense, aren’t listening. They tend to follow mathematics, not morals.You can be as ambitious as you want; you can achieve as much as your abilities allow; but you have to play by the rules. And the rules make the markets more open, more transparent and more fair.
• In the context of larger issues: the individual versus the group; equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome; and the difference between legal and moral, which ones do we place at the top? Ayn Rand would tell that the individual is all. By contrast, a honeybee would tell you that group welfare trumps everything.
• We’re individuals, but we’re part of and we have the ability to affect the group. We do it at the ballot box and we can do it in the markets. In investing we can choose to restrict our investments to companies that exhibit behavior consistent with our own morality.
• Rule breaking is an example of personal wrongdoing, not evidence of a corrupt institution. Can we blame markets for thieves like Bernie Madoff? Do markets create greed, along with motivation?
• Look at Madoff’s sixty-billion-dollar swindle. He caused tremendous damage. He bankrupted successful businesses and charitable organizations. He reduced families to penury. His own son committed suicide. But anyone who considers Madoff a representative money manager is mistaken. He is simply a criminal.
• There are situations in which entire industries have acted immorally.The sub-prime lending crisis of 2007-08. Banks pushed people to borrow more than they needed, more than could really afford, because the banks made the most money that way. Some of the biggest culprits were deemed “too big to fail,” and were granted immunity for their mistakes. 
• A moral society seeks the best opportunity for all its members. It protects the weak while allowing ambition to express itself fully. A corporation seeks to maximize its profits while staying within the law and doing right by its customers, workers and the community in which it undertakes its activities. Some corporations take it as a point of pride to create excellent working conditions, encourage social commitment, and to act as a moral society in miniature.
• Whether markets seek to be moral or not is irrelevant, because they have proved an effective tool for improving lives. As Deng Xiaoping once put it, “It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.”
• The idea that everything in life can be reduced to supply and demand may not be the most valid way to look at all human interaction. At what point does that premise begin to corrupt the social fabric?
• In New York, Washington DC etc a cottage industry of line-standers has now grown up and you can hire people to stand in line for you in case you have more money than time. It creates a positive good for two people -- the line-stander and the playgoer.
• In Washington DC -- line-standing companies employ homeless people to stand in line for clients who want the limited seats available for Congressional committee hearings and Supreme Court sessions open to the public. Lobbyists and others are often happy to pay for access. From a market standpoint: supply and demand. Socially? It kind of doesn’t smell right.
• At Disney World, people in wheelchairs and their families don’t have to wait in long lines for rides. They’re placed at the front of the queue. That seems morally correct. So some people of means have paid disabled strangers to pose as their family members. This is immoral and dishonest.

As long as we would prefer to pay more for a good that is produced in accordance with our values than pay a lower price for an article that is made by taking advantage of those without the means to redress unfair conditions, we will be moving the markets towards a more just, more moral position. The fact is we aren’t always willing to do that. Regulation can fix some of the problem, but personal responsibility -- knowing what you are investing in and buying -- can play a bigger role.

Principles aren’t principles until they cost you money.

Read the source article