Your Maddof example brings to mind Michael Novak’s (author, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism) three legged stool analogy of a successful democratic capitalistic system. The three legs being: 1. Political freedom (the rule of law); 2. Economic freedom (a market economy where people can be owners); and 3. Moral responsibility (truth and fair play). According to Novak, if one of the legs is significantly weakened or removed, the stool topples.

I also think greed is often wrongly defined and turned into misleading political talking points. Much of what is labeled as “greed” is more accurately self-interest – and these are two very different things. Using your example, if I want to increase my wealth and go to my job to do so, I am protecting my family and own self-interest. This is a good thing. Where I become greedy is when I start trying to get/steal/swindle more than my share for the service I am giving. For instance, not working and expecting to be paid violate Keys 1 and 2 above; abusing my employees violates key 1 and Novak’s 3rd leg….

I also find it interesting when politicians call capitalism evil or bad. Capitalism is an economic system that is morally neutral, so if we accept their claims, we must conclude that people are evil or bad (or at least the people engaging in capitalism). So if it’s true that people are bad, then wouldn’t the economic system that offers the most safeties and checks against bad actions be preferred? If the answer to this is yes, then we come full-circle to concluding that capitalism is superior to socialism or communism precisely because it has the most checks and balances against bad actions or bad people. Because, after all, government can regulate and punish wrong-doing in business, but it becomes much harder, if not impossible to regulate and punish wrong-doing in government.