Free Market - Morality or Immorality?

In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post on February 20, Michael Gerson concluded his remarks with these words:
Suspicions about consumerism are being powerfully reinforced by economic realities along with environmental concerns. But the rejection of materialism is finally rooted in a spiritual view of human nature. Pope John Paul II warned of making "people slaves of 'possession' and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better." A less material orientation in life (assuming basic material needs are met) actually expands our horizons -- like an escape from the dungeon of our own desires.

It has always been a quiet fear of capitalists that the success of free markets would eventually undermine the moral basis for free markets -- that decadent prosperity would dissolve values such as prudence and delayed gratification. "Capitalism," argued economist Joseph Schumpeter, "creates a critical frame of mind which, after having destroyed the moral authority of so many other institutions, in the end turns against its own."

But capitalism may be self-correcting in this area, as it is in many others. A recession causes suffering that can overwhelm hope. It can also lead to the rediscovery of virtues that make sustained prosperity possible -- and that add nonmaterial richness to our lives. Sometimes grace can arrive through an unexpected door.

A blogger, The Cunning Realist, commented on Gerson's piece in this way:
By citing Schumpeter, Gerson lets capitalists off a bit easy. While Schumpeter's "quiet fears" are more relevant than ever, there are important differences between the school he represents and today's breed of capitalists. Robert McTeer, then head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, shared his quiet fear in 2001: "If we all join hands and go buy a new SUV, everything will be all right...Just go out and buy something -- maybe a Navigator." Richard Fisher, his successor, said in a television interview in 2005:

Where would the world be if Americans did not live out their proclivity to consume everything that looks good, feels good, sounds good, tastes good? We provide a service for the rest of the world. If we were running a current account surplus or trade surplus, what would happen to economic growth worldwide and what would be the economic consequences? So I think we are doing our duty there.

Does it sound like McTeer and Fisher worried that "decadent prosperity would dissolve values such as prudence and delayed gratification"? That top officials at the Fed represent today's breed of capitalists is an important issue in itself.

During the Bush years, I often wondered how many on the Religious Right understood the irony in supporting an administration that unabashedly promoted an almost demonic obsession with the material world (Bush: "Go shopping"). Gerson embraces the effects of natural downturns in the economic cycle: cultural renewal, thrift, family commitment, savings, morality, frugality, and prudence. It appears some -- and I don't mean Gerson necessarily -- are rediscovering the importance of those things, and justifiably objecting to Washington's extraordinary economic measures as symbols of opposite values. Strangely, that rediscovery seems to have started in early November.

There has been a debate among some, though muted at times, on whether capitalism was moral or immoral. Certainly, we have seen evidence of abuses by individuals within the economic system, but abuses do not really define the inherent morality of the system. What think you, good reader? Can a system based on the proposition of an individual getting as much wealth as she or he can and the elevation of unfettered consumption be moral? Can a system that is based on limiting how much wealth a person can accumulate be moral? What questions should you ask to determine the morality? What criteria do you use?