Profit is good. Vacations, televisions, houses, cars, clothing and the like are the incentives to inspire the average worker/consumer to work harder, to earn more. The harder or more often a person works, the more money they will make, the more money they will have available to them to spend. This is perfect in a purely economical sense. However, the desire for profits can often get out of hand. This is the bad side of greed: greed without ethics.

Greed without ethics is the unhindered ability of a person to produce at any cost (not in the monetary sense) in order to garner the largest profit. For example, Bernie Madoff stole billions of dollars ($50,000,000,000, to be precise) from investors who simply wanted to earn money in a legal way. Madoff promised high, consistent returns on investments; he did this by depositing money from new investors into the accounts of old investors. And Enron’s founder, Kenneth Lay, was found guilty of securities fraud, wire fraud and making misleading statements. This led to the Enron stock value falling from $90 to $1, which devastated many individuals who had invested in the company.

Markets are moral, in the same way that freedom is moral. Both parties, producers and consumers, profit. One gains money, to further his production exploits (or to be a consumer himself) and the other gains a product. In this respect, markets are fair.

Our priority as a nation is not to spread the wealth evenly, but to prevent the strong from harming the weak–or, the “able” and the “less able,” respectively.

Aesop’s allegory, The Lion’s Share, ends with the Fox bitterly mumbling, “You may share the labors of the great, but you may not share the spoil.” The Fox is angry that his labor, joining the lion and other animals on a hunt for a stag, while successful, will go unrewarded due to the lion’s greediness. Much like the current economic situation, the masses feel as though they are not being sufficiently rewarded (rather, compensated), for their labor, whereas their employers are making six-plus figures a year.

Thomas Friedman wrote, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist.” Of course, he was referencing Adam Smith’s idea of the invisible hand. Adam Smith believed that the economy was self-regulating, that some force, some “invisible hand” would eventually fix every problem. Obviously this Panglossian viewpoint doesn’t hold much merit when both the nation and the world are currently facing devastating economic instability.

If not an invisible hand, what can get the US out of this mess? Regulations based on logic, not ideology, bi-partisan agreements and a resurgence in nationalism and isolationism.

My take on the hidden fist Friedman referenced is the strength of the opposing power of complete economic freedom. As I have adamantly contested, pure economic freedom would never work due to the existence of greed without ethics. Therefore, one could logically deduce that an economy without regulations is not going to fare well. It would be the equivalent of placing candy in front of a child, telling him not to touch it, then leaving him unattended.

However, one must not forget that capitalism and the free market are not the evil culprits responsible for this mess, but rather the men and women who threw their morals and ethics to the wind and took advantage of the system. Loop holes must be filled in and a closer watch must be kept on businesses.

Greed is good. Profit is good. Chasing after the American Dream means wanting more than you have, wanting more than your “fair share.” What’s so wrong with being gloriously comfortable?