The problem is that even if you have benevolent leaders in charge of the major players in a market, all it does is create opportunity for some immoral actor to enter the market to realize the profit opportunity.

I can't think of an example that a modern corporation has done something against their benefit for purely for moral reasons.

This is the responsibility of effective government regulation and consumer choice. If we leave it up to the market, we will be continually disappointed.

Well, then maybe something's wrong with the very concept of "modern corporation" itself.

I don't know of a better idea than a system of checks and balances between gov, private corporations, and the people.

The thing is each of those serves useful functions so it would be harmful to eliminate or neuter any one of them.

So it seems clear to me there is a lot of value in a division in power between all three. But the trend has been towards more government power, and to more private capital in fewer hands.

I'm sure there is a better way than having this framework, I just don't know if anyone has come up with it yet.

Google leaving China may be such an exemple, although it's always possible that there were other reasons.

Google leaving china might be an example in favor of my point...the moral decision there may have also been the profitable decision.

The question that comes to mind then is whether moral or profit (or something else not on the moral end of the scale) was the driver of that decision ...