Excellent cartoon. To me, the issue is a bit deeper. It seems that capitalism has lost its ethical core. Of course some would say that capitalism does not have an ethical core, but I don't hold to that.

If we take a look at how our economy has been ruined, it was the WILLFUL acts of those seeking seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of society. Of course those who ruined the economy discuss it in terms of them seeking "new innovative approaches". Additionally they blame the economic collapse on supposed onerous regulation which somehow deprived them of "flexibility". I also like the response concerning pay for performance; they advocate that if you do well you should get paid well. Well now that the economy is tanking, the mantra becomes that we need excessive pay to retain the best and brightest. Of course as the cartoon points out, it is these supposed best and brightest who created this mess and they are not acknowledging responsibility. But I am beginning to drift here.

Dilbert, in the above cartoon as well as some others, raises a concept that I have been thinking about. Has Ayn Rand's concept of Objectivism poisoned the concept of capitalism?

Allegorically that seems to be the case since the use of any business practice by a corporation to make a profit seems to be considered acceptable. (For example, if you die of salmonella poisoning, it was your fault (not the company's) because you neglected to have a salmonella detection kit.) We even pass ridiculous laws that subsidize businesses at the taxpayers expense to "foster business growth". In discussing capitalism today we seldom here calls for acting ethically and conducting business in a responsible manner that does not damage society. I would be interested in hearing a Libertarian discussion of this issue.

I don't think you can blame capitalism if one day you discover that the guard who was paid to protect your building has allowed one of his buddies to get in and burglarize your home. Methinks that you should raise the issue with the building's management instead...

Allegorically that seems to be the case since the use of any business practice by a corporation to make a profit seems to be considered acceptable. (For example, if you die of salmonella poisoning, it was your fault (not the company's) because you neglected to have a salmonella detection kit.) We even pass ridiculous laws that subsidize businesses at the taxpayers expense to "foster business growth". In discussing capitalism today we seldom here calls for acting ethically and conducting business in a responsible manner that does not damage society. I would be interested in hearing a Libertarian discussion of this issue.

The only business practices that are acceptable to libertarians at least are those which are compatible with the rule of law. For example, creating and selling derivatvies is compatible with the rule of law; Bernie Madoff's now defunct ponzi scheme was not. Fortunately, Madoff's actions were the exception, not the rule.

Ridiculous laws that subsidize businesses are arguably not compatible with the rule of law either.

The ongoing mess in the economy was caused primarily by central bank manipulation of interest rates and the monetary base, which cheapened credit and inflated a series of overlapping bubbles in stocks, bonds, derivatives, real estate (which was highly leveraged to begin with), private equity and lbos, commodities, and even art. The SEC's 1975 cartellization of the ratings industry played a small role too. (Although as some critics have pointed out, anyone who actually makes an investment decision based on what a rating agency thinks of, say, a bond, probably doesn't have a clue. A friend of mine high up the food chain at Moody's agrees. The ratings agencies do impress their state-sanctioned impimatur on certain investments that need these imprimatur's thanks to--you guessed it--state mandates.) The real estate and derivatives bubbles were worsened by government intervention in the mortgage market.

Central bank manipulation of interest rates and the money supply takes place because of the legislated monopoly of the money supply given to central banks such as the Fed (in the U.S.), along with other legislation, such as the Full Employment Act of 1946 (in the U.S.; I think that's the date), and other laws and "accords" that pile more stuff on its plate, give it more power, and simultaneously weaken the "free" economy. Add the plethora (now there's a blast word from the past) of laws restricting the ability of commercial banks to act like free banks, such as the Glass Steagall Act legislating the FDIC and ramping up moral hazard in a big way, and the decade-or-so-long (on average) boom-and-bust cycle is a near certainty.

The day we get rid of the Fed and institute free banking is the day we begin to get rid of the business cycle.