*Does anyone honestly think that the capitalist has a moral conscience?*

Its an interesting question, Paul. If you take a closer look
you will in fact find that America's richest two people, Bill
Gates and Warren Buffett, are giving away their riches to
charity. America is in fact littered with philanthropic
foundations, doing the same. Take a look at a bloke like
Ted Turner, the founder of CNN. He too gave away billions.

So whilst corporations are paper entities, their job is to
run efficient and profitable businesses, the eventual
owners of that wealth, based on the evidence, do in fact
have a moral conscience as they can't take it with them.

Who benefits? The poor in Africa and other places where
Gates and Co invest their money, to eradicate polio and
similar projects.

Paul, as is the case in many from the true left, wants more, better.
And in all probability is a decent person.
Such views however, a better Capitalism, or even something better are just a dream.
One that over looks so much that is good in our existing system.
We in this country at least in part fund welfare education health care public transport.
We fund national defense and fire and flood relief and protection.
The list is too long for 5 posts.
We saw trials of other systems, every other proved worse, enslaving people.
We all are in part Capitalists, we change jobs if wages are low , invest in superannuation buy a home.
Self interest as has been said will drive the most of us forever.
In finding fault with that, first look at the faults in other systems.

Yabby, You refer to Bill Gates and co, I have to agree, the individual can have a 'moral conscience' even if they head up a huge corporation. My interpretation of 'the capitalist' is a bit more abstract. In fact their acts of giving is down right communistic. However the capitalist when wearing his corporation hat must act differently, he must act as a capitalist acts, huge corporation are beyond the control of the individual and must answer to share holders who expect to see profits and profits can only be obtained by exploration.
Belly you refer to we in this country fund public transport etc. None of that has been obtained through capitalism but rather through the social collective, which robs capital to provide these social benefits, is it not? Pure capitalism will never spontaneously provide public this or public that. You seem to intemperate the benefits of our mixed society as being down to capitalism. The big thing that capitalism provides and socialism can not, or at best very poorly, is the entrepreneurial skills needed to bring resources and labour together, the need to maximize profits drives innovation, but it does not provide a 'free lunch' and never will. The entrepreneur will be present in any society it is a genuine skill that all societies need.

The way is a constructed mix of capitalist and socialist. Some things are best owned by federal, to be subsidized and kept at a reasonable cost. Some people buck the system, and prefer private schools, which doesn't help, But when it comes to public transport they prefer it to be subsidized.

*huge corporation are beyond the control of the individual and must answer to share holders who expect to see profits and profits can only be obtained by exploration.*

Paul, I assume that you meant exploitation rather then exploration.
That is of course not the case. The best way to make profits, is
by cutting waste and by giving your customers a better deal, for
then they will come back again and again and not bother going to the
competition down the road.

Indeed corporations have to answer to shareholders and cannot do
with the money, whatever they want. If your bank took money from
your account and gave it to charity, would be you be happy with that?
If not, then why expect other corporations do it with shareholders
money? But of course shareholders, being the owners, are free to
give away as much as they like. So I think you confuse the role
of the corporation. If directors started giving away shareholders
money, they could go to jail, as far as I am aware.

Yabby,your assumption was correct, In the capitalist model, if owners capital was given away then it would no longer be capitalism, it would be some kind of socialism as owners expect reward for risk. If Bill G stood up at a shareholders meeting an announced Microsoft had made 10 trill profit this year and he had, in a philanthropic gesture, given it all away to noble causes and the shareholder gave Bill 3 cheers for his actions then there would be no problem, but I hark back to the reward for risk factor, so no matter how much Bill may like to do so, the capitalist model does not allow for that kind of action, there are constraints which must be met. Free market competition is good for the consumer, but bad for the capitalist as it diminished profits, it drives down margins and that is counterproductive for the capitalist so to increase profits in the face of competition the capitalist has to be innovative and innovation costs, it will force the capitalist to look for cost savings within and without, like cutting waste etc to drive up profits. From the capitalists point of view the best business is a monopoly. Imagine if there was only one oil company in the world which had an unfettered monopoly, with total control of supply and price, given demand as it is for such a company the sky's the limit. There would be no innovation, no great cost control, no looking for new ways to maximise profits, profits would maximise themselves. I don't think anyone at a shareholders meeting even yells out "Can't you do something to bring down the price." Why would they?