When discussing any topic, whether it be public policy or sports or whatever, one must remember to separate intent from results. An action could be conducted with good intent but have bad results (thus the phrase “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”).
This is important to remember when discussing markets’ morality. One of the arguments some make against markets is that they are driven by profit. This is true; firms and individuals are profit-seekers and profit is necessary to remain in a market (after all, as we discussed before, in order to receive in a market, one must have something to give). But does the fact that markets are not formed solely on altruism make them immoral? Of course not: markets are a force for good because their results, on the net, are good.
Let me demonstrate my point with a question for you to consider: who is more moral (who does more good): the store owner who keeps his prices so low he breaks even, but his store is always sold out of goods, or the owner who makes a profit but his store is always stocked? If you needed goods, which would you go to?