Wealth is a perception and the way people respond to it.

Money is a currency used to exchange for services and goods. Money is representative of a potential quantity of goods and services that can be purchased with it. However, accumulating money and generating wealth are too different ideals.

A stock market generates wealth via perception. No tangible, objective wealth is to be found in the fluctuating price of shares. As such, stock wealth is subject to the volatile shifts of perception. Because it's not entirely based in objective wealth it is not really good wealth generation. Stock is the expansion point for capital generation. For the shareholders it is an investment of wealth with expected gains.

A manufacturer of widgets creates wealth. The widget has a certain value to the purchaser. It can be exchanged for other goods and services and sold for currency. When the widget is obsolete it's wealth rapidly deteriorates, but if the widget is of use and is scarce the sky is the limit for the wealth it can generate.

An employee generates wealth via his/her labor. Work generates objective wealth. It is compensated by currency, but can also be bartered for other goods and services that possess a measure of value.

The CEO, if he increases the revenues of the company, generates wealth by his services. In the old days this was measured by increased sales, larger market share and creating a brand that carried with it a higher objective value because of quality. Now the CEO often generates negative wealth - saving dollars by cutting employees and outsourcing. Selling land held by the company to increase CASH reserves. Unfortunately, this generally does not create wealth for the company but actually impairs its ability to create wealth.

However the stock market and it's reliance on unobjective perception to create value often responds to any corporate action perceived as good and so CEOs have learned to enrich themselves quickly by trying to generate perception about their company rather than real objective wealth. The late nineties VC-IPO swindles were all about this sort of "wealth generation" that really simply accumulated wealth from gullible investors and the banks that used worthless stock to bolster bogus portfolios for clients.

So this sort of wealth generation during the Clinton years was all about scamming others. It was not based in the real objective wealth generation of creating a good product with value, selling it and generating wealth by its creation.

The housing industry, transportation industry, garment industry, appliance industry, cosmetics industry, pharmaceutical industry, entertainment industry, retail sales industry and others were the cornerstone of objective wealth generation. The factories themselves were inherently valuable and were the cornerstone of the cornerstone. Now as production is outsourced the value of the company goes down and the foreign venue that holds that factory goes up. A factory is an objective wealth generator. A company with no factories of its own, and its holdings all overseas is not a good investment. It's wealth is subject to the mercurial state of foreign relations. When relations sour the factories are seized and the company is, in very short order, insolvent.

Wealth generation in China is now off the charts because they have built the factories that create our companies goods. Our companies have enriched China by spurring the creation of such factories and often paying for their construction. Such investment is folly from an objective standpoint. It is like building a bank on a lot composed of quicksand - it is in constant jeopardy of being lost in totality.

However, in an irrational market, where objective wealth generation is not even understood anymore - such "money saving" ventures are rewarded by a system geared towards exploitation and conservation rather than production.

However now we get to the nitty-gritty of your topic. Is wealth generation subject to morality? If some wealth generation is immoral is it then moral to seize such wealth for oneself?

The answer should be fairly obvious. Two wrongs don't make a right. If wealth generation can be immoral - stealing it only compounds such immoral wealth generation X2.

And beneath the assumption is the notion that there is a finite capacity for wealth generation and the immoral man/company/CEO is stealing others wealth that can not be recovered.

Wealth generation potential is infinite. It is not a finite measure of X number of citizens and X number of dollars. The immoral wealth never can curtail the generation of other wealth and the immoral kind generally isn't really wealth at all. The gangster accumulates cash. The greedy CEO disposes of corporate capital for cash in order to be rewarded, alongside greedy stockholders in a quick cash accumulation while forsaking wealth generation capacity.

So the corrupt really are no threat to others ability to generate wealth for themselves. The corrupt cash accumulators may seem to live better, but their lifestyle is not really a threat to the honest man and his ability to honestly generate the same, or better, lifestyle.

We have antitrust laws, theft laws and others to protect a citizen from the most brazen immoral thievery of wealth. These generally are enough to provide the honest man the opportunity to generate infinite amount of wealth for him/herself.

So the answer is NO. Wealth generation is not subject to moral interpretation and if government is allowed to pass such moral judgment and seize a percentage or all of such wealth it corrupts itself in the process. Unfortunately the folks in government also do not really understand wealth generation, merely bureaucracy, and so embrace such immoral acts as easily as the corrupt CEO, the gangster or the simple car thief.