The Jacobin has an interesting article, "Wall Street Isn’t Worth It", about the abuses by banks in the current regulatory environment. There are some ideas about how to achieve more meaningful regulation, an analysis of why that will not happen and a strategy for the Democrats to turn bank reform into the major issue of the next presidential elections.
The entire Jacobin analysis appears to be based on the assumption that capitalism is not moral. The morality of capitalism became a popular question about the time of Karl Marx, experienced a rebirth during the Great Depression of the 1930s and rose again from the ashes in 2007 with the worldwide financial crisis. During periods of cataclysmic economic downturn, the issue faithfully re-emerges. Supporting the longevity of this issue is the absence of much writing in support of the morality of capitalism.
However, I think the wrong question is being asked. Capitalism, like government and religion, is a social convention of a community. These conventions withstand the test of time because they are fair, equitable and socially beneficial to large numbers of people. Such conventions, in and of themselves, are not moral or immoral but only socially beneficial to varying degrees. Institutions that do not meet this standard disappear relatively quickly, e.g. Nazism, communism, certain mysticisms.
It is the people operating the systems who are immoral when events go astray. We do not ask if government is immoral just because of a Hitler or Stalin. We do not discontinue scientific research because of a Mengele. We do not question the morality of religion because of Jim Jones. It is the individuals, not capitalism, who are probably immoral. Nearly wrecking the world financial system has to be immoral. However, it is the individuals who are immoral and not capitalism.
This article, "A Refresher on the Fundamentals of Capitalism", provides a framework for a capitalist to be moral. Just in case this was a question.