occupied

Even in our humble Corvallis there are "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations, but what would you expect from the town that has the longest running Iraq Peace Protest?  An opinion piece written by economist Russ Roberts broke the movement's voice into two statements, "we are the other 99%" and, "end Wall Street cronyism."  Roberts set aside the attack on the 1% as unfounded because there are many of entrepreneurs such as Mark Zuckerberg who bring the world much good and are justly rewarded for their advances.  On the other hand, he argues that federal guarantees to the creditors of failing institutions and assurances that failure is not an option, a.k.a. "Wall Street cronyism", is a legitimate claim.

The question I have is not about why the movement has come to this well educated, left leaning, politically active town but rather the implications of the protest and wishes of the protesters.  By not allowing failed institutions and ideas to bid adieu, the United States has instead created a haven for gamblers that bet with everyone's money but their own and their friends'.  We could agree that something needs to be done, but how far should regulations change?  If creditor's money isn't insured, companies will be much more risk averse, but how far down will the blame ultimately fall?  Will the simple savings accounts of thrifty citizens lose their insurance?  After all, it is the customers that supported the unstable system to begin with.  Citizens who place their money in financial institutions should keep better informed about how their money is being spent, but in all honesty, my mom was probably one of very few people that pulled her money from J.P. Morgan Chase because she was dissatisfied with the bank's role in the meltdown.

What option other than total withdrawals does the populous have to show their dissatisfaction? Oh yeah, protest.