I think it's interesting that the kids occupying Wall Street for 4 weeks now still don't know what they want. Mostly what I am hearing is that rich people suck. I'm sure some of them do, but I think some poor people probably suck too.
There, now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can delve into the true meaning of this protest. Just as with the Tea Party it's frustration over this country's failures that is driving this. While there is plenty of blame to go around I think the protesters are "occupying" the wrong city. Washington DC is where they need to be.
Simply put it's not capitalism or the so-called rich that have failed us. It is forced socialist policies designed to fail that make everything and everyone they touch fizzle a little bit more with each new layer of government bureaucracy. Am I being facetious when I declare that forced socialist policies are supposed to fail? Not really.
I used to think and still do in some instances that the do-gooders have the best of intentions, but it is the unintended consequences (of human nature) that ruin everything they foist upon us. After reading Bruce Carlton's post: Good intentions? Not so, I have to conclude that the good intentions motivation I have bestowed on extreme leftist (PC) policies are just the opposite.
At least capitalism in it's pure form is honest. Socialism, leftism or PCism - whatever you want to call it is a liar's game. If you believe the lies that America's financial problems are the result of greedy capitalists then no doubt you will side with the Occupiers and demand "someone" gives you what you want for free. The ones who believe the liars are ignorant or deceived or are lying to themselves. A child knows that someone else will always have more than they do, but only a child is allowed to deceive themselves into believing that the unfairness of it all should be rectified with more unfairness.
I have always marveled at the notion that a rich man's inheritors should be forced give a huge percentage of their gains to the government out of some sense of fairness. What fairness is it that the government deserves or has any right to that money? I don't care if it is more money than any one person could ever use - it is theirs. It is more obscene in my eyes that the government can by the use of force take a man's inheritence than it is for a man to have more money than he could ever use. To what end? So that the government can spend it better?
The list of government programs and agencies that have been wildly successful and worked as intended (without costing society in other ways) is very, very short.
The failure of America's financial system, fiscal system, educational system and moral system can be laid at the feet of the men and women in Washington DC not New York City's Wall Street. DC acts Wall Street reacts. This not defending Wall Street, this placing the fault where it belongs.
The totality of "good" government failures (with all the good intentions, or lies if you will) is long. From the mortgage/subprime meltdown and it's inception in government policies to the coming demise of the venerable postal system. Government makes the rules, the rules are fixed so that some succeed and the rest...
So tell me how (real) capitalism has destroyed our country?