Very sensitive issue but with a lot of legitimacy.
I do think that peaceful forms of protest are a very good way for common people to draw the attention of policy makers to a specific issue. Here we are dealing with the result of governments bailing the “big” guy in 2008 and then give “him” few more bucks to continue partying. In the same time the “little” guy had to pay the bills and in many cases also looking for a job. This “cocktail” was headed for this conclusion.
As I said before there was a social contract that the economic system used to work around: we all pay our bills. But when you see that if you are “big enough” this does not apply to you then you wonder about your rights. We have seen this a lot in Romania since 1999 until today and at times our people had the energy to protest it. Now it has hit what in my view used to be the cradle of capitalism, USA. Unfortunately steps taken since 2008 by policy makers in US put a big question mark, for me, around their view of capitalism.
So,yes I do understand the protesters. But as with such movements there is a lack of clear message. This might have to do first with the fact that the people there now are neither economists nor politicians. And without them the movement risks of being ridiculed for being unfocused.
This is my main concern. I am not sure what is the outcome they are hoping for from this movement. A clear and focused message would carry this movement forward and bring more people on board.
Here are two things I would ask for:
1) Make sure that banking losses do not get transferred to the “little ” guy via taxes and inflation
2) Make sure that “too big too fail” banks do not exist in the future (or in any industry)
3) what is the role of banks in a society? Is the banking sector different from any other industry?
What do you think the movement should ask for??