Your discussion on banks and being held responsible leaves out one crucial fact; the ethical dilemma that banks were put in to provide sub-prime loans. Legislators, namely Barney Frank, had continued to provide pressure on banks to continue to provide loans for people who did not qualify. Legislators set up a guarantee bank(s) to provide the real banks with the backstop they wanted in order to make these bad loans. Credit is not fiction; there are real parameters to meet for any given amount of leverage you may pursue in life.

Without legislators and politics, less people would have houses, or would have had houses, and a lot of the “bubble”-type situations would not have existed. Protesting and arranging sit-ins as a result will have little or no consequence. Although their intentions are noble, a few days of reading the history of how the situation developed would provide them with some focus on who created the problems we now can see clearly.

We have a group of people with no common demographic other than their general dissatisfaction with the individuals’ ability to find gainful and meaningful employment. They see this condition as a direct result of the actions of “wall street” or whichever “street” they may be “occupying” across the USA.

Americans are losing sight of the real causal relationship that exists because the timeline is longer than they wish to consider. Additionally, the possible remedies to the situation are mostly beyond both the comprehension of the masses and outside of the acceptable terms they wish to call their “standard of living.” In all senses of the expression, we are in a “catch 22.”

Taxing people who know how to create value is a disincentive to act as a market driver, which reduces the likelihood that there will be improvement in conditions, which increases the likelihood that the protests will eventually fail in what appears to be their mission.