Entangling retirement funds with the banking system that took down the economy through overleveraging on a bubble, is a PRIME target to then have them lobby governments for yet another round of bailouts when things go south.  The whole 401K funds funneling into Wall Street also has produced an overvaluing of stock prices to.  The entire system causes trendy funneling of funds into certain assets, overvaluing them, and everyone believing the price is going for sound reasons, based upon the gibberish those who look at technical analysis (rather than fundamentals) would spew.  I would also be very concerned if Anonymoys can hack financial institutions, because it means they cut corners on their security.

The idea of Empire State Rebellion wasn't to hack, but to end up getting people to put their money into smaller banks and get out of the financial system and the major banks.  I would say, if there was any hacking, it should be to exposre corporate corruption.

And here is an article on it:

http://www.examiner.com/anonymous-in-national/anonymous-announces-operation-invade-wall-street

DDOS attacks planned?  October 10th is the date.

You act as if it's some intentional conspiracy... when the truth is, a lot of parts retirement funds end up in wallstreet because it's the easiest and best way to build up retirement funds.

MORE people should have money in the stock market.  Not less.

I'm not making a statement about all non-governmental organizations ...

I'm making the statement that there is a rapidly growing population of intelligent, "educated" and hard-working individuals who have no practical skills and engage in rent-seeking behaviours to provide them with the lifestyle they believe that they deserve. It doesn’t matter whether we’re speaking about people who formed NGOs that provide no benefit to anyone, or speculators who artificially manipulate the market for their own gain, the fact that these individuals are not providing value while are draining substantial resources from the economy is a significant problem.

While I have an undying hatred for many forms of speculators (in particular corporations who engage in high-frequency trading) there is at least a balancing point to their behaviour in that they’re taking on a personal risk. Many NGOs (on the other hand) try to manipulate the government to (through taxation) force me to pay for their activities which I may be entirely opposed to; and often it works out that they’re taking my money (through taxation) to pay for their lobbying efforts to convince the government to give them more of my money.

I want to be clear that when I'm talking about NGOs I'm not talking about charities which have to convince average people (or other donors)  to give them money because they believe in the cause.

Fair enough. Being in a combative mood i misread the tone of your post, though i ultimately agree with your assessment, though these people have existed for all time (a sort of high-class brand of beggar, hangers on to the Royal Court in ages past, providing no policy input but leeching off the court's glory), just that as with many careers that were once reserved to the super-elite, it's easier to become such a hanger-on nowadays

It doesn't matter if something is an accidental conspiracy or not.  If the end result as if it was an intentional conspiracy that failed, what does it matter if it was or wasn't?  It ends up being, as it is now, something where those who mess up the economy once more get bailed out by government money.  I will also say intentionally being blind to potential outcomes, in the name of following an ideological belief to an extreme on "principle" can have the same effect as a conspiracy to do harm, when things end up going wrong.

And no, more people should NOT have their money in the stock market.  There is paper asset inflation.  The money should be going elsewhere into actually funding new start ups and doing real economic development, preferably in areas that people know.  The average person is an idiot when it comes to the stock market, so they shouldn't be there.  And no, mutual funds aren't the answer either.  Only time money flowing into the stock market makes a real difference would be to fund a start up that decides to go public and needs more funding.  Money flowing into established stocks does NOTHING to actually produce needed goods and services.  It ends up being nothing more than gambling.  I said this based on a simple economic principle: What happens when you have a set number of things that can be bought, and it doesn't increase, and more and more money flows in? The price of those items increases.  And with the stock market, you have then certain stocks have too much money flowing their way, causing a bubble effect with their pricing.

A problem now is, in the political rhetoric, it is the simplified cliches that the rich are greedy and evil, and the poor are lazy (read unemployed here).  

Take a look at this article, which commented on a blog that my story about discontinuation of unemployment benefits came up:

http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2010/03/this-is-why-welfare-sucks/

It's only a bubble if having money in the stock market doesn't become a "standard", which it should. 

Prices going up in the stockmarket ain't  a bad thing.

Aside from which you know what the other effect would be?   More venture capitalists.  More richer people giving money to startups to get stock on the "Ground floor."

The average person shouldn't put their money in a startup because startups are EXTREMELY risky.  Take for example this list of buisnesses founded in 1992 that ends in 2002, well before we had the economic downturn!

Imagine what that graph looks like for buisnesses now, it has to be even worse.

Now THAT is gambling. 

I don't really see the relevance.  Other then the fact that the Wallstreet movement plays into those very stereotypes.

Unless your misunderstanding me.

Just because you fail doesn't mean your lazy.

However failure can almost always be pointed to a mistake personally made.  (Barring some kind of huge accident or sickness or something.)

Often times the msitake was made because people didn't have a perfect view of the situation.  (For example those who go to college thinking any degree will gurantee them a job.)

That doesn't mean they haven't made a mistake though or that it couldn't of been avoided.

I think one of the biggest problems people tend to have is that more often then not, those who failed in whatever refuse to accept that they did make mistakes and rather blame society or some other exterior reason which is basically what 95% of the country does and it pisses people off and gets people to say stupid things.

I mean think about it... who are you more likely to give money to?  The guy who blames circumstances for his problems and is bitter.  Or the person who says "Look I made some mistakes, I admit that, but I can't pay for the basic needs nor for what I need to go out there and get out of being unemployed."

The major problem with this protest is that the Anonymous group keeps trying to take over the protest, and they are doing things not in the spirit of the protest. Their very association with it does a lot of harm. It is like if right winged Muslim Fundamentalists supported the Liberal Party in the US.

Kids with entitlement issues posting videos with Catholic terrorist masks does not help anything. If the people of Anonymous really wished to support the movement, they would cease all association with it.

There is a difference between connecting with Guy Fawkes and V.  While the V character connects to Guy Fawkes, V character himself is connected with the graphic novel, and important to understand how that is different.

As for Anonymous, it is what it is, and is and it.  To say, flat out you hate Anonymous and are opposed to everything it stands for, is to say you believe the only individuals who should have privacy, and the ability to do things without detection, is governments and elite and powerful.  Problem with the methdology of being anonymous, which Anonymous incarnates is people who are extreme will get behind it.  But to kill it off completely, is to pave the way for a global totalitarian state.