Aside from which.... when did I say people shouldn't be mad about MF Global?  I'm saying the situation is working how it should.  They're going out of buisness, and chances are the executives WILL do some jail time here because it's one big case that's in everyones view.

I mean, what's the alternative here?

So long as the game consists of arguing on forums like that to prove oneself right, and not levelsetting on what the real problems are, then there is irreversable problems.  Like, you know what is likely to happen in Washington?  Well, look for a total reversal of the Bush Tax cuts and the cross the board budget cuts, including impacting the department of defense to happen, because neither side will give ground.

The alternative to just flat out protesting Washington is to focus on key areas that have problems and try to build sufficient public interest and awareness in the subject something can be done.  Considering the partisan climate where the goal isn't to address problems, but blame one side as the ship comes down, the pressuring Washington, and say getting a few congressment elected (the way the Tea Party has) isn't going to work.  So long as the game consists of arguing on forums like that to prove oneself right, and not levelsetting on what the real problems are, then there is irreversable problems.  Like, you know what is likely to happen in Washington?  Well, look for a total reversal of the Bush Tax cuts and the cross the board budget cuts, including impacting the department of defense to happen, because neither side will give ground.

And as was shown in the articles I listed, there are legitimate fraud problems in Wall Street that go beyond mere too much risk.

I can think of worse fates. 

That is about the worst idea I have ever heard ... While transferring your bank account to a credit union or a small bank can be an effective protest against a large bank, the rest of your suggestions are moronic.

Corporatism is a problem where gigantic corporations buy influence from politicians to gain favour with a government which has so much power that its decisions can make these corporations billions of dollars. The core problem is the government has so much power and leeway to make decisions which favour a corporation (or industry) at the expense of the general public. With that said, you’re not even attempting to target corporations that have behaved poorly and bought influence, and your untargeted and poorly thought out action will likely result in far more honourable and well run businesses struggling than large corporations; and your actions will likely have significant negative effects on countless individuals, in particular young people looking for jobs (as large corporations shift their workforce to countries where people actually want to work) and the elderly (who’s fixed income is heavily dependant on the investments you destroyed).

Rather than doing this, why don't you do something completely radical and research which companies are behaving well and which are behaving poorly and publish this information in an attept to sway people with a similar worldview to support the good companies? If you convince enough people to buy these products and services, and to invest in these stocks, you will have created an incentive for companies to act in the way you want them to ...

If you combine that with a massive reduction in the power of the government, and force the government to treat all corporations under the same rules (with no special treatment for any corporation or industry) you would likely see a massive change in how business is done.

Considering governments are elected democratically in the US, and these protests are directed at wall street, I am not sure how your anti-government post is relevent in effectively arguing anything.

Considering governments are elected democratically in the US, and these protests are directed at wall street, I am not sure how your anti-government post is relevent in effectively arguing anything.

That's the problem. Why are the protests directed at Wall Street for taking money and favors rather than at D.C. for giving it to them to begin with? To the extent that they are not merely a demonstration of inchoate rage by the flakier elements in American society, the OWS movement would seem to be a protest against corporatism. But since money always finds power, as long as the government retains the power to pick winners and losers, there will always be corporatism. OWS is generally in favor of a larger and even more powerful government, but they assume that it somehow won't be even more corrupt than the present one because they labor under the misguided belief that you can legislate away corruption. In reality, ethical consumerism and a higher wall of separation between government and business would be much more effective in attaining their purported goals.

Why not protest anywhere BUT DC?  If it gets into congress, due to their inability to act, they will then appoint a supercommittee to resolve the deadlock, which will then fail and things are they way they are now.  For there to be any change, there is going to have to be sufficiently large amount of public support for something to get congress to act in a certain way.  Protesting Wall Street is a symbolic way to mobilize.  Protesting Washington DC won't do much, because congress is currently at 9% favorable rating.

As far as getting "ethical consumerism" whatever that is (does it mean that you wait politely in line as you max out your credit card to buy made in China junk you don't need?) , how do you propose to get that by protesting Washington?  In the latest bit of rounds, Liberate Philly, in response to Occupy has decided to stage a BUYcott on Black Friday, where they want people to buy ever more stuff.  Remind me again how exactly consumerism becomes ethical through cries to buy more stuff mindlessly?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45416232

As far as getting "ethical consumerism" whatever that is (does it mean that you wait politely in line as you max out your credit card to buy made in China junk you don't need?)