In the midst of all the hoopla about Wall Street, I'm running into the same old issue. When somebody makes an argument on a complex issue, they try to streamline their stance, overlooking the subject's complexities. The problem with the Occupy Wall Street protestors is that their campaign the problem of the distribution of wealth without taking into consideration how unequal wealth may be necessary in our system. The relentless campaigning has made us lose sight of the fact that it takes wealthier people to buy earlier versions of a product so that it can eventually be distributed wider. It's the tone of the campaigning which has become so hysterical that such a fact cannot easily be said. And what about the problems of collective decision making that the rich eliminate by having so much money in the hands of few?
We can all hopefully agree that there ought to be a fairer distribution of wealth in the United States, but I haven't heard it asked just what the distribution should be and why.