My Attempt to Understand OccupyWallStreet
OccupyWallStreet has made the news, as they should. Since then all kinds of opinions on what they are saying and doing and who they are and what they should do have been opined.
And we are used to that, we see and do it every day. David in Qatar will quote you one half of one sentence Paul Krugman said and call him names and insult him and tell you what you should think of what Krugman said. TMFBane linked to OWS preliminary list of demands, and mocked them for copying a description Glass-Steagall from wikipedia, and then told us what to think about what they said. BillyTg followed suit in the replies. Every politicy issue raised is accompanied by a partial quote of something someone said and followed by a sometimes very longwinded diatribe of what you should think.
Here is a not longwinded example. http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/the-hypocrisy-of-barack-obama/651514
Sometimes we even say that people are sheep easily led, and I suppose, mislead.
OccupyWallStreet does things a little differently.
When someone speaks, they just repeat exactly what she said for other listeners. They do not edit, they do not opine, they do not label it communist or free, keynesian or corrupt, they simply repeat it.
It would be like David in Qatar reposting a Paul Krugman column without any comment at all. And then his readers would have to think about Krugmans ideas on their own, without DIQ's influence or guidance.
In the first reply, I am going to post OWS's proposed list of demands for you to read, without comment or influence from me. Just like OWS does I will only repeat what they posted, for you to consider.