But why would you want the law to change if you don't have a problem with what they're doing? Honestly I don't think you're right about what "most people" think. I can't remember ever seeing a protest about the tax code, but there was a global social movement about vilifying immoral corporations.

And frankly I think it's more effective. If you try to argue about tax policy, it's easy for a well-educated opponent to kind of dazzle you with cherry-picked stats and economic models and say "well actually this lower corporate rate is better for the economy, just look at these graphs". Anyone can find a credentialed economist to back up their position. It's much harder to look at someone straight-faced and say "actually greed is good" and "we would go bankrupt immediately if we had to pay a single extra cent in taxes". I mean they try, and it works on some people, but not as many. And whatever issue can get the most widespread agreement is the one most likely to spark some change.

Because fundamentally, most people don't have issues with people playing by the rules of the game. People don't like shit laws, but they hate kneecapping themselves more.

And more effective? Has the railing about this since the 90s changed anything there?

I hear what you're saying, I just don't agree that most people think this way.

Again - there is no reason not to do both. Dissatisfaction is not a limited resource. I haven't heard a convincing reason to refrain from criticizing the business practices in question that doesn't simply ignore the practical points I've been making. Re-read my post near the top of this thread.

> Dissatisfaction is not a limited resource

It is, though. When outrage is misdirected, it lets the true bad guys get off scot–free.

Sure, there are some people who can be angry about everything all day long, but everyone else grows tired to listening to them, and they lose credibility for when it counts.