The occupy movement could of been about corruption & bailouts and how the government picks winners and losers that hurts everyone not directly involved (those picked as winners) (i.e. you and me). Instead Occupy turned into where's my bailout. They could've taken a principled position, but didn't wealth disparity is a good thing - as long as it's achieved in the appropriate ways (voluntary interaction).

It was about the bailouts and corruption. In fact, anti-corruption is probably the single biggest message of the occupy movement. That sign saying "where's my bailout" was complaining about "where's our bailout". It's pointing out that only the banks got taken care of, while the rest of us seem to matter increasingly less. It's not asking for a handout, it's pointing to the discrepancy.

Also, if you're against corruption, massive and increasing wealth disparity is not a good thing. Put all the financial power in the hands of a few and every single time they'll wind up with all the political power as well. If you want an example of correlation between money and political power, you could look at SOPA.

I wasn't referring to the sign, I was referring to people there wanting a handout - wanting student loan forgiveness, wanting government sponsored grants/loans for starting companies, wanting government help in increasing the value of their home or money/tax incentives to pay their mortgage.

We must be following different Occupy movements.

There is an actually valid concern that instead of guaranteeing credit default swaps in a handful of institutions, you could've spent the same amount of money propping up some of these underwater mortgages.

Same outcome - a bunch of public money goes towards restoring confidence in the system - but with significantly less significant social costs/moral hazards.

I really don't see where you got that idea from.

From visiting zuccotti park in person and talking to people there.

Their problem is that they did not have a strong detailed message that could be related. You had liberals and libertarians fighting over nonsense and you had a lot of misinformed people. Plus, they should have been protesting our Government officials and demanding that they work for the people instead of protesting Wall Street. It just turned into a mess and got even more disorganized, which made it easier for someone to point a camera in several people's faces and make them seem like an idiot or a "socialist (which seems to scare people)."

I disagree pretty strongly, what I found most refreshing and "revolutionary" about the occupy movement was it's lack of a strong detailed message. It made it massively inclusive, it is not a one issue movement it is a new way of involving all kinds of people in the political process. That is what gave me hope (I'm cynical enough to know that it might not pan out as I'd like) it actually IS addressing the broken system the OP is complaining about.

The political process can only be corrupt as long as people aren't paying attention - I think the occupy movement did a great service in focusing attention on the inequalities inherent in the current system and provided a model for what democracy is supposed to be. People talking, debating and voting on the actual issues that affect them - when contrasted with the BS that is the congressional sausage factory and the media circus that surrounds it I know which I'd prefer to be the basis for a redefined version of democracy.

EDIT: typo

The lack of a strong detailed message did allow it to be massive and inclusive. But with no direction or goal, it's just a self-licking ice cream cone.

With no strong detailed message, it makes it really hard for politicians/media to argue against, but it makes it really easy for politicians/media to mock.

<The political process can only be corrupt as long as people aren't paying attention.> I hope it will be like that forever: here in Italy politicians don't even need to fake the formality of democracy, the dialogue with the "real world".[referring to the facts of 15th november 2011]

I cringed at a lot of the coverage, so I know what you mean. A lot of the organizers were very new to this sort of politics. From what I've read (no articles on hand), they've moved into an office and have started acting like a coherent organization.

I'm sure we'll see a round two, and it'll have a clear message and better organization.

There no "we" in "I am the 99%". But Occupy hasn't put out and stood behind a coherent message, and probably never will, so it's a free-for-all to talk about what Occupy really is.

1. nobody can say what the occupy was about. the next guy will have a different opinion

2. It was always about wealth disparity. The little something to aspire to never existed. Everyone aspire large wealth disparity, or they are too busy making ends meet. It was always like that. See any previous human society or moment in history. Heck even the alpha male usually has most of the females

"Everyone aspire large wealth disparity"

I hear things like this a lot about human nature, and I try really hard to believe them, but at the end of the day I have to admit that I don't personally know a single person who thinks this way. Everyone I know would very much like to pay off their debt, have easy access to shelter, food, and entertainment for themselves and their loved ones, and not have to work but be able to do whatever they love doing as much as they want to do it. It is possible that there is not enough aggregate wealth in the world for everyone to be prosperous enough to achieve these things, so desiring them is equivalent to the desire for wealth disparity, but it is not the disparity itself. I am not suggesting that there are no people who desire disparity itself, only that I have trouble convincing myself that it is "everyone", since I don't know any.

you, and I, and pretty much everyone we know, are making ends meet.

trust me on this one. it may seems far fetched that in all your friends circle, or mine, we don't know any rich person. but it is so.

We are all Class C, by the original definition that classify modern social classes by their aspirations and goals. not that non-sense sensus stuff. The successful guys in this forum, that made millions with their hard work, are class B. we have not even indirect connection to class A.

tl;dr do not base society on your personal knowledge.

Admittedly, I missed the dichotomy in your original post between those making ends meet and those aspiring to wealth disparity - I thought you meant that even those just trying to make ends meet aspire to wealth disparity, which is why egalitarian movements fail, when what I think you meant is that once people stop having to make ends meet, they then begin to aspire wealth disparity.

I would be very interested to see the data you are basing your knowledge of society on, since it must be outside your personal experience.

Also I'm not familiar with the modern social class definition system that you speak of, where can I read about that?

can't find it myself... will ask my athropologist friends later, as i'm curious to the actual terms too.

the original paper that mentioned A, B, C class outlined them by: C class, aims for sustenance. B class, takes sustenance as granted, aim for goods. C class, takes sustenance and goods for granted, aim for status.

Forgot 3. If you are making ends meet, your best bet is always revolution. But the goal will still be the same, even if you have to use talks of equality to get it started