I think there's a fundamental issue of reading comprehension here. I am not saying that at all. I'll make it more explicit, do you think the only reason why we need to tolerate opposing views is out of fear they might reign, therefore damaging ourselves if we weren't tolerant? i.e The only reason why you'd ever tolerate dissent is fear that it might overcome and rule? Nothing about, you know, diversity of views being a strength, listening to diverse views to incorporate into ones' own, that whole America is built on differing ideas jazz?
Are Stiglitz, Reich and Warren inspired by OWS? probably. Will they accomplish more than the "free market" movement. Depends on how much they can rein the banks in. I don't consider setting a foundation for generational failure on multiple levels success to any degree, so I suppose anything will be more successful than said "free market movement", which took the gains of societal progress from the 50s, and stripped them bare.
The banks have been reigned in, breh. Look at how much they are divesting and how many people they are laying off. Hedge funds, majors, and individual trading firms are taking over. Reich and Warren are useless, Stiglitz is better. But what revolutionary ideas came out of OWS? Soak the rich with flimsy intellectual reasoning? It's just envy at this point.
OWS shifted the dialogue. This movement won't. meh. this has gotten really off topic, do you wanna just grab some twinkies and call it a life
