Remedial Economics- Wall Street's Plea to Occupy a Library

Background: The discussion seen here is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal newspaper. This editorial was published approximately one month after the Occupy Wall Street protests began, and written from the perspective of a successful business person who conducts his work on Wall Street. This editorial is in regards to the argument of whether or not the protestors actually understand economics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576653540566766026.html

Analysis: While the author uses a bitter and sarcastic writing style, the message gets through clearly and rings painfully true to the hypocrisy and ignorance of the protestors:

“The Occupy Wall Street protests have drawn huge numbers of confused and directionless young people, but maybe that's not all bad. Some of them at least seem to be getting a remedial course in economics.
Nan Terrie learned an expensive lesson last week about the importance of property rights. ‘Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,’ the 18-year-old protester told the New York Post. ‘I had my Mac stolen—that was like $5,500.’ Why? Because she left it in a public place, amid a crowd demanding the redistribution of wealth. Imagine that.”

Later in the article, the author looks at the protest in Zuccotti Park, where the protestors are actually mimicking the very government that they are protesting:

“The makeshift government at Manhattan's Zuccotti Park is also dealing with the problem of externalities, in the form of percussionists who irritate neighbors and fellow protesters alike by drumming at all hours. That has inspired both regulations (drumming is permitted only at certain hours) and taxes. New York magazine reports that the "finance working group" had levied a "percussion tax" of 50% on tips.

Drummer Shane Engelerdt sounds like a tea party member complaining about taxation without representation: "They didn't even give the drummers a say. . . . They're like the banks we're protesting." Actually, they're like the government the protesters are trying to expand—but perhaps that will become clear in the next lesson.”

In essence, the writer of this editorial is making the claim that the protestors should not be taken seriously, because they do not understand the economic values they are rallying against.

A formal summary of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Protestor Nan Terrie is upset when she experiences redistribution of wealth on a personal level.

Premise 2: Lauren Digioia of Occupy Boston complains of street vagrants as feeling entitled, as she is protesting for more benefits and entitlement.

Premise 3: Protestors of Zuccotti Park levy a huge tax on drummers due to sound complaints.

Conclusion: These protestors are hypocritical of the values they protest, and ignorant of the reasons why certain laws in economics exist, and therefore should not be taken seriously in their complaints.

While the argument has some pretty devastating evidence, the fallacy of hasty generalization is hard to ignore. The writer has taken a movement consisting of thousands of citizens from around the country, and narrowed their views down to three people who happened to be interviewed. It is easy to see how the argument has been twisted to only show the mistakes of the protestors, and completely ignore the values and knowledge of the rest of those who are rallying against the government.

My final diagnosis for this argument is critical. The fallacy found here is blatantly obvious, and makes the argument almost obsolete. However, the evidence found is rather convincing, and with some extensive research, and a few rather lucky interviews, this editorial could be made into quite a healthy debate.