The Inky tries to explain Occupy Wall Street

Raghuram Rajan, in the Inky of 11 Nov 2011 is absolutely correct, the Occupy Wall Street movement is using a rhetorical shorthand to describe what it's complaint with America's current status is and why they're out protesting. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement that began in the late 1950s, the opponents of Occupy Wall Street are in need of careful definition as the problem is nowhere near as obvious as it was for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers. The traditional media, of course, very clearly won't do that for us and those wanting clarity will obviously have to look elsewhere than into any daily newspaper or TV news show.*
The blogger and Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Juan Cole, has put out a piece describing the worldwide movement that Occupy Wall Street is a part of. Neoliberalism is the economic movement that wants capital and business to be liberated from government regulations and it both got Ronald Reagan elected President and greatly benefited from his administration. As Cole points out, the worldwide movement in reaction to neoliberalism encompasses not just the "Arab Spring" countries of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, but Chile, Spain and Israel as well as the United States.
It's irresponsible capital that seeks freedom from government supervision that's the problem, not merely those who earn lots of money. As Rajan makes clear, there are many people who earn lots of money that the Occupy Wall Street movement doesn't have a problem with. Rajan points to a long-term problem that indeed will require a coordinated effort from the whole of American society, but that particular problem doesn't explain why the Occupy Wall Street movement exists.

Update:

Further pieces defining who the 1% are and are not:

The people who tossed out Glass-Steagall are most definitely part of the 1% that we’re criticizing:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/11/clinton-and-gingrich-now-say-it-was.html
The wealthy people who are standing up with the 99% are very clearly not part of the group that we’re condemning:
http://firedoglake.com/2011/11/11/1-is-a-state-of-mind/

*As an example, the Inky ran a piece written by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) that was allegedly pro-litle guy and pro-small businesses, but the actual position they took was completely opposed to Net Neutrality. The piece was very shortly followed by a vote where all the Republican Senators voted against Net Neutrality, meaning the article was written in a deceptive manner, to suggest that the two Republican Senators were opposed to the interests of big corporations and in favor of small businesses.
In contrast to the assertions made by the Republican Senators, Internet program and content providers do not compete on an even playing field because of capitalism and competition, but because of government regulations. This is why the traditional media cannot be relied upon to accurately tell the public what the Occupy Wall Street movement is all about.