Frankly, it never seemed like much of a movement - not on Wall Street or L.A. or any of the other cities with encampments. Groups need leadership and goals, neither of which the Occupy folks had any interest in. But oh how the media and certain elected officials lapped it up. Heck, it only cost the city about $5 million. NYT columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin sums the protest:
Has the debate over breaking up the banks that were too big to fail, save for a change of heart by the former chairman of Citigroup, Sanford I. Weill, really changed or picked up steam as a result of Occupy Wall Street? No. Have any new regulations for banks or businesses been enacted as a result of Occupy Wall Street? No. Has there been any new meaningful push to put Wall Street executives behind bars as a result of Occupy Wall Street? No. And even on the issues of economic inequality and upward mobility -- perhaps Occupy Wall Street's strongest themes -- has the movement changed the debate over executive compensation or education reform? It is not even a close call.
Here's a sample of the nonsense that went in the early days.