What would the Adbusters folks have Wall Street do? Would they like to dismantle it? Would they like to overregulate it? And, while they allude to the Tea Party as their model, are they so dim-witted as to ignore the obvious success the Tea Party is having in implementing an electoral strategy rather than the stale strategy of public demonstration (which appears only able to satisfy one's nostalgic need to relive the 1960s, but has been a proven non-starter in today's more cynical – i.e., everyone's got a hidden agenda – America.)

Anyone with an iota of understanding of the history of capital markets in America knows they are optimized by a balance of regulation and freedom (for more on this, see "Market Regulation: Boon or Bane to 401k Plan Sponsors & Investors?" Fiduciary News, August 2, 2011). Too much regulation harms investors as much as too little regulation. In the post-Civil War period of the 19^th century, as the industrial revolution and its demand for greater capital investment emerged, our capital markets had precious little regulation. This was the era of robber-barons and sleazy stock shysters (does anyone remember the name "Jay Gould" of the Erie Railroad?). Investors regularly lost everything in their stock investments – and not just because the country experiences a series of devastating economic depressions.

While some significant regulations were added during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, the modern markets of today were forged by the various Securities Acts enacted in the Franklin Roosevelt presidency. The most important of these dealt with the standardization of accounting methods in the financial statements of publicly traded companies. With this "US Seal of Approval," the capital markets (i.e., stocks) became viable investments for institutional portfolios run by fiduciaries. It's no coincidence, following the conclusion of the second World War, America now had the capital capacity to lead the world economy to where it is today.

The economic leadership of the United States came not from government spending (which the Soviet Union and the pre-capitalist China unsuccessfully tried), but from the individual investments of millions of Americas. In the mid-1970's, new laws encouraged the growth of retirement plans (e.g., IRA's and 401k's), which provided yet more capital to our economy, allowing it to grow further.

Today, Wall Street represents not the maven of "too-big-to-fail" (although they also take up residence there), but the hopes and dreams of everyday investors. To attack Wall Street is to attack Main Street. Politicians (and their mass media underlings) seem to forget this. Apparently, so do social activists. Worse, in vilifying the capital markets, they do more than just impair investors in the short-term, they injure long-term prospects by compromising our nation's job creation engine. Right now, we're seeing that through the uncertainty of an era of overregulation.

Still, when regulation levels the playing field, it is fair. If Adbusters really cared about the influence of big-business' lobbying dollars and they really cared about everyday investors, they'd move their demonstration from Wall Street to K Street. In particular, they'd dig into the impact lobbyist money has had on the discussion of a uniform fiduciary standard.