To then address this would require a bit of an about-face on economic policy about globalism and free markets.
This is at the core of the problem, and why i mentioned the attitude of capitalist vicotry (the chimera, really) with the collapse of the Soviet system. Even before that collapse, corporations were pulling up stakes and relocating to places without environmental and employee rights and benefits laws. Now, although they've largely failed, capital has tried to preach globalism as the new capitalist catechism, attempting to peddle the notion that globalism benefits us all, when its only intent is to provide capital the means of evading governmentally imposed responsibilities.
You're right about the Wall Street invaders, they're barking up the wrong tree. But politicians wouldn't listen to them anyway, because they don't pay for political campaigns, and they don't provide the perquisites and the post-political career employment which are ultimate goals of politicians. Politicians are a necessary evil which need to be as closely watched as capitalists.
There never has been truly free markets, because either capital or government have stacked the decks as much as possible--capital for individual benefit and governments for national benefits. Free trade, free markets is just sloganeering equivalent to the tripe the politicians peddle about terrorist threats or national interests in order to get what they and their capitalist masters want while attempting to provide cover for themselvces as being somehow responsible legislators and executives.
I fear for the future. Not our immediate future, and not even for the future of someone as young as you (i've not got that many years left, but you reasonably have 40 to 60 yeas to go). Far, far down the road, there may well be a terrible price to pay for the venality and cupidity of greedy men acting in cahoots with mealy-mouthed and hypocritical politicians. The American revolution was essentially a revolt of the middle class to return to and preserve the status quo ante
of 1760. The French revolution was essentially a revolt of the middle class against monarchical incompetence, an inevitability of the system of monarchy--not every monarch is an Edward I or a Louis XIV, and incompetence is not only inevitable, but the more likely state.
There were two revolutions in Russia in 1917, although most people don't seem to understand that. The first was the Russian revolution in February (March by our calendar) which not only was not organized by any political party, but which the Bolsheviks in the Petrograd factories had attempted to forbid. Like the market women in Paris in 1789, though, the women in the factories in Petrograd in 1917 paid no attention to any man when they wanted bread to feed their families.
But revolutions at that level are inchoate, and almost never provide effective leadership from the class which either instigates them (Russia) or which is "rabbled-roused" to provide the foot soldiers of revolt (France). In Russia, the Russian revolution was succeeded by the Bolshevik revolution in October--Red October (November by our calendar). If this situation festers for another century or more, with all the effects of modern electronic communications, it could be far wider, far bloodier, and
far more ripe for the kind of exploitation which Lenin did in Petrograd in 1917.
So i fear for the future. I usually don't attempt to predict based on history, but if i were to make any settled prediction about this, it would be to say that i'm very likely wrong about this--not that it won't happen and not that it won't be as bad (or worse) than i think, but that it will happen much sooner than i think.