1) Lack of regulation and enforcement for industry in general and Wall Street in particular,

2) Vast disparities in the tax code and

3) Fair trade.

It can fairly be said that Wall Street has little direct control over much of that, but just as fairly that they greatly influence all of it indirectly. Much of it can be covered under anger and resentment directed at corporate donors and lobbyists controlling government policy. You referenced "Real estate bubble? Mortgage interest deduction. Stock bubble? Favorable rates on cap gains and dividends" as "legislatively-driven, and a direct result of government policies." That is true so far as it goes--but conveniently ignores the fact the policies in question were Wall Street driven relaxation of government regulation and oversight that had prevented those disasters. Wall Street insisted on those "un-policies" because it accurately perceived a personal advantage in them and either did not see or did not care about the cost to American workers, consumers and taxpayers, not to mention the effect on the global economy. That is a failing in Wall Street, not just the politicians who acceded to lobbyists demands and donors money.

(Other) issues with the taxes and fair trade are similar: Wall Street does not DIRECTLY write the tax code so favorable to them or the "free" trade agreements that allow all benefits of US based production with none of the responsibility, but Wall Street actively instructs those who write our laws HOW to do so. Shareholders get a greater return on their investment if a company can maintain its revenue while outsourcing production to countries where they can pay 12 year olds $0.20/hr to process poisoned food and drugs for Western markets then dump the toxic byproducts in the local water supply. Thus we have have "free" trade, even if it is no more free than a Burmese soldier with a gun pointed at a factory full of workers/slaves. "Free" trade is not the democratic internationalism in which it is cloaked, only laissez-faire globalism, and those who demand laissez-faire policies are every bit as culpable as the politicians and lobbyists they pay to implement them. Rather than improving Third World living standards, all it does is encourage more erosion of Western consumer, labor and environmental protection regulations for the sake of preserving competitiveness. The most disgusting aspect of that is that those making that argument are the same ones who fought for "free" trade so they could evade regulations at home after failing to repeal them; they are simply taking a different return route to their Dickensian paradise at the cost of 10% US unemployment, lead toys, anti-freeze filled tooth paste and poisoned grain.

If you have not yet noticed the trend, the most obvious example is our tax code. The US government claims authority to tax all its citizens income, wherever earned--but corporate income earned overseas is sacrosanct, even as those corporations executives and apologists staunchly defend their entitlement to the same rights (but not the same responsibilities) of real people. Yet again, that is a matter of legislative policy, but that policy did not happen in a vacuum; it happened because Wall Street insists on it and ensures politicians comply with that insistence.

You ask what I would want you to do if you were a Wall Street banker, but the pre-existing question remains "Why isn't Wall Street in jail? I have yet to hear a compelling answer to that question, only dismissals of anyone daring to pose it, on the flimsy grounds that the question itself qualifies one as a partisan hack. Yes, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was a (disastrous) federal policy decision, but it is a bit disingenuous to imply Wall Street simply reacted to rather than motivated it. Wall Street knew better than anyone that its absence would revive the incestuous relationship between lending and investment firms that helped cause the Depression, but fought hard and successfully to repeal Glass-Steagall despite (because of...?) that. Obviously a paid assassin should be prosecuted for his crimes, but that does not mean his clients should be ignored.

If you simply mean the protesters would be better served to protest politicians making themselves, and the US public by extension, helpless hostages to Wall Street greed, I can see that argument. However, a DC protest would be quickly lost amid the myriad other routine protests directed at US politicians; by taking this one to Wall Street the protesters spotlight their primary objections as well as the source of the problem hiding behind paid lobbyists and political stooges. I certainly agree that these protesters can only be effective by clearly and concisely articulating their greivances, but their choice of venues is, IMHO, not only valid but appropriate.