> You write that like it's unusual. It's not - it's how life works.

True. How about substantially more so than usual?

> If you want more return, you have to play against someone who thinks that you're incorrect and is willing to pay if they're wrong.

I suspect that doesn't describe what most of the participants in the game or those that were collateral damage thought they were doing.

If things were simpler, then perhaps the participants would actually understand what they are playing I guess.

Which means regulation, ratings and market forces that are intended to stop things getting out of hand might function somewhat better.