Absolutely agreed - speculators make the market more efficient. But why is it that this is the only half of the equation included in the chapter? All the negati

Absolutely agreed - speculators make the market more efficient. But why is it that this is the only half of the equation included in the chapter? All the negative impacts of speculators are left out of chapter one, the rest of the book, and the next twenty more advanced texts? For such a clever & informed group, finance types like to quantify their positive contributions and qualitatively dismiss their negative contributions ("there are -some-inefficiencies when...") We lose a lot of peak potential value when we depress high finance's ability to leverage and exploit markets, but we also shave off the deepest parts of the trough we inevitably fall into when the "markets" swing back the other way. History suggests we shouldn't consider the boom-bust cycle as part of our inevitable march forward; sometimes, you bust big enough and you reach your day of reckoning. Why is it a given that this cycle needs to be so dramatic?