Explain to me a framework for determining victimhood. > For him to be regarded as a 'speculator' in this context ─ he could have averted financial ruin by cond

Explain to me a framework for determining victimhood. > For him to be regarded as a 'speculator' in this context ─ he could have averted financial ruin by conducting due diligence before acquiring toxic assets and/or hedge his bets. Is the term speculator contingent on financial success? > If one were to consider him opportunistic, he should have been savvy enough to know, when to get out and leave others holding the bag. Is opportunistic contingent on someone being able to tell the future and know when prices are at their peak? > Since, he seems to have exhibited none of the predatory behaviour associated with a conman I imagine he wasn't using all 15 of his medallions simultaneously. Presumably he was renting out his medallions to other and profiting off their labour. Is this predatory? > it is a bit presumptuous to speculate on his villainous tendencies. You miss my point. I reject the entire notion of victim and victimizers in this context. The analogy doesn't fit. If you buy 15 of a valuable and high growth asset on credit, you're a speculator. And that's fine. There are no villains here, just some who were fortunate in timing and other who were less fortunate.