> The original claim was that squeezing an ill-advised short wasn't less moral than deliberately collapsing a currency and taking $1bn of funds from a governmen

> The original claim was that squeezing an ill-advised short wasn't less moral than deliberately collapsing a currency and taking $1bn of funds from a government, or engaging in sketchy HFT practices. You said "then you don't understand this, or any of the things listed", implying that you believe that squeezing the short WAS less moral. Sure. But you don't need morality to make the point. I will make that point though: things trading at their intrinsic value is more moral than not doing so, because it means nobody loses. > "Storage costs" is a convenient and inoffensive way to say "the few remaining buyers with enough spare capacity smelled blood in the water and were able to price gouge". Err. No. It means the storage capacity was completely gone, and people were scrambling to find new storage capacity. It doesn't seem like you're very familiar with how these things work.