Two parties took a bet, as in a poker game. They each though they were doing the right thing. Turns out, one of them had a winning hand and one of them didn't.

But since everyone knew the nature of the game, and everyone knew they were making bets, why is it unethical?

Really, I would think more anger should be placed on the politicians who got monetary policy so drastically wrong. Or maybe anger is wrong - maybe I should say "learn from this". Because heaping anger on someone who outplayed you is a great way to mask the fact that you need to learn.

But you're right. Judging Soros gets us nowhere, drawing lessons from this does.

Black Wednesday was probably topped only by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999%... in the buffoonery stakes.

Some think the gold selloff was an under the radar bailout

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/...

So dealer makes an offer saying "We will give you $10,000 for any clunker, no quantity restrictions, if it has wheels and starts we'll give you $10,000" so Mr. Soros thinks to himself, this is a rediculous offer and starts buying everything on craigslist for less than $10,000. He rolls up with 100 lemons and the dealer buys them, then has a press conference saying he has $15 billion dollars on hand an will buy all the lemons in the world for $10,000 a piece.

So George Soros goes and finds $30 billion lemons and it turns out that the gov't couldn't (or didn't want to) come up with $15 more billion for lemons. Yes, the tax payer got fleeced, but the transactions were made in good faith by people who thought buying lemons for $10,000 was a good fucking idea, and was elected on a fucking platform of buying lemons for $10K.