Further example? They both need an "edge". You can say that is not similar, and I can agree to disagree. But of course, all will make more sense when film is out!
Many average joes elected the Bush administration, and all of Congress, which presided over this mess. Some average joes bought houses at absurdly inflated values, taking insane financial risks and destabilizing the entire financial system in the process. Most average joes are innocent of blame, but a good chunk (maybe 25%) are guilty to some degree.
Only 3% of houses turn over per year. Even if the bubble started in 2002, that's only 4-5 years = 12-15% of the housing stock. Many speculators bought multiple houses. So, most likely, only about 5-10% of average joes bought a single house during the bubble. That leaves 90-95% as completely innocent of any direct contribution to the housing bubble. There's the issue of apathetic voting for representatives who let this all go on, but then you can't apportion full blame on average joes for that. Voting for someone doesn't mean you approve of everything they do.
There are countless books out there which explain the basic principles of real estate investment. Countless people warned of a real estate bubble. Simple arithmetic meant that any average joe with high school math could have worked out the risks they were taking with borrowed money. Up until recently, 30% deposit for landlord properties was the norm, and 20% for owner-occupied. Borrowing is a solemn moral and financial obligation. Anyone who borrows therefore has a serious duty to know what they are doing. "Average Joes" who went all-in with nothing down, were reckless, negligent, irresponsible gamblers, and turned into immoral deadbeats and con-artists whose word was worth nothing. 100 years ago they would have been thrown into debtors prison. Unlike 3 year olds they have moral conscience, intelligence, and a 1st world education. No one forced them to take out absurdly risky loans they could not afford. Only greed made them do that. This is not normal people who just wanted to own a modest home - it is greedy gits who wanted to get rich with no effort on other peoples' dime.
You are assuming that everyone got a house for turning it quickly over for profit. Guess what? Most people just wanted to participate in the American Dream (specially the illegal Mexican strawberry harvester) and own a house. So the analogy stands, it was the banks' fault who should have known better that most applicants won't be able to pay the mortgages. You see you can actually LIVE in a house, it is not like a stock or a goldbar.
Greed comes in many forms. Greed for money/quick profit is only one type of Greed. Greed will also make you buy a bigger house to out do your friends, neighbors. this has nothing to do with profit. Pure greed for things, is different than greed for capital. there are homes the strawberry dude could afford--however, greed forced him to buy more than he could afford.... once again nothing to do with profit. surf
You are forgetting that he was told by "experts" that he could afford it. ( He did not have the knowledge that he could not afford it...)