Oh good Gawd, if only that were true. The "crisis" of last year was all about... "those who were owed couldn't get paid"... and "those who owed didn't have the ability to pay"...
Let me try to answer this this way then: If there are participants in the derivatives market who are in it for net economic benefits over their entire spectrum of activities, then they are willing to pay a premium for the ability to remove risk (via the derivatives market). Then, a trader should be able to enter and capture that risk premium. This is not in defense of any particular day-trading strategy, of course. It's an argument for legimitate trading motivations in these zero sum (in isolation) markets
My original premise was, what markets offer the best opportunity to make money? For instance, traders say futures trading is very difficult . . . I'm sure they're right. But isn't that because every futures transaction has a winner and a loser? And if the purpose of your trading is to make money-- and often I think traders would rather solve a complicated puzzle than make money -- then why bother with options and futures? I understand the leverage argument . . . but equities can be leveraged too.
"Then, a trader should be able to enter and capture that risk premium. " Doesn't all of the economic value accrue to the airline (and it's customers)? I don't see the speculators capturing any of the value.
Ultimately the commodity is going to be sold and bot by an economic buyer . . . so the ultimate buyer and seller is economic. The speculators are just lending liquidity to the market. I see your point that the speculators could extract value if the economic buyers and sellers lose money on net, and pay the speculators for providing liquidity . . . Of course, the converse is probably the case.
That's only true if all market participants are risk neutral. Different degrees of aversion to (differing types of risk) means that risk premium can be captured