A metaphor for capitalism and the world we live in (Spoilers)?

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate this movie, I looked into some other stuff Drafthouse films have done, and I appreciate their work, just not my cup of tea. I just didn't care for this film really in a nutshell, and I feel I got pleasure off unintended agendas.

For example many people disagree when I say this movie comes across as a gay homo version of The Hangover.

It would have made more since if the main character was a drug addict, or a recently released prisoner, or some type of deviant to society, was not married with children, etc, and did all the inane things he did in the movie.

Hell, it would have made more since if he was offered to be apart of some type of secret society or club and all the dares were initiations or steps he had to do to be accepted.

But they didn't do that.

He's a semi attractive clean cut, white collar hipster looking guy, living in a liberal city. Yet he nor his wife who falls under the same category that he does, can afford their rent in their janky looking one bedroom apartment?

Then all of a sudden he gets fired from working at a gas station, doesn't have enough money to pay his rent in their janky ass apartment, but has enough money to go and release his inhibitions at a bar and reunites with his high school/college.

Right off the bat he goes along with this obscure looking couple to their apartment claiming they will get a million dollars for doing "dares"? Get real.

The wife more than not called the police whilst he was in his euphoric state, and all of that would have been for nothing.

David Koechner's character and his wife will eventually get theirs and suffer the consequences.

All that stuff about capitalism and political discussion has nothing to do with this badly written and constructed film which whether you want to agree with me or not, is a homo erotic, metrosexual torture porn.

Capitalism is just the structuring of natural human greed in a way that limits the ability of one group to monopolize another and balances out the rewards across a broader group than any other system historically has.

The family man was willing to go further than the single man as he feels the responsibility of at least 1 more life than the single does. (Don't really think that they were chosen based on said attributes, but its very possible, even probable, that the reason the wife chose the married man in both of the big situations was because she saw the ring on his finger.)

They bartered down because they were both willing to work cheaper to get the desired reward.

The rich were just the people hiring; the "employees" could have quit at any given moment.

As far as ends/means are concerned, it is a potentially endlessly layered question. Does it bother him to kill a man who just nearly beat him within an inch of his life? Does his wife ever get the truly gory details revealed to her? Does he have a traditionally moral center? There are a plethora more of ideas regarding that.

My 2 pennies.

"I do not like mixing up moralities and mathematics."
Churchill