Hmm... That may be a valid argument or teleology. It is teleology if we say that people become losers to fill a social role i.e. because 'society needs' losers. That kind of fallacy turns me really off, regardless who spins it - trial lawyers and soft on crime bleeding hearts, apologists for this or that popular cause, or Parsons, functionalists and neo-classical economists. It turns me off because it is an excuse for the status quo of one sort or another disguised as a rational explanation - a very persuasive trick that is difficult to refute rationally.
But if we say: some people are losers because they are stupid, lazy, greedy, or vain, and other people - especially those in the position of power and authority - take advantage of their stupidity, laziness, greed and vanity, and use such folk to further their own agendas - we will be much closer to a valid scientific claim i.e. one that is non-circular and empirically falsifiable. However, apologists and blame throwers would have little use of such an argument, no?
Wojtek