Did Main St swindle Wall St?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if Mainstreet may have be the more astute dealmaker on the block. A fair amount of the damage ibanks took was because they essentially took a bunch of overvalued 'toxic' assets on their BSs. But what that is is paying more than the assets are worth, whatever that is. What were the assets? Were they ibank assets? Absolutely not, they were Main Street assets: securitized debt so people could buy houses and cars and buisnesses could "factor" their ARs and so forth. So Main Street is angry at Wall Street for having overpaid Main Street for their assets? But ibanks took them onto their BSs; they bought them, and it was the difference between their purchase price and the price they eventually sold them for or are currently worth while being held on their BSs (closer to their actual price) that brought them down or at least caused a lot of the damage.

Anyway it seems like Main Street is angry at the greedy Wall St capitalists for causing the crisis - that is, paying Main Street too much for their assets, too much money that Main Street essentially used to buy homes and cars and expand their businesses. Mainstreet is angry for being overpaid.

So it started out w them tricking Wall St into overpaying them. They basically benefited from that and have now also managed to put the blame of the inevitable losses ON Wall Street as well

Sounds like Mainstreet is a better dealmaker than Wallstreet ironically enough. Am I way off on this?