Re:Once poor, always poor?
by throwaway55421 on Monday December 27, 2021 @06:41AM
(#29701649)
The statements are not symmetrical, though.
Let's use the less emotionally charged example of the gym rat.
An individual who sets out with the goal and drive to become strong can be successful with high probability.
But not everyone will do that. Most will give up or just not even bother in the first place.
It improves the probability, but it's not a requirement, and sometimes it doesn't increase the probability at all.
Re:Once poor, always poor?
by throwaway55421 on Monday December 27, 2021 @07:18PM
(#29708645)
I mean, sure, if we want to abandon the concept of cause and effect entirely because John went to the gym and ... got hit by a bus on the way, oops.
Liberal economics are surrounded with those kinds of ideals that always explain that the poor deserve their status, that they only have themselves to blame.