It's really hard for me to start reading. Yes, there are other reasons for poverty, and yes people make money out of poor people. But that doesn't really mean that this reasoning replaces the reason that many poor people don't know how to handle money, family, friends well enough to keep their head above the water. And most of the examples they use seem to underline that as far as I can see.
Poverty has a lot of facettes. Here's one that wasn't even mentioned: Because you can recognize poor people by their dressing preferences, richer people give them less opportunity. And there are quite a few opportunities that come with being at the right party, having the right friend, having the right hobby (like playing Golf). Poor people aren't at that party. And they don't feel comfortable in a suit.
> But that doesn't really mean that this reasoning replaces the reason that many poor people don't know how to handle money, family, friends well enough to keep their head above the water.
Do you have a citation for this opinion?
Seems you're shifting focus from the concrete cause of poverty, lack of money/resources, to one of character. The article points out that others profit from this lack of resources and contribute to that cause of poverty.
Why is it harder to read that than an article that speculates that the poor are poor because they are shifty and can't balance a checkbook?
What I meant to say, sorry for my poor English, was that there isn't one single reason. Lack of resources is one reason, lack of Guanxi is another, lack of money management skills is another, lack of a mindest to improve oneself is one as well, etc. There are also indirect causes, like not going to the gym, therefore having poorer health, therefore perform worse and spend more money/time on medical treatments.
Not having a single dimensional problem means you can't resolve one dimension of the problem and expect the problem to go away. E.g. you give money to a poor guy, he will still be poor 5 years later, you give education to a poor guy, he will still be poor 5 years later (if he even accepts it in the first place).
Hard to read was the article because it assumes this multidimensional problem to be one dimensional and then argues that the source is not single-dimension A but single-dimension B. Both is based on an assumption I disagree on, despite all the details possibly being correct.
Poverty has a lot of facettes. Here's one that wasn't even mentioned: Because you can recognize poor people by their dressing preferences, richer people give them less opportunity. And there are quite a few opportunities that come with being at the right party, having the right friend, having the right hobby (like playing Golf). Poor people aren't at that party. And they don't feel comfortable in a suit.