The author appears to be advancing the thesis that manning up and taking responsibility for your situation in life is the key to success, while the unsuccessful are inclined towards superstition and voodoo.
But there’s an unpleasant reality hiding underneath the condescending pep-talk: you might just as easily, or more easily, come to the conclusion from reading the article that the rich are self-satisfied, oblivious to how fortunate they have been, and prone to blaming the poor for their poverty.
Are there people who are entirely self-made millionaires, who have made their fortunes with no breaks, no help along the way from anyone?
No. A little humility is called for, not that you’d glean that from the article.
Are there, on the other hand, people who are impoverished entirely without error in either act or omission? A pure victim of circumstance, as Curly used to say?
This one is a little easier for me to believe in this or that case, just based on anecdotal observation. But for the most part, I’d say the answer to this question is “no” as well.
The disturbing thing is that on the moral, and maybe psychological level, the rich and the poor are exactly the same: both are entirely ego driven. The rich indulge their egos by imagining they have arrived at prosperity solely because of merit; the poor spare their egos by ascribing their poverty to the cruelty of fate, or the fates if you prefer.
Neither is anywhere near to being correct.