The Myth of the Economic Victim
People are dynamic decision-makers, not recipients of economic outputs
When the Washington Post looks at the American economy, it sees a weather map. In its recent analysis of the Fourth Quarter 2025 Household Debt and Credit Report, the public is told that “storm clouds” are gathering and that families are being “paralyzed” by “crises” that “sneak up” on them. This is a comforting, if limiting, narrative. It suggests that financial success or failure is a matter of luck—an external force that strikes some and spares others, leaving individuals as mere recipients of economic outputs.
But the economy is not the weather. It is a massive, complex network of individual human beings making choices within specific, often difficult constraints. To argue that economic circumstances simply happen to people is to ignore the primary driver of the human story: agency.
The Dangerous Mirage of Historical Equality
The media often analyzes financial struggles as if they occur against a backdrop of natural equality that was suddenly disrupted by an external shock. There is an underlying assumption that, absent some systemic storm, outcomes would be uniform. This perspective is historically inaccurate. There has never been a period in human history where equality of circumstances existed; disparate outcomes are the historical baseline for any society where individuals possess different skills, values, and generational habits.
Research from the Federal Reserve reveals that even when individuals have identical starting points—the same income and the same 650 credit score—their outcomes diverge sharply. A person from a lower-income background is 13 percentage points more likely to become delinquent than one from a high-income family. While many label this a systemic injustice, a more precise view recognizes it as a reflection of differences in generational habits and the specific trade-offs of where one chooses to live. Disparities in results are the natural, expected outcomes of a diverse population making different choices in a world where there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
The Psychology of the Passive Victim
The fatalistic narrative favored by modern journalism is dangerous because it encourages people to view themselves as passive victims of a state of nature. When reporting frames the economy as an inescapable “storm,” it induces a psychological state known as learned helplessness. In this state, individuals internalize the belief that their behavior does not matter, which has been linked to lower performance and a resignation that perpetuates the status quo.
This narrative shifts the locus of control from the individual to external forces. Research shows that a person’s perception of who is responsible for their life events significantly influences their motivation. Those who believe their life is determined by fate or powerful others save less and are less likely to engage in responsible financial management. By telling people they are "paralyzed" by "crises," the media actively saps their motivation to seek opportunities for growth. If you believe the storm is the only cause of your being wet, you stop trying to fix the roof.
The Agency of the 97 Percent
Washington Post reporting focuses heavily on the “carnage” in low-income areas where mortgage delinquency rates rose to nearly 3 percent by late 2025. The narrative treats this 3 percent as the inevitable result of an unfair economy.
However, the most telling statistic is the one the headlines consistently ignore: 97 percent of those same low-income households stayed current on their payments. These families were not paralyzed by fear. They were dynamic decision-makers who navigated the same economic environment and chose a different path. They generated their own stability by making the hard choices that others did not: working more hours, reducing expenditures, or prioritizing their long-term obligations above immediate consumption.
To ignore the 97 percent is to suggest that their success was accidental rather than the result of superior management and individual preferences. If the “storm” was the actual cause of delinquency, everyone would be wet. The fact that the vast majority remain dry proves that internal choices—not external circumstances—are the deciding factor.
Constraints and Choices Applied Universally
Every entity—from a single household to the U.S. economy itself—operates within specific constraints. The U.S. economy is not a limitless fountain of resources; it is a system governed by the same reality of scarcity that faces every family. When the media suggests the economy is benefiting one group while failing another, they ignore that the economy is simply the aggregate of everyone’s trade-offs.
Geography is a prime example of a constraint that is often a reflection of choice. Living in a high-cost urban center may offer greater opportunity but requires navigating higher taxes and increased living expenses. Conversely, choosing a lower-cost region often means accepting fewer economic connections. A household that remains in an environment with declining services or rising costs is accepting a specific trade-off between alternative uses of their resources. Thinking these circumstances “just happen” to people ignores the personal and generational habits that place individuals in those specific environments to begin with.
Furthermore, knowledge itself is a scarce resource. Borrowers with high levels of actual financial literacy are 60.3 percent less likely to face mortgage stress than those with the same income but less knowledge. This is not an “output” of the economy; it is a personal asset that individuals must choose to cultivate through effort and education.
Trading Media Narratives for Realism
We must stop treating the American household as a character in a tragedy and start treating them as what they are: adaptive learning agents. Success is not a gift, and failure is not a curse. They are the emergent properties of a society where everyone—including the government—is forced to operate within the reality of limited resources.
Disparities in outcomes are the natural result of individuals with different preferences, different generational habits, and different values making different trade-offs. In the end, there is no such thing as a free lunch, but there is such a thing as an empowered individual taking responsibility for their own financial fate. Empowering people requires telling them the truth: their choices matter more than the weather.