A more accurate formulation might be something like this: positives(C) - negatives(C) + inertia(C) > positives(other) - negatives(other) There are multiple th

A more accurate formulation might be something like this: positives(C) - negatives(C) + inertia(C) > positives(other) - negatives(other) There are multiple things on both sides here. The author more or less asserted without evidence that inertia isn't the dominant term. Also, inertia might not be a good analogy. Things with inertia might move slowly but will move eventually even given the smallest force. This is probably more like energy wells where you can become trapped in a local minimum.