Anyones else getting really strong vibes of "author doesn't understand what they're analyzing" from this? [edit] In particular, they seem to spend a lot of spa

Anyones else getting really strong vibes of "author doesn't understand what they're analyzing" from this? [edit] In particular, they seem to spend a lot of space marveling over marginal utility as if they'd never encountered such a thing, yet fail to mention it by name, and there are gems like: "curiously, the wealthiest Americans hold relatively modest balances in their retirement accounts" for which the author betrays no hint of having used "curiously" rhetorically and doesn't attempt to explain when, to a person like me who knows almost nothing about finance and economics, the reason seems obvious, unless they mean something different by "retirement account" than what I think they do (tax-privileged accounts like IRA and 401k). The word "trust" also does not appear in the article's body text. The apparent "gee, look how wrong these other stats are" at the beginning seems wholly unjustified without further analysis which is absent (i.e. most likely the author didn't notice that the difference is due to some methodological differences between the sources, or in some other way failed to understand what they were comparing, rather than such a source actually being so far off)