I don't see why his argument, however weak it is, makes an argument as to whether or not banks 'robbed' the middle class. Oddly, he didn't mention that banks un

I don't see why his argument, however weak it is, makes an argument as to whether or not banks 'robbed' the middle class. Oddly, he didn't mention that banks underwrote many educational loans. The whole article can be summed up as: "You think banks robbed the middle class? Well, I think education costs did; oh, and probably other things too." IMO, this is particularly low-caliber for the Atlantic.