[gojomo]

It's more satire than parody. Some helpful heuristics:

(1) Is the author saying "things you can't say" in a place where normally the rules apply? (Bloomberg isn't an especially politically-incorrect news/opinion outlet.)

(2) Is the author out of character? This could have been written under a haughty pseudonym ("Edgar Charles Hyannisport, III") -- but was under the name of author Michael Lewis instead, who's written popular books about finance, business, technology, and sports. If a professional writer offends, you can figure they calculated to offend in service of their real persuasive/entertainment goals.

(3) Does the presentation match the implied mindset? Even people with similar views don't present them in this way, if they want to be effective.

(4) Gradual progression of implausibility. Lewis starts merely speaking more crudely than typical of "the poor", but then goes to the absurd (the poor should have teams of lawyers) and proceeds to talk of debtor's prisons and requiring menial labor of the indebted. A slow build keeps readers guessing, for at least a little while, while eventually causing most/all to realize the author is being facetious.

[oditogre]

Your last clue should've been the biggest. If you read the article through to the part about dressing poor people up as clowns and seeing how many you could shove into a Maybach as entertainment at rich kids' birthday parties and still thought the author was being serious, your satire detector really, really needs a tune-up.