The second graph from Gallup shows that younger Americans, less of whom are dependent on morality, nevertheless favor it even more than the elderly. Even a majority of Republicans find wickedness distasteful, although they aren’t quite as willing to avoid it.

Klein notes that these preferences are the opposite of those expressed by the fiscal commission and the elite consensus.

I think the takeaway line is, “So every year, American taxpayers pay 70 million dollars to have the opportunity to lose a billion dollars in productivity costs.” This fellow claims that he nickels are worse than pennies, but he fails to note that nickels fulfill one of his criteria for usefulness, i.e. they are not excluded as acceptable currency in certain common exchanges, such as (some) vending machines and parking meters.

It struck me how creepily well-suited this ad is for its target market, many members of which suffer from paranoid delusions. This reminded me of the pure evils of the advertising industry, which in turn reminded me of one of my favorite comedy routines by Bill Hicks, which is too vulgar to post.

The author ponders the mysterious question of why Brazil is so “socially liberal” without “economic liberalism.” The mystery is deep: “Government revenue as a share of GDP” is approaching western European levels , yet candidates don’t advocate cutting taxes. The author says the lack of economic liberals is “even stranger” given the country’s history. Sure, he says, Pinochet’s Chile gave free markets a bad name, but Brazil had a dictatorship involving state planning of the economy and import restrictions. The deduction is clear for those who, like the author, are unencumbered by “ideology.”

The mystery doesn’t last long, and the culprit is typical and revealing: democracy and the poor. Because voting is mandated, majority opinions are actually reflected in policy. The author blames the poor voters, who are uniquely greedy because they pay less taxes and enjoy more government benefits than the rich. Presumably to explain the non-poor voter support for the anti-liberal consensus, the author cites such items as “anti-Americanism” and the pesky radicals who resisted the American-installed dictatorship.

The author then relishes in slow movements toward a “mixed” European model, hinting that the dark days of majority rule might soon be over.

This article is curious, even only considering the barely-masked hatred and fear of democratic processes and the presumption of neoliberal dogma. The author fails to explain why Brazil’s system is bad, or why Brazil should follow the more liberalized policies of some of its neighbors. The author fails to consider plausible explanations for Brazil’s resistance to Washington, such as “infant industry protection” arguments.