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.

Anyway, my childhood friend Jason – who, mind you, has a degree in economics – has spotted the next bubble. Read about it here.

I do however have one question for Jason. An important piece of evidence for the housing bubble was that housing outpaced renting prices, a normally correlative relationship that Wikipedia so aptly calls the ownership ratio. I wonder, is there any comparable analysis for the current bubble? Is this too much to ask without the help of a think tank?

Here is a series of concise criticisms of the in-vogue thinking about U.S. intervention in Afghanistan.

This article is amusing because it applies Forbes’ criteria for judging the economic policies of a president to President Bush.

Recently released interviews with some Soviets show incompatibility between Cold War propaganda and reality. I wonder why the people at the Archive conclude there was an “intelligence failure.” Why not suppose, more plausibly, that American foreign policy needed justification? No one knows better than the people at the Archive that this wouldn’t be without precedent.

2) Matt Yyglesias makes moderately interesting point about rationing. But it seems to me that things like oil and food are qualitatively different than things like piano lessons and knowledge of history. Because I am not a professional economist, I cannot justify my intuition. Yglesias probably agrees that these are different, and thinks we should lump special health care products in with piano lessons. I’m not sure about this. For one thing, isn’t it much easier to find private piano help than it is medical help? Plus a bunch of other differences.

3) Robert Fisk can use just about anything as a platform for ranting, and here he uses his viewing of the Dead Sea Scrolls. My favorite passage:

So cautious are the dear old Canadians – who should by now have learned that concealing unhappy truths will only create fire and pain – that they do not even mention that “Kando”, the first recipient of the scrolls, was Armenian. Of course not. Because then they would have to explain why an Armenian was in Jerusalem, not in western Turkey. Which would mean that they would have to mention the Armenian Holocaust of 1915 (one and a half million Armenian civilians murdered by Ottoman Turks).

I find almost all of Fisk’s comments here and in the rest of the article on the mark, in terms of the political realities surrounding the scrolls. But really, the purpose of the Dead Sea Scrolls is to put knowledge into my head about the diversity of Judaism in that period, and early Christian and Jewish religion in general. Really, the Dead Sea Scrolls should be brought to Southeast Michigan, where I live.

3) This article is slightly encouraging, but ultimately depressing, since minor economic and cultural improvements in the West Bank are, as always, in the context of Israel allowing them for the sake of politically weakening competing anti-Israeli political parties, plus the realities of the suffocation of Gaza, plus expanding settlement programs in the West Bank itself. Also, there will probably never be general recognition of Israeli crimes; we’ll just have to painfully endure Israeli generals gloating over every time Palestinians are peaceful.

4) Even though I am almost a pacifist, plus don’t like things like the CIA, I can’t help but like reading about spies.

5) Isn’t it interesting how everyone, or at least all governments, hate Al Jazeera?

6) This cheerfully titled piece of Noam Chomsky covers a bunch of happenings in 2009. It begins by attacking Thomas Friedman, always a noble cause.