I agree. This is the typical text that is used in Economics classes in Brazilian universities. 4 years of that I am very tired of this type of content. No attempt to explain why things came about the way authors think they did; too much reliance on the "agency of the elites" (how could they intentionally stop a country from developing? And why would they do that?). Also, I don't think Brazil is a special example at all. It has a GDP per capita very close to what would be predicted by its human capital. The interesting cases are Chile and Argentina (why one was so successful and the other so miserable in the last decades?).

Usually the narrative boils down to the elite (with help from the United States) conspiring to keep the country down. I've been hearing this drivel since elementary school, it's tiresome.

> Also, I don't think Brazil is a special example at all.

Yeah, like most Brazilians I used to think that Brazil was exceptional. The eye-opener was the book "The Elusive Quest for Growth", which describes efforts to bring many countries out of poverty. Most poor countries make similar mistakes, we're not an exception at all.

You don't think the USA has a strategic interest in keeping South america down, or at least easily controlled?

It may, at times and under certain circumstances. But for the most part, the notion that the U.S is what has kept much of latin america poor completely sidesteps completely valid blame against the region's many corrupt or awful leaders and their flunkies. It also sidesteps the bad voting decisions many populist-led voters have made for decades. Furthermore, it doesn't explain how a number of South American countries have indeed made enormous progress in social development over several decades.

Finally, you're talking about a vast region with hundreds of millions of people. If its own population and leaders want development, they'll find a way to get it, regardless of what any U.S agency or president wants without resorting to full blown military interventions across the board.

The idea that South America would be rich if only it weren't for the "Evil U.S." is a hard leftist myth that gets far too much credit at the expense of a much more complex and dynamic reality with many sources of not so popular blame.

> how could they intentionally stop a country from developing?

Isn't the petrobras scandal a good example of that? Or before that, the ridiculous culmination of the "steals but does" campaign by Maluf?

My understanding is that the IOF tax is in place precisely as an attempt from the government to keep tabs on the volume of siphoning of currency by politicians to Miami and tax havens elsewhere.

While I'm not particularly convinced of some of accusations thrown around by article, there's at least an attempt to analyze the situation, rather than the usual shrugging off the status quo.

Corruption by itself can't hold a country down, otherwise China would not present such enormous growth during last decades. Human capital is the underlying factor that contributes to corruption, slow economic growth, criminality, etc. I wish there was a straightforward way to improve that, but I am a bit cynical.

> Human capital is the underlying factor

Yeah, I think this is what the article was trying to get at, verbose and roundabout as it may have been. My main criticism would be against the idea that there is some consciously coordinated "elite" coming together to sabotage the country. Personally, I tend to think of it more as a tragedy of the commons, where multiple uncoordinated entities simultaneously arrive at the conclusion that exploitation of less privileged/leveraged/savvy entities is an acceptable way to achieve selfish/capitalist goals. One could definitely argue that the Brazilian culture of hustling certainly doesn't help there.

And even before diving into all those verbose signs, there was a clear indication of ignoring people advancements in all fronts of life at:

> the global story of the past forty years is one of retrogression

I was raised in Brazil during the eighties. That statement by the author has no connection to our country reality. You could argue on a few aspects that things are worse, but the general trend has been of improvement. And if the graphs about quality of life around the globe are correct, this seems to be a very widespread trend on many nations.

This “we’ve gotten worse all around” and “things have never been worse” stance is also typical of Brazilian shallow intellectual elite.

But is not, the term was coined by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck. The criticism is mostly directed for countries like the USA and UK, not Brazil by itself, the idea is that Brazil was always seen as a promise of becoming a "a land of the future", a promise that never came to be.

Edit, adding on it: The issues might become a recurring aspect on the future of other western countries. Brazil might be the first one to hit this though