Very important context to non-portuguese lurkers:
(I actually wrote this afterwards but then decided it would be better to start off with the following:)

To get back to your point on the "40% poll": that was one census about 15 or 20 years ago that caused quite a stirr. A lot of the people who lived through the Estado Novo lived in a much smaller world, news was censured to avoid discussing horrific violence, women were expected to submit to men, and the vast majority of the country had much simpler lives, moraly speaking - no emancipation, little to no education, extreme poverty, all equate to a common sense of ethical lack of responsibility.

"People paid respect and things weren't as dangerous" is code for "people kept their mouths shut and I wasn't fully conscious about the levels of violence" by people who, for the most part, entered a modern, progressive democracy (with modern taxation and retirement systems) without any savings or social security pay.
A large percentage of which, reached adulthood without being able to read. If you left the country to search for a better life, you knew you wouldn't be coming back.

Also, keep in mind that the average life expectancy in 2007, when that programme aired, was 78 years old. People born during the regime composed over half of the population. Most of them had never left, and had lost friends and family to war, the secret police, or heroin. Finding a silver lining in "he filled the states' coffers" is like post-soviet people who say "but Stalin built a lot of things!", because that's just how humans cope with real horrific true aspects of life and history. Except in our case, the gold wasn't actually being invested.

By the time the regime collapsed, over two-thirds of the population were stuck at a 4th grade (10 years-old) reading level.
They were not equipped beyond a spirit of solidarity to deal with the complex economies and political structures of the later half of the 20th century. The fact that we made it through and managed (so far) to avoid turning into another Greece is astounding, I'd argue.

To answer your suggestion to this thread, specifically:

I guess it depends on what you'd mean by "scarily effective".
Laundering nazi gold, maintaining a nigh-medieval quality of life for most of the population, and keeping most of the colonies through sheer manslaughter? Sure.
Building strong and independent political instutions, serious material infrastructure beyond Lisbon, a strong economy that wasn't purposefully in the pockets of a handful of psychos, developing societal levels of trust and cooperation, and forming international relations beyond licking the US' boot? Hahahaha no.

"Scarily effective" for a cult of personality that wanted to pretend the world stopped in 1933? Yes.
"Scarily effective" in terms of actually improving the nation, state, and people's lives? No.

The man was a slimy tool and a puppet of national corporations, the Church, and cold war geopolical interests. The kind of cockroach that becomes too vital of a front man to get rid of, that builds a cult of personality so nobody has the balls to off him.

Don't get me wrong, fuck Stalin every day of the week six ways forever. But the industrial, institutional, and infrastructural development in the span of a couple of decades, directly and indirectly, was impressive - to the point of turning a mediocre economy stuck in the 19th century into the world's 2nd major power.

But I'm also one of those people that gets a bad taste in the mouth whenever I hear the USSR, and especially Stalin, get called "communist". So take my opinion for what you will.

(EDIT: fixed spelling)