This is an awful lot of analysis on the social implications of a movie created by the guy who crafted Beavis and Butthead. If you are cultivating your outlook of the future from Idiocracy, then you probably care not about the real prospects of the future anyway. The author is taking this much too seriously.
"So we're starting from a position of believing that wealthy people are inherently more intelligent and, by extension, deserve their wealth. This link between intelligence and wealth is perhaps the most dangerous idea of the film and pretty quickly slips into advocating for some form of soft eugenics to build a better world."<p>Statically, isn't that true? Corruption and heritage might make this not true, but I don't think that's totally inepte to think there is a link between intelligence and the actual wealth of people.
Widely-cited movies often mean different things to different people. Their indeterminacy increases citations. Idiocracy parodies advertising, GMO farming, psychotropic mists dispensed by ATMs to calm down annoyed customers, and many other topics. Is that more or less helpful to society than vampire romance or robot mayhem movies?