Dealers and floormen in Las Vegas, we rule here.

To begin with, let's dot the "i" and cross the "t". When former President Hugo Chávez coined the term "Bolivarian," he was referring to the legacy of Simón Bolívar, who advocated for an America integrated from end to end, as a single country, aware of the brotherhood between its peoples. The same creator of this term won three presidential elections, a plebiscite, and a referendum. Not to mention his triumphant return to the Miraflores Palace in the 2002 counter-coup. His legacy elected the current Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro. All organized by an Electoral Court recognized by the UN and former US President Jimmy Carter as an international example. So, properly speaking, with all due respect, because we are not talking about Pinochets, Videlas, Geisels, Fujimoris, or De La Rúas.

I say this because the new trend in mainstream newspapers is the "Bolivarian Dilma" narrative, a tactic already employed by Gilmar Mendes in his political speeches before the Supreme Federal Court, openly against a political party that, "by chance," is the most voted in parliament and elected the last three heads of state; and in the low-quality colonialism/editorialism that addressed the National Policy for Social Participation without bothering to read the Constitution – which claims the PT didn't sign it (a lie!), but to this day hasn't truly accepted it – and what has happened since then in terms of council-based and participatory management in Brazil. Being "Bolivarian" is not an insult, therefore. Although it's not part of the lexicon we use in political disputes here.

And the pretext is the Santander case. Regarding this, the president has already responded very well, as has the bank itself, firing the executives who wanted to give political advice to their high-income clients. Yes, because on top of everything else, they lied. Brazil maintains economic growth, a mass consumer market (it hasn't taken a step back in social policies and minimum wage increases), credit, and is advancing on new trade routes, as well as continuing to invest in infrastructure. Direct investments exceed US$60 billion, we have the fifth largest international reserves (US$380 billion), exceeding the public and private external debt, of which (36% of GDP, not 55% during the FHC era), only 7,6% mature in the short term. There is no scenario for any crisis of serious proportions.

The whole thing is as bogus as the same major newspapers treating Argentina's negotiations with vulture funds as if it were a widespread "default," when it's actually NML Capital, Elliott Capital Management, and Aurelius Capital Management—7% of whom refused to even negotiate with a nation that, at the time, was going through the most serious crisis in its history, forced and imposed by a US district judge who arrogates himself above countries, their national and popular sovereignties, let it be said! Or when they predict, for the same case, a possible political crisis, complete with prophecies about the fall of the government or the emergence of a national coalition government.

All paid content from beyond borders and overseas, mixed with desire, nothing to do with information. But, of course, an insinuation of a political agenda. Again, the marriage of newspapers that "report" from "sources" in international agencies well paid by banks and corporations, with these same banks and corporations, which desperately step outside their comfort zone to engage in politics, because the world already wants to know about other things, as the BRICS Summit clearly demonstrated, and many already know the damaging role that such institutions play in the economy, given that Santander (and many others) have the profits they do in Brazil and conspire against the country's president.

It's the same shamelessness as Standard & Poor's downgrading the Brazilian economy to grease the wheels of the "Petrobras case," The Economist attacking Minister Guido Mantega, or now, the IMF talking about our "vulnerability" (well, who asked for an opinion from this outdated relic of the dying Bretton Woods system?). It's not technical expertise or anything like that. It's the desire to govern democracies by a handful of executives and millionaires, as they did in Italy under Mario Monti, the "technical" prime minister who subjected that great democracy to the abuses of the Troika, like a good son of Goldman Sachs.

When the resigning (phew!) Alexandre Schwartsman defends the Spanish bank's report, saying that "the perception is that a change in economic policy orientation will have positive effects on Brazilian companies, particularly those subject to government shareholding control," he behaves like the floorman at a roulette table, because such "perception" is nothing more than speculation paying for specialized news to drive down stock prices, and non-specialized news to try to favor, among the general public, their political employees.

And it is precisely these people (the opposition in the broad sense), so as not to lose their grip on the situation, who are jumping on the bandwagon to the point that the venerable Merval Pereira, the "immortal" who writes a compendium of articles, is now defending the bank. The bank didn't ask for it, but it's extremely bad to have their candidate embroiled in problems, having to explain a fraudulent airport built with public money on family land, unable to even overcome this issue and resume his agenda of terrorism, prejudice, and lies. Even more so with another opposition newspaper throwing banana peels at him, supposedly at the behest of an "economist" who calculates millions of votes for the Senate as a springboard for a presidential run outside the reelection cycle, with a mandate in the upper house guaranteeing no loss of political ground.

The question, in short, is: banks cannot express political opinions; it's different from newspapers, which are commendable when they declare their preferences because they stop deceiving their readers with the chimera of impartiality. If they do, this must be analyzed by projecting the economic impacts it may cause, and if it is found that the bases are sophistical and the predictions frivolous, then yes, they should be punished because they also mislead their clients. And don't come with talk of "economic freedom," because it is the fate of flesh-and-blood people, with names, surnames, and addresses, that is at stake. Not these high-income investors, who would not be so affected, but those who would suffer the consequences of this exploitation. Economic freedom is seriously analyzing the national economy and investing, considering, among other things, the compass of public investments. Economic freedom is consumers, whether individuals or legal entities, or even institutions, reacting to this by leaving the bank. It is as legitimate as boycotting a clothing brand that uses slave labor or genetically modified canned goods. But in this sector – the trillion-dollar "arms" industry – as one film said, the issue isn't money (because there's plenty of it), but the "game." The same game that leads to the barrage of manipulated news against Argentinians.

In Las Vegas, my friends, not here. Or, as Carlinhos Gouveia de Mello says, the problem isn't too much state intervention, but rather too little state intervention. Here we have a government, we have political parties, we have institutions and civil society. And we have a strong economy, and having it cost the blood, sweat, and tears of many generations. It won't be dealers and floormen who dictate the rules of the "game".