Irony and aggression are on the rise in economic criticism.
President Dilma Rousseff's resistance to maintaining her first-place lead in the polls and her chance of winning in the first round are sparking fury in the financial market; from the outside, the British newspaper Financial Times is amused by what it called a "tug-of-war"; it's the regression in GDP expectations projected by professionals from banks and brokerage firms; a guide to bankers laments that the evaluation of Dilma's government "has grown in the Ibope polls"; from the inside, losing its composure, the consulting firm Rosenberg & Associados, owned by Luiz Paulo Rosenberg (smaller photo), deplores informing its clients that Dilma has a 60% chance of being re-elected; "The most likely scenario is the continuation of mediocrity"; and also says that Dilma would be "a puppet that has become a bludgeon against common sense"; analysis or wishful thinking?
247 - The financial market continues to react negatively to the combination of facts indicating President Dilma Rousseff's resilience in maintaining her lead in opinion polls, with real chances of winning the election in the first round, and projections about the economy made by the financial market itself.
Between what is political reality and what may be economic fiction – there are already expectations from analysts, not always identified, that by 2018 Brazil will have low GDP and high inflation, as stated in the headline of the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper this Tuesday the 12th – the truth is that nerves are on edge among bankers, consultants and executives in the powerful financial sector of the economy.
From abroad, the British newspaper Financial Times once again showed its ironic claws. A note in the section on BRICS countries described the reduction in growth expectations created by the financial market itself for Brazil as a "troublemaking dance." In the Focus Bulletin published on Monday the 11th, the median of the projections of economists surveyed by the Central Bank showed a reduction, for the 11th consecutive week, in growth expectations for 2014. They now converge to 0,81% GDP growth this year.
Having a great time with this, the Financial Times showed no sense of humor, in the same article, when reminding its readers that President Dilma Rousseff's "government approval rating" had "risen in the Ibope polls." This data indicated that she is not suffering in the polls as her opponents would like her to see. The Financial Times, therefore, appeared sullen immediately after creating its image.
LOW BUSINESS - Here, the consulting firm Rosemberg & Associados, belonging to one of the architects of the Cruzado Plan – the one that began by freezing prices in 1986 and, shortly after the gubernatorial elections, ended with a barrage of public utility increases during the José Sarney administration – Luiz Paulo Rosemberg, resorted to a style-based critique. Between vague concepts and a lack of respect for the adversary, they perpetrated yet another financial analysis, signed by four economists, that was utterly ill-humored, poorly supported, and frankly resigned.
The Rosemberg report, transmitted to the firm's clients, including the banks Itaú and Santander, is based on an openly oppositional political analysis.
- "[Dilma] is firmly in a lead over the other [candidates] which, if not comfortable, is discouraging," the text asserts, going on to lament an election rule: the distribution of television airtime according to party proportionality rules guaranteed by the TSE (Superior Electoral Court).
Analysts complain that Dilma will have much more time than others to 'warn' the lower class that the elite is trying to undo their achievements and bring back a past of hardship.
The next step is a low blow, delivered from vague concepts and crude terms.
This is why, from today's perspective, the most likely scenario is the continuation of mediocrity, a lack of commitment to logic, and the arrogant bad temper of the lamppost that has become a bludgeon against common sense.
It's worth asking: Whose logic, pale face? The bank's or the sucker's? Whose common sense? The clever ones' or the fools'?