Gancia says Dilma makes you want to "cut your wrists".

247 - Everyone complains that they have never been treated like this, writes Folha de S.Paulo columnist Barba Gancia this Friday, regarding the treatment that President Dilma Rousseff has given to businesspeople and politicians. According to her, Dilma "shows signs that she doesn't know how to compromise, dialogue, or do business," unlike Lula or FHC. The journalist also accuses the president of "immense lack of sensitivity." Read below: 

To cut your wrists 
How could the governor, who wasn't even a presidential candidate, prevent them from going to the Marilyn Manson concert?

Dilma really isn't helping. Her predecessor was a brilliant negotiator; he reconciled and orchestrated things to such an extent that he not only managed to survive a tsunami and elect his successor, but also established a legacy.

The one who came before him envisioned changes that led the country's economy from the darkness to postmodernity.

Now the ship has run aground. Remember expressions like "forces of backwardness"? Well, I was reminded of that kind of intrigue when I heard about the misfortunes of Paris Jackson, Michael Jackson's teenage daughter, hospitalized after self-harming—it's still unclear whether she was a victim of bullying at school, had her desire to go to a Marilyn Manson concert thwarted, or feels the weight of the approaching trial that will determine the fate of her father's estate. Or perhaps all of the above at the same time.

At the beginning of Dilma's administration, a whole bunch of businessmen—the Gerdaus and Abílios we saw—and those we didn't—Odebrecht, OAS, Camargo Corrêa, Mendes Júnior, and Andrade Gutierrez, big banks, agricultural producers, and also the group from the telephone companies, as we all know, all offered to help her in any way they could.

Today, there's not a single one left to play cards. When some young boy shows up, it's because he's sulking, saying the ball is his and he's not playing anymore, that he's fed up with the president's bullying, that he's had enough of this or that veto.

People grumble that they've never been treated like this. Not by Geisel, nor by Figueiredo, Sarney, Collor, Itamar, FHC, and much less by Lula. How can this puppet, who landed in the presidency by parachute, dare to prevent them from going to the Marilyn Manson concert? It's a very adult relationship that has been created between Dilma and the group that ends up defining the moods of the so-called "market".

Look: I'm not saying that the local capital doesn't have a point. Nobody is obligated to lose money out of patriotism. The current environment, with its constant rule changes, excessive interference, dubious accounting, and unpleasant surprises every day, is hardly welcoming.

And our dear Dilma, despite having promoted so many alliances, shows signs that she doesn't know how to compromise, dialogue, or do business, and that she governs inspired by some centralizing model from post-war Albania.

On the other hand, the country's ruling class behaves like a hysterical woman crying outside a closed pharmacy on a holiday, holding a prescription for a controlled substance. This market is always nervous and ready to jump off a bridge, isn't it?

People complain that infrastructure and industry have gone to hell, but I've yet to see a Brazilian businessman willing to accept one of the most basic premises of capitalism: risk-taking. Without a little money from the BNDES (Brazilian Development Bank), he won't do it. Without help from Brasília, he won't take the risk.

We have a recent republican history marked by presidents, ministers, and chiefs of staff who were deluded into thinking that simply being in power was enough to bring about change. They all ended up realizing that, however urgent and legitimate the changes might be, if they involve going against specific interests, it is more likely that those interests will fall from grace than that the course of events will be altered.

In her immense lack of sensitivity, Dilma is determined to force her way in. But she risks not seeing a second term and will also be complicit in the self-fulfilling prophecy of someone fed up with her intransigence.