Since August 2025, Selic has remained locked at 15% per year. The highest level in two decades. In February 2026, the Central Bank signaled: cuts begin in March. Financial market celebrates. Banks project savings on installments. Headlines announce relief for consumers.

But who pays the bill for high interest? And who profits from them?

The official narrative is known. Central Bank raises interest to control inflation. More expensive money slows consumption. Less demand contains price rises. When inflation yields, interest can fall. Technical logic, neutral, inevitable.

This story conceals fundamental political choices.

Interest at 15% means Brazilian government pays holders of public bonds profitability superior to any investment in the world. In 2025, expenditure on public debt interest consumed more than 800 billion reais from federal budget. For comparison, basic education received about 70 billion reais.

Who receives these 800 billion reais? Banks, investment funds, institutional investors, rentiers. Concentrated wealth that grows while most of population faces expensive credit, stalled consumption, precarious jobs.

The inflation that justified high interest didn’t come from workers earning too much or consuming excessively. It came from supply shocks: food made expensive by climate, fuel affected by wars, volatile dollar. Raising interest doesn’t solve any of these problems. But it punishes those who work and protects those who speculate.

Projections indicate Selic at 12.25% by December 2026. Drop of 2.75 percentage points celebrated as achievement. But 12.25% continues being very high real interest compared to similar economies. Turkey, with deep crisis, has nominal interest of 45% but inflation of 65%. Brazil will have interest of 12% with projected inflation at 4%. Real interest of 8% per year.

This level maintains income transfer to rentiers, makes productive credit expensive, favors financial applications over real investments. The announced drop doesn’t change structure. It only reduces intensity of bleeding.

Relief discourse masks problem’s permanence. Family financing homeownership can save 690 reais monthly if Selic falls to 12.25%. Real savings, but modest given installments that will continue above 3,000 reais monthly for financing of 300,000 reais. Homeownership remains privilege, not accessible right.

Small businesses depend on credit for working capital. Interest of 12% still makes many enterprises unfeasible. Bankruptcy rate remains high. Formal employment grows slowly. Informality stays at record. Selic’s promised drop relieves but doesn’t transform.

International comparison exposes political character of this dynamic. United States maintains basic interest between 4.5% and 5%. Europe operates around 3.5%. Mexico, Latin American neighbor, works with 10%. Brazil sustains higher real interest than any relevant economy.

Justification always points to country risk, fiscal deficit, political uncertainties. But country risk isn’t natural phenomenon. It’s political construction. Governments choose to pay exorbitant interest to attract financial capital. Choose to privilege rentiers over productive investment. Choose nominal monetary stability over full employment.

Other choices exist. Argentina faced comparable economic situation. Kirchnerism implemented capital controls, renegotiated debt, prioritized domestic market. Results were controversial but demonstrated alternative paths are viable. Country didn’t disappear from map. Economy restructured.

Bolivia, under Evo Morales, maintained controlled inflation with significant economic growth for decade. Used trade surpluses to accumulate reserves, invested in infrastructure and social protection without resorting to exorbitant interest. Demonstrated economic stability doesn’t require sacrificing population on financial market’s altar.

In Brazil, experiences of community banks and credit cooperatives demonstrate viability of financial systems not subordinated to Selic’s logic. When communities organize credit locally, rates reflect payment capacity and social need, not financial speculation.

Central Bank isn’t neutral institution applying objective economic science. It’s power instrument deciding resource distribution among social classes. When it maintains Selic at 15%, it chooses to protect rentiers. When it cuts to 12%, it maintains protection only reducing intensity.

Question isn’t technical: what interest rate stabilizes inflation? Question is political: how much of socially produced wealth should be transferred to those who live off financial applications? Who decides this transfer? Based on what criteria?

Current answer favors concentration. Small portion of population receives billionaire transfer via debt interest while majority faces expensive credit and compressed income. This distribution isn’t inevitable technical consequence. It’s political choice renewed at each Copom meeting.

Alternatives require questioning financial capital’s primacy. Require defending that public resources serve social investment, not rentier remuneration. Require building popular forms of credit and savings, reducing dependence on private banking system.

Announced Selic cut brings marginal relief for millions. This relief matters. But it doesn’t replace structural transformation. While real interest remains very high by international standards, income transfer to rentiers will continue.

Between celebrating crumbs and demanding financial system serving the majority, no neutrality is possible.

In struggle we continue—dignified, free, and untamable.