A banker's scam

A crooked banker belonging to the team of internet posters of the banking system had an idea on how to scam BURSA, at around 1:30 AM on Tuesday night by posting, in the comments section of the article "A PROPOSAL FROM MUGUR ISĂRESCU CONCERNING THE LAW OF GIVING IN PAYMENT: Banks to be required to report to the NBR the status of the negotiations with their customers", by Emilia Olescu, a message I will post below.

............

3. The law of giving in payment is seriously harmful to Romania! (a message posted by #stop_abuse on March 16th, 2016, 01:27 AM)

This law of giving in payment is a law that's good for the people. That's what they told you. What they haven't told you is who exactly it was good for. That for the average person, who goes to work everyday and is very careful so they can make ends meet from one month to the next, it is not good.

It would actually be very good for the few people who have bought not just one apartment, but many. And perhaps many plots of land, because those are "properties" too. But for them to escape their "losses", an entire generation is going to pay. That's what nobody else has told you.

They haven't told you that there is a law concerning the insolvency of individuals either. A law which can protect the common man who's fallen on hard times. Just like they haven't told you about the consequences that this law of giving in payment will have. They haven't told you that loan downpayments will increase. They haven't told you that the First Home program will disappear. They haven't told you that young people will have to wait for eight years to buy a home.

And they haven't told you that the real estate market will go into a deadlock either. That in the smaller towns the selling and buying of properties will grind to a halt.

And that it will be hard, very hard for anyone to build anything anymore.

They also haven't told you that many people may lose their jobs. Just like they haven't told you that renting will become more expensive. And that in the end, we will all pay for this loss. Out of the state budget. With our country's money. With our own money.

We are the ones telling you this. And we are asking you: is it really a law that's good for the people? One that makes 19 million Romanians pay for a few hundred?

The law of giving in payment is extremely harmful to Romania.

............

The message is a carbon copy of a stupid ad, which was paid for and published in other newspapers, as part of a propaganda action by bankers, against the law of giving in payment.

That propaganda is in itself stupid, because that is not the normal procedure for supporting an opinion concerning a law, and dialog and arguments should be used instead.

By avoiding dialog, the banking system shows that it wants to impose its point of view by force, in this particular case, through the force of propaganda.

Lacking courage, bankers cowardly avoided dialog, - the most recent instance when they did that has been at the round table organized by BURSA and the Chamber of Deputies on the issue of the law of giving in payment, where they had all been invited en masse (including the executives of the National Bank of Romania).

When he got the invitation to the round table, the Governor chose to make up an excuse for not attending, by showing up instead at a meeting with the Romanian Banking Association, on the same day and at the same time as the ones mentioned in the invitation addressed by BURSA.

According to our reporter who was present at the RBA event, Mugur Isărescu was there until around lunch time, while the round table organized at the Parliament ended at around 15:00.

Had he really wanted, Mugur Isărescu would have been able to come, and the others could have had someone stand in for them, after all representation doesn't all hinge on just one person from each bank.

Kind of embarrassing...

The banker who posted the message one night ago, thought of a way to cheat BURSA and avoid paying the cost of the ad: he waited for us to go to sleep, he speculated the fact that we freely allow commenting on articles and posted his ad from the banking propaganda program free of charge.

A ridiculous scam which probably made him happy.

But the very content of the ad is stupid, and not just because of its errors in its grammar or word order.

"This law of giving in payment is a good law for the people. That's what they have told you. What they haven't told you is for what [sic!] people. That for the average person, who goes to work everyday and is very careful so they can make ends meet from one month to the next, it is not good."

Stupid.

It's not that the law is not good for those who are "very careful so they can make ends meet from one month to the next", it simply isn't meant for them, because they do not qualify to borrow for a home.

About six million of our compatriots can't afford to spend more than 5 dollars a day; what connection is there between the banking system and those six million citizens? None. What connection is there between the law of giving in payment and these six million people? None.

Stupid.

Perhaps just about 10% of our population qualifies for a potential connection to the issues of the law of giving in payment, by having revenues that would allow them to realistically plan for the acquisition of a home, but their position on the social hierarchy does not justify their being addressed directly, like the ad does, nor their being treated as morons who need to be enlightened through banking propaganda.

And after these blunders, they move on to blatant lies: "They haven't told you that there is a law concerning the insolvency of individuals either."

The law on the insolvency of natural persons was supposed to be passed on December 26th, 2015, but it was postponed for a year, through an emergency ordinance.

In other words, it doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, then it's only normal that "they told you it doesn't exist", because it's only the bankers' lying propaganda that claims it does.

But that ad just goes on and on: "A law which can protect the common man who's fallen on hard times."

Yes, that law could, except it can't, because it doesn't exist.

Stupid.

And then it racks up one wild threat after another, in a scenario that has never been confirmed by any study, of which the statement that "the First Home program will disappear" stands out to me, a fact which has not yet been established, and which the initiators of the law state that they do not want and will prevent, but the misleading advertising does not present as just a prediction, but instead claims is a fact.

Stupid.

The stupidity of this ad reveals the bankers' contempt for the public, as they are certain that they can be persuasive by piling up the lies and stupid claims.

Or...

Perhaps this really is their intellectual level?

As for morality, the ridiculous scam that the banker stooped to, by posting his ad free of charge, is telling.

Regardless of what the law of giving in payment may be like,- good or bad - it is certainly good at revealing the behavior that permeates our banking system: arrogance, stupidity and immorality.