THE NBR BELIEVES THAT IT IS BEING ATTACKED BECAUSE OF THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS Lucian Croitoru poisons the wells

Lucian Croitoru, advisor to NBR governor Mugur Isărescu, last Wednesday issued some kind of political theory by which, if I understand it correctly, he accredits the principle that the NBR necessarily becomes the whipping boy of the political parties, during a technocratic government, because if would not be electorally profitable for them to attack the government, as the NBR has no political affiliation:

"Because the model «parties in the opposition constantly criticize the governing parties» is suspended during the period of a technocratic government, the parties need to come up with new topics and institutions to criticize instead of the parties themselves and to take the criticism to the potential level, at least when it comes to certain problems. The central bank and in relation to it, the banking system, whose policies are at any rate hard to understand by the majority of the public and by politicians, as well as the technocratic government necessarily become targets for criticism."

Croitoru has recently become a very active editorialist.

The fact that despite his position as advisor to the NBR governor he presents himself as a "journalist", is explicitly stated:

"I will not apply the theory described here to the concrete case in Romania, showing clearly what various parties have done and how their behavior validates my theory. I will leave the pleasure of doing this exercise and of discovering a very good match between facts and theory to the reader [emphasis mine]."

The reader is a beneficiary of the services that the journalists provide.

According to his job at the NBR, the beneficiary of the services that Lucian Croitoru provides is Mugur Isărescu.

Lucian Croitoru is gunning for my job.

This in turn, is forcing me to try and leave Lucian Croitoru jobless.

So, in this article, I am going to ask Mugur Isărescu: "Governor, isn't there anything Lucian Croitoru should be doing at the NBR, because look, he's gone off his rocker?!"

Croitoru's "theory" would have been relatively inoffensive, had he published it during the time when the prestige of the NBR was at its peak, when the image of our central bank was immaculate - it claims to be a "theory", so it should be ageless, relatively independent of the factual context.

But for more than half a year now, the NBR has been acting in collusion with the banking system, against the customers of the latter, fighting side by side, against the conversion of CHF denominated loans, and against the law of giving in payment; the bankers governed by the NBR did not shy away from any flawed argument during the fight and no one from the NBR took them to task, not even Lucian Croitoru, who is just now discovering his journalist potential, at 60 years of age, (welcome!); the banks' paid posters have filled my website with horrible insults directed towards their adversaries, as well as against myself, even though I have never been part of the debate, (I had to amend the posting rules, repeatedly, to maintain a more civilized medium for debate), demonstrating the lack of character, primitivism and often times stupidity and infamy, that the banking side have sullied itself with, which the NBR is siding with; the management of the NBR has broken the law, by not disclosing their compensations, for which it has built some arguments which have been discredited by the sophisticated forgery behind them; finally, the cherry on the cake, the NBR deputy governor Bogdan Olteanu has resigned, because he was arrested on charges of corruption.

In this context, when the image of the central bank is completely wrecked, Croitoru's so-called "theory", that the NBR is being criticized by the political parties, because they have nothing else to criticize, is an attempt at poisoning the wells; they're trying to pretend that the criticism has nothing to do with the situation in the banking sector, and instead it is just a political move, - "the attack launched by certain politicians again the National Bank of Romania, either directly or through friends they have in the press".

Dude, to top it all off, you're also insulting without any reason!

Since when am I "a friend in the press"?!

On the BURSA someone started insulting me, because he was saying that not a day goes by that I am insulting the NBR and Isărescu; during the debates concerning the law of giving in payment, bankers accused me of being a supporter of the law of giving in payment, because BURSA did not publish just the arguments of the banks, but also those of their opponents (as if that wasn't the normal thing to do).

So, clearly, BURSA is a supporter of the law of giving in payment, BURSA is an enemy of the banking system, an enemy of the Central Bank, I am personally an enemy of Isărescu (there was another wise guy who claimed this nonsense, that I have a vision that goes against that of Isărescu and that I am therefore clearly his enemy).

Well, Croitoru's "theory" all of a sudden makes me nothing else but a "friend in the press" of certain politicians.

How would you feel, Mr. Croitoru, if I were to start mocking you, by making up things about you, such as for instance alleging that you are a friend of Bogdan Olteanu?!

How would you feel if I went even further, and without any factual means, I were to allege that you provide information on where the exchange is going to go ahead of time, information which helps certain groups who are close to you make lots of money, to the tune of millions of dollars, every other week-end or so?!

You don't have enough experience to practice honest journalism, Mr. Croitoru.

Perhaps until you turn eighty?

When it's all said and done, the fact that you claim that the articles that criticize the NBR which the newspaper is publishing are dictated to me by the political parties which are short on electoral inspiration doesn't prevent me from bringing you in from "theory", to historical reality:

The CHF exchange rate exploded apparently out of the blue on January 15th, 2015, after Switzerland's Central bank lifted the 1.2 CHF/Euro cap it had imposed in 2011 (the explosion was in fact the result of some dysfunctions in the Swiss finances, tied to the European overindebtedness crisis, thus it could have been predicted, by the banking analysts, at least).

Since then, most of the Romanian CHF borrowers have encountered problems in making their loan payments, with some of them even going as far as being unable to make their loan repayments.

They have protested the situation using various means and, after repeated negotiations with the lenders, which failed in most cases, they have repeatedly asked for a law that would stipulate the sharing of the burden caused by the rise of the exchange rate.

Last year, only the law of the insolvency of individuals was passed, whose application was postponed at the end of 2015.

The law of the conversion of loans denominated in foreign currencies has still not been passed, even though it has been submitted with the Parliament long before the Swiss franc started rising.

Amid all this, this year - which is an election year - the law of giving in payment was passed, after lengthy and controversial discussions, during which the National Bank of Romania, just like the banking system and the international forums vehemently spoke out against it and any other law that could have helped the borrowers, claiming that such legislative initiatives were creating a severe systemic risk.

Aside from the political link of the law of giving in payment, what other connection exists between politics and this real-life development, which caused the discontent of the banking system's customers?

The performance of the Central Bank in its relationship with bank customers was wrong and has drawn criticisms - what does that have to do with "the friends in politics"?

Nothing.

The fact that politicians hijack this kind of subjects is indubitable, and hence "the Croitoru theory" can become valid, but it no longer concerns us.

How am I responsible for the fact that the NBR has elected not to disclose the revenues of its executives?

How am I responsible for the fact that they chose to provide a muddy response, when in the beginning of this year, I asked the NBR to provide justification for their violation of the law?

How am I responsible for the fact that Lucian Isar has hijacked the topic in BURSA, half a year after?

To say that I am Isar's "friend in the press" or that Isar is "my friend in politics" is simply an insult.

And like I have already showed you, I can do quite credible insults as well.

For instance, I could express doubts that you are capable of such political "theories", because politics are not your specialty; could it be that perhaps the seed of this "theory" idea has been planted by some failed political analyst?