The remarkable shift in discourse change among the NBR members

Daniel Dăianu yesterday published his opinions about the mistakes that Romanian banks have made lately, in their relations with their customers - a remarkable change in discourse compared to the one that we had become accustomed from the members of the management of the National Bank of Romania during the process to pass the Law of giving in payment and afterwards, a remarkable change even though Dăianu states (on the website Ziare.com, which published his text and which has graciously allowed us to publish it) that his opinions do not angajează Consiliul de Administraţie al BNR.

"BURSA" reported the fact on the same day on its own website.

The reactions of the bank supporters and of their opponents didn't take long to show up on our website's comment section.

I have selected one of the posts that demonstrates the lack of comprehension of Dăianu's text:

"4.5.Hypotheses... and conclusions (in response to the opinion no. 4.2)

(message sent by Anghel Bălan, on September 20, 2016, 15:19)

Mr. Van, it is almost impossible to estimate the compensations that banks will win or not in the International Court, or the negative effects. Everybody is entitled to make their own estimates and therefore, to choose what they do. Mr. Dăianu offered a personal opinion without providing a solid argumentation of the benefits, and of the negative effects, respectively. As for iniquities, I think that one iniquity cannot be made right through another. On principle, you can't ask anybody not to seek justice, because if they do there will be repercussions. This attitude is completely undemocratic. It is somewhat the attitude of a rapist who threatens their victim that if they file a complaint with the police they will kill their family".

Reader Anghel Bălan makes several mistakes, but what jumps out is that he can't distinguish between repercussions and retaliation.

Repercussions are consequences, while retaliations are coercive measures (usually between countries).

Dăianu is talking about consequences, and not coercions, and therefore, the opinions of Anghel Bălan on democracy, rape and threats don't matter.

Daniel Dăianu says that this persistence of the hostile attitude against the banks' customers will cause banks to lose, even if they were to win an international lawsuit against Romania, because the repercussion will be that banks' customers will vanish.

Which is natural.

Half a year ago, we published an article called "With or without the passing of the law of giving in payment", which reported the same thing.

The article I wrote back then and the one written by Daniel Dăianu now, there are however many common threads, derived from their naturalness.