When thinking about the problem of pseudo-currency loans, we have various associations: were the contracts understandable? did borrowers know what they were signing? did banks set a trap for the defenseless consumer? why did so many people take out a loan indexed to a foreign currency instead of simply taking out a foreign-currency loan? are these contracts unlawful? if they are unlawful, should some state authority not have inspected this and prohibited it? why was it only after many years that borrowers began to file lawsuits against banks? …
In order to answer each such complex question correctly, one must first answer several (a dozen or several dozen) simple questions that arise as a logical consequence of the original question.
Let us look at an example → what elementary questions are implied by one complex question?
The complex question is: Were loan agreements indexed to a foreign currency understandable?
Here are only some of the elementary questions that must be answered before we answer the complex question:
– is there a difference between a classic single-currency loan agreement and a two-currency agreement?
– what do the individual clauses in a pseudo-Swiss-franc loan agreement mean?
– can these clauses be understood with a general education, or does this require specialist knowledge?
– what level of knowledge can be expected from an ordinary consumer?
– are there any legal rules that regulate this matter?
A wrong answer to any of the elementary questions may cause the answer to the complex question to be wrong as well.
In this way, an entire chain of logical questions and answers is created.
The absence of one link, that is, the lack of an answer to one of the questions and replacing it with an inaccurate guess, may cause a wrong answer to the next question.
And the next question may be, for example:
Can an indexed agreement be regarded as binding on both parties if it was incomprehensible to one of them?
The answer to this question may determine the answer to the next one, such as:
After the agreement is declared invalid, is the bank entitled to a fee for the capital made available under the loan?
At the end of this long chain of questions and answers, our individual general view on the subject is formed.
Of course, a view based on wrong answers or wrong guesses misses the truth, so it may, although it need not, be wrong.
The greatest chance of forming a rational view belongs to those who answer an elementary question on the basis of reliable data, that is, who do not replace answers with guesses. At present, this is practically impossible, because a solitary, reliable analysis of a complicated problem based on trustworthy data would take many months.
Without pragmatic and semantic analysis, it is difficult to discuss whether the text of a pseudo-currency agreement was understandable to the average person, or whether the clauses of that agreement comply with applicable law.
Both our private discussions and public discourse about complicated problems proceed without any plan, which is why no one checks whether all the necessary data have been collected that would allow the problem under discussion to be solved. If data are missing, we simply replace them with our own guesses and, in everyday terms, express our opinion. Carrying out scientific research, calculations, and analyses is, of course, time-consuming, and it is much easier to express one’s subjective opinion on the basis of guesses. We discuss issues that are very important to us, but we do not treat these discussions entirely seriously, because we allow ourselves inconsistency in preparing for them.
One of the readers may reply to me: “Come on, nobody prepares for a discussion!”
Consciously, of course, few people gather arguments for such a discussion, but unconsciously every human being does so.
Each of us gathers information every day on various topics we hear about, and then on that basis forms a view on the issue being raised.
Our intellect is preparing us for discussion all the time, even though we neither plan nor control this process.
While trying to diagnose why we cannot reach an understanding, I noticed this inconsistency:
we argue seriously, fighting for our so-called reasons, but those reasons are most often based on chaotic and unreliable data.