When we think about the problem of pseudo-currency loans, various associations come to mind: were the contracts understandable? did borrowers know what they were signing? did banks set a trap for a defenseless consumer? why did so many people take out a loan indexed to a foreign currency rather than simply a foreign-currency loan? are these contracts unlawful? if they are unlawful, should some public authority not have reviewed them and prohibited them? why was it only after many years that borrowers began to file lawsuits against banks? …
To answer any such complex question correctly, one must first answer several (sometimes 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 a single complex question?
The complex question is: Were loan agreements indexed to a foreign currency understandable?
Here are just some of the elementary questions that must be answered before we answer the complex question:
– what do the individual provisions in a pseudo-Swiss-franc loan agreement mean?
– can those provisions be understood by someone with a general education, or do they require specialist knowledge?
– what level of knowledge can reasonably be expected from an ordinary consumer?
– when is a failure to understand contract provisions the result of the consumer’s inattention?
– and when is it the result of the contract’s incomprehensible wording?
– is there a difference between a classic single-currency loan agreement and a two-currency agreement?
– are there any legal rules that regulate this issue?
– is the agreement binding on the parties even if one of them does not understand it?
– etc.
A wrong answer to any of the elementary questions may cause the answer to the complex question to be wrong as well.
A wrong answer to the complex question may in turn lead to a wrong answer to the next question in the same logical chain.
The next question might be, for example, Can an indexed agreement be regarded as binding on both parties? The answer to that question may determine the answer to the next one, such as After the contract is declared invalid, is the bank entitled to a fee for making the loan capital available?
In this way, an entire chain of logical questions and answers is created. The absence of one link—meaning the absence of an answer to one of the questions and its replacement with an inaccurate guess—may result in a wrong answer to the next question.
At the end of this long chain of questions and answers, a general view on the matter is formed. If it is based on wrong answers or wrong guesses, it misses the truth.
The best chance of arriving at a rational view belongs to those who answer elementary questions on the basis of reliable data, rather than replacing answers with guesses. At present, this is practically impossible, because a reliable solitary 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 loan agreement was understandable to an average person or whether its provisions comply with applicable law.
Both our private discussions and public discourse about complex problems proceed without any plan, so no one controls whether all the necessary data have been gathered to solve the problem under discussion.
If data are missing, we simply replace them with our own guesses and, in everyday language, voice our opinion. Conducting scientific studies, calculations and analyses is, of course, time-consuming, and it is far easier to express one’s subjective view on the basis of guesses.
We discuss matters that are very important to us, yet we do not treat these discussions fully seriously, because we allow ourselves inconsistency in how we prepare for them.
Someone might reply: “Come on, nobody prepares for a discussion,” but that is not true.
Consciously, of course, few people collect arguments for such a discussion, but unconsciously everyone does it. Each of us gathers information every day on various topics we hear about, and on that basis forms a view on the problem posed.
Our intellect is preparing us for discussion all the time, even though we do not plan or control that process.
In trying to diagnose why we cannot reach agreement, I noticed this inconsistency: we argue seriously, fighting for our so-called reasons, yet those reasons are most often based on chaotic and unreliable data.
Perhaps it is worth beginning to create databases consciously on the topics that matter to us…