The Romanian National Bank has cut the monetary policy, according to the uncommon statement by governor Isărescu from two years ago. In the press, the enthusiasm was moderate, amid the significant reduction expectations concerning the beginning of a new cycle of cuts of the policy rate.

But does the decision of the NBR have any real meaning anymore? Unfortunately, the answer is "no", as the NBR has long lost the control over the interest rates in the real economy, because the speculative excesses have created an acute dependence on the fluctuations of the foreign investments.

The governor of the NBR has pleaded for the necessity of a new agreement of the International Monetary Fund, acknowledging that he "doesn't really know what comes next". The money from the IMF could offset the outflows of private equity, even though the same Mugur Isărescu was the one who was praising the benefits of the signing of the agreement concluded with the IMF not too long ago.

Could these statements mean that not even the National Bank of Romania believes in the stimulating power of the low interest rates? And where do these radical changes in the position of the NBR officials come from, more volatile even than the fluctuations of the leu itself? Could this be an acknowledgment of the fact that one dollar from the IMF does not have the same quality (author's note: due to it being a loan) compared to one dollar coming from foreign investments?

The excuses provided for the cut of the policy rate could point towards such a conclusion. The NBR can continue to emphasize the role of the dwindling demand in reducing inflation pressure, but it uses a "broken" gauge of the "temperature" of prices.

According to data in the press release, "the annual CORE2 adjusted inflation rate has continued its downward trend, as it fell to 2.66% in May 2013, compared to 3.25% in