The Swiss will remain slaves of commercial banks
Three-quarters of voters have said no to a vote that would allow the Swiss central bank to create paper money.
Creating money from thin air has been a prerogative of commercial banks for over a century. Saying no to controlling their own money issuance reflects great ignorance. However, the Swiss rejected an initiative that would have given the National Bank of Switzerland (BNS) full and exclusive powers in matters of money creation, which according to its supporters would have had the effect of guaranteeing the country’s financial stability.
That proposal was rejected clearly, with 75% of votes against, according to the latest official estimates.
This is an initiative that involved a radical reform of the current monetary system of the country, in which the National Bank of Switzerland would have issued bills and coins that only represent 10% of the money supply that is in circulation. Nowadays, the rest of the money consists of “scriptural money”, meaning that it only exists in the accounting books and electronically in a bank account.
Commercial banks creating money through the credits they approve, be it to companies or individuals, instead of using the money from the deposits. In other words, debt is created, not money. In the past, commercial banks were limited in the amount of debt they could create, however, after commercial banks took complete control of the global finances, bankers gained the power to establish a system of total indebtedness under which they control the global financial system.
The bankers alone can create and end financial crises. They dictate what policies central banks follow in every country of the world. Countries who do not submit to their wish list quickly go into bankruptcy or are air bombed into submission. Those are the cases of Argentina and Libya.
The referendum had been proposed by a committee composed of personalities from different ranks, including economists and financial specialists, but also teachers and trade union groups, who managed to gather the 100,000 signatures needed to carry out the consultation.
Adherents to the initiative wanted to end the current system and replace it with another that, from their point of view, had better protected the money of bank customers and prevented new financial crises.
Faced with the failure of the referendum, one of the national coordinators of the “Yes” campaign, Jean-Marc Heim, considered that despite the rejection of the initiative, it allowed for the generation of a broad debate and “awakening consciences” in the population about the power that commercial banks have thanks to their ability to create money from thin air.
“We will not abandon the fight,” he said, after stating that those who have led the referendum on this issue will continue working for a reform of the banking system and for the regulation of cryptocurrencies.
Those who campaigned against the initiative alleged that the measure would have weakened the banks and created additional costs that would end up being paid by customers. It is true, commercial banks would have been weakened. That was indeed one of the purposes, but the costs would not have been higher than they are now, and in exchange, the Swiss people would have been safer.
Likewise, it was stated that making the National Bank of Switzerland the only one with the power to issue money threatened the independence of this entity. That is a lie.
For the Liberal-Radical right-wing deputy, Olivier Feller (PLR / VD), co-chair of the committee against the initiative, “the people have not wanted Switzerland to become a laboratory of experiments in monetary policy”. That is because most people still don’t understand how money is created and how its creation turn them into debt slaves.
The Swiss Government was opposed from the beginning to this change because of the impact it would have had on the commercial activity of the banks, a sector on which 5.6% of the jobs and 9.1% of the country’s GDP depend on as for the current rules.
Neither jobs nor the GDP would have been affected if the measure had been approved, but the banks would have done everything to make the Swiss people pay for their challenge to their power.
In their argument to the voters, the federal authorities explained that the banks would have had to look for alternative means of financing, probably more onerous, affecting their intermediation margins, and probably transferring this cost to the loan applicants.
In reality, they would have most likely done that, although not because of the reasons the federal government explained, but simply because they have complete power over the creation of money.
They also said that in order to deal with the risks in the financial markets, the liquidity and equity requirements of the banks, particularly the large ones, had been reinforced.