Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
pig

Swiss Voting To Ban Money Creation

Recommended Posts

Well OK limiting it to the Central Bank:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11999966/Switzerland-to-vote-on-banning-banks-from-creating-money.html

Referendum on radical proposal to give central banks sole money creation power will be held after petition gains 110,000 signatures

Switzerland will hold a referendum to decide whether to ban commercial banks from creating money.

The Swiss federal government confirmed on Thursday that it would hold the plebiscite, after more than 110,000 people signed a petition calling for the central bank to be given sole power to create money in the financial system..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five months ago the same central bank admitted to making a £33bn loss gambling in foreign exchange markets. :blink:

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks promising, Credit Suisse, UBS and Julius Bär would be in a whole world if pain if it actually passed, and after the 2008 debacle a lot of Swiss people are getting sick of increasingly "Anglo" banks.

First instinct is, it is pretty unlikely to pass. But at least there will be some reporting in the national and international press, that will make a few more people realise that even in Switzerland money is literally created out of thin air!!

Edited by reddog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving central banks the power to implement policies that they've said don't work - except to line their own pockets.

done a bit of reading about this now. It does seem that putting the central bank in control could lead to big problems, could get v political with for example certain politicians wanting to introduce Jeremy Corbin style peoples QE, and other politicians wanting to help out their mates in business.

Another problem is, in a q and a on their website about how they would handle a strong franc ,http://www.vollgeld-initiative.ch/fa/img/Texte_Dokumente_deutsch/151022_Vollgeld-Initiative_AntwortenaufkritischeFragen_translated_22Nov15.pdfthe answers were:

-QE

-negative interest rates (for foreigners)

-capital controls

Again, the central bank controlling these things could be a serious issue.

It seems like an interesting idea, but seems to forget about the frailties of people.

Edited by reddog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

done a bit of reading about this now. It does seem that putting the central bank in control could lead to big problems, could get v political with for example certain politicians wanting to introduce Jeremy Corbin style peoples QE, and other politicians wanting to help out their mates in business.

Another problem is, in a q and a on their website about how they would handle a strong franc ,http://www.vollgeld-initiative.ch/fa/img/Texte_Dokumente_deutsch/151022_Vollgeld-Initiative_AntwortenaufkritischeFragen_translated_22Nov15.pdfthe answers were:

-QE

-negative interest rates (for foreigners)

-capital controls

Again, the central bank controlling these things could be a serious issue.

It seems like an interesting idea, but seems to forget about the frailties of people.

The thing is - as you point out - it already is political. The government has effectively targeted tax payers money at developers, Corbyns QE is slated to happen without the Swiss system.

As understand it, the Central Bank doesn't get to choose who the money goes to. Negative interest rates for foreigners and capital controls are a tad interesting though ! Presumably that would lay out a stark choice between supporting the overall economy and specific foreign supported assets such as houses ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Positive money were talking about giving money creation to a central planning system, but I think the human greed and corruption would erode any benifit.

What we need is a system which is 100% democratic and decentralised. the only system which fits that bill is bitcoin. With just over 50% consensus and the system can change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Positive money were talking about giving money creation to a central planning system, but I think the human greed and corruption would erode any benifit.

What we need is a system which is 100% democratic and decentralised. the only system which fits that bill is bitcoin. With just over 50% consensus and the system can change.

Decentralised yes - but is Blockchain necessarily democratic ? I get the frustration at who money creation serves but I wonder if right or wrong it needs exposure to evolving economic philosphy - ideally also somehow exposed to democratic awareness let alone scrutiny. In that the Swiss appear to be light years ahead of us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree the average person on the street should know about money creation. I feel human nature will corrupt money always. But at least with bitcoin the money creation is actually based on a type of real work mechanism as apposed to tap on a keyboard money printing.

good money always drives out bad money.

bitcoin is a system removed from a single entity of control, people can use digital currency as its based upon faith, rarity etc. If the majority of people find that it has been concentrated in to few hands (no longer deemed a fair democratic distribution of wealth) then people can start to use another currency forcing bitcoin to change democratically or loose value.

a government or central bank would be to biased to do whats in best interests of the people they serve, which in some ways is good short term. But over any length of time interference in money just breeds malinvestment. sometimes crashes and hard times are part of clearing out the bad actors.

it comes down to the way humans work, we live too short a life-span in too corrupt a world to sacrifice our own joy in life for future generations. most of us would hate to live in a world as a steady 1% growth a year, stable, uninteresting, real. People love the booms and busts as they offer opportunity to steal other peoples productivity to better your own life. Here on HPC we are all playing the game if we like it or not. We will buy from the feckless when they go bust at great value. Others people farm.

if we did live in a constant low growth stable world we could better grow as a society, make better provisions, make less short term choices.

although money creation plays a huge part in this, i also feel life expectancy also plays a huge role. if we all lived to 200 we would care about the future the environment etc.

nice to see some discussion on money creation, but human history shows us that money cant be trusted to people. Gold has done well for thousands of years as people cant mess with it, although in recent years even gold can be messed around digitally via paper trading.

bitcoin is simple, transparent, predictable and deflationary, cant be messed around without huge consensus. Eventually at critical mass it would end boom and bust. We would have to live in our means. But would be a better future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it comes down to the way humans work, we live too short a life-span in too corrupt a world to sacrifice our own joy in life for future generations. most of us would hate to live in a world as a steady 1% growth a year, stable, uninteresting, real. People love the booms and busts as they offer opportunity to steal other peoples productivity to better your own life. Here on HPC we are all playing the game if we like it or not. We will buy from the feckless when they go bust at great value. Others people farm.

Total nonsense.

You are right now inextricably connected to your children and your children's children. If you have no children but only friends you are connected to their children. If you have no friends, it is today's children, the children of strangers, who will care for you when you are no longer able to care for yourself. The free market is an excellent way of intermediating connection, but the connection is real and is independent of the means by which it is expressed. Even if they end up beating your brains out with a tyre iron, you are still connected to the individuals who are children today but who will as adults supervise your descent into dementia.

Welcome to the real world, (not found in undergraduate economics texts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the boomer generation may of cared for their children but if they meant to or not, they still voted for systems to make themselves rich at the expense of their own children.

we no longer have free university or affordable houses for example.

humans are too weak and self serving to be in charge of money creation, we are too easy to corrupt.

I believe in the free market, I think it won't be held back forever. we will get our HPC. Boomers will have to be taxed to death to pay for their care, and so they should be.

Free markets and democracy are great, but money creation deforms the landscape of the free market to such a point that the majority can't function to make informed decisions.

we need to end boom and bust, have a stable future. We need to purge the mal-investment and make money 'hard' so only good stable businesses can thrive, creating a much stable platform for greater prosperaty for all.

it would mean a depression for 2-3 generations as we would be forced to live on what little productive industries are left. but bitcoin with its open tripple entry book-keeping ledger can't be devalued or messed with, or fake paper created to devalue it.

If we understood money creation, and cared for the future generations we would all support bitcoin. a decentralised non corruptible system would really pave the way for a better future.

Would destroy many banks, make bankers redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the boomer generation may of cared for their children but if they meant to or not, they still voted for systems to make themselves rich at the expense of their own children.

we no longer have free university or affordable houses for example.

humans are too weak and self serving to be in charge of money creation, we are too easy to corrupt.

I believe in the free market, I think it won't be held back forever. we will get our HPC. Boomers will have to be taxed to death to pay for their care, and so they should be.

Free markets and democracy are great, but money creation deforms the landscape of the free market to such a point that the majority can't function to make informed decisions.

we need to end boom and bust, have a stable future. We need to purge the mal-investment and make money 'hard' so only good stable businesses can thrive, creating a much stable platform for greater prosperaty for all.

it would mean a depression for 2-3 generations as we would be forced to live on what little productive industries are left. but bitcoin with its open tripple entry book-keeping ledger can't be devalued or messed with, or fake paper created to devalue it.

If we understood money creation, and cared for the future generations we would all support bitcoin. a decentralised non corruptible system would really pave the way for a better future.

Would destroy many banks, make bankers redundant.

Bitcoin wont build you sufficient houses, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

issue isn't house building its excessive loose lending as has been documented here many times. Although more house building would definitely help. if good money has driven out bad money then people won't be willing to accept fiat for real assets only Bitcoin. so yes Bitcoin would give us a HPC.

When bitcoin eventually reached critical mass houses will loose their appeal as stores of value, as they won't be priced in depreciating fiat.

if your house is worth 1 bitcoin, then the next year it's worth 0.9 bitcoin, you may think twice about bricks and mortar.

interesting to see how the Swiss thing plays out. I have a feeling that the vested interests don't really care to much about average political stuff but removing money creation will certainly create a large fuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   21 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.