Switzerland has rejected a sovereign money proposal that prohibits commercial banks from printing money out of thin air, but 442,387 citizens, out of around two million, were in favor.
In Geneva, 40.3% were in favor on a turn-out of just 36%. The world’s “Peace Capital,” host to the highest number of international organizations in the world, including the Red Cross, was the local with the highest percentage number of residents in favor of the proposal.
Zurich, with nearly 80,000 in favor out of 350,000 and Bern with nearly 50,000 in favor out of 200,000, had the highest absolute number of residents that would like a debt free money system. Geneva came third with 37,000.
In total, 25% were in favor, but there can be much criticism of this vote which somehow has already been counted barley hours after the referendum ended on June 10th.
First, Swiss residents were asked to vote on no less than 14 different matters on the same day, packing different issues in one voting marathon.
And second, the bias of the political elite was in display on the ballot box itself. According to a rough translation provided back in May, it says:
“Do you want to accept the popular initiative ‘For crisis-proof money: money creation only by the National Bank! (Sovereign Money Initiative)’?”
Crisis on a ballot paper? Might as well have a propaganda video there in the voting booth terrifying voters about a complete collapse if they dare hold an opinion.
That’s, effectively, what they did outside of the vote. Parliament, the Central Bank, they all were against it, but none provided any substantial argument as far as we have seen.
The issue here is interest payments, or usury. Money is created when you borrow from the bank, but rather than returning the same amount of capital you borrowed to the bank, you have to pay interest on top.
Where does this interest come from? They haven’t explained, but we would guess it comes from other money borrowed, creating in effect an inflationary pyramid cascade upwards until no one can pay back what they borrowed, so the banks crash and take down nations with them.
That’s only possible because banks are in effect the payment system, and the payment system is in effect money. So if banks go under, you can’t move money anymore unless you’re transporting paper.
With some countries like Sweden now seeing paper money usage down to almost zero, a bank crash means that basically there is no more such a thing as money.
In that situation, parliament has to intervene and the Central Bank prints new money out and just gives it to the banks for effectively free or, with negative interest rates, even pays them for it.
Social unrest then follows. You get Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, the Arab Spring and on and on. Then everyone forgets about it, the music starts playing loud, the party turns on, Gordon Brown says no more boom and bust, and the bust follows.
All of it because in our view the money system is fundamentally flawed in the way interest works within the system whereby some private for profit entities get all the benefits of new money, the rest pay for it with inflation and then with political chaos as well as an economic crisis.
The solution is to decouple banks from the payment system so that they are no longer systemically critical. That, in a way, is what the debt-free money proposal offered, with the level of support considerable we must say in light of Switzerland stacking up their cards against voters to the point they include “crisis” in a ballot box.
Which means the debate has just started because the public now has been sufficiently informed on the matter of money and the elephant in the room which keeps causing financial crisis due to a fundamental flaw in the nature of the current fiat money system.