Comments (16)

• ella

  There's a nice book which deals with it - written by Ferdinand lips, a Swiss banker, former Rothschild executive. It's "Gold Wars: The Battle for Sound Money as Seen from a Swiss Perspective", and is available at Amazon.com

  An interview with Lips:

  http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/2003/Lips.html

  Published: March 13, 2009 8:12 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  Classical Liberalism Protection
  Friday, March 13, 2009

  Why Has Switzerland Given Up Its 'Neutrality?'
  
  'Neutrality' is just a facade in this era of monetary hegemony.

  Will Switzerland - the people and the culture - allow their central bank (the central bank that is located there but which is in no way patriotic to Switzerland) to make them accomplices in the belligerence of the economic terrorists at the seat of power - the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup in the United States?

  Return to your classical liberalism roots Switzerland by throwing away the indoctrination of moral relativity that has seeped into your culture since the time of the Protestant Reformation! And fight for the cause of liberty by rejecting the ego-driven intervention of the central bank in your country that licks the boots of the fascist ring leaders - the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup in the United States.
  

  Published: March 13, 2009 8:38 AM

• Export Insanity.

  This is another example of the Exports=Wealth In, Imports=Wealth Out thinking of modern economics that goes to make people poorer. The fact is that an increase in the value of your currency vs others means that you can temporarily buy foreign stuff while the foreigners can't buy your stuff. In the longer term like minutes in banking, days in software, months in electronics, and a year most other industries, the currency advantage is not so clear. There are two reasons for this:
  1. Businesses can easily estimate the future value of the currency and get a more accurate picture of the future return on their investments. This produces more wealth than the advantage from exporting. Think Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
  2. Your producers can buy all that good foreign technology and labor from other countries. This makes your domestic productive capacity more efficient and cheaper. Think the US in 1980s and Pre 1960 Germany.

  Published: March 13, 2009 9:05 AM

• newson

  ...not to mention the upcoming referendum on whether to move arms storage from the home, in the spirit of the civilian militia, to the barracks. a national gun register, and restriction on more powerful firearms form part of the agenda of the vote's proponents.

  Published: March 13, 2009 9:38 AM

• J Cortez

  Everything I've ever heard about them previously was positive, especially from a banking and economic perspective. Lately, that perception has changed a bit. In regards to their current banking issues, maybe they were threatened with some type of economic sanctions by other nations in private meetings? I can't think of another reason outside of that. I also just recently found out about their gun referendum, which I find equally unexplainable.

  I consider the Swiss a people that everybody should aspire to. Peaceful and neutral but well armed. Friendly in business and respects privacy. They have a high per capita income, there is little crime and the standard of living is high. I consider the steps they've taken to be a bad thing for them. With that said, it's their country and they can do what they want with it.

  Are there any Swiss that frequent this site that can educate us as to what the current climate is over there?

  Published: March 13, 2009 11:56 AM

• Artisan

  Yes, quite sad... but it seems the Swiss population has been contaminated with the general European political brainwashing, which this time wouldn't stop at its natural geophysical barrier.

  Published: March 13, 2009 12:34 PM

• Benjamin B.

  @Tim Swanson: The problem is, most people here (especially the politicians) regard these actions as extremely positive. Actually I have never seen an Austrian economist or some other libertarian speaking on TV or doing an interview with a leading newspaper. There's basically only Keynesianism and statism.

  @J Cortez: It's getting worse and worse. There are a lot of bans and regulations just around the corner. Concerning the financial crisis, our politicians do what the German and American politicians are doing: Bailing out, "stimulating" the economy and just generally wasting our money.
  And the climate, well it's very hostile to free market and classic liberalism. There's a huge trend towards bigger government.

  And yes, Switzerland was threatened by the USA, the EU and the OECD. But I think' what's more important is the intense pressure coming from the Swiss themselves. They just don't care about freedom anymore.

  @Artisan: I'm afraid you hit the nail on the head.

  Published: March 13, 2009 2:07 PM

• Ollie

  You need theory to interpret history. The theory that explains exactly what is going on right now in Switzerland is: On the Impossibility of Limited Government by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

  Switzerland once had a limited government. It is getting bigger and more intrusive every day. This is inevitable.

  As a Swiss resident, I can testify that, in the battle between the Swiss and their politicians, the politicians are winning hands down. They interpret the rules as they see fit. For example, the SVP won the last elections, and as a reward got kicked out of the government. A referendum on allowing free entry to Romanians and Bulgarians was bundled along with another one allowing free trade with Austria and France. Unsurprisingly, the bundle was approved, even though a clear majority of the Swiss did not want to be invaded by the Roma. I could go on forever...

  The only solution is secession. After a terrorist campaign, the Swiss inhabitants of the Jura mountains managed to secede from the Canton of Bern to form their own canton. But this was all within the Swiss Confederation. Seceding from the Confederation itself is an untested proposition. So far.
  

  Published: March 13, 2009 2:12 PM

• Dick Fox

  Tim,

  Check this out. It appears that the Swiss are a fickle lot.

  Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration.
  -------
  Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland.

  http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22

  Published: March 13, 2009 2:22 PM

• gary c. stephenson

  thankful for mention of private banking. the mises followers discuss at length free banking, but rarely a mention of private banking. any discussion on this subject would be helpful

  Published: March 13, 2009 2:45 PM

• Eric

  @Ollie: The SVP themselves chose to kick their remaining delegates, Samuel Schmid and Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, out of their party just because they weren't their ideal candidates. They chose not to take part in the executive themselves - they were hardly 'kicked out'. I fail to his how this matters though, or do you really think they are in any way better than any of the other politicians?

  Published: March 13, 2009 3:50 PM

• Ollie

  @Eric: The tradition in Switzerland is that every party has the right to designate their ministers themselves. The SVP designated one minister and it is Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf who got into the government instead of him - because she was chosen by the other parties.

  Note that this was not reciprocated. The SVP did not get to choose the ministers from the other parties.

  It's as if the Democrats got to pick the winner in the Democratic primary, and also got to pick the winner in the Republican primary.

  Given that every party is somewhat heterogenous, if your opponents get to pick somebody they like from within your ranks, they won't pick somebody who represents your party line.

  This matters in two ways. 1) The notion in Switzerland was that the voters would constrain the political Establishment, but clearly that's not working. 2) Coincidentally (?), the SVP is the only party that opposes the 4 things that Tim Swanson deplored in his original post.

  Published: March 13, 2009 4:22 PM

• selena

  It's not entirely fair to fault the Swiss people themselves - since they've been screwed all over by the politicians (a lot of pro-EU ones there), and it's not as if most changes were done through the democratic process. If anything, they haven't been vigilante in guarding their freedom and preserve their way of life - eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, as Jefferson said.

  But this could be the end of Switzerland as we know it.

  Published: March 13, 2009 9:10 PM

• Eric

  @Ollie: Yeah, but their long-time ideological leader Christoph Blocher also wants the Swiss government to forcefully take over the UBS and and split it up into several smaller banks... They may not support one form of government intervention, but they support a lot of other forms of it.

  Published: March 14, 2009 5:36 AM

• Ollie

  @Eric:

  This is a good point. I think that there is no denying that the banking system, as it currently exists, is highly dependent on the State: money-laundering regulations, fractional reserve, bailouts by central banks printing money out of thin air... Without the State, banks and especially private banks (which UBS originally was - to take up a subject highlighted by gary c. stephenson) would be extremely different. And undoubtedly smaller. If only because there is an increasing return to scale to political lobbying.

  So, within a general context where the State exists and is powerful, not every State action is bad: some of them may even bring us closer to what an industry would look like without the State. I believe this is the case with Blocher's proposal.

  Think of Blocher's proposal as an anti-trust action. As Rothbard's Power and Market (Chapter 3, Section 3) teaches us, the only meaningful form of monopoly is state-granted privilege. It is painfully obvious that UBS has, implicitly and explicitly, been the beneficiary of state-granted privilege. Therefore breaking it up is fully justified.

  Published: March 14, 2009 9:24 AM

• David Ch

  Speaking of the Swiss, I saw an article in the newspaper this morning: Apparently the residents of the Zug canton are deliberately overpaying taxes. Seems that the 2% interest paid on refundable amounts beats bank deposit returns hands down, besides being regarded as 'safer'. Had to smile at that - and the official response:
  'Abusing the tax administation and ultimately the canton as a safe and interest-paying bank must be prevented'. No surprises there........
  

  Published: March 16, 2009 1:33 AM