World watches ahead of Swiss vote on "radical" sovereign money plan

Some see it as a radical way to end booms and busts, while others decry it as a dangerous experiment. Those are just two of the views on the sovereign money initiative coming up for a vote this weekend in Switzerland. The unprecedented referendum has received a lot of international attention for its implications for the global banking industry. Brian Blackstone, Switzerland bureau chief at the Wall Street Journal, and John Revill, senior correspondent in Zurich for Thomson Reuters, explain what the initiative reveals about the country.
Watch CNNMoney Switzerland on TV: bit.ly/wheretowatchus
Subscribe to our KZbin channel: / cnnmoneyswitzerlandtv
More videos can be watched on www.cnnmoney.ch/

[@infotv5826]

Can you post detailed videos.

[@0zoneTherapyW0rks]

A mixed economy (blend) would be best but the Swiss definitely have the right idea. In fact, Michael Hudson just came back from China, who has not allowed private banks to take control of government the way the west has, had this to say: “The debts are owed to government banks. A government can do what the U.S. can’t do. The government can forgive debts, at least those that are owed to itself, without creating a political backlash. If a viable corporation has run up too much debt, the government can forgive it. This is better than letting the debt close down a factory or force it be sold to a predatory asset management firm as occurs in the United States. That is the advantage of having public credit and why credit should be public. That’s how it was in Babylonia. Rulers were able to cancel debts all the time in the 3rd millennium and 2nd millennium BC, because most debts were owed to the palace or the temples. Rulers were cancelling debts owed to themselves. China can cancel business debt owed to itself. It can proclaim a clean slate. It can minimize debt service to whatever it chooses. But imagine if Chase Manhattan and Goldman Sachs are let in. It would be much harder for the government to raise real estate taxes leading to defaults on the banks. It could save the occupants by making new loans to those who default - based on lower land prices. Well, you can imagine the international furor that would erupt. Trump would threaten to atom bomb Peking and Shanghai to save his constituency. His constituency and that of the Democrats are the same: Wall Street and the One Percent. So China may lose its ability to write down debts if it lets in foreign banks.” www.unz.com/mhudson/us-vs-china-housingand-those-millennials/

[@0zoneTherapyW0rks]

Prof. Steve Keen is for this positive step towards a healthier balance in a mixed economy of fiscal and monetary money creation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jICcpIF4hah6gbs

[@0zoneTherapyW0rks]

There are advantages to restoring financial management to the nation-state, as former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Frank Newman has pointed out in books and lectures as well as MMT advocates. The private banks have pumped TRILLIONS into the finance sector via QE, none of which was invested in the industrial economy. Instead, it went into stock buybacks, new financial investment schemes, speculation and buying up national assets and social services of nations brought to their knees in debt through austerity tactics. This financial bullying by the private banks needs to end. www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/06/the-battle-for-money-has-begun.html#comment-2979641