Sovereign money: the answer to financial crises?

Unless we use SDR as a currency we are not playing with the bigboys like you swiss.
Fuck you toblerone eating Mountain Jews. How is the SNB doing with its 90 billion in US stock holdings. Hope that works out well for you. PonziRus

SDRs arent really as popular anymore

Swiss user here (Zürifag), Im voting yes, user. Despite popular belief switzerland is not made of money and this extra precaution would be great.

what you need is a non-private bank that makes money on the value of work and not on the value of dept and a barthersystem with your neighbouring countries and the countries you do business with. that way money goes directly to the people doing business and not via a 3th person

itredasting

and they dare to call us mountain jews.

Yes but crippling the capabilities of commercial banks in a country whose economy heavily relies on financial services might not be the best idea. It will decrease the competitiveness of the Swiss banking system compared to that of the rest of the world which will still use fractional reserve banking. It's a system that isnt implented anywhere else in the world and is thus largely theoretical. It's practical implications will have massive consequences for the monetary system, many of which will be unforseen. The SNB has long been viewed as a paragon of stable and sensible monetary policy in the world which is why the Swiss Franc is used so much as a reserve currency. Making these reforms would potentially undo that stability. The SNB has itself spoken out against these reforms.
It would be a nice system to try in Iceland or something but using the Swiss economy especially as a guinea pig for this policy is not a good idea in my opinion

Ayy lmao?

>Fuck I forgot my meme flag, commander Ashtar will annihilate me.

H-h-hey there you fellow human. Want some globalism?

Gib alien gf

Bump

he is a swiss doe

Sounds like a step in the right direction. The international banking system will make sure it fails though.

Here's a must watch video explaining the current monetary system and how it's fucking up the planet.

youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

ITT people don't understand why banks lend in the way they do

So how do they loan things out without not having the money on hand?
>New bank
>10 people put in 1k
>1 person wants a 10k loan
>bank doesn't have 10k in the bank for the 10 people with 1k

stop following me

why don't you stop sucking dicks for a moment and try to explain it to us?

hopefully it passes, but if so it will get under heavy attack from the manipulators just to show you should shake their power.

1) Nationalize central bank
2) 100% reserve requirements
3) annual % money supply growth

All these step are required to make it work. It would be furthermore beneficial if the trading currency would be a separate unit.

> sovereign money
> issued by the National bank

> sovereign
> money

> issued by
> the NATIONAL ... bank

Attached: ezgif-4-842e354c48.gif (288x288, 1.3M)

If you put in in a checking account they cannot loan it. If you put it in a certificate of deposit they can loan it.

Big picture banks don't lend money they have.
They make increasingly many obligations to move money on a specified schedule.
Your money is the seed money for the process but after it gets going it's not the least bit surprising that money flow exceeds liquid cash. Banks are just another business.

The problem is when people forget that banks are just another business, and start throwing out ideas about taxpayer funded bailouts for banks that collapse.

interesting

When you're depositing money in a bank you're exchanging you physical currency into digital IOUs provided by the bank.
What I meant is that banks wouldnt be able to lend out more money than they have. Banks essentially create money every time they issue a loan under the current system.

>democrats in charge of reading comprehension

You can do that after a nuclear war and the economy crashes otherwise you are simply using sovereign money to pay for shit jew money. Its like the Ron Paul stupid gold idea.

>Banks essentially create money every time they issue a loan under the current system.
No they don't.
They say "We are going to pay you this much money" to a bunch of people and say "You are going to pay us this much money" to a bunch more.

They aren't creating money. They're able to pay out and the money is coming in. It's true your money isn't sitting in their coffers, but if it was you'd be paying them for storage instead of the other way around. You're buying a service from banks and if you don't like them doing that service you should find another store of your valuables.

>Banks essentially create money every time they issue a loan under the current system.
which only creates more problems and feed the international (((groups of interests)))
but would changing that impact international trade?

It is literally what happened in the ancient Rome before they kicked the bucket - they have devalued the denar so much that they had to come up with new currency which they used to pay their foreign troops with, and they used the worthless denar to pay the commoners.
This is unreal.

>No they don't.
yes they are

From what I gather if the money is deposited they'd be able to lend it out but the bank can't take money it borrows (usually from another bank) and lend that money away as they can't actually back it.

>They aren't creating money.
No you're right. They're creating debt

>Hurr if we sum up all of the payments a bank is supposed to make over 10 years it's not as much as people have given them! That must mean they're making money!
>Durrrr

Why not? It's literally just agreeing to move money around. If you don't have an issue with other fractional lending you shouldn't have an issue with that. If you want to reduce the effectiveness and growth of the economy you'll stop lending based on arbitrary rules.

And if their analysis is correct the debt turns into money at a sustainable rate.
If it's not they fail as a business and everybody stupid enough to invest in them loses their money too.
Unless of course some people convince people with no knowledge of economics to buy into increasingly over-complicated bail-out schemes.

I am simple human being and I like simple explanations
banks are evil fuckin people who do nothing but store your money that you earned, take it away from you and get rich
this is what they do and no ammount of pilpul can change that, best goy

If you don't like it you're free to start your own 'moral' bank.

Good luck getting customers though when you charge account holders just to keep your lights on and cover property taxes.

He saying they are getting rid of fractional reserve lending. Basically they need the actually money to loan it rather than having 10% or 20% of it to create debt. In essence its what Hitler did, now if the swiss ban compounding interest you shall prosperity.

Then when the things are starting to go sour they don't even let you withdraw your money like it happened in Greece.

>substantially reduce the number of investment opportunities in the economy by telling certain people they can't transfer money in the way they want
>shall prosperity

That does sound pretty anti-semitic.

Hi NSA or CIA how is your restricted ip office today?

>And if their analysis is correct the debt turns into money at a sustainable rate.
Indeed but that is still a gamble. Im against the measure myself but I understand the rationale and am against implementing the new system right now for the reasons Ive described above. >If it's not they fail as a business and everybody stupid enough to invest in them loses their money too.
People do lose their money but the problem is that the economic system depends so heavily on these big banks that they arent allowed to fail anymore when they make bad decisions. The proposed legislation is aimed at producing a more stable debt environment but that would obviously have economic implications

Compounding interest creates extreme wealth disparity, between the lender and borrower. A 1k loan over 20 years with compounding rates is worth 7K to lender. Simply interest is about 3K. In essence you see exponential growth of the lender's wealth as well as exponential loss of wealth by the borrower. At least with simple interest it is linear growth.

>if you do not like current cancer invent your own cancer
nah, fuck off
I closed my bank account few years back and I manage without it
you should do the same
all of you
without money jews will starve, but humanity is too pussy to give away plastic cards that you think hold any value
may it be because bankers are jews, even if not by religion? terrible people, only profit, no shred of humanity

AM I BEING EXCHANGED?
AM I BEING EXCHANGED FOR GOODS AND SERVICES OR AM I FREE TO GO?

usury should be made illegal entirely
or better yet, loans should be illegal
you either have what you worked for or you dont

>but the problem is that the economic system depends so heavily on these big banks that they arent allowed to fail anymore when they make bad decisions
This is the problem/bullshit. Knowledge that they're 'too big to fail' means they'll willingly go after whatever schemes they want.

>Indeed but that is still a gamble.
You're right but that's the price we pay to get paid for storing money with someone else.

money =/= wealth

Hey man you're free to just not use banks too
I said start a moral bank so you could help others to do the same thing but it seems the selfish approach is enough for you!

>help others by creating unsustainable bank that will lure clients, die because of external pressure, get taken over by jews and transformed into another jewish temple
I see through your tricks Mordechai

Nationalize the banks and kick the central bankers out. That’s what Russia did as well as paying off their debts. Maybe that’s why Russia is demonized in the western press.

>they aren't creating money

The point is, the loan has no backing, and therefore at the point of loan, they create the money. When the loan is paid off, the creation of money is neutralised.

So long term there should be no creation of money (apart from the profits earned via interest). However, as per the financial crash, when the bank has multiple debtor defaults, this system falls down.

The Sovereign money system would not allow this to happen, as while they can issue loans as per normal to the customer, the bank also has to loan it's own money from the soverign wealth fund. This is still an IOU, but it is backed by capital wealth held by the government. So even if the debtor defaults on his loan, there would be no unbalanced money, just a loss for the bank. This would lead to banks being much more stringent with their loaning (leading to a safer monetary environment), and the government bank would still support social loans (i.e. small business grants, education loans etc).

>When the loan is paid off, the creation of money is neutralised.
no it isn't. Newly created money is already in cicrulation by this point in form of interest

It's admirable when groups do iniatives like that. But it's the media = the establishment that decides. Everything they don't like gets rejected. This will be no exception. 70 or 80% No.

money is certainly wealth, with money you can buy anything. So say if the that loan for a house for 1K. The value of the property tripled in 20 years. the property is worth 4K. You stilled paid 7K to the lender. The lender now has the ability to be 1.75 properties with his new exponential wealth gain.

Interest free loans by the government of the people would be the ideal situation. Hell Nazi Germany gave out family loans that were forgiven once they had 2 kids.

Russia is a rundown, suicidal, 2nd world at best dump

yeah, and nazi germany had to invade Poland because they were too retarded with their money

for a loan of 100k they only need about 15K of capital in their coffers. They basically pull 85K out thin air and give it to you with promise that you'll pay your compounding interest.

>and therefore at the point of loan, they create the money.
If they're generating money how does the loan holder get the money? AFAIK unless they do things different over there you get a lump sum.

The money is there some of it just might be coming from another source. The agreement to pay over time from bank to bank is created with the knowledge that the customer is agreeing to pay at least as much back over the same time period.

So you're basically permanently limiting the amount of money a bank is permitted to loan out then.
Beyond all the words and such you're just saying to a bank "You get to lend as much as we back in the sovereign wealth fund"

Eh debatable, I am polish diaspora because of that war, but it was mostly politics that drove that decision.

It's a two-sided coin. Yes limiting the amount of debt commercial banks can issue will slow economic growth but it would also protect it (up to a point) against financial crises. Moreover the legislation could help lower the value of the Swiss Franc in the short term which would help exports. But it could also cause a hike in the price of the swiss franc unless the SNB sells its FX reserves.
Also the legislation entails that the SNB will share all profits from the creation of new money. This money is to be distributed, unencumbered by debt or interest, to the federal government, the cantons, or directly to the citizens. Given the growth of the money supply in recent decades, this sum would likely amount to CHF5–10 billion annually.
The measure would also eliminate the need for excessive bank regulation

So let me get this straight
No work was done. The property was not modified. It was purely a result of speculation that the house costs increased. (otherwise wealth is coming from renos, not from the money) That's not generating wealth. That's the market adjusting to say "Oh shit, you had more wealth than you thought"

Money is our best bet at bookkeeping but money =/= wealth

it was mostly german autism, but their war economy and 1000 year old craving to cut Poland away from the sea definitely does not helped
>permanently limiting the amount of money a bank is permitted to loan out
I see nothing wrong at all with this

>They basically pull 85K out thin air
And yet if I go to spend 100k at various businesses I have the money.. I thought it was highly illegal to print money?

Hey it'll function. Just not well or prosperously.

Wow this is not your average day autismo

Bump

Didn't hitler successfully do this?

Welcome to fractional reserve banking, where banks are allowed to create 7x the capital the FED created. Literally being a bank you are allow to print digital money.

first of all, what you call "prosperity" is just some numbers jews at the top of Wall Street decide
you may call those jews bankers, analytics, economicians, sages, whatever, those are jews.
Just because some tiny guy with mutilated dick on the other side of the world adds -5 to excel spreadsheet near Poland because he deems that economic decisions and banking bullshit reflect prosperity in form of -5 number, does not change the fact that quality of life of random dude in Poland may be way better than quality of cubicle monkey in jew york

bankers have to be removed, and if that is not an option, at least crippled so they no longer provide money for scourges of our societies

Attached: 1490875372172.png (639x572, 57K)

>Literally being a bank you are allow to print digital money.
It's simply not true.
Money is all there if the bank has time to collect on its debts to their fullest.
If you don't want the bank making money for both you and it by looking a dozen years into the future, you probably shouldn't store your money with them.

Prosperity is start-up investment in my town which is rip-roaring good at the moment.
>Hurr if we kill the rich people everyone will be equal!
Fuck off commie.

Debt is their asset. If they issue a loan, that is an asset for them. An insolvent bank is one that has negative equity.

if we kill all bankers only people who actually create things and services would be rich you banker apologist
bankers create nothing but debt, scams disguised as offers and misery

Attached: 1483975868730.png (476x368, 135K)

If you kill all bankers you'll still be the same dumbass providing the same low level of production for the same relatively useless product.
When the market adjusts you will have exactly the same purchasing power. (after taxes of course, but lets not talk about the biggest thief! After all we're trying to give him power over the banks!)

>The money is there some of it just might be coming from another source.
Practice shows that this is often not the case. To oversimplify it, essentially what happens is all the money that a debtor recieves is just listed on the banks balance sheet as an obligation from a debtor but doesnt really HAVE to come from anywhere. However of course it's in a banks best interest to keep a balance sheet that balances out and structure their financial strategy accordingly.

Uh, late to the party buddy. Everyone knows it would be better for countries to issue their own debt free currency
The problem is that the Rothchild banking cartel doesn't really want to relinquish control of every bank (minus 3) in the world. It's almost like they don't want to give up their wealth and power so they are using it to prevent national banks from forming. Hmm. Maybe write David Rothchild a letter asking him kindly to relinquish control of the world's money supply. Maybe that will work.

Oh sure a bank can make bad investments and balance their books poorly.
All of this is encouraged by the whole 'too big to fail' talk.
That being said the chickens always come home to roost and the business fails as a result. There's no big surprise and there's no money creation.

Or simply an increase of demand to a growing population. Still in essence you lose money with the compounding interest compared to simple interest.

Yes, but what if a bank had to produce in the moment? The money simply doesn't exist. If all debts were called upon at once the system cannot produce them...

>more banker propaganda
you work at goldman sachs or something? you started at being mad at Switzerland for yanking jewish chain, and now you say that I provide some product to someone and I am poor because of that?
If I were jewish I would've told that you are projecting
total anihillation of banks have only upsides
no one to steal your money
people would have to meet to make transactions
no more funding wars to sell weapons
no more funding diversity
no more funding jews
but hey, economic markers would be bad, we cannot do it :(

Attached: 1483677219827.jpg (600x315, 37K)

You do realize this only works if people keep their word and don't actually print more money than they have right? You do realize this is the banking system we had before right? You do realize you can't trust people to not fuck this up somehow right?

This is why crypto is never going to go anywhere. It doesn't matter if you can't falsify a transaction of they can create or burn coins at will and since anyone can copy the Bitcoin code and create their own shitcoin (it's all open source) it's just like 1800's America when every bank was printing it's own money and then getting greedy and printing more when they wanted to leading to everyone losing their fucking shit. The government may suck dick, but at least the incentive they have to not hyperinflate is that the economy would go to complete shit and riots would ensue. A bank or a group creating their own money can just file bankruptcy, absolve, or disappear with millions of dollars in the Caymans never to be seen again.

Or heavy economic sanctions ala North Korea or Cuba. They are folding though.

Mashallah

Look up Islamic banking brothers

>Still in essence you lose money with the compounding interest compared to simple interest.
Yea you didn't make as smart an investment as you could have and lost money as a result.
This just in successfully predicting the market brings returns!

The bank couldn't produce in the moment, but they never promise to. That's called going out of businesses.
Banks are another businesses, and if you put your money in a bad bank you can't be surprised when they lose it.
You're free to use a bank that doesn't do that, but you'll be paying them rent.

Hit a nerve didn't I?
You are a dumbass.
You provide low levels of production.
Your product isn't all that useful.
The world doesn't care about you enough to give you more purchasing power.

from one semite banking scam to another?
go away, you have ramadan

What if I told you killing one family of Jews would free up 40% other work's wealth? Still not worth it?

Bank debt is so liquid and money like that it's almost getting into an ontological argument about the essence of money. You're right that they aren't "creating money" in the sense that the monetary flows of central bank money are covering the stack of debts that make up deposits for private banks, but all of the deposits in the economy really are treated as though they are money. The full reserve people think that if you get rid of bank's ability to issue debt above their reserves, you'll stop or limit business cycles because they fault banks for making bad debt and creating weakness in the whole system, possibly with malicious intent because they know they can get bailed out. Ending private bank money has its drawbacks though, I don't think that kind of thing is some panacea for macroeconomic troubles.

you hit nothing, bank goy, you just screech like madman and try some low level jewish mind tricks
again, banks are useless institution as anybody can hold their own money, loans are cancer and should be illegal and bankers are useless people without ability to create any real thing

Attached: 1482641838017.jpg (600x600, 189K)

wealth =/= money

I'm all for killing that family however because of their influence over the people with guns. (Gov)
I'm also all for killing any and all lobbyists and bankers that rely on Gov regulation to maintain their well-being. (So everyone we fucking bailed out)

killing all bankers would free all world's wealth and allow all other problems like niggers chimping out, famine worldwide and various housing bubbles to dissappear overnight

Attached: 1483684732090.jpg (494x441, 254K)

>You do realize this is the banking system we had before right?
I do yes. The SNB would still be able to use qunatitative easing and print money. But it would be the only one that can create it

It would translate to money if their banks weren't printing debt currency. You are right though, the control absolutely everything. They are untouchable, you're not running into Rothchilds at Starbucks lol

Wealth would never translate into money
Production translates into the transfer of money.

Wealth is way too finicky/speculative a thing to translate like that.

I don't know how you're getting the other two, but the housing bubble bursting and housing prices crashing would be a welcome thing pretty much everywhere. Prices are so artificially inflated it's ridiculous.

golly gee, a jewish philosopher!
tell me acolyte economist, if wealth is too speculative, what is banana? is it a fruit or 1 dollar snack? is a tree wood or cost of seedling that is grown?
fuckin brainwashed cancer people, you get the rope too

Attached: 1483687597551.jpg (500x500, 83K)

Man i def did hit a nerve lol

Tell me, what if everyone in the world spontaneously decided they wanted your house?
Despite zero transfer of money your wealth has just skyrocketed by orders of magnitude. Purely as a matter of feelings from finicky people.

no more money for dem programs, niggers have to work, niggers chimp out, niggers are removed from premises by authirities

no more money for dem african programs, niggers starve, niggers kill each other, african population reduced to self sustainable level and they hunt gazelles again

not to mention no more banker paid propaganda

Attached: 1490872122964.png (339x1012, 88K)