# How is Switzerland handling the credit crunch?



## csirl (23 Feb 2009)

I've been wondering about this. The Swiss economy is dominated by the banking sector. You would think that they would be basket case now due to the credit crunch. Is Switzerland in big big big trouble? If not, why?


----------



## limerick123 (23 Feb 2009)

just take one look at the swiss banks results - pathetic


----------



## VOR (23 Feb 2009)

The Swiss banking crisis is an externalised issue. The bank bought international debt (mainly in the US). 

As less than 30% of swiss people own their own home, there was never the risk of a credit bubble. 

So, the banks suffer due to mistakes they made outside of the country but the country itself is in better shape than many of its neighbours.


----------



## Purple (23 Feb 2009)

...and lets face it, they have plenty of Gold (they may have to dig up the streets to get at it though ).


----------



## UptheDeise (23 Feb 2009)

As far as I know. The Swiss banks may be in trouble.

Read this: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...t-Europe-will-lead-to-worldwide-meltdown.html


----------



## VOR (24 Feb 2009)

There's no denying the banks are screwed. They just managed to mess up outside of its own borders. Plus, if the recession does hit Switzerland in a big way, the public have enough in savings (and low debt) to ride out the problem. A complete contrast to Italy, Greece, Spain, Ireland, GB and the US.


----------



## joe sod (28 Feb 2009)

i think switzerland is in trouble, other countries have lost patience with their secretive banking system, obama is putting big pressure on them to release details of american account holders, i think britain france and germany will also start putting pressure on them,


----------



## Strathspey (28 Feb 2009)

joe sod said:


> .....i think britain france and germany will also start putting pressure on them,


The Swiss have managed to repel any political and economic pressure for the last 700+ years. I hardly think they're going to buckle now!


----------



## Purple (5 Mar 2009)

Strathspey said:


> The Swiss have managed to repel any political and economic pressure for the last 700+ years. I hardly think they're going to buckle now!


Yep, when you build your economy on financing genocide, terrorism and murder you have to be careful who you let look in the window.

I can’t stand Switzerland; it has to be the most morally reprehensible country in Europe and the most hypocritical in the world.


----------



## efm (6 Mar 2009)

Geneva is also suffering badly on the back of the drop in Hedge Fund assets and the Madoff and Sandford scandals.

Speaking to a couple of Swiss private bankers a few weeks ago they said the place was in a state of shock - there was little appetite for new business and no appetite for risk!


----------



## shnaek (24 Mar 2009)

There was an interesting piece on Switzerland (and Uruguay) in an old McWilliams article from 2006:

"Economic history is replete with examples of this. A country we are rarely compared to is Uruguay. However, if there is one place that Ireland in the early 21st century resembles it is Uruguay of the early 20th century.  It maybe hard to believe now, but Uruguay was the world’s fastest growing country for almost twenty years. It had the amongst the world’s most comprehensive social welfare system, brilliant infrastructure and like Ireland today, a rapidly rising population driven by immigration. So advanced was this small Latin American country, that it was termed the “Switzerland of the Americas”. Uruguay was in truth nothing of the sort. Like Ireland today, it was a supply region. In its case, it was a highly efficient part of the global trade in agriculture. Uruguay was one of the world’s most competitive suppliers of meat, wool and leather. Its farms were amongst the most productive in the world and with the huge revenues it gained from this pre-eminence, the government invested in a state of the art welfare system, great schools and a European-style transport infrastructure. Montevideo’s boulevards were home to the finest fashions of New York and Paris. The virtuous cycle seemed to have taken hold. Because it was so brilliant at agriculture, Uruguay did not see fit to promote other industries or innovations. Montevideo was content to process agricultural products, add value and export them.

In the 1930s things began to change. Agricultural prices fell worldwide. Uruguay suffered its first recession. Then after the Second World War European countries - having flirted with famine in 1945-46 - began to crank up agricultural production. Australia and New Zealand emerged as significant players in the market and Uruguay’s period in the sun came to a crashing end. Since then, Uruguay’s story has been one economic disaster after another.

Arguably, had the government and the people realized that they were experiencing a one-off “golden age” they might indeed have innovated in other industries to become the true Switzerland of the Americas. But they did not. Money ran through Uruguay like a dose of salts and sixty years after its heyday it has not yet responded to the challenge thrown down in the late 1940s. In the dry language of economics, Uruguay suffered from what is termed “a terms of trade shift”. The international value of what they exported fell at the same time as the prices of their imports rose. And, they had all their eggs in one basket.

Switzerland, on the other hand, has thrived. Its wealth was based not on being a link in the global supply change but rather on years and years of strong domestic innovation, based in its small cities. Its industrial base has been diversified for years and it can ride out vagaries in the world economy."

The full article is here:
[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (25 Mar 2009)

I remember reading that Shnaek.
Basically Switzerland has a high-tech, knowledge based manufacturing economy as well as a massive financial services sector. Ireland is a tax haven, a logistics hub and an outsource manufacturing base. We’re the little piggy with the straw house, they’re the one with the brick house.


----------



## Caveat (25 Mar 2009)

Does anyone do much business with Switzerland?  We do a little but it's not easy.  They are fiercely protective of their economy and will only import when absolutely necessary it seems.  Bloody tight buggers too - no wonder they have loads of money.


----------



## Purple (25 Mar 2009)

Caveat said:


> Does anyone do much business with Switzerland?  We do a little but it's not easy.  They are fiercely protective of their economy and will only import when absolutely necessary it seems.  Bloody tight buggers too - no wonder they have loads of money.



They "imported" plenty of gold in the 30's and 40's


----------



## baldyman27 (25 Mar 2009)

From an email I received earlier titled: *21 Economic Models 
Explained:*

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them 
belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes 
both and shoots you.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both 
and sells you some milk.


----------



## Purple (25 Mar 2009)

baldyman27 said:


> A SWISS CORPORATION
> You have 5000 cows. None of them
> belong to you.
> You charge the owners for storing them.



And if the owners are murdered you just keep the cows and pretend you don't have them.


----------



## Caveat (26 Mar 2009)

Purple said:


> They "imported" plenty of gold in the 30's and 40's


 


Purple said:


> And if the owners are murdered you just keep the cows and pretend you don't have them.


 
You really _don't_ like 'em do ya?


----------



## Purple (26 Mar 2009)

Caveat said:


> You really _don't_ like 'em do ya?



No, the country is morally repulsive.


----------



## Strathspey (26 Mar 2009)

Purple said:


> No, the country is morally repulsive.


 
Too bad, I really enjoy my skiing trips to Zermatt and Grindelwald.


----------



## daves (1 Apr 2009)

shnaek said:


> Then after the Second World War European countries - having flirted with famine in 1945-46 - began to crank up agricultural production. Australia and New Zealand emerged as significant players in the market and Uruguay’s period in the sun came to a crashing end. Since then, Uruguay’s story has been one economic disaster after another.
> [broken link removed]




Could happen to Ireland if we are not careful. Eastern Europe could be our australia....
Difference is we used have the cheapest and best work force in Europe. We may not have the cheapest anymore but we are certainly up there in the quality stakes (well in the private sector anyway). I think we have to find a way to minimise wages to make us attractive again...income tax anyone?


----------



## roniaak (14 May 2009)

I guess most of the Swiss banks were hurt by the new rules regarding US residents. Nevertheless investors from all over the world are [broken link removed] to keep their money stable and protected especially in these times where the economic crisis is on the run...


----------



## casiopea (14 May 2009)

Purple said:


> No, the country is morally repulsive.



Just out of interest, is that because of their behaviour in WW2 (hidden accounts etc) or are there other reasons as well?  I have a good friend here with a PhD in Law and her job at a major swiss bank is to try and work out what assets really belonged to Jewish families lost during the war....a very interesting job....though she does have a bit of a "Id have to kill you if I told you" attitude about it when you ask her for details.

From the perspective of someone living here, paying taxes here, Switzerland is definitely effected - it is after all a global economic crisis and they are not that protected.  Banking is a very important lucrative industry here - so banking being hit does hurt.  A couple of observations from my side:

*  The banks have stopped hiring contractors and there have been large cutbacks in some departments worldwide in CS and UBS, especially the latter.
* As a result of the latter the taxes in the next village from us (opfikon) have gone up.
* There are still fulltime hire positions available though certainly in the IT and finance sectors of banking.  
*  Aside from banking small industries and private businesses are very big here. By that I mean we dont really have chains like boots and specsavers at home nor do we have shopping centres.  Individual family businesses like the corner shops of old at home are big.  A lot of these seem to be handed down generation to generation in families, are dependent on local communities to survive and seem to be fairly secure and independent of the banks - ie some what safe from a global crisis.
* Farmers are very protected here, they are highly subsidized by the swiss government and a leg of lamb for 6 people here costs about 100chf (65 euro!) eventhough it was farmed and killed locally.  I think the farmers will be fine ;o)
* Indirect Taxes are high here but the swiss do seem to invest heavily into their infrastructure you can see where the money is going so to speak.
* About 30% (or maybe even less) own their own homes here.  Its not the done thing really.  Many people on excellent salaries dont invest in homes but rather in cars/boats (not secure assets as such- just making hte point that owning a home here is not hte be all and end all).
* 20% is the required deposit for home - unless you work for a bank when you may get a mortgage with a deposit in the the region of 15%.  People couldnt believe it here when I spoke of 100% mortgages at home - they thought I was making it up.
* Once a bank agrees to give you a mortgage (say 80%) it will only give you 80% of what the bank perceives the value of the house to be. Not 80% of the purchase price.  They establish the value of the house using some complicated algorithm (sq mtr of the property x cubic volume of hte property x age x state of restoration x community value x no. of dogs in the area).  So you may have offered to buy a house at 120k but the bank feels its only worth 100k, the bank gives you a mortgage for 80k.  This stops prices being driven wildly up like we saw at home during the celtic tiger years.
* You remortgage approximately every 5 years.  So in 5 years time the bank is not obliged to reissue a mortgage if they feel you dont earn enough/cant pay back etc.
* There are very few mortgage packages here, tracker mortgages dont seem to exist. Nor does the mortgage where the balance of your account counts against the principal (I have forgotten the name of that one).  The mortgages here are endownment in style and you are encouraged to pay off a lump sum everytime you remortgage. The banks are v protected.
* I was told by swiss peers that swiss banks were told by the swiss government about 10 years ago to reexamine all mortgages given and reevaluate them - and retract where necessary - in preparation for a crisis.  UBS hadnt completed this.  I never read anything about this, I was only told it - so Im not sure how factual that is.
* Certain people cant buy in certain areas - they have the idea of keeping towns for the peole that grew up in the them - so I cant buy in the appensel for example.
* Citizenship is not distributed easily.  While its easy to work here for a few years its not easy to become swiss - Im married to one, my daughter is one, but itll be another 5 years before I can even apply to be one (and then that is dependent on me passing a german exam).
* One of the biggest differences to Ireland and the UK is that eventhough the crisis is here its not prevalent in our news and media.  The fact that it seems bears (the furry kind not the stock market kind) might be making their way back into CH via the alps from Italy is getting as much coverage as the world economic crisis.

Just observations from irish expat - Im no financial guru!


----------



## casiopea (14 May 2009)

double post. sorry


----------



## darag (14 May 2009)

Purple said:


> No, the country is morally repulsive.


That is a very serious charge.  What particular act or acts do you feel justifies such a harsh appraisal?

If it's something to do with WW2 how would you compare the actions of the Swiss with that of, for example, the Germans and Austrians (not only starting the whole thing but also responsible for the holocaust), the Swedes for allowing the German war machine through their country to invade Norway, the Italians and Spanish who embraced fascism and supported the Nazis militarily, the French (including Vichi France) who rounded up Jews for extermination, many eastern European countries (Poland) who helped in large numbers in localised murder sprees against Jews, the Russians with their systematic rape and murder of civilians?  In terms of morality, I find it hard to see how you've defined a line which the Swiss have crossed but the Germans, French, Japanese, etc. have not.

Other than that, perhaps you view Swiss pragmatic liberalism as being immoral?  E.g. the fact that prostitution is legal, heroin is administered to junkies by doctors and they have a generally relaxed attitude to other drugs, wealth and income are very lightly taxed, little/no censorship, the admiration for individual self-sufficiency and autonomy, widespread gun ownership, etc.?

To add to casiopea's post, I would add that Switzerland is one of the most federal countries in the world.  The vast majority of income tax, for example, is a local cantonal tax.   Each canton has it's own laws and executive and view themselves as  quite independent and self-sufficient.  The divergence and degree of autonomy is very significant - for example one canton resisted female suffrage until 1990.  As a result, it is difficult to generalise about the politics of the country.  As an example of how weak the federal government is, bringing in a "national" smoking ban has proven to be almost impossible.  So it would be nice if you qualified your statement: are you referring to actions of the federal Swiss government or that of specific cantons (which hold most of the power)?


----------



## shnaek (14 May 2009)

Very interesting post, casiopea. Switzerland is one of the European countries I haven't been in, but I have always had an interest in the way they run their society over there.


----------



## csirl (14 May 2009)

From casiopea, it appears that it is policy in Switzerland to keep people in their place - discouraging home ownership, perpetuating a landlord class, not allowing people to live in certain places, not allowing businesses to expand into chains etc. Sounds very repressive. It appears that if you are born in Switzerland, your life is mapped out for you. Not sure I'd like that.

I've been to Switzerland a couple of times - Geneva and Zurich. I've always got the sense that there is something almost feudal about the set-up of the place. Certainly, there is a very noticeable underclass of immigrants.


----------



## Caveat (14 May 2009)

csirl said:


> It appears that if you are born in Switzerland, your life is mapped out for you. Not sure I'd like that.


 
Good way of putting it. It's the impression I got too.


----------



## casiopea (14 May 2009)

csirl said:


> From casiopea, it appears that it is policy in Switzerland to keep people in their place - discouraging home ownership, perpetuating a landlord class, not allowing people to live in certain places, not allowing businesses to expand into chains etc. Sounds very repressive. It appears that if you are born in Switzerland, your life is mapped out for you. Not sure I'd like that.
> 
> I've been to Switzerland a couple of times - Geneva and Zurich. I've always got the sense that there is something almost feudal about the set-up of the place. Certainly, there is a very noticeable underclass of immigrants.



Ah lads, that wasnt the impression I meant to give at all. Or at the very least its not the impression I have.  For the record prior to living in Switzerland I lived in Italy (for 5 years), Sweden (2 years), the UK (1 year) and the states (2 years on and off).  Indeed Zurich was my last stop and was meant to be for one year before I was going to hang up my travelling shoes and head home to Ireland (where Ive always loved returning to and owned my house) for good.  Im not listing that as some sort of travelling CV but rather to highlight that its well within my remit to up and leave if I dont take to a place.  Quite simply I fell in love with Switzerland very very quickly.  Its beautiful, there is so much to do, the weather is spectacular, the work life balance is excellent (I have never worked more "normal" hours than here), the health care is phenomal, its clean and safe (and I know that is boring to some but I love the fact that I dont lock my bike outside my house), taxes are lower than Ireland, the salary to cost of living ratio is excellent, if I lose my job the state pays me 80% while I look for a new one (for up to 2 years) and the people, if you take the time to get to know them, are truily lovely.  The alps, the lakes, the forests.  There arent words to describe them so I wont try but did you know that only one third of CH is habitable and the rest covered by alps/forests/lakes - the country is a haven for hikers, skiers and other outdoor sports.  Its without doubt my second home and that is not an accolade Id distribute lightly.  There are many many expats here like me that came for a year and never left.  By the way I didnt stay because I met someone - it was more the other way around - I decided to stay first.

What mightnt be clear from my post above is that only 30% own houses here mainly because many/most people here have no interest in "owning" their property.  Its culturally not done.  The generation before this one even less people owned their properties.  When I try to explain to people here that most people in Ireland "own" their family home they cant believe it.  One swiss person said to me - but why do you want to pay rent to a bank for the rest of your life.  Rental properties are very protected over here.  Its too long to go into but its very safe for a family to rent in an area and send their children to schools in the area without the risk of eviction.  People dont buy not because the banks wont let them but rather because they rather spend their disposable income on other things (family, holidays, car etc).   A sales guy I work with drives a porshe but rents his home - there are so many like that here - they simply like spending their money on other things.  Other countries Ive lived (namely Italy and Sweden) in have been the same. This need to own our home is a very Irish/English thing - we arent wrong - they arent wrong - its as simple as cultural differences.

Remember my post above is in the context of the credit crunch (the thread topic) and the banks - you shouldnt use it to make a full impression of Switzerland.  If I were to write a post about Ireland and the global economic crisis for a swiss person they would come away with a very negative view - right now theyd probably consider it a third world country and would want to know why anyone would want to live there. We know that isnt true.

Im off now to to work for the Swiss Tourism board - clearly my skills are wasted in IT


----------



## Jetblue (15 May 2009)

Thanks casiopea! Your posts are informative, thoughtprovoking and enjoyable!

I wonder is it insecurity that drives our cultural preference for home ownership?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2009)

My comment was based on how the Swiss banking system is so willing to finance murder and genocide all over the world while taking on deposit the stolen billions from murdering dictators. This has been the case for generations and is a corner stone of the Swiss economy. 
Casiopea, the only reason your friend has such a job is because of massive sustained pressure over years from the United States of America to force Switzerland to do the right thing. The Swiss banking sector and the Swiss people, through their government, resisted that pressure with a stubborn immorality of the most astounding kind.

Switzerland is like the great houses in England’s Home Counties that existed in idyllic frivolity on income drawn from the sweat of slaves labouring in chains in sugar and tobacco plantations an ocean and a world away.  
I am not saying that all (or even many) Swiss people are active participants in these matters but the very things that you describe so well which attract you to Switzerland are, in part, built on the blood of others. And how does Switzerland contribute to solving the world’s ills? Well it has one of the biggest armies in Europe but it doesn’t send its troops on peace keeping missions, no, it just makes hundreds of millions every year feeding off the slops from the UN gravy train as it pulls into UN Central in Geneva.


----------



## path (16 May 2009)

Purple said:


> I am not saying that all (or even many) Swiss people are active participants in these matters but the very things that you describe so well which attract you to Switzerland are, in part, *built on* *the* *blood of others.*


 
So where stands UK,USA,France,Germany,Spain,etc. The List is endless and can be argued about the majority of countries in the western world


----------



## Strathspey (16 May 2009)

path said:


> So where stands UK,USA,France,Germany,Spain,etc. The List is endless and can be argued about the majority of countries in the western world


An excellent point! 
A little story, just to emphasize the point.....I remember being in Hyde Park, Speaker's Corner and an African man, proclaiming, i'll go back to Africa when I can take the entire contents of the British museum with me, back to Africa because there's f** all British in there. A very valid point.


----------



## darag (16 May 2009)

Purple said:


> My comment was based on how the Swiss banking system is so willing to finance murder and genocide all over the world while taking on deposit the stolen billions from murdering dictators. This has been the case for generations and is a corner stone of the Swiss economy.
> Casiopea, the only reason your friend has such a job is because of massive sustained pressure over years from the United States of America to force Switzerland to do the right thing. The Swiss banking sector and the Swiss people, through their government, resisted that pressure with a stubborn immorality of the most astounding kind.
> 
> Switzerland is like the great houses in England’s Home Counties that existed in idyllic frivolity on income drawn from the sweat of slaves labouring in chains in sugar and tobacco plantations an ocean and a world away.
> I am not saying that all (or even many) Swiss people are active participants in these matters but the very things that you describe so well which attract you to Switzerland are, in part, built on the blood of others. And how does Switzerland contribute to solving the world’s ills? Well it has one of the biggest armies in Europe but it doesn’t send its troops on peace keeping missions, no, it just makes hundreds of millions every year feeding off the slops from the UN gravy train as it pulls into UN Central in Geneva.


Sorry, that's both hysterical and highly inaccurate and has more basis in  cliched pulp-thriller plot lines than in reality.  The wikipedia article gives an account of the reality of Swiss banking.

Neither is your criticism of the Swiss levels of military participation in UN missions reasonable grounds for labeling an entire country as "morally repulsive"; the Swiss have only been members of the UN for a bit over 5 years.

That's hardly evidence I'd say on which to justify singling the Swiss out  as being morally repulsive which is a serious charge to level at an entire country of nearly 8 million people, 1.7 million of whom are foreign born.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2009)

Those countries engage on the world stage and use their resources to help others. As darag pointed out, Switzerland only joined the UN 5 years ago, despite making hundreds of millions, if not billions, of euro from it over the last 50 years.
They have resisted, and continue to resist, all attempts to stop the flow of blood money through their banks and only aided the post 9/11 anti-terror drive by the US after massive pressure and open threats.

They have the resources and the ability to be a force for good in the world but choose not to because they can stay rich that way. The way in which they treat their “guest” workers and their general emigration laws also show an innate selfishness and lack of empathy for their fellow man. 

As to how Switzerland is dealing with the recession; the fact that unemployment hits unskilled workers hardest and that historically many of these “guest” workers have inadequate unemployment insurance has meant that Switzerland has effectively exported its unemployment problem. While treatment of “guest” workers and their rights to residency have improved greatly in most Cantons in recent years the fact remains that those at the bottom of the social scale ca still, to a great extent, be cut loose by mainstream (affluent) Swiss society when the need arises. The fact that emigration policy is still driven from Canton level, the rejection of three federal referendum proposing improvements in naturalisation for second and third generation “guest” workers since the 70’s and the emergence of the (Nationalist) Swiss Peoples Party all reinforce the status quo.


----------



## darag (17 May 2009)

I'm really finding it difficult to argue with you on this one Purple.  Your dislike seems completely irrational.  You've made some very wild accusations but when challenged on them, you just sidestep the challenges and throw out a further bunch of wild accusations.  To be honest I'm struggling to stay civil; accusing an entire country of 8 million people of being morally repugnant is as offensive (if not based on well-accepted fact) as laying similar charge or a charge of stupidity against a particular race or ethnic group.

I mean are you actually standing by your claim that "the Swiss banking system is so willing to finance murder and genocide all over the world while taking on deposit the stolen billions from murdering dictators" or have you quietly dropped it?  Because it's absolute rubbish.  Did you read the wikipedia article I pointed out?  Even among the biggest detractors of Swiss banking law (the Germans, French and US) nobody has ever accused them of financing genocide.  You've been watching too many spy and action movies; the big issue for the French, Germans and Americans is that the Swiss interpretation on what constitutes merely tax evasion and what is tax fraud; only in the latter case will they hand over details.  Absolutely nothing to do with dictators, financing genocide or any thing even close.  You're simply so far off base here that it's hard to even bother with the rest of your points.

I mean, you really are stretching it when the main plank of the other support for your  "moral repulsive" accusation is that they allowed the UN  to have offices there (like thousands of other international organisations who pick Switzerland because it's a stable, democratic, non-aligned and neutral country) without joining themselves?

And there is no discrimination against people working in Switzerland when it comes to welfare entitlements assuming you've paid your social insurance contributions - like many other places, for example, Ireland in fact.  Like much else in your rant, you're mixing up a whole much of separate issues; citizenship and welfare entitlements which are different issues as in every other western country.  Over 20% of the Swiss population is not born there.  It is the original "melting pot" - accepting of immigrants, a strong work ethic, socially liberal, tolerant and pragmatic.  It has one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers per head in the world and accepts immigrants of every sort from manual workers (earning at least twice the Irish minimum wage) to billionaires and everything in between.

And if the existence of a tiny nationalist party is enough for you to designate  an entire country as being morally repulsive, what does that say about countries like France and Austria with much bigger nationalist right wing parties?  Or how would you feel it fair to accuse the whole of Ireland of being morally repulsive because of the support nationalist Sinn Fein receives (about the same level as the nationalist SVP in Switzerland)?


----------



## darag (17 May 2009)

Sorry I forgot to challenge the claim that "Those countries engage on the world stage and use their resources to help others".  Do you mean countries like United States, Russia, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom, Sweden and Canada?  By the way, these are the biggest arms exporters in the world.  In fact without them, given that they sell more than 95% of all the arms there would be no international arms market at all.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2009)

darag said:


> Sorry I forgot to challenge the claim that "Those countries engage on the world stage and use their resources to help others".  Do you mean countries like United States, Russia, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom, Sweden and Canada?  By the way, these are the biggest arms exporters in the world.  In fact without them, given that they sell more than 95% of all the arms there would be no international arms market at all.



From here; _"The countries of Europe are significant arms exporters. Armies fight with European weapons in arenas of war all over the world. The bestsellers include: British fighter jets, Dutch military electronics, German submarines, French missiles, Czech tanks, Spanish munitions. Those are just a few examples.
Other countries with less significant arms production still have a share in the weapons trade however: Denmark and Portugal ship European weapons everywhere in the world, the Swiss banks finance huge arms deals."_
Swiss banks have also been called on to stop financing companies operating in Darfur.
Everyone from Moboto in Zaire (I'm sure you are aware of the case going through the courts in Switzerland at the moment to see who gets the loot) to Abacha in Nigeria deposited hundreds of millions (and in some cases billions) in Swiss banks. Much of that money stayed in Switzerland after their overthrow and/or death. In the case of Abacha that ran to billions. Taking the blood money from dictators who rape some of the poorest nations on this earth and keeping it after their death is, in my opinion, morally repugnant. Consistently resisting attempts to change this practice shows that they are generally accepted by a sizable portion of the Swiss people.


----------



## Bronte (18 May 2009)

darag said:


> - for example one canton resisted female suffrage until 1990. )?


 
That's so breathtaking, imagine being a woman there.  What a mindset.


----------



## casiopea (18 May 2009)

Hi Purple,



Purple said:


> Casiopea, the only reason your friend has such a job is because of massive sustained pressure over years from the United States of America to force Switzerland to do the right thing.



Ive totally lost you here....what friend....?

A lot of your points I disagree with, they seem a bit outlandish to be honest and Ive never heard them from anyone/anywhere else.  Ill try and address them fairly especially this one (in effort to keep the thread on topic) - 



Purple said:


> As to how Switzerland is dealing with the recession; the fact that unemployment hits unskilled workers hardest and that historically many of these “guest” workers have inadequate unemployment insurance has meant that Switzerland has effectively exported its unemployment problem. While treatment of “guest” workers and their rights to residency have improved greatly in most Cantons in recent years the fact remains that those at the bottom of the social scale ca still, to a great extent, be cut loose by mainstream (affluent) Swiss society when the need arises. The fact that emigration policy is still driven from Canton level, the rejection of three federal referendum proposing improvements in naturalisation for second and third generation “guest” workers since the 70’s and the emergence of the (Nationalist) Swiss Peoples Party all reinforce the status quo.




Unemployment hits unskilled workers the hardest everywhere in the world not just Switzerland.  Im not certain what you mean by "guest" worker.   Do you mean someone legally residing (perhaps many generations of family) and working here but not a national - I think that is what you mean given that you are talking about "rights to residency" etc.  but if Im making an incorrect assumption please correct me.  

"Guest" workers as you call them have pretty much same rights in the circumstances of unemployment as nationals here.  When you lose your Job as a tax paying citizen you are entitled to Rav support.  Depending on how you lost your job (did you resign, were you made redundant, were you fired etc) you are entitled to different levels of support but it doesnt differ if you are a B-visa holder, C-visa holder (a lot of these are  2nd or 3rd generation non-resident "swiss" which I think is the group you are refering to), or a resident.  During this time - the Rav send you on courses to help you find a job (often for the first 2 groups its german courses) and during this time 80% of your salary is paid in the case of redundancy.  The Rav supervises who and where you are interviewing and you are only obliged to accept a job that is to the same level and salary as before.  Should you turn down jobs as you are having far too good a time living off the state then your support greatly reduces (30% or something of your salary is paid).  Only people working here less than 1 working fiscal year are not elligible for this support.  If you are living here illegally and not paying tax then of course you are not elligible for this - nothing unusual about that.

It is true that many generations of families live in Switzerland without ever becoming, what is called here, "paper-Swiss", ie they live on continous c-visas and never become truily resident.  This is often due to a lack of interest as opposed to not being allowed to - in their current visa state they have all the support and entitlements (schooling, health care, RAV etc) as a resident hence no particular rush to change it. Often times (especially for the italians) its a lack of willingness to relinquish their own culture (though you are allowed hold 2 passports here) rather than not being able to become paper-Swiss.  For an EU citizen its only a matter of time (and a german exam) to becoming a resident, its harder for non-EUs but it is possible.  

You refer to emmigration policy being driven at canton level, most swiss government is driven at cantonal level not just emmigration policy.  Indeed policy is actually driven/enfourced at Gemeinde (community) level, then cantonal then Country.  As an expat its different - and yes it has its downsides (but who^s Government does not have downsides?).  For example that is why the smoking ban for example is taking forever to come in here - its coming in Gemeinde by Gemeinde and Kanton by Kanton not country wide.   Another very interesting example is that women werent given a vote at the same time through the country.  Indeed in the alpensell - women didnt get a vote till 1972(!)   This was due to the fact that voting took place at Gemeinde level and the men of that one village (gemeinde) used to gather in the square and raise their hands to vote yes for something.  If they gave women the vote there wouldnt be enough room in the square!  They were dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th Century and eventually had to give up their much loved tradition of gathering in the square to vote for things.  So yes its frustrating, annoying, quaint and antiquated at times. The SVP (the swiss nationalist party you refer to above) is notoriously conversative and very few ex-pats like them - they do have very strong opinions on extraditing what they perceive as "foreign" criminals and their families which did cause big uproar here in Switzerland last year.  Interestingly after succeeding in the elections their "leader" (Blocher) was usurped  and SVP themselves put forward another, much more liberal, candidate for the "presidency".  That is a facit of swiss politics I do enjoy - they have no one leader of the country even when a party wins the election - there are 7 presidents/members (made up of all the parties) and one member is elected every year as a figure head - so you may have a conservative party but liberal leader or vice versa.    

Another interesting point to note on the lack of interest Switzerland has in joining EU and had in joining the UN etc. Switzerland is made up of 4 nationalities - Romansk, German, Italian and French. Within Switzerland itself there is a lot of "competition" between the groups - however each group for the most part sees themself as first and foremost Swiss.  One (irrational) fear the Swiss have is of "bleeding" or blending into their neighbouring country and losing their Swissness - the swiss germans to Germany the swiss French to France the Swiss Italians (and Romansk) to Italy. So while the Swiss French consider themselves so much better than the swiss Germans - they also dont want be "French", same for the swiss Germans and Italians.  The fear is if they were to join the EU - say - they are then only one step or referendum behind actually losing their border and swissness to the corresponding neighbouring country and becoming German/French/Italian.  To that end, whenever a european driven issue is to be voted on - the swiss invariably become more swiss than German/French/Italian and vote no.  One of the major reasons why they were many many generations behind joining the UN.




Purple said:


> Taking the blood money from dictators who rape some of the poorest nations on this earth and keeping it after their death is, in my opinion, morally repugnant. Consistently resisting attempts to change this practice shows that they are generally accepted by a sizable portion of the Swiss people.



The former part of your statement I (and Im sure everyone) agree with - the latter is a massive accusation without from what I can see basis.  However I do not know enough to comment.  Ill look into it further (at the weekend hopefully) and come back and comment.  

The Swiss (and their government) are conservative there is no doubt about that and they are extremely protective of their identity - is that a bad thing - I personally think not and I certainly dont see them as morally repulsive or that this generation or the previous one are guilty of crimes that you seem to be directing at them.


----------



## casiopea (18 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> That's so breathtaking, imagine being a woman there.  What a mindset.



It was 1971- in the canton of Alpensell.  The (stupid) reason Ive explained in my above post.  I should also add that most of Switzerland regard the Alpensell as behind the times. It wasnt something they were proud of.


----------



## Bronte (18 May 2009)

casiopea said:


> It was 1971- in the canton of Alpensell. The (stupid) reason Ive explained in my above post. I should also add that most of Switzerland regard the Alpensell as behind the times. It wasnt something they were proud of.


 
Oh it was way back in 1971 well that's all right then.


----------



## casiopea (18 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> Oh it was way back in 1971 well that's all right then.




Just to be clear I dont think it was ok it was only introduced in 1971, neither do most SwissIts one small village in the Appenzell for one very stupid reason - wanting to maintain the "show of hands" system in the village square.  It is an example of how the Gemeinde/Canton/Country way of working can be difficult.  However its not reasonable to form an opinion on the swiss voting structure based on that one village - its not indicative of the rest of the country.


----------



## darag (18 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> Oh it was way back in 1971 well that's all right then.


Nothing to be proud of for sure.  The reason I mentioned it up was to demonstrate how autonomous the cantons are in Switzerland were.  The same thing (very late female suffrage) happened in the other mini-countries around Europe like Andorra and Liechtenstein.

Regarding Purples latest broadsides, anyone with an interest can google Mobuto or Abacha and "Switzerland" and you find a wealth of information which completely contradicts the picture painted by Purple.  The Swiss authorities reacted very quickly to freeze all Mobuto's assets and they've remained frozen; Swiss law requires that the Congolese government apply for the funds but Mobuto's clan is still a very powerful (one of Mobuto's sons is a senior minister) and they have blocked the recovery of the money to Congolese government.  In the Abacha court case you fail to mention that the court case involves the Swiss authorities fighting a legal challenge of the Abacha family who are trying to reverse the confiscation of their ill-gotten gains or that the Swiss pursued the extradition of Abacha's son from Germany to face charges of money-laundering and fraud.  Perhaps not the best way to advertise the country as a handy spot for dictators to leave their loot?  Or, to put the affair into context, did you mention that the vast majority of the Abacha loot ended up in British banks and only a small fraction went to Switzerland and Luxembourg?   Do you consider everyone in the UK to be morally repulsive as a result?  To be fair the Swiss authorities investigating the banks involved were highly critical of a small number of banks (as were the equivalent in the UK).


----------



## darag (18 May 2009)

I should say also that the reason Switzerland crops up more often in these cases is simply because it has one of the biggest private banking sectors in the world and so there is a higher than likely chance of the movement of ill-gotten funds could involve their banks.  However the Swiss are very proactive in enforcing their banking rules and protecting the reputation of their banking sector as it represents more than a tenth of their economy.  They actively work to ensure the provenance of the money and are very quick to freeze funds if there's any sort of dodgy whiff about it.  At the same time, as a western liberal democracy, they have to offer full access to an independent judiciary thus they end up fighting court cases taken by dictators' families and whatnot trying to recover their ill-gotten gains.  Of course individual banks have been reprimanded by the Swiss authorities for their cavalier attitude to dodgy money but there certainly isn't even implicit official support for banks to accept such funds - the opposite in fact.  Believe it or not, having dictators and terrorists use your services does not make for great PR when trying to attract wealthy private banking customers.


----------



## Bronte (18 May 2009)

casiopea said:


> However its not reasonable to form an opinion on the swiss voting structure based on that one village - its not indicative of the rest of the country.


 I would not judge Switzerland on one single item, it's just a sign of a deeper malaise. I judge Switzerland on it's actions in relation to the aiding and abetting of war and war criminals. I don't remember who said it but we must bear witness and never forget.

Incidentally I live in a country built on the rape and pillage of other countries.  But we don't talk about that here.


----------



## casiopea (18 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> I would not judge Switzerland on one single item, it's just a sign of a deeper malaise. I judge Switzerland on it's actions in relation to the aiding and abetting of war and war criminals. I don't remember who said it but we must bear witness and never forget.



I agree with the quote wholeheartedly, it applies to us all - not just the Swiss.  I dont agree with the generalized sweeping accusations though and I think some of them have been fairly well addressed in this thread - especially Darag^s last posts.


----------



## darag (18 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> I would not judge Switzerland on one single item, it's just a sign of a deeper malaise. I judge Switzerland on it's actions in relation to the aiding and abetting of war and war criminals. I don't remember who said it but we must bear witness and never forget.


Could you be more specific about example of the Swiss government aiding and abetting war criminals?  I mean really, that's a very serious charge to level at any western country.

Please provide specific examples and if you are going to mention a particular dictator please provide a link which supports your claims regarding the Swiss behaviour as the Mobuto and Abacha cases, if anything, show the Swiss acting completely fairly.

This argument reminds me of having to respond to an American who was convinced that it was "common knowledge" that the Irish government had been waging a proxy terrorist war with the Brits using the IRA.  I found it pretty offensive that a seemingly well-educated person was happy to claim that a normal western liberal democracy would support terrorism at the state level.  Similarly I find these accusations against the Swiss to be offensive also particularly as up to now at least, this thread has yet to contain a single specific example which stands up to any scrutiny.

It is no more offensive to refer to Irish as drunken stupid violent pedophiles than it is to suggest the Swiss support and finance genocide and terrorism.  The bar of evidence to convince yourself that the entire population of a country shares a set of very negative character attributes should be very very high.  And the evidence against the Swiss here has been very very flimsy.  Without getting hysterical about it,  I'm disturbed by the readiness of people here to believe complete lies about a particular nationality and to repeat innuendo unquestioningly as I would be if a similar attitude were displayed towards any group, ethnic or religious, for example.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2009)

darag said:


> Could you be more specific about example of the Swiss government aiding and abetting war criminals?  I mean really, that's a very serious charge to level at any western country.


The Swiss tradition of secrecy and silence is all that is required to facilitate the flow of stolen/looted/blood money into its banks. When was the last time that a Swiss Bank refused a deposit from an African leader?  When was the last time they froze an account without massive pressure from another government (the Nigerians were asking for years and got nowhere ‘till the Americans jumped in)? I know they froze about a hundred and fifty million dollars this year in bribe money from Haliburton but that was only after the Americans (again) tipped them off. 

Passive inaction and shoulder shrugging does not satisfy the moral burden on a Western democracy to do its part in stopping the economic rape of the poorest and most needy people in the world. 
Describing repatriated loot at “foreign aid” is also one of the tricks played by the Swiss (and others). The Swiss are not alone in the reprehensible and illegal flow of capital from Africa but they are at the top of the pile and they, by making a virtue of their banking secrecy laws, make a virtue of their banks actions.


----------



## Purple (18 May 2009)

darag said:


> This argument reminds me of having to respond to an American who was convinced that it was "common knowledge" that the Irish government had been waging a proxy terrorist war with the Brits using the IRA.


To me the analogy that fits is the Catholic bishops who knew that there were strong cases of sexual abuse being made against priests but stymied attempts to get at the truth ‘till they were forced by outside forces to do so.


----------



## darag (18 May 2009)

My analogy was to point out how offensive unfounded slurs against an entire nation, ethnic group or religious group is.  Your "there's no smoke without fire" idea completely misses the point.

You're still being evasive and disingenuous - the two examples you gave of dictators using Swiss banking facilities turned out to be good examples of how well the Swiss regulator works to freeze dirty money and how seriously they pursue offenders.  You now claim - again without a single piece of credible evidence that "The Swiss tradition of secrecy and silence is all that is required to facilitate the flow of stolen/looted/blood money into its banks.".  This is just innuendo; would you care to back it up with some references to  cases?

Repeating false claims does not make them true and without references it just sounds like a conspiracy theory - regurgitated half facts gleaned from fictional works, no credible sources to back up the claims, built on a preposterous and ludicrous idea - that the western world would tolerate a country in it's midst financing/supporting terrorism and genocide (you realise why Iran, Libya and the like are/were pariahs?) and constantly evading simple counter arguments and facts.

You've confused the real diplomatic pressure from the US, the French and - most shrilly - from the Germans to provide databases of bank customers in order to fish for tax evaders with crackpot internet conspiracy theories about evil Swiss bankers financing wars, genocide and terrorism (in a way that reminds me of the 19th century anti-semitism directed against the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers).

You confuse privacy with anonymity; the Swiss banking system DOES NOT offer anonymity - you need to establish without a doubt your credentials to open an account there - but does require the equivalent of a judge's warrant before details/a statement of the account can be released to a third party.

I've asked you over and over for references - links to internationally credible media sources - for your claims but you've yet to provide any.


----------



## Bronte (19 May 2009)

darag said:


> . You now claim - again without a single piece of credible evidence that "The Swiss tradition of secrecy and silence is all that is required to facilitate the flow of stolen/looted/blood money into its banks.". This is just innuendo; would you care to back it up with some references to cases?.


 
I wonder why the Swiss banks were shredding documents in the last 10 years then?  Nothing to hide, nope, definitely not.  No culture of secrecy and silence etc.  

You want one single case of aiding and abetting war criminals.  Well how about taking the money Nazi's (war criminals) derived from Jews (art/jewels/gold, including from teeth) which went to fund a war.  

I wouldn't only attack Switzerland.  I have no beef with the Swiss.  Lots of nations have shameful pasts.  Some of the victors in World War 2 were worse than anything the Nazi's did (Russia).  Some of the victors are little more than war criminals today (Cheney/Bush)       

I think this topic is getting a little too heated.


----------



## darag (19 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> I wonder why the Swiss banks were shredding documents in the last 10 years then?  Nothing to hide, nope, definitely not.  No culture of secrecy and silence etc.
> 
> You want one single case of aiding and abetting war criminals.  Well how about taking the money Nazi's (war criminals) derived from Jews (art/jewels/gold, including from teeth) which went to fund a war.


More completely fantastic innuendo.  So as well as continuing to finance terrorism and genocide (Purple), we have another remarkable claim - that the Swiss helped "to fund the Nazi war machine using Jew's gold teeth".  This is complete crackpot theory territory.  It's a "story" so preposterous, I have no idea what kind of world view you'd have to have to consider it plausible.

I notice, like Purple, you are refusing to back up your claims with any references (i.e. links to respected media sources or an encyclopedia).  The discussion is getting a bit heated simply because I'm being forced to deal with regurgitated "facts" heard in the pub, bits of spy movie plots or internet conspiracy theories.  I've asked repeatedly just for a single link to a reputably source which might support any one of these crackpot ideas so that at least, we could debate the role - which is not by any means blameless - of the Swiss banks and banking secrecy on the basis of facts, not comic book plot lines.

If you actually want to know something about the Swiss banks' role in WW2, the definitive report was completed just a couple of years ago by the US based Volcker commission - led by ex-US Fed chairman and with a strong representation from various Jewish groups.  The investigation was the biggest ever - the report itself cost nearly quarter of billion euro (paid for by the Swiss) to prepare because of the amount of detailed work involved.  If you google it you will find plenty of summaries.  I had started writing a summary of its' findings but I'm not sure there's any point but I'll will say, surprise surprise, the report doesn't support your claim; it's a serious report based on facts an investigation so your fantastic claim of "funding the Nazi war machine using Jew's gold teeth" or Purples claim of continuing support of genocide are not even mentioned; these ideas and claims have simply no credibility even amongst the most hardened anti-Swiss groups.

I mean do you realise how daft such an idea sounds?  I presume you'd have a fair idea of the amount of gold in a tooth?  Yet you gullible to believe that sufficient quantities were processed in Switzerland to prolong the war?  You really believe that the allies would have nodded indulgently at such actions?  The Americans wanted to invaded Ireland for not handing over the treaty ports - can you imagine the reaction if they thought neutral Switzerland was funding the German war effort?  Or that the Swiss banks fund genocide and terrorism?  This is the real world not some Freddy Forsyth novel; you really believe this would be tolerated in the western world?  I mean really - have a bit of cop-on; this is simply bonkers.


> I wouldn't only attack Switzerland.  I have no beef with the Swiss.  Lots of nations have shameful pasts.  Some of the victors in World War 2 were worse than anything the Nazi's did (Russia).  Some of the victors are little more than war criminals today (Cheney/Bush)


Well at least this is an advance on Purple's stance where Switzerland alone is singled out for criticism.


> I think this topic is getting a little too heated.


The heat is coming from me; I am getting frustrated with having to respond to innuendo.  I'm frustrated because I've provided references to factual articles on the subject while Purple and you are happy to repeat preposterous unfounded claims.

I have Swiss friends and know the country somewhat.  I am in the process of moving there.  This sort of innuendo about the place is offensive.  If I were to visit a Swiss internet forum, for example, and saw a bunch of people claiming that Ireland was a state sponsor of terrorism and pedophilia quoting facts "gleaned" from a Harrison Ford movie, I'd be highly insulted and would respond appropriately.  This is the same.


----------



## Bronte (19 May 2009)

Well pray tell why if there is no worth to gold in teeth did the Nazi's take it or is that a fabrication too?

You have not said anything about the banks shredding documents, a made up story too?  Shredded documents tell no truths or lies and no enquiry can ascertain what was in them.  

You think the allies are great? For example the British Empire and Russia, there is no limit to what they were capable of, and Russia today.  

I never said the Swiss funded the war.  

I don't know exactly what the Swiss did but they certainly weren't nice and it's not always the person who pulls the trigger who is at fault.  Nice people and dictators and murders and criminals need accountants, lawyers, banks and 'friendly' countries.


----------



## Bronte (19 May 2009)

Ireland was a state sponsor of Paedophila and child abuse and neglect in allowing certain institutions to run torture homes with no state interference and no checks on those that ran such places which produced seriously messed up individuals.  

You know Frank McCourt's stories about the slums of Limerick were a complete fabrication.  I'm sure there's a report on that somewhere, probably to be located in the archives with the completely blacked out report on the Dunne case last week.  

Is that wild and fantastic enough for you Darag.


----------



## Purple (19 May 2009)

Remember what the French parliament said about them a few years back?
Here's what you get if you search the BBC news site using the words "Swiss + Banking".

Any changes in the Swiss banking system have been made post 9/11 and then only because they were defecating themselves about what the Americans would do if they didn't.

Darag, there is little point in continuing to discuss this with you as you have decided that the Swiss banking system is whiter than white and they are in fact leading the world on ethical best practice. In fact they did nothing wrong during the Second World War either, isn't that right? 
While they continue to provide a veil of secrecy that facilitates, well they hear no evil and see no evil so therefore there must be no evil, right?... yes, we should all take their word for it that everything is fine, sure money doesn’t corrupt, does it?


----------



## casiopea (20 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> Well pray tell why if there is no worth to gold in teeth did the Nazi's take it or is that a fabrication too?



Bronte, you are going off topic here. We arent debating the Nazis.  Nobody disputes what the Nazis did and whether it was repugnant or not.  There is a phrase/name out there for when debates start going down the WW2 route (it basically means the debate becomes moot).  Ive forgotten it - but its been quoted here before - maybe someone can help.  This debate is unfortunately going that way.  

In the context of Switzerland being "nice" and "friendly" to dictators.  Remember during WW2 Switzerland was a country (its smaller in size than Ireland) completely surrounded by Facists nations.  Switzerland's neighbours Germany, Austria, France and Italy have always been it's most important trade partners. During World War II Switzerland was completely surrounded by Germany (including Austria from 1938 to 1945), it's ally Italy and by France (partly occupied by German troops from Summer 1940, partly controlled by the Vichy-based regime collaborating with Germany after the french surrender in 1940). Any Swiss import or export to other trade partners was under German control. Switzerland had to choose between keeping up it's trade and financial relations with it's neighbours on a normal pre-war level OR complete surrender and collaboration. There was absolutely no chance for a third way - it wasnt a case of being "nice".  Switzerland, unlike Austria, chose as much independence as possible for a small country under the conditions dictated by the great powers.   Does this make it right (what they did? ) no of course not.  But remember the average Swiss person was growing potatoes in their backgarden trying to grow enough food to survive (like everyone in wartime).  That was the reality of the time.  

Also and very importantly, maybe I am misunderstanding you (please correct me if I am), but how can you hold this generation of any nation resonable for the acts of their (great)-grandfathers?  Mistakes shouldnt be forgotten, but you cant point the finger and say "you are guilty of genocide" to someone who wasnt even alive at the time - to someone who wasnt alive 50 years after the time?  I dont blame you for your Grandfathers mistakes - why are you blaming the Swiss for theirs?



Purple said:


> Darag, there is little point in continuing to discuss this with you as you have decided that the Swiss banking system is whiter than white



Darag made it clear in his previous post that he does not regard the swiss banks as blameless.  I too do not think Swiss banks are blameless - their behaviour is clearly documented out there.  There is continous pressure from both outside and within Switzerland itself to rectify these mistakes - from the 1946 Washington Agreement to the 1995 release of dormant accounts - this is also clearly documented.  There has had to be a line drawn however between pointing a finger at Swiss Banks and labelling the entire nation as "morally repugnant".  Given that my daughter and husband are Swiss I cant really debate this without taking it personally and getting hurt and that doesnt help any debate so at this point Im politely withdrawing.


----------



## Bronte (20 May 2009)

casiopea said:


> I dont blame you for your Grandfathers mistakes - why are you blaming the Swiss for theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> .


  We don't have to go back to the past, they were shredding documents in the last 10 years and it is only in the last while that they are giving the pretence of cleaning things up.  The truth is that today if I were a dictator or mega criminal the first place I'd go to put my money is Switzerland.  Do you believe this or not?

In times of war it is true that people have to make hard decisions.  The Swiss chose to take Jewish money BUT they later chose not return it to it's rightful owners.  Right up to the recent past when such pressure was brought to bear by the Americans.  Why is that?  They chose to let trade (steel/coal I think) go through their country.  They chose to let money be laundered in their country.  If I was Swiss and I had to make the decisions they did I have no idea what I would decide.  Nobody is whiter than white.  Humans throughout history have to choose one side or the other and make hard choices.  

None of this doesn't mean the Switzerland isn't a great place to live.  It's really clean, beautiful, healthy and green.  They have a fantastic social and health system.  The people are very nice.  They  have forward thinking on social problems.  They have a savings and being careful mentality.  When they really clean up their banking they will have progressed even further.


----------



## casiopea (20 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> The truth is that today if I were a dictator or mega criminal the first place I'd go to put my money is Switzerland.  Do you believe this or not?



No. Please read myth 6.  

I have a swiss bank account - I know whats involved opening one up - its not trivial. Please provide a link or some reference to support your "truth" above there, that statement you made is the stuff of conspiracy theories.


----------



## Bronte (20 May 2009)

There are no anonymous accounts in Switzerland. A numbered account is an account that is identified solely by a number, rather than a name, in order to preserve the strictest confidentiality possible during teller transactions or bank transfers. Only the bank manager and a few select people know the identity of numbered account holders.

This is from your own post.  I think it says it all really.  In any case dictators don't just pop into the bank and say 'I'm a dictator will you take this money looted from my country' now do they.  They send their respectable suited acccountant instead.  Their money men.  But that's just an urban legend too.


----------



## casiopea (20 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> There are no anonymous accounts in Switzerland. A numbered account is an account that is identified solely by a number, rather than a name, in order to preserve the strictest confidentiality possible during teller transactions or bank transfers. Only the bank manager and a few select people know the identity of numbered account holders.
> 
> This is from your own post.  I think it says it all really.  In any case dictators don't just pop into the bank and say 'I'm a dictator will you take this money looted from my country' now do they. They send their respectable suited acccountant instead. Their money men. But that's just an urban legend too.



???  
I really dont understand what you are on about Bronte.  You have totally lost me and you have repeatedly failed to provide any sort of supporting material to any of the wild wild accusations you are making.


----------



## darag (20 May 2009)

Purple, at no time did I suggest Swiss banks were whiter than white.  Bronte, nor did I suggest that document shredding didn't take place.  It would be great if that's what we were debating here; it would be possible to debate the issue  rationally.  I have never contested that Swiss banks had and have serious questions to answer and it would be interesting to debate them.  The problem is that debates in general and this one in particular become unproductive unless everyone sticks to the context of the real world.  That's what I've been pressing for.

What I have asked for repeatedly is for you to provide any supporting evidence for some of the incredible claims both of you have made.  Is that so unreasonable?  To ask for a reputable reference or link to back up some very contentious claims?  For example, you could start with: Switzerland has and continues to finance genocide, has and continues to finance terrorism and  constituted some inexplicable vital link in the reprocessing of Jew's teeth which was vital to Nazi war efforts and extended the war as a result.

I've no problem debating the real failings of Swiss banks, my problem is with some of the outlandish claims being made here.  For example, I'd happily discuss the real changes which have occurred in Swiss banking as a result of 9-11.

And Bronte, I don't really get the relevance of McCourt's Limerick.   Some things are plausible and some are not.  There's nothing particularly  implausible about McCourt's story; poverty to some degree or another is universal.  Neither is there anything implausible about Swiss banks being caught shredding documents.  However, for example: a moon made of cheese or FF being able to rescue the economy or Swiss banks providing a vital link in the processing of Nazi confiscated Jew's teeth are, to me, to a greater or lesser degree implausible and I'd need evidence to consider them.

In agreement with Purple, I too am tiring of this debate.  I've presented links and referenced real reports but facts and the like seem to be of little interest.  Horses to water and all that.  Sadly if you stubbornly refuse to drink from the pure clean fountain of truth and reason, there is little more I can do.  Ok. that's a pretty weak attempt to lighten the tone.  I realise that I also am somewhat emotionally compromised when it comes to Switzerland and, like casiopea, am particularly stung by the "morally repulsive" jibe which is what caused me to wade in here.   The only grace is that at least the incorrect claims regarding Swiss welfare entitlement and immigration policy seem to have been quietly abandoned and the only pillar remaining to support this slur is the actions of the Swiss banks. I have tried to ignore the sting and reason about the Swiss banks - using facts, references and the like but I'm finding it draining as we enter an endless cycle of: an incredible claim concerning behaviour of Swiss banks is made (often juxtaposed with some entirely reasonably statement of fact), the claim is challenged by a request to provide evidence, a new incredible claim is made, and repeat.

Swiss banking is one thing but it is difficult to explain the impact of a jibe like "the Swiss are morally repugnant".  For example, it may be possible, if you try hard, to ignore an accidentally overheard-in-public racist comment "all blacks are whatever" said by a stranger but you can imagine how much more  hearing something like that would sting if you were married to or were best friends with a black person or worse again if you were in the company of a black person?  Substitute "all the English", "all the Muslims", "all the Micks", or whatever if that mental image doesn't do it for you.  It's probably easy enough to repeat slurs against groups with whom you have little real contact.  It stings when you hear slurs against a group with whom you have friends and ties.  When the basis for the slur seems to be mainly innuendo and misrepresentations, then it stings even more.


----------



## tiroileain (27 May 2009)

Bronte said:


> The truth is that today if I were a dictator or mega criminal the first place I'd go to put my money is Switzerland.  Do you believe this or not?



No I don't believe it. I work for UBS in Zurich and just stumbled on this thread. Every employee in UBS must complete a course on how to identify potential money laundering. UBS are very serious about this, as I'm sure other Swiss banks are.


----------

