3 ms·

Literally changing the law in order to allow bypassing a shareholder vote? I get that it's an emergency, but I think people ought to find this hard to accept.

Literally changing the law in order to allow bypassing a shareholder vote? I get that it's an emergency, but I think people ought to find this hard to accept. At the same time it's a warning about size: CS has grown so big and so integral to the Swiss economy that the tail wags the dog. Let something grow to this size and it falls outside of the control of ordinary democracy. When bad things happen to an essential institution you end up doing things that are against your own principles. People will rightly be asking how the government ends up paying for it when things go wrong but shareholders get paid when they go right.

sandworm101 4y ago
>> ... government ends up paying for it when things go wrong but shareholders get paid when they go right. A sizable percentage of the population sees this as a valid role for government. Every time the stock market dips a little, or home prices flatten off, people scream for the government to do something. Dumping government money into private entities to protect "shareholder value" is why stocks have risen so dramatically in the last 15 years. An entire generation has grown up thinking this is not only normal but that the party should never stop. The goal at every publicly-traded company is to become dominant enough to qualify for such protection (ie be just slightly more important than Lehman Bros was).
- palata 4y ago
  > A sizable percentage of the population sees this as valid role for government Interested in any source here.
  - redox99 4y ago
    "sizable percentage" is so vague that it's probably easy to back up that claim
  - prox 4y ago
    I am assuming that in Europe it’s not that rare nor weird, while in the US I can almost hear the doomsday bells ringing.
    - consp 4y ago
      Hasn't happened a lot since the privatisation movement in the 90s but it's not unprecedented. Most recent example is however South America (Argentina, railways) I guess.
    - izacus 4y ago
      Everyone in US would be sprinting to nationalize the big banks if that would pose any threat to national wealth or allow other countries (china!) to be more influential.
    - paganel 4y ago
      Since the famous “it’s the economy, stupid!” each and every US President has taken upon himself to support said economy and to make it thrive, because that’s what was getting the electorate’s votes. That has mostly meant trying to support the stock market/share prices, but under the current ideological circumstances it wouldn’t surprise me if the US Government were to help other sections of the economy, like housing.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    'Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.'
pfortuny 4y ago
This is nitpicking but it is not the government who pays, it is the taxpayers and in the end, every citizen. I think the distinction matters in this case.
- lkbm 4y ago
  How is that a distinction at all? What would it mean for the government, but not the taxpayers, to pay?
  - r00fus 4y ago
    Government can force others to pay like corporations or other countries (by threats).
  - pfortuny 4y ago
    I am just clarifying that the government does not own money. It just manages it. There was a famous intervention by the previous speaker of the house (Pelosi) saying “we are giving them our money”… That is why I started by saying “nitpicking” but in the end, it is the State’s money (or the taxpayers’, which is equivalent), not the Government. The government has no momey, it cannot pay anyone (in a Republic, mind you).
    - dermesser 4y ago
      This is backwards. The government created the money, it is us who need it (to pay taxes). The government doesn't need taxes, as it is the origin of the money.
      - pfortuny 4y ago
        Ouch, money existed long before the concepf of government did, really.
- dermesser 4y ago
  This is false, and doubly so in this case. There is no taxpayer money involved that would go missing elsewhere. Central bank money - which is free - is what props up the deal.
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
Well, you could make the argument that the base state of business is that your profits are taxed but your losses are your own. There are exceptions (plenty of them!) to this rule, but it is the base dynamic.
bagacrap 4y ago
Last time I checked, the govt taxed basically all economic transactions, so the govt does get paid when things go right. Meanwhile if CS blows up and the country enters a recession, tax dollars will be lost. Intervening may be cheaper than the alternative.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  The argument is not about government intervention per se, but about hypocrisy -> it's somehow okay for Government to bail out banks, but not students/school meals for kids/any other cause for the common man
PKop 4y ago
"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” - Carl Schmitt [0] This is just revealing who is in charge. The state with some mix of banking and corporate interests. Certainly it is not the people, nor is the law as written sovereign. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception
- Youden 4y ago
  In Switzerland, perhaps more than any other place, it truly is the people who are in charge: - There is no "he". Switzerland has no single person in a position of power above all others. Even the "head" of government is a council of 7 from a variety of political parties. - Any alterations to the law can be (and are) challenged by referendum. - Changes to the constitution can be (and are) put forward by the people and voted on by the people. The people have a say on everything from whether cows should keep their horns [0] to whether the country should spend several billion buying new fighter jets [1]. [0]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/november-25-vote_are-cows-with-horns-worth-a-bonus-for-the-swiss-/44564548 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/november-25-vote_are-c... [1]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fighter-jet-challenge-called-off-to-avoid--democratic-farce-/47913906 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fighter-jet-challenge-called-of...
  - PKop 4y ago
    I understand all this. I'm specifically refuting the "truly" qualifier. Nominally, and in various day to day issues, they may be given some degree of say yes. I would argue this is only in so far as they are delegated or granted this by actual power. And I did not mean to imply that power can only ever reside in one unitary leader. It is almost certainly always distributed to one degree or another, even in absolute monarchy. But, crisis times reveal where majority of the de facto rather than de jure power resides in reality, despite our assumptions, and I don't think it is ever in the hands of the collective masses more than some minority groups/institutions. I'm not a believer in populism, think rather the Italian school/elite theorists[0] were right who describe how power is most often wielded by a minority, whether individual or oligarchic group(s) mostly because it is much easier to organize on the small group level, and the public is always more disorganized and less aware about inner workings of the system which over time enables factions to consolidate power away from the disorganized broad masses. The demos can here and there express their will for a time, for example by supporting some elite leader or faction/party, but ruling/governing over the long term is nearly impossible for the masses to direct political outcomes. Once set up the insiders have an asymmetry they can leverage in all sorts of ways. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory Good book giving broad overview of some of these political ideas and thinkers including Mosca,Pareto,Michels,Schmitt,Jouvenel, Burnham,Francis, Gottfried: https://www.imperiumpress.org/shop/populist-delusion/ https://www.imperiumpress.org/shop/populist-delusion/ The people are given a say on all sorts of things until circumstances arise where the people and laws are against the interests of real power, and then these nominal structures are simply ignored. >perhaps more than any other place I'll grant that this relative comparison may be true. It's only a matter of time until entropy degrades this special situation and bureaucratic and institutional inertia consolidate power into the hands of insider elites like every other instance. >Any alterations to the law They are breaking the law right now, the people's will and the law are irrelevant here in terms of actually preventing this action. Machiavelli would say the people do have to be placated and their interests served to a large degree else you will end up with civil war, so they aren't "powerless", and they need to grant legitimacy of the system that rules over them (for things to work well), but they are not in charge.
mpol 4y ago
In Europe we used to have a dual system with a capitalist and a socialist part. Companies are capitalist and try to grow. The socialist governement tries to put limits to what is allowed. But now we have more neoliberal governments and the market can often do what it wants. People voted for more liberal politic parties. Governments loosened the rules and the trimmed down on inspectors. And now shareholders and the CEO can just earn money almost without limits.

sandworm101 4y ago

>> ... government ends up paying for it when things go wrong but shareholders get paid when they go right. A sizable percentage of the population sees this as a valid role for government. Every time the stock market dips a little, or home prices flatten off, people scream for the government to do something. Dumping government money into private entities to protect "shareholder value" is why stocks have risen so dramatically in the last 15 years. An entire generation has grown up thinking this is not only normal but that the party should never stop. The goal at every publicly-traded company is to become dominant enough to qualify for such protection (ie be just slightly more important than Lehman Bros was).

palata 4y ago
> A sizable percentage of the population sees this as valid role for government Interested in any source here.
- redox99 4y ago
  "sizable percentage" is so vague that it's probably easy to back up that claim
- prox 4y ago
  I am assuming that in Europe it’s not that rare nor weird, while in the US I can almost hear the doomsday bells ringing.
  - consp 4y ago
    Hasn't happened a lot since the privatisation movement in the 90s but it's not unprecedented. Most recent example is however South America (Argentina, railways) I guess.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Everyone in US would be sprinting to nationalize the big banks if that would pose any threat to national wealth or allow other countries (china!) to be more influential.
  - paganel 4y ago
    Since the famous “it’s the economy, stupid!” each and every US President has taken upon himself to support said economy and to make it thrive, because that’s what was getting the electorate’s votes. That has mostly meant trying to support the stock market/share prices, but under the current ideological circumstances it wouldn’t surprise me if the US Government were to help other sections of the economy, like housing.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  'Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.'

pfortuny 4y ago

This is nitpicking but it is not the government who pays, it is the taxpayers and in the end, every citizen. I think the distinction matters in this case.

lkbm 4y ago
How is that a distinction at all? What would it mean for the government, but not the taxpayers, to pay?
- r00fus 4y ago
  Government can force others to pay like corporations or other countries (by threats).
- pfortuny 4y ago
  I am just clarifying that the government does not own money. It just manages it. There was a famous intervention by the previous speaker of the house (Pelosi) saying “we are giving them our money”… That is why I started by saying “nitpicking” but in the end, it is the State’s money (or the taxpayers’, which is equivalent), not the Government. The government has no momey, it cannot pay anyone (in a Republic, mind you).
  - dermesser 4y ago
    This is backwards. The government created the money, it is us who need it (to pay taxes). The government doesn't need taxes, as it is the origin of the money.
    - pfortuny 4y ago
      Ouch, money existed long before the concepf of government did, really.
dermesser 4y ago
This is false, and doubly so in this case. There is no taxpayer money involved that would go missing elsewhere. Central bank money - which is free - is what props up the deal.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

Well, you could make the argument that the base state of business is that your profits are taxed but your losses are your own. There are exceptions (plenty of them!) to this rule, but it is the base dynamic.

bagacrap 4y ago

Last time I checked, the govt taxed basically all economic transactions, so the govt does get paid when things go right. Meanwhile if CS blows up and the country enters a recession, tax dollars will be lost. Intervening may be cheaper than the alternative.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
The argument is not about government intervention per se, but about hypocrisy -> it's somehow okay for Government to bail out banks, but not students/school meals for kids/any other cause for the common man

PKop 4y ago

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” - Carl Schmitt [0] This is just revealing who is in charge. The state with some mix of banking and corporate interests. Certainly it is not the people, nor is the law as written sovereign. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception

Youden 4y ago
In Switzerland, perhaps more than any other place, it truly is the people who are in charge: - There is no "he". Switzerland has no single person in a position of power above all others. Even the "head" of government is a council of 7 from a variety of political parties. - Any alterations to the law can be (and are) challenged by referendum. - Changes to the constitution can be (and are) put forward by the people and voted on by the people. The people have a say on everything from whether cows should keep their horns [0] to whether the country should spend several billion buying new fighter jets [1]. [0]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/november-25-vote_are-cows-with-horns-worth-a-bonus-for-the-swiss-/44564548 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/november-25-vote_are-c... [1]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fighter-jet-challenge-called-off-to-avoid--democratic-farce-/47913906 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fighter-jet-challenge-called-of...
- PKop 4y ago
  I understand all this. I'm specifically refuting the "truly" qualifier. Nominally, and in various day to day issues, they may be given some degree of say yes. I would argue this is only in so far as they are delegated or granted this by actual power. And I did not mean to imply that power can only ever reside in one unitary leader. It is almost certainly always distributed to one degree or another, even in absolute monarchy. But, crisis times reveal where majority of the de facto rather than de jure power resides in reality, despite our assumptions, and I don't think it is ever in the hands of the collective masses more than some minority groups/institutions. I'm not a believer in populism, think rather the Italian school/elite theorists[0] were right who describe how power is most often wielded by a minority, whether individual or oligarchic group(s) mostly because it is much easier to organize on the small group level, and the public is always more disorganized and less aware about inner workings of the system which over time enables factions to consolidate power away from the disorganized broad masses. The demos can here and there express their will for a time, for example by supporting some elite leader or faction/party, but ruling/governing over the long term is nearly impossible for the masses to direct political outcomes. Once set up the insiders have an asymmetry they can leverage in all sorts of ways. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory Good book giving broad overview of some of these political ideas and thinkers including Mosca,Pareto,Michels,Schmitt,Jouvenel, Burnham,Francis, Gottfried: https://www.imperiumpress.org/shop/populist-delusion/ https://www.imperiumpress.org/shop/populist-delusion/ The people are given a say on all sorts of things until circumstances arise where the people and laws are against the interests of real power, and then these nominal structures are simply ignored. >perhaps more than any other place I'll grant that this relative comparison may be true. It's only a matter of time until entropy degrades this special situation and bureaucratic and institutional inertia consolidate power into the hands of insider elites like every other instance. >Any alterations to the law They are breaking the law right now, the people's will and the law are irrelevant here in terms of actually preventing this action. Machiavelli would say the people do have to be placated and their interests served to a large degree else you will end up with civil war, so they aren't "powerless", and they need to grant legitimacy of the system that rules over them (for things to work well), but they are not in charge.

mpol 4y ago

In Europe we used to have a dual system with a capitalist and a socialist part. Companies are capitalist and try to grow. The socialist governement tries to put limits to what is allowed. But now we have more neoliberal governments and the market can often do what it wants. People voted for more liberal politic parties. Governments loosened the rules and the trimmed down on inspectors. And now shareholders and the CEO can just earn money almost without limits.