Here’s how Ermotti explained the CS deal: “Ah, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh.”

It’s not easy to navigate. Numerous crises of our time, the war in Ukraine, a global emergency, as well as political strife, the noise and gray of the election campaign – all this makes it difficult to navigate the fog of current events. Coordinates often get lost and you get lost. And often there is an intention behind it, and the language that is supposed to give us direction does not serve the purpose of clarity and overview, but rather deception and propaganda.

Like that Thursday in late August when the CEO of Switzerland’s only monster bank, a man named Sergio Ermotti, invited people to a press conference to present the quarterly results of his UBS.

Sergio, as he was greeted casually by the media manager, appeared without a tie, but the mood was not as relaxed as his title and wardrobe suggested. In any case, after the CEO’s opening remarks, the use of cameras was prohibited.

For the first time in history, as Sergio said at the outset, there has been a merger of two global, systemically important financial institutions. This is a very difficult question – and then the general director stopped, looked for the word, he found it, but didn’t seem to want to say it, looked for something else, didn’t find it, but it’s very complex, uh-uh, uh-uh, uh- uh, uh, uh, uh,” he hesitated eight times before finally finding the word “very complex transaction.”

deal. An innocuous word for the $29 billion in profits that financial giant UBS pocketed. 29 billion! This is pretty much the total cost of AHV, IV and migration combined – per year. With 29 billion you can afford the Swiss army for five years, agriculture for eight years and research and education for three years. And UBS collects this amount in one quarter? Hooray!

And the billions backed by the original government guarantee will now trickle down to lucky UBS shareholders? Absolutely! Or maybe even in the form of bonuses for even happier managers?

“Whoever says that has no idea about economics,” Sergio answered in an animated voice. Unfortunately, 29 billion has nothing to do with bonuses. 29 billion is not profit at all, it is “negative goodwill.”

Hooray! Negative goodwill! Never heard. What should it be? Who dares to ask a question, who dares to answer?

Nobody knows the cost of the goods. Used car? Its value is relative. Do you want to drive the car or take it apart and sell it for parts? The cost also depends on countless, undeterminable factors in the future: the economic, social, political environment, taxes, environmental regulations, road conditions, gasoline prices, availability of parts and mechanics.

And most importantly, no matter how the value is assessed, the buyer’s willingness to own the car is critical to the price. If he is willing to pay more than he is worth, he is showing good will. What about negative goodwill? It means exactly the opposite. If I pay him less than the car is actually worth. As is the case with CS.

After provisions, after deducting reserves for all possible and impossible contingencies, their value is almost ten times the purchase price. Why did CS agree: they had no money and no choice, and who could stand up to the Swiss finance minister and the stock exchange? But isn’t it immoral to take something from someone under duress for a tenth of the price? Isn’t this immoral, isn’t this coercion?

The court will probably have to clarify this. Is there another word for negative goodwill? Isn’t that the antonym of Bad Will? Yes, but the media director must have advised Sergio not to call the $30 billion profit bad faith.

In addition to the exorbitant profits, he eventually had to announce layoffs of 3,000 employees. 3000 is a lot, it’s bad. However: couldn’t this happen many times?

It’s a multiple. Have you forgotten about negative goodwill again? Here he describes the difference between “layoffs” and “downsizing.” And here this difference is approximately tenfold: not 3,000, but 27 thousand jobs will be lost.

The difference between reality as it is and reality as it should be: this is negative good will. This is useful in many areas of life. Member of the Zurich State Council Jozic thought the same. A few days later, he followed Ermotti’s example and also invited people to a press conference. He also wanted to announce important things, although not necessarily anything new: Mr. Jozic would like to become a federal adviser for all of us!

There is not enough space here to trace the vicissitudes of Jozic’s candidacy for the Federal Council. To remember her story, it is enough to quote the journalist’s question and Jozic’s answer at the press conference:

“Mr. Jozic, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (absolutely) – how badly do you want to become a federal adviser?”

Answer: “I want this office, but I don’t necessarily want it. This means I can live very well even if I don’t get nominated. Expressed on a scale: I want: 10 – Absolutely: 0.”

You can puzzle over this logic and never find any direction in this confusion. The proposal is meaningless, absurd, contradictory – but only until you remember negative goodwill.

This describes the difference between a candidate’s over-ambition and the size of the challenge ahead. This is the difference between the interests of the country and the interests of the rogue king and the successful renegade, the difference between his left-wing party list and his right-wing electorate.

More broadly, negative goodwill refers to the difference between Jozic’s populist views on neutrality policies and Ukraine’s struggle for survival. This is the difference between cowardice and freedom, the difference between Zurich and Zaporozhye, the difference between propaganda and truth.

Negative goodwill is the difference between noise in an election campaign and silence about the lack of prospects in this society. What should happen next in climate policy, what should happen next on social security, what should happen next on the European question? What’s next for the financial industry, which has time and again deceived politicians and made billions through guarantees? How should things continue at the heart of capitalism when that capitalism is devouring the past, present and future? What good are the pillars of this society if they twist words to their advantage?

Negative goodwill, this oxymoron, is the eloquent silence of a society that, in its confusion, focuses on the eternal fixed points, the reliable coordinates of human villainy: power and greed.