Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dammfoolman

Ireland Seizes $7 Billion From Its Pension Fund To Boost Employment

Recommended Posts

THE GOVERNMENT WILL use the last €5 billion in the National Pensions Reserve Fund (NPRF) to help create employment although it will need approval from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Europe before doing so.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ireland-seizes-7-billion-from-its-pension-fund-to-boost-employment-2011-6

Robing Seamus and Kaitlyn to pay Merkel and Sarkozy eh :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE GOVERNMENT WILL use the last €5 billion in the National Pensions Reserve Fund (NPRF) to help create employment although it will need approval from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Europe before doing so.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ireland-seizes-7-billion-from-its-pension-fund-to-boost-employment-2011-6

Robing Seamus and Kaitlyn to pay Merkel and Sarkozy eh :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...we don't have a National Reserve for Pensions ....it's all done on hope, prayer and a whisper ....and just print whenever we need it for pensions....National Reserve in the UK ....funny... :lol: ...remember Gordo's just been through the larder.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read in the last month that the US had voted to stop ongoing payments into the Federal pension fund ( or something like that) in order to put off a bond default a bit longer

People at the latter end of the western-world-wide public sector ponzi (ie born since 1965 ish) should really be worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...we don't have a National Reserve for Pensions ....it's all done on hope, prayer and a whisper ....and just print whenever we need it for pensions....National Reserve in the UK ....funny... :lol: ...remember Gordo's just been through the larder.... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon raided the pension firms back in 2006 and it costs us back then £100bn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html

...that was the private pension funds he screwed through taxes....the National Pension Funds don't exist ...and will never do so after Brown's havoc on this Nations finances... :rolleyes:

Edited by South Lorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those penions promises were first made like back in the 1960's and 1970's when it was assumed the economy would be growing at 4% on average.

They didn't expect the society would turn all NIMBY, anti-development, global warmist and slow the economy down to where we are lucky if we are not in recession.

But seeing as that is the path we are on now, pensions must be reduced to a much more modest level. Modest pensions for a modest economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those penions promises were first made like back in the 1960's and 1970's when it was assumed the economy would be growing at 4% on average.

They didn't expect the society would turn all NIMBY, anti-development, global warmist and slow the economy down to where we are lucky if we are not in recession.

But seeing as that is the path we are on now, pensions must be reduced to a much more modest level. Modest pensions for a modest economy.

Because 4% growth is sustainable? It was another con, short term policy's to get re-elected, long term it was never ever going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those penions promises were first made like back in the 1960's and 1970's when it was assumed the economy would be growing at 4% on average.

They didn't expect the society would turn all NIMBY, anti-development, global warmist and slow the economy down to where we are lucky if we are not in recession.

But seeing as that is the path we are on now, pensions must be reduced to a much more modest level. Modest pensions for a modest economy.

Actually, I think you'll find that growth suddenly slowed to a crawl when the monetarists came to power. Real growth requires multi-decadal investment in solid engineering and science-driven areas; try doing that in a world of small government and pirate equity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think you'll find that growth suddenly slowed to a crawl when the monetarists came to power. Real growth requires multi-decadal investment in solid engineering and science-driven areas; try doing that in a world of small government and pirate equity.

BURN HIM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real growth requires multi-decadal investment in solid engineering and science-driven areas; try doing that in a world of small government and pirate equity.

Tell that to the Victorians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to the Victorians.

The British Navy (funded by the first national debt) was a multi-decadal investment that underpinned the entire trading empire. So were the railways. Furthermore, that was a totally different technological era..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British Navy (funded by the first national debt) was a multi-decadal investment that underpinned the entire trading empire. So were the railways. Furthermore, that was a totally different technological era..

Turnpikes, railways, industrial revolution, all done in a period of very small government and private enterprise and equity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think you'll find that growth suddenly slowed to a crawl when the monetarists came to power. Real growth requires multi-decadal investment in solid engineering and science-driven areas; try doing that in a world of small government and pirate equity.

Yeah what did those Victorian's ever do for us? And that Industrial revolution, what a waste of time innit. Only 10 year plans from Ed Balls is what this country needs.

Ever read any American history? They had a bit of an issue with government and did pretty well for themselves in a short space of time.

Numpty :wacko:

Edited by 50sQuiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think you'll find that growth suddenly slowed to a crawl when the monetarists came to power. Real growth requires multi-decadal investment in solid engineering and science-driven areas; try doing that in a world of small government and pirate equity.

Yeah, Big bureaucratic Govt's are the best at picking winners.

(See Labours pot war malinvestment of the American Marshall aid money-Britain actually received more aid than Germany and Japan combined)

Full article at the link

They blew it!

Hard luck story

We all know the easy British explanation for our cumulative export defeat in world markets from the 1950s onwards, especially at the hands of the Germans. This story tells us that lucky West Germany had all her industries and infrastructure bombed flat or removed as reparations, and then was able to re-equip herself from scratch with Marshall Aid dollars. Meanwhile, so this hard-luck story goes on, poor old Britain had to struggle on with worn-out and old-fashioned kit.

Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany ...

This is utter myth. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid.

Top

'Financial Dunkirk'

Marshall Aid sugar is unloaded at London's Royal Victoria Dock, February 1947, watched by US and UK officials © The root cause of this self-destructive British choice lies back in 1945, when Great Britain, as one of the 'Big Three' along with the United States and the Soviet Union, emerged from World War Two with the psychology of a victor but with her economic circumstances more resembling those of a defeated country. Despite the victory over Hitler, Britain was literally bankrupt, and faced the prospect of unbridgeable balance-of-payments deficits for years to come.

It was this victor's psychology that deluded both Labour and Conservative politicians into believing that Britain - at the centre of the Commonwealth and the Sterling area - could have a future that was similar to her past. British politicians saw the United Kingdom as a first-class power in the same league as the United States. And certainly Britain looked in many ways like a global power, with more than two million men in fleets, garrisons and air squadrons sprawled across the world, from their bases at home to those in Japan.

One important figure had a different view.

Nonetheless, John Maynard Keynes, the chief economic advisor to the new Labour Government, warned ministers in August 1945 that Britain's world role was a burden which '... there is no reasonable expectation of our being able to carry ...'

As he pointed out, the entire British war effort, including all her overseas military commitments, had only been made possible by American subsidies under the Lend-Lease programme. If the Americans stopped Lend-Lease, Britain would face a 'financial Dunkirk' - his words - unless Washington could be touched for a loan of $5 billion. Keynes wrote that such a 'Dunkirk' would have to be met by:

'... a sudden and humiliating withdrawal from our onerous responsibilities with great loss of prestige and the acceptance for the time being of the position of second-class Power, rather like the present position of France.'

Top

Dream of world power

Secretary of State George Marshall (right) faces the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 8 January 1945, to argue for aid to Europe © Well, a week after VJ-Day (Victory over Japan Day), the US Congress duly did stop Lend-Lease. What now? For the new Labour Cabinet, Keynes's 'Dunkirk' solution of packing up all our 'onerous responsibilities' and becoming a second-class power was unthinkable, certainly unthought.

So instead, the Labour Government successfully cadged a loan of nearly $4 billion from the Americans. Thanks solely to this American tick, Britain could continue to entertain the dream of being a world power at the centre of the Commonwealth. Even so, the war-bankrupted country was still desperately hard up. The Labour Cabinet therefore sought in the first place to reconcile the dream with economic reality by means of salami-slicing the armed forces. The result was worrying - as Herbert Morrison shrewdly judged in November 1949:

'We are in danger of paying more than we can afford for defences that are nevertheless inadequate, or even illusory'.

Just as true today, of course.

In the second place, the Labour Cabinet attempted to accommodate the costs of the world role and the expensive new welfare state by severely restricting capital investment at home. This of course served to handicap the much-needed modernisation of Britain's obsolete industrial system, and the country's clapped-out roads, railways and telecommunications.

Top

Marshall Aid

The dream of Britain as a global power also included the 'invisible empire' of the Sterling Area, to which Britain chose to play the banker. This was despite the fact that her reserves of gold and dollars were well known in Whitehall to be far too scanty for this role. By the end of 1947, the American dollar loan had already been largely spent, but the gulf still remained between the cost of Britain's self-inflicted global commitments and her inadequate earnings from exports. Without another huge dollar handout, Britain would have to give up all her global strategic commitments, as well as her role as the banker to the Sterling Area, and accept that she was now only a second-class power.

... all the ... follies of post-war British policy now reached their climax in the wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid.

In that same year, the American Secretary of State, George Marshall, proposed his European Recovery Programme to rebuild a war-shattered Europe. For Britain herself, the offer of the Marshall Aid dollars presented a last chance to modernise herself as an industrial power before her old trade rivals could recover from defeat and occupation. Instead, all the illusions and follies of post-war British policy now reached their climax in the wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid.

The French and German tenders for Marshall Aid resemble today's four-year business plans, being detailed technocratic strategies which give clear priority to investment in reconstructing industry and infrastructure. However, the British tender, originally drafted by a senior Treasury civil servant, resembled an Oxbridge economist's prolix prize-essay - with a tour of the world's economic horizon and Britain's place within it.

In the words of Sir Stafford Cripps, Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was a 'general statement' rather than a set of 'detailed proposals'. Certainly it amounted to nothing like an action-plan with a clearly stated strategic objective.

Top

Overriding needs

According to Whitehall documentation of the time, Britain's 'overriding need' in regard to the Marshall Aid was to keep up the Bank of England's reserves of gold and dollars, so that Britain could go on acting as banker to the Sterling Area. But then again, it was also stated in the documentation that the 'primary purpose' must be to keep up imports, especially of food and tobacco, to say nothing of timber for the Labour Government's ambitious programme of council-house building. As for capital investment in industrial modernisation, that was relegated in the British tender to the mere category of 'clearly of great importance'.

... gold payments in Persia, purchase of petrol for our troops ... every conceivable thing.

The plain truth is that the Labour Government in the late 1940s sought to use Marshall Aid much as the Conservatives used the rake-off from North Sea oil in the 1980s - as a general subsidy for whatever they wished to do, like clinging on to the dream of a world power role. As a Cabinet Office memorandum in 1948 put it:

'It is perfectly true that if Marshall Aid covers our dollar drain, then all our payments of gold and dollars can be regarded as financed by Marshall Aid - expenses of HM Embassy in Washington, gold payments in Persia, purchase of petrol for our troops in the Middle East, every conceivable thing.'

And so we find - surprise, surprise - that during the four-year period of Marshall Aid, Britain planned to devote to net fixed investment in industry and infrastructure a proportion of GNP that was a third less than West Germany's proportion.

Top

Waste

In fact, far from Marshall Aid boosting British investment, planned programmes were heavily cut after the debacle of a Sterling devaluation in 1949, caused by a balance-of-payments crisis. In what had been intended as the 'decisive' Marshall Aid years of 1949 and 1950, investment was only a little higher than in 1948 - barely ahead of inflation.

What a monumental waste of a great ... opportunity.

In 1950, Britain's investment in industry and infrastructure came to only 9 per cent of GNP, as opposed to Germany's 19 per cent. Thus the actual total of the investment was a fifth less than the German total.

It followed that during the 1950s German industry would enter export markets with new plant and new machines. For instance, the Volkswagen factory at Wolfsburg was no longer the bombed-out wreck of 1945-6, but was poised to achieve sensational global success in coming decades. Then again, more autobahns had been constructed in Germany, whilst the German rail network - and the French and Italian - had been totally re-engineered, with all the main lines electrified.

In Britain, steam haulage, semaphore signalling and clapped-out track still prevailed, and were to do so until the 1960s. Moreover, the road and telecommunications network in Britain remained equally inadequate, ill-maintained and out-of-date.

The sad irony is that it had been in vain that the Labour Government had sacrificed the modernisation of Britain as an industrial country for the sake of using Marshall Aid to support a world power role - strategic and financial.

Britain's estimated defence expenditure for 1950-1 - the final year of Marshall Aid - amounted to 7.7 per cent of GNP - at a time when Germany and Japan were not spending a pfennig or a yen on defence. And in spring 1950, Hugh Gaitskell, Chancellor of the Exchequer, reported that the Sterling Area's dollar reserves were 'still at a lower level than when Marshall Aid began'.

What a monumental waste of a great and unrepeatable opportunity.

Top

Find out more

Books

Path to European Union: From the Marshall Plan to the Common Market by Hans A Schmitt (Greenwood Press, 1981)

The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities, 1945-1950 by Correlli Barnett (Pan Books, 1996)

The Marshall Plan Fifty Years Later edited by Martin A Schain (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)

The Origins of the Marshall Plan by John Gimbel (Stanford University Press, 1976)

The Second Victory: Marshall Plan and the Postwar Revival of Europe by Robert J Donovan (University Press of America, 1987)

The CIA and the Marshall Plan by Sallie Pisani (University Press of Kansas, 1991)

The Marshall Plan by Allen W Dulles, edited by Michael Wala (Berg Publishers, 1993)

The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-52 (Studies in Economic History and Policy: US in the 20th Century) by Michael J Hogan (Cambridge University Press, 1989)

Britain and the Marshall Plan by Henry Pelling (Palgrave Macmillan, 1988)

The Marshall Plan and the Future of US-European Relations (German Information Center, New York, 1973)

Edited by Jack's Creation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those penions promises were first made like back in the 1960's and 1970's when it was assumed the economy would be growing at 4% on average.

They didn't expect the society would turn all NIMBY, anti-development, global warmist and slow the economy down to where we are lucky if we are not in recession.

But seeing as that is the path we are on now, pensions must be reduced to a much more modest level. Modest pensions for a modest economy.

Yes, if only a "Strong man" were to emerge and sweep away all this democratic nonsense! He could just keep flooding the economy with money and we'd all be rich!... Rich!.... Rich! beyond are wildest dreams!

You sir, are a visionary, I salute your indefatigability!

l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the German rail network - and the French and Italian - had been totally re-engineered, with all the main lines electrified.

that's funny, the main line between Chambery and Grenoble is closed for the whole of this summer, 3 months in total, so they can electrify it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the Govt. has already raided UK public sector pension funds for much more than this.

The NHS fund for instance which has a surplus, also has to give 2 billion a year to the Govt.

The Post Office pension fund which is not currently in surplus, had all employee contributions confiscated by the Govt, certainly throughout most of the 80's as it was then in profit.

Two examples that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.