Putin threatens NATO & EU ?
Son, that is a staffer, not a power broker. Is this basis for your condemnation of US policy? One point of contention and the policy for the entire US is wrong?
In the days before links were available, companies weren't putting lots into pensions.
At the the risk of you loosing off another Gordon Brown broadside, it was actually Nigel Lawson who cast the first stone. It was he who decided to allow employers to take contribution breaks from contributing to final salary pension schemes and to also tax scheme surpluses above a funding level of 105%. Unions and memberships didn't mind. Ironically (and this was before my time) the pension holidays were presented as a way to stop companies from growing vast pension funds (and subsequently allowing them to pay employees whatever pensions the unions demanded).
So the unions played along with anything that seemed to allow members to get benefits earlier by making the earlier drawdown of benefits from employers far easier to acquiesce to. And members too, demanded and introduced lower retirement ages but actually had the audacity to start living longer. Who blames myopic union stupidity though? So, it was probably Lawson who created the funding crisis, not Brown (and it was Lamont who decided to reduce ACT).
Increased longevity (to name but one thing) based on over-optimistic actuarial assumptions has resulted in the decline of final salary pensions. 20 years too late, someone eventually realised that if the relationship between entitlement to a pension and salaries has not changed, but sovereign bond yields, mortality rates and interest rates have, then the present value of a future promise has/had to change. Even as babyboomer membership climbed, no one bothered to think ahead.. . actuaries, g'ment, employers, trustees and employees, none of them stopped to question where the money was going to come from.
Finally, thankfully, policies, expectations and commitment levels are starting to converge. Like it or not (and I'm guessing you won't), that's the reality.
At the the risk of you loosing off another Gordon Brown broadside, it was actually Nigel Lawson who cast the first stone. It was he who decided to allow employers to take contribution breaks from contributing to final salary pension schemes and to also tax scheme surpluses above a funding level of 105%. Unions and memberships didn't mind. Ironically (and this was before my time) the pension holidays were presented as a way to stop companies from growing vast pension funds (and subsequently allowing them to pay employees whatever pensions the unions demanded).
So the unions played along with anything that seemed to allow members to get benefits earlier by making the earlier drawdown of benefits from employers far easier to acquiesce to. And members too, demanded and introduced lower retirement ages but actually had the audacity to start living longer. Who blames myopic union stupidity though? So, it was probably Lawson who created the funding crisis, not Brown (and it was Lamont who decided to reduce ACT).
Increased longevity (to name but one thing) based on over-optimistic actuarial assumptions has resulted in the decline of final salary pensions. 20 years too late, someone eventually realised that if the relationship between entitlement to a pension and salaries has not changed, but sovereign bond yields, mortality rates and interest rates have, then the present value of a future promise has/had to change. Even as babyboomer membership climbed, no one bothered to think ahead.. . actuaries, g'ment, employers, trustees and employees, none of them stopped to question where the money was going to come from.
Finally, thankfully, policies, expectations and commitment levels are starting to converge. Like it or not (and I'm guessing you won't), that's the reality.
Companies decided why would they dump more and more into pensions when Labour policy was anti private pension.
'NATO bombers and combat aircraft were intercepted as they flew along the coast of Russia', no credible news source said, ever.
Where did U2 get shot down again.........
Seriously racedo? The U-2 that was shot down in 1960?
I think your post just about sums up the problem with Putin and his ilk - they've yet to get the memo that the Cold War is over.
I think your post just about sums up the problem with Putin and his ilk - they've yet to get the memo that the Cold War is over.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racedo,
Your view is simplistic. The Faculty of Actuaries, the Institute of Actuaries and the Government Actuarial Department have all come under fire at various points for not being on the ball and highlighting the problems as they should have. Notwithstanding your counter-perspective, I suppose today's gratifying Purple Book defined benefit funding news couldn't have come at a worse time for you?
PPF News Article
Your view is simplistic. The Faculty of Actuaries, the Institute of Actuaries and the Government Actuarial Department have all come under fire at various points for not being on the ball and highlighting the problems as they should have. Notwithstanding your counter-perspective, I suppose today's gratifying Purple Book defined benefit funding news couldn't have come at a worse time for you?
PPF News Article
Ronald, my intent was helpful, even if I came off as a bit high handed.
The discussion seems to be meandering off into other areas, will see what's on offer in a few days.
The discussion seems to be meandering off into other areas, will see what's on offer in a few days.
Seriously racedo? The U-2 that was shot down in 1960?
I think your post just about sums up the problem with Putin and his ilk - they've yet to get the memo that the Cold War is over.
I think your post just about sums up the problem with Putin and his ilk - they've yet to get the memo that the Cold War is over.
Your view is simplistic. The Faculty of Actuaries, the Institute of Actuaries and the Government Actuarial Department have all come under fire at various points for not being on the ball and highlighting the problems as they should have. Notwithstanding your counter-perspective, I suppose today's gratifying Purple Book defined benefit funding news couldn't have come at a worse time for you?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if its over then why has NATO and its allies been expanding right up to its border ?
Though NATO may look like it is expanding, you could say in capability it has actually shrunk making it more vulnerable. You could take that up to now, as a example of it didn't think Russia was a threat anymore. Something which has now changed.
So that begs the question, why are the Russians so afraid of freedom and other countries having free will.
So that begs the question, why are the Russians so afraid of freedom and other countries having free will.
Guess being invaded from the west twice in 100 years does that to you...
And on the subject of 'NATO expanding' to Russia's borders, further to rh200's comments I would add that NATO has been up against the Russian/Soviet Union border since its inception (Turkey and the US [Alaska]). It only now seems to be a problem though....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is Washington and Bonn promised Gorbachev that if he withdrew all Soviet forces from eastern Europe, especially Germany then they guaranteed verbally that NATO would not move one inch eastwards. Its possible that eastern nations may have wished to join but they could have been refused membership to honour this promise leaving eastern Europe as a non aligned buffer zone between east and west.
Some western leaders such as Thatcher wanted some Soviet/Russian forces to remain in Germany as a counter to future German economic dominance of the European continent but sadly Washington did not agree. The Russians should have kept forces in Germany, would have given them much more power over Berlin.
Moscow and Bonn also were interested in the possible breakup of NATO as with no Warsaw Pact anymore there seemed no point in NATO continuing, again Washington were very much against this idea as they felt they would lose influence over Europe without NATO and that Europe might become truly independent of Washington which is something they could not tolerate. We are and remain puppet states of Washington.
Some western leaders such as Thatcher wanted some Soviet/Russian forces to remain in Germany as a counter to future German economic dominance of the European continent but sadly Washington did not agree. The Russians should have kept forces in Germany, would have given them much more power over Berlin.
Moscow and Bonn also were interested in the possible breakup of NATO as with no Warsaw Pact anymore there seemed no point in NATO continuing, again Washington were very much against this idea as they felt they would lose influence over Europe without NATO and that Europe might become truly independent of Washington which is something they could not tolerate. We are and remain puppet states of Washington.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess being invaded from the west twice in 100 years does that to you...
F#$k, its almost impossible to get them to agree on anything thats a threat and take action. probability of NATO invading Russia, 1 in infinity. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs help. Probability of NATO taking action against Russia if (not saying they would) it commits genocide amongst a portion of its population 1 infinity.
Look at the Ukraine situation, they could legally go in at the invitation of the government. But what are they getting, meals and uniforms, NATO a threat to Russia, what a F$#king joke, how stupid you people must think we are.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rh200, Ukraine is not a NATO member state luckily so its none of NATO's concern. Even if they were to ask for assistance one would have to question the benefit of doing so, NATO is not some kind of world policeman. If the ''North Atlantic'' Treaty Organisation had not moved to the east then likely none of this would be happening. I can say the same about the EU. There was no need for NATO expansion post 1990 and actually an argument for NATO disbandment.
There was no need for NATO expansion post 1990
Granted, it's a 'chicken and egg' situation as to cause and effect, but NATO is expanding for one reason only - because countries keep requesting to join it. And why do they request to join it?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also comes down to Washington's desire to control them, to get NATO closer to Russia. In effect to replace Soviet domination with US domination.
Washington wants to dominate the whole world in a kind of empire, any nation that opposes them is either attacked and invaded if its weak, or surrounded and suffers a propaganda war against it and possibly economic warfare like Russia right now.
Also enlarging NATO makes a world war more likely as it risks turning what would otherwise be a smaller conflict into something far larger, assuming that is NATO would honour its commitments which it may not.
Washington wants to dominate the whole world in a kind of empire, any nation that opposes them is either attacked and invaded if its weak, or surrounded and suffers a propaganda war against it and possibly economic warfare like Russia right now.
Also enlarging NATO makes a world war more likely as it risks turning what would otherwise be a smaller conflict into something far larger, assuming that is NATO would honour its commitments which it may not.