Latest news with #post-WWI
Edinburgh Live
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Edinburgh Live
BBC period drama series 'better than Downton Abbey' as fans demand return of show
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info The 2007 BBC period-drama series 'Lilies', spanning eight episodes and crafted by Heidi Thomas, captivated audiences with its tale of the Ross sisters - Iris, Mary, and Ruby - navigating life in post-WWI Liverpool alongside their father and brother. Heidi Thomas, the mastermind behind 'Call The Midwife', moulded 'Lilies' from the rich tapestry of family anecdotes about her grandmother's upbringing in Liverpool after the war. In a heartfelt revelation in 2007 prior to the show's debut, Thomas shared with the BBC: "My family were all terrific raconteurs, and I grew up hearing tales that could make you weep, and rock with laughter. They evoked a hard world, but one that thrilled with energy." READ MORE - Netflix's new crime thriller hailed 'mind-blowing' as viewers demand multiple seasons READ MORE - Steven Gerrard's off-screen life from famous wife, massive net worth and 'career return' She continued to share the personal legacy embedded in her work: "There is not one single episode that doesn't contain something handed down in anecdote." Despite scoring exceptionally well with viewers, to the point of being hailed as The Sunday Times' pick of the week for a relentless two months, 'Lilies' did not return for further seasons, reports the Express. Yet, admiration for 'Lilies' continues to flourish amongst its fanbase, with numerous loyal viewers even rating it above the treasured ITV series 'Downtown Abbey', which has since expanded into a successful film series. TV fans have taken to IMDB to heap praise on Lilies, the period drama that's caught viewers' imaginations with its raw portrayal of post-WWI life. "I found this mini-series by accident, and what a delight. From beginning to end, I felt transported back in time. Throughout the series, you get a slice, perhaps, of a less sugar-coated time of transition after the First World War. This story unfolds through the eyes of three close but very different sisters and the surrounding family and friends." wrote one admirer of the show. Another avid watcher exclaimed: "I was totally drawn in from the first episode. The spirited Moss family, so much like my own family, was that believable? It was written from the reminisces of a grandmother of her family and that is probably why it rang so true. This is one of those shows that so deserved a much longer run that it is a travesty that it was not given one. What WAS made is a gem to be savoured for eight episodes." The series has even been held in higher regard than Downton Abbey by some, as evidenced by the following feedback: "The series did portray the division between Catholics and Northern Irish Protestants very well." They continued, discussing the religious tensions depicted: "Unless you grew up in that environment, it is hard to understand today that neither could enter a church of the other faith without condemning their immortal soul to hell forever more." Over on Rotten Tomatoes, another viewer gave kudos for the show being rooted in realism: "Well done, and a lot more grounded than some of the BBC's other costume pieces. It dealt with touchy topics in a realistic manner. Shame it was cancelled." Although currently out of reach on BBC iPlayer or Prime, Lilies can still be purchased on Amazon for viewers looking to immerse themselves into this highly regarded series.
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What is a Ponzi scheme? Here's why DOGE is coming for popular federal program.
Elon Musk has his chainsaw out and is coming for Social Security, which poses a particularly tough problem because it is the most popular federal program. In addition, there is no cash to divert, it is a pass-through system where revenue from worker payroll taxes is immediately paid out in scheduled benefits. There is, however, a bond fund earmarked to supplement the payroll tax. Can that be raided? To further reduce public confidence in the system, Musk has tried to diminish service quality through staff reductions and office closures, and by claiming that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme bound to collapse. In 1920, Charles Ponzi's "get-rich-quick" scheme started out small and legal. He promised investors a doubling of their investments in 90 days, and fulfilled that promise by buying International Postal Coupons, available at a low price in post-WWI Italy, and selling them in the US at a higher price. Ponzi was quickly flooded with would-be investors; that's when he realized he needn't bother with postal coupons, or any real asset. Instead, he simply sequenced the investors, paying early investors their promised return from the money invested by later investors. Opinion: Backlash to Musk isn't imagined. When they slash Medicaid it will be worse. The inherent instability of such a scheme lies in the impossible requirement that each successive group of investors is sufficiently larger than the preceding group so that the promised returns can continue to be paid. Upon the inevitable collapse, unpaid investors sued, criminal law was applied, and Ponzi landed in prison. By contrast to Ponzi schemes, Social Security relies on a real asset, the taxing authority of the US government, which in turn relies on the productivity of the nation. Most workers pay a payroll tax, plus the employer match, to insure against poverty in their old age. Social Security is a 'pay-as-you-go' system: current workers pay for current retirees in the expectation that when they retire, future workers will do the same for them. This is a reciprocal responsibility with an economic basis: the young pay for the benefits of the old out of the productivity made possible by the old when they were young. Over the decades, each generation has added to and passed on the physical and knowledge capital of the nation. As a result, worker productivity per hour has been increasing at a rate of roughly 1.5% annually. There is no similar asset-based reciprocity in a Ponzi scheme. The 77 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 were followed by the baby bust, with only 47 million born during the following eighteen years. President Reagan intervened to prevent a huge increase in the payroll tax rate to be paid by the busters when the boomers retired. Beginning in 1985, he forced the boomers to save by requiring them to pay more than enough to meet the scheduled retiree benefits. This extra cash, or "surplus," was used to buy bonds from Treasury during their work years to be repaid with interest during retirement as the bonds were to be sold back to Treasury. In principle, the Congress could have invested the cash in growth-enhancing assets like roads, bridges, broadband, and port facilities. The economic growth fostered by such productive public sector assets formed the economic basis for the reciprocal responsibility between workers and retirees. In Reagan's 1985 plan, the payroll tax rate was calibrated so that the bonds would run out around 2060, when the youngest Boomer would be 96 years old, and just a few hundred thousand would still be alive collecting benefits. However, the blessing of longer average life-span combined with slower-than-projected economic growth will now exhaust the bond fund around 2034. Today, $2.7 trillion in bonds remain in the Trust Fund and, according to plan, they are being sold to Treasury to finance 22% of retirement benefits. If Musk and President Trump were able to divert those bonds, retirement benefits would drop by 22%. Moreover, the national debt owed to the public would fall by that $2.7 trillion, increasing the difference between the debt ceiling and the debt owed to the public. In turn, that increased gap would allow Congress to borrow more from the public to finance its tax cut, and that, after all, is the purpose of the Musk/Trump Scheme. William L. Holahan, is an emeritus professor and former chair of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump wants tax cut. Social Security bonds could pay for it. | Opinion
Express Tribune
12-03-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Digital Bretton Woods: The evolution from gold to sterling, the dollar, and now Bitcoin.
The fall of the pound and the rise of Bitcoin show a shift in global currency power, moving from gold to crypto. History tends to whisper warnings before it shouts collapse. In the story of global monetary systems, the fall of the British Empire and the shifting dominance of the U.S. dollar offer a cautionary tale. These monetary regimes have been deeply tied to power, debt, and gold — and now, increasingly, Bitcoin. As we trace the arc from Britain's imperial overreach in the 1930s to the U.S.-led postwar dollar order, we begin to see unmistakable parallels — and a possible glimpse of what's coming next: a transition from gold to digital gold, from physical backing to cryptographic scarcity, and a potential reshaping of what gives global currencies their legitimacy. The British Empire: Expansion on Credit In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the British Empire was at its zenith — ruling over vast territories, backed by the pound sterling and the classical gold standard. But beneath the surface was a fragile foundation: mounting sovereign debt incurred through decades of war financing, colonial administration, and global military projection. The post-WWI era only deepened the crisis. The UK returned to the gold standard in 1925 at the prewar parity, overvaluing the pound and hurting exports. By 1931, amid global deflation and depression, confidence eroded. Foreign holders of sterling rushed to redeem pounds for gold, triggering a run on the Bank of England. The British government, unable to defend the peg, abandoned the gold standard on September 21, 1931. That moment was more than a technical monetary shift — it marked the beginning of the end of British financial hegemony. The sun hadn't yet set on the empire, but its shadow was already fading. The U.S. Gold Game: From Confiscation to Bretton Woods As Britain stumbled, the United States maneuvered for dominance. In 1933, amidst the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102, outlawing private gold ownership and compelling Americans to surrender their gold at $20.67/oz. Soon after, the government revalued gold to $35/oz, effectively devaluing the dollar and expanding monetary power. This laid the groundwork for the Bretton Woods system in 1944, where the U.S. dollar became the world's reserve currency — pegged to gold, while other currencies were pegged to the dollar. It worked because the U.S. sat on over 20,000 metric tons of gold, the lion's share of global reserves. But the promise of convertibility was never sustainable. U.S. spending on the Vietnam War and domestic programs exploded during the 1960s, leading to inflation and distrust. Foreign governments, notably France, began demanding gold in exchange for dollars. The inevitable came in 1971, when President Richard Nixon closed the gold window. The dollar was no longer convertible into gold — a move mirroring Britain's 1931 exit. But unlike Britain, the U.S. had something Britain did not: a global military-industrial complex, petrodollar arrangements, and financial hegemony. Post-2001: Imperial Overreach Redux The 21st century has been marked by unending wars, ballooning deficits, and financial engineering. Post-9/11, the U.S. embarked on a multi-decade military expansion while cutting taxes and increasing spending — all debt-financed. The 2008 Global Financial Crisis marked a pivotal moment: the U.S. responded with quantitative easing (QE), money printing on an unprecedented scale. Instead of structural reform, the world doubled down on the dollar system. In 2020, pandemic-era stimulus pushed debt levels into uncharted territory. Today, U.S. debt exceeds $34 trillion, and the yield curve remains inverted, signaling deep economic imbalance. As with Britain in 1931, global trust in the system is eroding. But here's the crucial difference: in 1945, the U.S. had the gold. Today, it doesn't. The Missing Gold — And China's Silent Accumulation While the U.S. officially holds about 8,100 metric tons of gold, those reserves have barely changed in decades. Meanwhile, China has been quietly accumulating gold — both officially and unofficially. Officially, China reports just over 2,000 metric tons. But in reality, estimates suggest China may control upwards of 38,000 metric tons, including sovereign holdings through the People's Bank of China and indirect stockpiles held via state-owned banks and proxies. This makes China possibly the largest gold holder in the world, surpassing the U.S. many times over. Western central banks have largely financialized their gold, leasing or rehypothecating it through opaque derivative markets. Much of the gold that once underpinned Western currencies may no longer be physically present in their vaults. In other words: the foundations of monetary power have quietly shifted east. Bitcoin: The New Gold in a Digital Empire Enter Bitcoin — a decentralized, finite, cryptographically-secure digital asset with properties that mirror and even improve upon gold. Where gold is heavy, slow, and difficult to verify, Bitcoin is instant, borderless, and provably scarce (21 million supply cap). It cannot be confiscated by executive order or devalued by printing. It exists outside the reach of central banks and sovereign manipulation. As the world enters a phase of hyper-digitization, where capital, identity, and commerce are increasingly digital, Bitcoin offers a modern monetary base. It is digital gold — not necessarily as a transactional currency for daily use, but as a sovereign reserve asset, a geopolitical hedge, and a new foundation for credibility. Many believe the U.S. understands this. • Financial giants like BlackRock, Fidelity, and JPMorgan are now involved in Bitcoin products. • The U.S. government has quietly accumulated Bitcoin through seizures and forfeitures (e.g., Silk Road, Bitfinex hacks). • Over time, the U.S. may integrate Bitcoin into its strategic reserves, just as it did with gold post-WWII. This could provide the U.S. with a new kind of reserve power, positioning it as a dominant player in a world where monetary legitimacy derives not from gold bars, but from cryptographic scarcity. The Future: Toward a Digital Bretton Woods? We are not forecasting an immediate collapse of the U.S. dollar. But the monetary order is evolving. The outlines of the next system are becoming visible: • A hybrid reserve system, where Bitcoin and gold anchor credibility, and currencies float on top. • Strategic reserves backed partially by hard assets, not purely fiat promises. • Cross-border settlement platforms leveraging blockchain technology. • Multiple economic blocs (BRICS+, MENA, ASEAN) integrating commodities and digital assets into their financial architecture. It won't be a binary shift — it will be messy, negotiated, and chaotic. But a new monetary accord is inevitable, much like Bretton Woods in 1944. Conclusion: From Sterling to Bitcoin Empires rise on the back of hard money and collapse under the weight of soft promises. Britain's pound sterling lost its crown when gold slipped through its fingers. The U.S. extended its reign by replacing gold with geopolitical muscle and financial engineering. But now, debt saturation, de-dollarization, and digital alternatives are forcing a new reckoning. The next monetary empire may not belong to a single nation. It may be distributed. It may rest on decentralized pillars. And Bitcoin — the first sovereign digital asset — may sit at the heart of it.
