Month: May 2021

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The authoritarian rule of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has always been sobering for civil libertarians but this is ridiculous.

After destroying civil liberties, the free speech and secularism, Erdogan remains unpopular with many inside Turkey and most people outside of Turkey. Facing an upcoming election, Erdogan has decided to play the Islamic card again and cracked down on liquor sales.

It is the latest proof that he lied when he originally pledged to respect the secular traditions established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk that made Turkey unique in the Muslim world.  Indeed, Ataturk was known as someone who was a heavy drinker in his time.  Ataturk would drink a liter of raki (shown here), the Turkish national liquor, a day (which explain why he died at 57 years old from a chronic liver disease).

We have followed the rapid destruction of the secular government and civil liberties in Turkey under the authoritarian rule of Erdogan. Erdogan used a failed coup to push his effort to create a de facto Islamic regime and to complete his work in arresting his critics, including forcing the resignation of thousands of secular academics, prosecuting foreign journalists, and suspending all civil liberties in a proclaimed state of emergency.

The Turkish government imposed a nearly three-week nationwide lockdown and ban on alcohol sales through the end of Ramadan. The lockdown ended May 17, but the government decided to continue to impose weekend curfews and alcohol bans through the end of the month.  It is the latest in a series measures designed to limit sales and increase taxes on alcohol — and pander to the Islamic voting block.

Turkey has some good local wines and a long history of enjoying alcohol drinks like Raki.  I love Istanbul which is one of my favorite cities on Earth. One of my favorite memories is sitting on Turkish rugs along the Bosphorus river in Istanbul on hot summer nights drinking Turkish wine.  The sun would go down as hundreds of mosques would call to the faithful. It remains indelible as one of my most cherished and beautiful memories.

Erdogan has used alcohol to rally his loyal base among Islamic parties. In 2013, Erdogan he took a shot at his opponent by declaring in a debate “Given that a law made by the two drunkards is respected, why should a law that is commanded by religion be rejected by your side?”  It was an extraordinary statement that implicitly insulted Ataturk and showed not only Erdogan’s plan to dismantle secularism but his confidence in his Islamic political base.

Even though the Istanbul Economics Research poll shows 56% of Turks opposed to the ban, Erdogan’s base in shown in the 44% supporting it.

Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute,

The Biden administration’s announcement in mid-April to withdraw American troops looks like a positive first step in the right direction in ending America’s longest military conflict to date. Undoubtedly, questions remain about the sincerity of such a withdrawal, and whether there will still be a residual military presence left over under the cloak of “counterterrorism” or some type of arrangement with private defense contractors to maintain order in the graveyard of empires.

Looking back, it was rather amusing all the stops the corporate press pulled out to derail former president Donald Trump’s previous attempts to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. The Russian bounty program took the cake as the most significant news story used to thwart Trump’s sensible withdrawal proposal in Afghanistan. On that occasion, the media started spreading stories about Russian military intelligence paying militants connected to the Taliban bounties for killing Americans and allied armed forces in the Afghan conflict. In its predictable salvo against the Trump administration, the corporate press made a major stink about this program throughout the 2020 elections, adding another chapter to the ridiculous anti-Russia saga.

Farcically enough, once Biden was safely installed in office, the US intelligence community began to walk back allegations regarding the bounty program by noting that there was not sufficient evidence from US military intelligence to corroborate its existence.

Whether or not Biden’s withdrawal was motivated by politics is up for speculation.

Beyond the partisan implications of the Afghan withdrawal, we have to wonder whether the previous Trump administration squandered a genuine opportunity to break from the liberal hegemonic order that the US government has presided over since the end of World War II.

Naïve as some observers were about the Trump administration functioning as a wrecking ball to this international order, myself included, many underestimated the level of institutional inertia present in the foreign policy bureaucracy along with the constant media propaganda designed to foment tensions with whatever country the ruling class deems to be an adversary.

The election of Donald Trump did offer a tantalizing illusion of hope for noninterventionists and restrainers who questioned the nation-building programs DC undertook in the last few decades. On the campaign trail, Trump made the right noises about the failures of excursions into Iraq. He even cast doubts on the continued viability of entangling alliance arrangements such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), of which the US has been a member of since 1949.

In Trump’s view, the US was the main country shouldering the bulk of the defense burden under this alliance. Trump’s constant complaints did yield some changes in how countries contribute to NATO. For example, Germany ended up boosting its defense spending in order to comply with NATO requirements.

While Trump’s attempt to get NATO member countries to pull more of their weight was solid, it still didn’t address the underlying issue of the US’s involvement in what amounts to an entangling alliance that no longer serves a useful purpose following the Soviet Union’s dissolution three decades ago. We shouldn’t forget that even Dwight Eisenhower, as he was assuming the role of supreme commander of NATO in 1951, declared that “[i]f in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”

NATO was originally designed as a temporary alliance to balance the Soviet Union that would eventually be phased out, not a permanent security arrangement that policymakers could tinker with to satisfy their desires of spreading America’s universal democratic “values.” Little did the former president realize that NATO would continue in existence well into the twenty-first century and serve as a tool for the expansion of the national security state’s interests.

Defense is not exempt from the very “ratchet effect” present in domestic policy, whereby crises provoke increased government activity that becomes difficult to roll back once bureaucratic organizations become cemented. Milton Friedman averred that “[n]othing is so permanent as a temporary government program,” a dynamic present in the modern national security state. What originally starts out as a temporary program later becomes an irreplaceable pillar of public policy. That’s the nature of government growth, and no matter the government agency, it seemingly operates in a uniform manner.

We cannot so easily separate defense affairs from economic affairs, since the common denominator in these activities is the lumbering behemoth that is the state. The state dominates both ambits, with all its attendant flaws. For example, government waste that the average conservative typically groans about is also present in the defense sector. Indeed, there’s nothing special about the government’s defense spending efforts. They are not immune from waste and corruption.

Most proponents of defense spending overlook one of the iron laws of any serious analysis of political economy—Frédéric Bastiat’s concept of the seen and unseen. What is seen are the fancy military toys—the fiscal boondoggle that is the F-35 fighter jet comes to mind. According to some estimates, this weapons system has a lifetime price tag of $1.5 trillion. Gargantuan costs aside, such a weapons system will assuredly make for some great air force recruitment ads. Plus, it will give politicians another program to brag about by making the case that spending vast sums of money is the key to keeping America “safe.” 

But what’s not captured in this entire orgy of spending are the many productive goods and services that would have been created under normal economic circumstances. In a world where defense spending is restrained, taxpayer money would remain in private citizens’ hands, whereupon it would be saved and invested in productive ventures. In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises grasped how inordinate defense spending is a drag on economic development:

All the materials needed for the conduct of a war must be provided by restriction of civilian consumption, by using up a part of the capital available and by working harder. The whole burden of warring falls upon the living generation.

A less militaristic economic policy would improve overall living standards, whereas excessive defense spending benefits concentrated interest groups at the expense of everyday Americans. Ending the current state of perpetual warfare will be a tall order. It’s way too easy to say, “Just vote for the right people.” The question at hand is more profound. It goes deeper than whoever is occupying political office at a given time. It’s ultimately ideological in nature.

The Trump administration, which was ostensibly against never-ending wars, had trouble in conducting even the most basic of troop withdrawals. A lot of this can be attributed to the institutional inertia present in the US regime. The rise of the deep state—an unaccountable bureaucracy that has morphed into a permanent shadow government—is no aberration, but rather an indispensable feature of the current administrative state that is buttressed by an interventionist ideology.

The warfare state and welfare state have grown together. Many of the same social engineering precepts that domestic politics is predicated on, ultimately apply to foreign policy, in which interventionist zealots are firmly committed to maintaining the regime’s imperialist project intact.

Although Mises was no pacifist, he understood that Western values such as free speech, free markets, could not be spread at the barrel of a gun. In fact, for Mises, constant warfare was one of the catalysts for despotism. Instead, countries could set a strong moral example to follow by practicing limited government and encouraging peaceful commerce between nations. In Human Action, Mises also observed:

 To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.

A measured retrenchment from foreign affairs would obviously do a lot to reverse many of the lingering side effects of the misguided foreign adventures of the past century and allow America to focus on its internal affairs, which appear to be tearing it apart at the moment. To reach this point, however, interventionist ideologies must be thoroughly discredited.

Too many innocent lives have perished, and trillions of dollars have been spent to continue indulging the quixotic daydreams of foreign policy wonks who will skirt any form of accountability for their misdeeds.

Authored by Brandon Weichert via RealClearPolitics.com,

There are now only two nations in the history of humanity that have successfully landed rovers on the surface of the Red Planet: The United States and the People’s Republic of China. You can expect this to be the dominant headline in all matters related to space for many years to come. After all, humanity is due for another round of great state competition and it seems that the two major contenders in this strategic competition will be the United States and China.

For too long Western observers have downplayed China’s rapidly growing space technology industry. The Chinese Martian rover, Zhurong, is nowhere near as advanced as NASA’s Perseverance, which recently made headlines. Yet, it took NASA almost 30 years to reach the level of complexity in its rover operations that the storied American space agency now enjoys. Certainly, China can expect to stay trailing the Yanks for many years to come — or so argue the naysayers who downplay the threat that China’s ambitious, though less advanced, space program poses to the United States.

Suppose it doesn’t take several decades for Beijing to catch up to the Americans in space. After all, there are no greater teachers than experience and competition. For the former, China learns by doing — and Beijing embraces a leap-without-looking mentality that once defined America’s storied program.

As for competition, China truly believes it is in a new space race with the Americans whereas most American leaders do not. The new space race between these nations will determine not only who gets human beings to Mars first, but also will decide which one dominates the strategic high ground of space (and whoever controls the high ground rules the territory below).

Right now, the Americans hold this position — but barely.

China’s competitive and nationalistic view of space means that, unless the Americans fundamentally change the way they operate, the United States will be knocked from its perch in space — in much the same way the British denied the French access to North America in the 19th century.

How do the Americans view space?

Some — the naysayers — have a pessimistic outlook. They (wrongly) believe it is a vast wasteland that will do nothing other than drain our country of vital resources. Others, the utopians, believe space can be maintained as a sanctuary and that the Americans can cooperate with China to share space.

Fat chance.

If Washington viewed space as China’s rulers do, they’d be authorizing the $1 trillion, decade-long investment into the program and other high-technology pursuits that I’ve been advocating. American leaders from both parties would be cutting through the bureaucratic red tape to ensure that the best elements of our budding private space sector were married to nationalistic goals for dominance. We’d have astronauts on Mars by now, too.

Look at it this way: China’s space program did not take serious flight until 2003. By that time, America had been dominating the stars for decades. In 2003, China first placed a taikonaut into orbit. During the intervening 18 years, Beijing has not only repeatedly placed its people into Earth orbit, but has successfully developed counterspace capabilities (weapons intended to deny others access to space in the event of a war). Beijing has landed the first rover on the dark side of the moon in history. Red China has also successfully placed the first of three components necessary to complete their modular space station which is meant to rival the American-built International Space Station. Now, China has its first (of many) rovers on the Martian surface.

Where will China’s space program be in another 18 years?

Beijing leaders have already outlined their plans for the next decade: by 2024, to have an automated base built on the south pole of the moon. In 2028, Chinese (and possibly Russian) personnel will be permanently stationed at that lunar base.

China seeks to have taikonauts on the Martian surface by 2030.

The same naysayers in the West who’ve laughed off China’s space ambitions for the last two decades now scoff at its achievements made in that time. These naysayers continue to belittle China’s chances of achieving its space dreams. Meanwhile, the utopians pine for joint missions — which would only serve as tech transfers from America to China. So long as American policymakers listen to these voices, China will catch up and ultimately beat America in this new competition.

Unlike the American government, China’s regime has identified dominating space as a key tenet for their “China Dream 2049” program. By the 100-year anniversary of the rise of Communist Party in China, 2049, Beijing’s leaders envision their nation displacing the United States as the world’s hegemon. Raising the Chinese flag on Mars first is a major goal in that regard.

In the meantime, Washington is still holding up America’s manned space program until a female-friendly space suit can be made.

This is what losing looks like, America.

The Titanic lives large in our minds, but it’s probably not surprising that the world record for biggest passenger ship has been broken many times since its era. In fact, as Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang details below, today’s largest passenger ship can now hold over 6,000 people – more than double the Titanic’s capacity.

This graphic by HMY Yachts looks at which vessels held the title of the world’s largest passenger ship over time, and how these vessels have evolved since the early 19th century.

Different Types of Passenger Ships

Before diving into the ranking, it’s worth explaining what constitutes a passenger ship.

Passenger ships are vessels whose main purpose is to transport people rather than goods. In modern times, there are three types of passenger ships:

• Cruise ships: Used for vacationing, with a priority on amenities and luxury

• Ferries: Typically used for shorter day trips, or overnight transport

• Ocean liners: The traditional mode of maritime transport, with a priority on speed

Traditional ocean liners are becoming obsolete, largely because of advancements in other modes of transportation such as rail, automobile, and air travel. In other words, the main priority for passenger ships has changed over the years, shifting from transportation to recreation.

Now, luxury is the central focus, meaning extravagance is part of the whole cruise ship experience. For example, the Navigator of the Seas (which was the largest passenger ship from 2002-2003) has $8.5 million worth of artwork displayed throughout the ship.

A Full Breakdown: Biggest Passenger Ships By Tonnage

Now that we’ve touched on the definition of a passenger ship and how they’ve evolved over the years, let’s take a look at some of the largest passenger ships in history.

The first vessel on the list is the SS Royal William. Built in Eastern Canada in the early 1800s, this ship was originally built for domestic travel within Canada.

In addition to being the largest passenger ship of its time, it’s often credited as being the first ship to travel across the Atlantic Ocean almost fully by steam engine. However, some sources claim the Dutch-owned vessel Curaçao completed a steam-powered journey in 1827—six years before the SS Royal William.

In 1837, The SS Royal William was dethroned by the SS Great Western, only to change hands dozens of times before 1912, when the Titanic entered the scene.

The Titanic was one of three ships in the Olympic-class line. Of the three, two of them sank—the Titanic in 1912, and the HMHS Britannic in 1916, during World War I. Some historians believe these ships sank as a result of their faulty bulkhead design.

Fast forward to today, and the Symphony of the Seas is now the world’s largest passenger ship. While it boasts 228,081 in gross tonnage, it uses 25% less fuel than its sister ships (which are slightly smaller).

COVID-19’s Impact on Cruise Ships

2020 was a tough year for the cruise ship industry, as travel restrictions and onboard outbreaks halted the $150 billion industry. As a result, some operations were forced to downsize—for instance, the notable cruise operation Carnival removed 13 ships from its fleet in July 2020.

That being said, restrictions are slowly beginning to loosen, and industry experts remain hopeful that things will look different in 2021 as more people begin to come back on board.

“[There] is quite a bit of pent-up demand and we’re already seeing strong interest in 2021 and 2022 across the board, with Europe, the Mediterranean, and Alaska all seeing significant interest next year.”

-JOSH LEIBOWITZ, PRESIDENT OF LUXURY CRUISE LINE SEABOURN

Authored by Patricia Tolson via The Epoch Times,

On Monday, May 31, Americans from sea to shining sea will observe Memorial Day. However, veterans are quick to remind you: “It’s not about us.”

“Monday is not about us,” Sergeant J.O. Batten, Commander of VFW Post 8713 in Brooksville, Florida told The Epoch Times.

“It’s about the men on that wall out there. A lot of people don’t realize that.”

Batten, a United States Marine, served in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969.

“The wall” is a granite monument, which stands guard at the front door of VFW. It bears the names of a group of men known as “The Brooksville Eight,” men who were killed in action during the Vietnam War.

They are:

Capt. Denver Colburn, Lance Corporals Hercules Moore and Charles Keathly, Private First Class Danny Overton, and First Lieutenant Denis Vacenovsky of the United States Marine Corps; Sergeants Virgil Hamilton and Larry Kinder and Specialist Washington Langley of the United States Army.

“The Brooksville Eight” monument stands guard at the front door of VFW Post 8713 in Brooksville, Florida. (Patricia Tolson/The Epoch Times)

“Memorial Day is not about veterans who are still alive,” Ron McCombs told The Epoch Times, standing at attention before the wall as he looked at the names engraved into the stone.

“It’s about those men, the ones who didn’t make it.”

McCombs, now 73-years-old, was an E5 in the U.S. Army. He also served in Vietnam from 1968 to 1969.

Batten said there aren’t many veterans left from the Vietnam war at his post, and those members who served in World War II and Korea have all passed away.

“Ron and I are the only ones left here from the Vietnam era,” Batten said.

Originally known as Decoration Day, Memorial Day originated in the years following the Civil War. However, it didn’t become an official federal holiday until 1971. Still, in the 50 years that have passed, veterans have observed how the sacred meaning of Memorial Day is becoming diluted and lost.

Batten lamented how even the hallowed ritual of lowering the American flag to half-mast has been diminished by politics and political correctness. While events like school shootings are tragic, these events do not meet the guidelines for lowering the flag, as set forth by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. According to Public Law 94-344, known as the Federal Flag Code (pdf) the American flag should be flown on Memorial Day and lowered to half-mast until noon. The code further dictates it “may be flown at half-staff to honor a newly deceased federal or state government official by order of the president or the governor, respectively.”

Billy Butts served his country as a soldier in the U.S. Army. His tours included such places as Iraq and Afghanistan. He noted a similar lessening in the meaning of medals, such as the Bronze Star. While Butts personally received one, he believes this medal is little more than a participation trophy.

“It doesn’t have the ‘V Device,’” Butts clarified, leaning forward as he held up two fingers in the shape of the letter. “That’s the difference.”

As Butts explained, a regular Bronze Star can be awarded to someone for something like administrative excellence, which is little more than “doing their job.”

However, a Bronze Star with a “V Device” is earned only for committing an act of valor during the heat of combat.

Timothy Zarbo, who served six months in the Gulf War as a member of the United States Air Force, believes this era was the peak of America’s military prowess. While the war in Vietnam dragged on for nearly 20 years, Operation Desert Storm, was over in three days. Still, Zarbo is still humbled by those who fought in Vietnam.

“We were part of the era of volunteer military service,” Zarbo asserted.

“Those who served in Vietnam didn’t have a choice. They were drafted. Those who fought in the Gulf War were called heroes, and welcomed back with yellow ribbons and parades. Those who served in Vietnam were spit on and called baby killers.”

As with the others, Zarbo made it clear that Memorial Day isn’t about him.

“Veterans Day is for those who survived and retired,” Zarbo explained.

“Armed Forces Day is for those who are still serving. Memorial Day is reserved for those who never got to take off their uniform.”

Because of this, the act of stolen valor is a particular point of contention for most veterans.

“If I could speak for all veterans, I would say: “We don’t care if you didn’t serve,” McCombs said.

“Just don’t say you did. It’s a slap in the face to all who did, especially to those that never came home. We see it all the time.”

Batten spoke of how many who served in war returned home with the crippling effect of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Morgan Schmitz of the U.S. Air Force spoke of the deadly diseases that are slowly claiming the lives of many who served with him in the Gulf Wars because they were exposed to the smoke from burn pits.

Burn pits were used by the United States and military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to dispose of metal, rubber, chemicals, paint, medical waste, munitions and unexploded ordnance, petroleum products, human waste, plastics, and various other forms of waste. Many who were exposed to the toxic fumes from these burn pits have been diagnosed with such diseases as Leukemia, Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy, Intestinal Cancers, and Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma.

But even with all of the things America’s veterans suffered, the men kept returning to one important message: “Memorial day isn’t about us.”

It’s about the ones who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Ron McCombs, Billy Butts, Robert Romance, J.O. Batten, Tim Zarbo, and Morgan Schmitz at the Brooksville Eight monument at VFW Post 8713 in Brooksville, Florida. (Patricia Tolson/The Epoch Times)

But there was one last thing Batten wanted to share with his fellow Americans to think about on Memorial Day, particularly with the younger generation, who either don’t know or don’t seem to care about the sacrifices made by the generations who went before them in order to defend the freedoms they have today. He iterated the sacred vow they all took when they were inducted into their respective branches of the military, how they raised their right hands and swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same… so help me God.”

“Just because we left the military,” Batten said as his eyes glistened with emotion, “we were not relieved of that vow. I don’t care if we’ve been retired for five years, ten years or twenty, once we take that oath as a member of the military, we are forever obligated to defend the United States, and its Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, with up to and including our lives. For us, that promise we made to you never ends.”

By Vishwanath Tirupattur, global head of Quantitative Research at Morgan Stanley

The title of our recently published mid-year outlook – Now the Hard Part – captures the conundrum market participants face: early-cycle timing, mid-cycle conditions and late-cycle valuations.

It is unusual to see this confluence, especially because it was only a little over a year ago that global risk markets were reeling and recording cyclical lows. Thus, despite our economists’ call for strong global economic growth supported by the largest fiscal stimulus, the largest monetary easing and the highest consumer savings rates in post-war history, the investment recommendations from our strategists have a more subdued tone. Over the next 12 months, we see single-digit upside in global equities, a modest steepening of the yield curve and thus a neutral stance in government bonds. We have downgraded corporate credit to neutral and expect flat returns in emerging market fixed income.

Our strategists’ restraint is really driven by the conviction that current valuations across risk markets already reflect a lot of positivity about economic growth. That said, our outlook also points to attractive return potential in asset classes not often in the limelight because of the perception of complexity associated with them. In today’s Sunday Start, we will highlight a few such opportunities. We argue that these are not nearly as complex as perceived and are driven by the same economic narrative that underlies broader risk markets. Equally interestingly, the opportunity set includes both long and short ideas.

The first opportunity we want to highlight is in collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), which are first-order securitizations of corporate loans. With over US$800 billion of outstanding, CLOs are no longer a niche market. The structural leverage in CLOs makes the equity tranches well suited for current conditions as CLO liability tranche spreads have tightened at a faster rate than spreads of CLO assets, thus creating conditions for attractive returns. The strong fundamental backdrop, leading to lower loan default rates, along with upside from Libor floors and other embedded options convince our CLO strategists, Charlie Wu and Vasu Goel, to expect CLO equity tranche returns to be in the mid-to-high teens over the next 12 months.

As we have noted on these pages before, the US housing market has been on fire in the months since the onset of the pandemic. Even though we expect the rate of growth in home prices to slow from current levels, the US housing market sits on a healthy foundation. As our securitized credit strategists, Jim Egan and Som Basu, have highlighted, the growth in home prices, and the consequent increase in the equity that borrowers have in their homes, has been a boon for the fundamental performance of the mortgage credit market in two ways – lower delinquencies and higher prepayments, both of which benefit securitized mortgage credit markets. Over the next 12 months, we see single-digit upside in global equities, a modest steepening of the yield curve and thus a neutral stance in government bonds. We have downgraded corporate credit to neutral and expect flat returns in emerging market fixed income.

Contrary to the old adage, what’s good for the goose is sometimes not good for the gander. Strong housing fundamentals are a positive for securitized credit but not necessarily so for Agency RMBS. The elevated purchase volumes that come with a healthy housing market just mean a continuation of an endless supply of Agency RMBS. Prepayment risk, which is a negative for Agency RMBS, continues to run high. At or close to their all-time tights, valuations in Agency RMBS are notably richer than other comparable asset classes. For example, the spread on the mortgage index is 15bp through its post-GFC tights, whereas the spread on the investment grade corporate credit index is merely at its post-GFC tights. Jay Bacow and Zuri Zhao, our Agency MBS strategists, note that Agency RMBS have already priced in all the optimism that accompanies demand from a supportive Fed and deposit-rich domestic banks. Thus, they recommend a longer-term structural underweight in MBS. Not only do negative option-adjusted valuations give minimal room for further spread tightening, but the steepness of the belly of the Treasury curve means that being long five-year Treasury notes against Agency RMBS is a positive carry, positive convexity steepener. It is not often that investors can be short a risk asset at the tights and get paid to do it.

The three ideas we discuss are not plain vanilla. There is indeed a degree of complexity associated with CLOs, CRT and Agency RMBS, and fully harvesting the risk premia embedded in these ideas does require an investment in digging into the nuances of these products. What we are arguing is that understanding the complexity is worth the effort, given the potential for returns in this opportunity set.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Authored by Ethan Yang via The American Institute for Economic Research,

The internet is having a field day over a seemingly trivial mishap involving actor and wrestler John Cena, who apologized for calling the island nation of Taiwan a country. That is a massive point of issue for the Chinese Communist Party as they continue to claim that Taiwan is part of China. NBC News provides the context by reporting,

“In an interview to Taiwanese broadcaster TVBS earlier this month, Cena sparked controversy while promoting the ninth installment of the Fast & Furious franchise when he said, “Taiwan is the first country to watch Fast and Furious 9.”

Cena later issued an apology by stating,

“I must say right now, it’s very, very, very, very, very, very important,” Cena said.

“I love and respect China and Chinese people. I’m very, very sorry for my mistake.”

China is one of the world’s largest consumers of films so it is understandable but disappointing that Cena is taking steps to appease the Chinese on this matter. A similar issue arose earlier regarding the Hong Kong protests and the NBA, which also made concessions to China, likely to maintain market access.

NBC News writes that some Weibo users attacked Cena by writing,

“It’s the western political correctness. he (sic) wants Chinese people to forgive him but he also doesn’t want to offend idiot Taiwan and the West.”

It should be common knowledge at this point that the CCP maintains an iron grip on free expression and thought. Ethnic Chinese people who reside outside the influence of the party likely share no such issue with Taiwan. 

A more forgiving comment goes as follows,

“I think we should sit down and chat about it in a less intense way. Foreigners don’t necessarily know China’s politics, just like we don’t necessarily know their politics.”

Of course, foreigners, like John Cena, wouldn’t understand the internal politics of China. The main problem with this statement is, of course, Taiwan is not part of China’s “internal politics.” It’s been an independently operating nation-state since its formal establishment in 1949 and has a history dating back to antiquity.

What is Taiwan?

To give the Chinese government credit, Taiwan is not recognized as a formal country by most nations around the world. The simple reason is that the Chinese government threatens any country that tries to do so. The Chinese government wishes to annex the island of Taiwan to fulfill a tired old vision of the great imperial Chinese empire of centuries past. The CCP has used this rationale to justify its invasions of Tibet and East Turkestan, more commonly known as Xinjiang. Two once independent nation-states now living under the authoritarian horrors of the CCP. 

Regardless, Taiwan is a fully functioning and independent democracy off the coast of China. It has every single component of a country one could think of, from one of the top militaries in the world, free elections, its own currency, bureaucracy, global trade, a court system, the list goes on. Taiwan is also the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage. The CCP does not and has never exercised authority over Taiwan. As a result, Taiwan is one of the freest nations in the world with a bustling market economy. 

The standard of living in Taiwan, due to its liberal democratic values and open economy, is far higher than that of China. According to My Life Elsewhere, those residing in Taiwan compared to China experience 2.8 times higher earnings and are half as likely to live below the poverty line. If anything, Taiwan, which was mainly settled by Chinese immigrants among other groups, is a model of what a free China could be, instead of the oppressive dictatorship that it currently is. Of course, at this point, calling Taiwan a free version of China would be misleading, as a survey in 2020 showed that a record 83% percent of respondents would now identify as Taiwanese and not Chinese. 

Taiwan is a fantastic tourist destination to visit when the world opens up. Its unique culture is influenced by China and Japan as well as its aboriginal inhabitants. The tropical island features modern infrastructure and Michelin star restaurants alongside gorgeous natural wonders like its many hot springs, mountains, and its famous Sun Moon Lake. Taiwan is also well known for its night markets, which are a staple of Taiwanese culture and widely viewed as one of the top street food scenes in the world. One of the tallest buildings in the world, Taipei 101, is located in Taiwan’s capital, Taipei. 

In short, Taiwan is not just a country that ought to be recognized, it’s a global treasure. Not just because it’s a great cultural spot or one of the United State’s top trade partners, but a global force for good. 

Was Taiwan Ever Part of China?

China would be correct that at certain points during its history such as during the Qing dynasty, it maintained control over the island of Taiwan. However, when viewed in a larger context, the Chinese were simply just visiting. The first inhabitants of Taiwan were actually aboriginal groups that had more in common with the civilization that settled the Pacific Islands rather than East Asia. One of the earliest and most notable colonizers of Taiwan after this point was the Dutch Empire. The Portuguese gave Taiwan its nickname Formosa sometime in the 16th Century. The Chinese formally annexed Taiwan in 1683 during the Qing Dynasty, which no longer exists of course, and if you want to get real technical, the Qing Dynasty was actually led by the Manchurians.

In 1895, China ceded Taiwan to Japan after the Treaty of Shimonoseki, to which Taiwan would become a Japanese colony until 1945. After Japan lost World War II the United States gave Taiwan to the Kuomintang, which was the nationalist faction in the still ongoing Chinese Civil War. After being defeated by the Communist faction that went on to control China, the Kuomintang set up a military dictatorship in Taiwan in 1949 where it would use the name Republic of China as its official name but also be referred to as Taiwan. At the time, its leaders had ambitions of retaking the mainland. After this dream faded from reality, and after decades of activism, Taiwan eventually held its first elections and liberalized into the free country it is today. While all this was happening the people of Taiwan began to form their own national identity, to the point that the overwhelming majority of its residents, as well as members of its diaspora, identify themselves as Taiwanese. 

In short, Taiwan can certainly be considered part of the Chinese civilization, much like Canada and the United States are part of the Anglosphere, if not less connected than that, but such affiliations warrant no political obligations. It has also never been controlled by the current Chinese regime: the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan is a beautiful island country with an interesting history, it’s really not that complicated.

What Can The US Do to Help Taiwan?

The incident with John Cena was the most recent of a long campaign that involves pressuring Western companies and individuals to erase Taiwan’s identity. Organizations like the World Health Organization and the International Monetary Fund do not keep information on Taiwan at all. In particular, the WHO has consistently rejected requests for Taiwan even though it had an excellent performance with containing the virus. On top of that, the WHO Facebook Messenger app that gives updates on a country’s Covid statistics when asked displays an error message when Taiwan is inputted. American companies have also been pressured to stop calling Taiwan a country for years. 

What the United States can do is first continue normalizing relations with Taiwan diplomatically and continue bringing up Taiwan in international conversations. Furthermore, trade relations should be expanded with a free trade agreement, which will not only allow Taiwan to reduce its dependence on Chinese trade but is also mutually beneficial. Finally, the United States should continue to maintain, if not expand, its military support of Taiwan. This includes approving bigger and more comprehensive arms deals as well as strengthening strategic ties with other key players in the Asia Pacific to ensure the Chinese military can be contained. 

Taiwan is a country full of rich culture and a model of freedom not just in Asia but the world. Taiwan and the United States share a lot in common; the most important aspects being our commitment to human liberty, the rule of law, and shared prosperity. These are in striking contrast to Taiwan’s rowdy neighbor, the People’s Republic of China. If the CCP is looking for a country to question the legitimacy of, perhaps it should stop looking at Taiwan and look in a mirror.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Friday walked back comments made by the agency’s chief, who suggested earlier in the day that the federal government was “taking a very close look” at the idea of requiring vaccine passports to enter or leave the United States.

“Looking ahead to summer, Europe and other countries are going to open up. Could we see vaccine passports to travel internationally either into or out of the U.S.?” an ABC “Good Morning America” host asked Alejandro Mayorkas, head of the DHS.

“We’re taking a very close look at that,” Mayorkas responded.

This illustration photo taken in Los Angeles on April 6, 2021 shows a person looking at the app for the New York State Excelsior Pass, which provides digital proof of a COVID-19 vaccination, in front of a screen showing the New York skyline. (Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images)

But DHS said Mayorkas was only talking about how Americans will need to use such passports to enter other countries.

“We’ve always said we’re looking at how we can ensure Americans traveling abroad have a quick and easy way to enter other countries. That’s what the secretary was referring to; ensuring that all U.S. travelers will be able to easily meet any anticipated foreign country entry requirements,” an agency spokesperson told news outlets.

“There will be no federal vaccinations database and no federal mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential,” the department also said.

The White House had responded to Mayorkas’ statement by saying the same thing.

Asked to explain his comments, spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Air Force One:

“Again, the U.S. government recognizes that other countries have or may have foreign-entry requirements. We will be monitoring these and helping all U.S. travelers meet those, but we will not be—there will be no federal mandate requiring anyone to obtain a single vaccination credential.”

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before a Senate panel in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Biden administration has previously said multiple times that it will not require vaccine passports, or proof of vaccination, on the federal level.

However, the administration is working with private companies to set guidelines for passport systems.

A variety of groups have raised concerns about vaccine passports, arguing it would be an overreach of government authority to require vaccination proof. A number of states have banned requiring of passports, such as Georgia, and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) announced Friday they were introducing a bill that would ban them.

“Americans shouldn’t be discriminated against because of COVID-19 vaccine status—whether that is at work or in everyday life. Americans have a well-established right to privacy that any mandated vaccine passport would destroy. A vaccine passport would be discriminatory against people who, for whatever reason, do not get the COVID-19 vaccine. We should be encouraging individuals to receive the vaccine through increased patient protections, not mandating it,” Cruz said in a statement.

“The truth is not everyone can receive the COVID-19 vaccine—for legitimate reasons. I got the vaccine because it was the right decision for me, but people should be free to make the decision that is right for them and consult with their doctor if they have concerns. Individuals who are unable to receive the vaccine should not be denied access to aspects of everyday life or the opportunity to participate in society. Mandating the vaccine or requiring all individuals to be fully vaccinated before returning to normal life could prevent America from fully reopening,” he added.

The United States earlier in the week hit the milestone of 50 percent of adults being fully vaccinated against the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19.

As of May 28, that percentage was up to nearly 51 percent, or 131.3 million Americans 18 or older. Another 29 million have gotten one dose and are waiting for their second one.

By Kim Link-Wills of American Shipper

A search is ongoing for three crew members reported missing from a roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessel that sank off the coast of Japan early Friday morning.  The MV Byakko sank at about 2:40 a.m. local time after colliding with the chemical tanker Ulsan Pioneer just before midnight in the Seto Inland Sea, Reuters reported. The Byakko reportedly sank about 2.5 miles off the coast of Imabari.

Nine of the Byakko’s 12 crew members were said to have been rescued by the Japanese coast guard and nearby ships. 

Kyodo News reported that the ship’s captain, 66-year-old Tamotsu Sato, was among the missing. Responders also are searching for two of the Byakko’s engineers, Japanese men in their 20s. 

The 557-foot-long Byakko is operated by Kobe, Japan-based Prince Kaiun Co. According to Kyodo News, the Byakko was carrying auto parts and left Kobe at 4:30 p.m. Thursday bound for Kanda, Japan. The Ulsan Pioneer reportedly departed a port in China on Tuesday and was scheduled to arrive in Osaka, Japan, on Friday afternoon. 

There was no word on what types of auto parts the Byakko was carrying. Denso is the largest automotive parts manufacturer in Japan and specializes in electronic systems and powertrain control modules, according to Japan Industry News, which lists the other major suppliers in the country as Aisin Seiki, Yazaki, JTEKT and Hitachi Automotive Systems.  

Sebastian Blanco, who follows the automotive industry for FreightWaves, said Toyota has a plant in Kanda and Nissan has one in the region. 

On its website, Prince Kaiun lists its primary clients as Nissan Motor Co., Mitsubishi Logistics, Vantec Corp., Sea Link, Tatsumi Shokai, Zero Co. and Koshin Shoun.

The website says the 11,454-ton Byakko was built just last year and that it can carry “809 commercial vehicles, 113 trailer chassis.” Byakko is the Japanese word for white tiger.The Ulsan Pioneer, which flies under the flag of the Marshall Islands, was built in 2016.

A cause of the collision has not been reported. According to FreightWaves meteorologist Nick Austin, there were no indications of unusual weather at the time of the accident. 

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Two GOP lawmakers this week launched a campaign calling on whistleblowers in the military to come forward with their experiences in training programs that promote critical race theory or “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

“We won’t let our military fall to woke ideology,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a former Navy SEAL, wrote in a tweet on Friday while linking to a website where informants can submit their accounts.

“With written permission, we will anonymously publish egregious complaints on social media and tell the country what’s happening in our military.”

“For too long, progressive Pentagon staffers have been calling the shots for our warfighters,” said Crenshaw about the web page posted in conjunction with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a former Army captain.

House Homeland Security Committee member Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) speaks during a hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Sept. 17, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

They hope that service members “will anonymously publish egregious complaints on social media” in order to “tell the country what’s happening in our military,” according to Crenshaw.

“Progressive Pentagon staffers have been calling the shots for our warfighters,” the lawmaker added, “and spineless military commanders have let it happen. Now we are going to expose you.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. Space Force confirmed it relieved Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier of his duties after he alleged that Marxism and critical race theory—which draws heavy inspiration from Marxist critical theory—are both being spread in the military via training courses that are required by Department of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other high-level officials.

“Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, Space Operations Command commander, relieved Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier of command of the 11th Space Warning Squadron, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, May 14, due to loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead,” the Space Force said in mid-May, adding that Lohmeier’s remarks in a podcast and in his self-published book “constituted prohibited partisan political activity.” The Space Force’s statement didn’t provide an example.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) speaks during a hearing to examine United States Special Operations Command and United States Cyber Command, on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 25, 2021. (Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images)

Last week, Lohmeier met with Cotton, who tweeted after their meeting that he’s concerned “by what I heard” and promised to press “senior military leaders for answers.”

Critical race theory denounces U.S. and Western culture as a systematic form of oppression that negatively impacts minority groups. Critics of the ideology—which is sometimes referred to as being “woke”—have said its proponents apply the Marxist tactic of “class struggle” to divide people along lines of race, gender, and ethnicity to label them “oppressors” and the “oppressed.”

At the state level, legislatures and governors have taken action against critical race theory as well as The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” by barring them from being promoted in schools and in government institutions.

The governors of Tennessee, Idaho, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have already signed anti-critical race theory bills. In Texas, Arizona, and Iowa, similar measures have been proposed, according to an analysis.