Despite the censorship, most citizens of these countries were well aware that life was getting better and better in Western Europe and the Americas, while their misery continued year after year with little improvement. When the Iron Curtain fell, most people in the affected countries experienced a sharp drop in their economic well-being, because as bad as socialism was, it did provide a low floor and the new private markets had yet to kick in. But very quickly homegrown and foreign entrepreneurs sensed opportunities and began creating productive enterprises, such as restaurants. These countries were bankrupt, so most of the regulators and even many tax officials lost their jobs. Thus there was no one to enforce the old regulations, and the new rules were yet to be set, so almost anything was permitted. Estonia was perhaps the best example of rapid constructive change. When the country gained full independence in 1991, its people elected a brilliant young history professor, Mart Laar, who read Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.” As expected, the international bureaucrats at the World Bank, IMF, and foreign affairs departments of major countries recommended against going all out for economic freedom. But the new leaders like Mr. Laar understood those organizations were trying to protect their old powers and turf, and hence their advice was properly often ignored. I was amazed at how many young economists I met there who had never been out of their home countries had managed to acquire black-market copies of the works of Friedman, Hayek, and other free-market economists.

The annual Economic Report of the World was just published by the Fraser Institute and a number of other think tanks. The authors of the Report measure economic freedom on a number of dimensions, including the size of government and taxation, legal system and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulation. Of the 165 countries measured, the top three were predictable ― Hong Kong (1), Singapore (2), and Switzerland (3). And the bottom ― Argentina (161), Syria (162), Zimbabwe (163), Sudan (164), and Venezuela (165) ― were also predictable, plus economic basket cases like Cuba and North Korea, which lack reliable data for a ranking. What was not predictable, and in fact wholly unexpected thirty years ago is that many of the former countries in Eastern Europe that were part of the Soviet Union or under the Soviet thumb have become some of the economically freest and most successful countries. The seven of them are in the top 20% of the countries of the world in economic freedom. They rank higher than many major countries often considered to be economically free, like Germany, Spain, Sweden, Italy, and France. Most of the other former communist countries, like Poland and Hungary, rank in the top 50% of economic freedom. As a result of economic freedom, real incomes have also risen rapidly so most are now middle income ― which is a sharp change from the poverty that they were mired in during Soviet times. The question is “Why did they do so well?” All had some form of the market economy before they were taken over or dominated by the Soviet Union; and having experienced socialism or communism, they saw its failures on a daily basis.

Our economies are intertwined through trade and finance. Most of us are unaware that Japan remains our biggest investor since 2019, employing nearly a million U.S. workers, second only to U.K. companies. One could say, economically, “we are joined at the hip.” When safety and security are threatened, we coordinate with joint military exercises, like kind hardware and communications links, as well as a maintained military presence in Japan. No one needs reminding that the people of Japan live in a very unfriendly part of the world. North Korea recently launched missiles over the land of the rising sun. Not long ago China withheld rare earth metals from Japan over an island dispute depriving manufacturing of much-needed material. Their maritime and territorial disputes continue. These are but glimpses of other much larger pending shared threats. These shared threats lead to the “Quad,” with Australia and India joining Japan and the U.S. as a responsive mechanism to advance shared goals in the region. Our friends in each of these nations hope for peace and prosperity for their people at a time when China threatens to invade Taiwan and Russia has actually invaded Ukraine. World War II was both painful and costly in terms of human life, memories and money. But given our differences with Japan, none are so great as to nullify our friendship and need for each other. The Chinese desire for expansion, influence and control of shipping lanes places the U.S. and Japan in a common need. In addition, North Korea represents a nuclear threat to both nations.

For the first time in history, more people watched streaming programming in July than cable television. Those Americans watching broadcast TV were scarcely more than 20% of media consumers. Television is dying, and its end may be only a decade away. While the demise of what my mother frequently called “the boob tube,” may now surely be inevitable, it is one more long goodbye for another part of American life that once brought us together. The death of television will exacerbate the already evident societal problem of being increasingly disconnected from each other. The one or two clunky tubes that once gathered us into the family room to watch our favorite shows have been replaced with screens in every room, in every pocket, and on every table. America during the golden age of television was a place and time before sitcoms were banished by the left’s cancel culture, and people watched TV to be entertained, not outraged. They watched to escape, not be slapped in the face with realities and crises at every turn. The era of the TV Guide was comforting in a world that, despite being “the good old days,” surely had its trials and uncertainties. In those days, we made more time to relax. Watching wasn’t on the go, at odd hours. We settled in for longer. Now, my children can flip between a dozen videos, streaming channels and networks in a single hour, never permitting themselves to be sucked into the twists and turns of a good story. It’s jarring and unsettling. The paradox of choice means we consume more media but often are not edified by it. We are drawn away to our own screens, overwhelmed by options and diverged from the shared experience.

There used to be a saying in media relations that you couldn’t fight the news media because they were too powerful to oppose. As proved by recent announcement from Gannett, the nation’s largest publisher of newspapers, that simply isn’t true anymore, and there are good reasons why. Gannett, which operates its flagship USA Today and over 200 local daily newspapers, shocked the media establishment with a blunt assessment of its financial standing recently. The company is sinking, and it took actions designed to keep it afloat. And the news giant isn’t alone. Nationwide, newsroom staffing has dropped 26% since 2008, according to the Pew Research Center. What is happening? For one, the media landscape is more crowded than ever. Web-based news organizations are growing, according to the same Pew study, and the proliferation of cable and Internet outlets has given viewers an almost endless list of places to get their news. But when you look at polls about public attitudes toward the legacy media, there is ample proof that the corporate news media has had a hand in doing themselves in. According to Gallup, only 16% of American adults say they have “a great deal” of trust in newspapers, and only 11% have faith in television news. Both numbers are all-time lows. The social media giants haven’t performed any better, with their naked efforts to quash stories that are either pushed by conservatives or are harmful to the left. Meta Platforms, Facebook’s parent company, is cutting 12,000 workers. If more people are moving away from legacy media, it’s because they’re rejecting a biased and untrustworthy product.

Is its persistence due to one theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a uniquely insidious, engineered virus? Or do vaccines and antivirals only help to curb infection, while possibly encouraging more unpredictable mutations? Who gets long COVID, and why and how is, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” The elderly, the middle-aged, adolescents and children can all get long COVID. Those with down-regulated and impaired immune systems fight long COVID. But then again so do those with up-regulated and robust immunity, as well as people with severe allergies. Since early 2020, no one has deciphered the cause, although numerous Nobel Prizes await anyone who unlocks its mysteries. Does a weakened but not vanquished SARS-CoV-2 virus hide out and linger, causing an unending immune response that sickens patients? Or does COVID-19 so weaken some long-haulers to the degree that old viruses, long in remission, suddenly flare up again, sickening the host with an unending case? After all, is the answer to slow down the immune system to dampen the immune storm, or to enhance it to root out lingering viruses? Do more vaccines help or worsen long COVID? Is the solution some magical new drug? Can a good diet, moderate exercise and patience finally wear out long COVID? Or is its course too unpredictable or near permanent and chronic? Is long COVID a single phenomenon, or a cluster of maladies, each manifesting according to one’s own genetic makeup, the particular history of past illness, and unique reaction to the initial infection?

When the original strain of COVID-19 arrived in spring 2020, a pandemic soon swept the country. By far most survived COVID-19. But hundreds of thousands did not. Amid the tragedy, there initially was some hope that the pernicious effects of the disease would all disappear upon recovery among the nearly 99% who survived the initial infection. Vaccinations by late 2020 were promised to end the pandemic for good. But they did not. New mutant strains, while more infectious, were said to be less lethal, thus supposedly resulting in spreading natural immunity while causing fewer deaths from infection. But that too was not quite so. Instead, sometimes the original symptoms, sometimes frightening new ones, not only lingered after the acute phase but were of increased morbidity. Now there may be more than 20 million Americans who are still suffering from what is currently known as “long COVID” - a less acute version but one ultimately as debilitating. Perhaps 10∼30% of those originally infected with COVID-19 have some lingering symptoms six months to a year after the initial infection. And they are quite physically sick. While we know the nature of the virus well by now, no one fathoms what causes long COVID’s overwhelming fatigue, flu-like symptoms, neuralgic impairment, cardiac and pulmonary damage, and extended loss of taste and smell, vertigo, neuropathy, and “brain fog.” “Post-viral fatigue” has long been known to doctors. But no one knows why long COVID often seems to last far longer and with more disability.

I believe the current unprecedented escalation of tension with North Korea could result in planned or accidental conflict on the Korean Peninsula, involving conventional and possibly tactical nuclear weapons. In September, Kim Jong-un announced a new nuclear doctrine, permitting the first use and preemptive use of nuclear weapons if an imminent attack by weapons of mass destruction against North Korea’s strategic targets or leadership is detected. This is a significant change, given that in 2013 North Korea’s nuclear doctrine was that their nuclear weapons were a deterrent to protect the North from an attack from a hostile power. The United States and South Korea devote significant resources to maintaining a robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability to monitor North Korea to ensure that there are no military surprises. It’s unlikely that North Korea has a similar capability, thus the concern that Pyongyang may mistakenly view a routine military drill or exercise as an actual threat and conduct a preemptive nuclear strike against the South. Given these developments, it would appear appropriate to use all the tools of diplomacy to defuse the nuclear escalatory impasse with North Korea. A message to Mr. Kim, directly or through China, indicating a willingness to discuss sanctions relief in return for the halting of all missile launches, nuclear tests and production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, would seem appropriate. At a minimum, it would display continued U.S. flexibility, with the goal of not rewarding North Korea for its bad behavior but defusing the current nuclear escalatory tension.

Aquaman actor Jason Momoa recently shaved some of his famously long hair to draw attention to his calls for people to stop using “single-use” plastic ― especially bottled water. It doesn’t take much to see through this baseless environmental ploy. The haircut was not for the planet. Mr. Momoa started a water can company. It all smells more like a cash grab for his $50-per-case water can business than a sincere mission. Aluminum cans are worse than plastic bottles for the planet. While both can be recycled, the production of aluminum has a higher carbon footprint than plastic. Mr. Momoa suggests that plastic recycling doesn’t work. Or it’s somehow an illegitimate way of managing plastic bottles. And while some plastics are difficult to recycle, PET plastic, which is the type used in water or soda bottles, is simple to recycle and accepted in recycling programs throughout the country. On environmental impact, various studies from Europe to America show PET plastic is better than aluminum cans. As for emissions, the most recent assessment of life cycle comparisons researched by McKinsey and Company finds plastic bottle production requires half as much carbon dioxide emissions as the production of aluminum cans. Those emissions are compounded by the fact that Mr. Momoa ships his aluminum bottles across the country using Amazon. The Amazon box even included a sticker warning delivery workers that the package is heavy. That’s a lot of fuel to move Mr. Momoa’s pricey water. Producing aluminum is also a dirty and destructive process. According to a report, bauxite mines have been tied to serious cancers and Alzheimer’s Disease.

Since 2009, several waves of riots and near-revolutions have consumed Iran. A few, like the 2009 “Green Revolution,” weren’t revolutions at all. This time the protests seem very different. Iranians have suffered greatly since the ayatollahs came to power in 1979. Repression by the religious police and corruption at every level of government is the norm. We have seen what could have been real revolutions come and go in Iran. The “Green Revolution” in 2009 arose in protest of the obviously rigged reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The leaders of the movement said they weren’t trying to replace the system. In 2018, more protests - far smaller than those in 2009 - were against economic corruption and, in a first, the protesters aimed their ire at the ayatollahs themselves often calling for Mr. Khamenei’s death. The regime was frightened, but the protests faded when America did nothing. In 2019-2020, the “Bloody November” protests against economic conditions were similarly aimed at the government and its endemic corruption. Again, we did nothing. The riots now going on seem more intent on toppling the regime. The riots could doom the regime for its illegitimacy. A few American commentators have suggested that the Iranian people are crying out for our help. That is highly doubtful but the riots show deep discontent with Iran’s economic conditions, brought about by the sanctions former President Donald J. Trump imposed when he revoked Mr. Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran. If we had a competent president, we would be trying to inconvenience Iranian regime by the many covert means at our disposal.