The COVID-19 pandemic was supposed to spell the end of the cruise line industry. These massive ships, crammed with sick passengers, were labeled "petri dishes" by the media, infectious disease experts, and politicians. Six years later, the sector is alive and growing.

 

AAA projects that a record-breaking 21.7 million Americans are planning to hop aboard an ocean cruise in the coming year. If so, that would mark the fourth year in a row the cruise industry has experienced record passenger volume. This year, more than 20 million passengers flooded the gates to new King Kong-sized vessels, offering fixed-price packages and promising a wide variety of cruise options for every age and pocketbook.

 

If you break down the demand demographically, Baby Boomers still make up the majority of cruise-goers, followed by Millennials. Most adults travel with a companion. Nearly 50 percent of U.S. cruise passengers are cruising as a couple.

 

About 65 percent of adult passengers are 55 or older. However, 27 percent are from younger generations (35 to 54 years old), and 7 percent are aged 18 to 34. The trend also includes multi-generational groupings who choose to take cruise vacations together. One quarter of Baby Boomers who like cruises do so with their adult children, and roughly 29 percent of Gen Z members cruise with their parents.

 

A survey identifying trends shaping the modern cruise experience found that Millennials and Gen Z are increasingly enthusiastic about opting for a cruise vacation. Key among the changes in attitude was the affordability of shorter itineraries, which allow younger generations to vacation more frequently. They much prefer a 2-to-4-day sailing to the more traditional 5-to-7-day voyage.

 

The Caribbean remains the most popular destination, attracting 72 percent of American cruise passengers. As a result, Florida ports are the busiest in the world due to this vacation demand. The new mega-vessels ply the Caribbean, Mediterranean, and Northern European waterways. Smaller vessels are more common in Northern Europe for expedition cruises and in the Mediterranean for luxury trips.

 

More than half of the 4,500 people surveyed had already cruised, and nearly 30 percent planned to do so again over the next two years. Of those planning another cruise, 36 percent were born between 1981 and 1996. The average age of a cruise guest is now 46 years old, and 36 percent of all cruisers are now under 40.

 

Cruise lines have quickly adjusted to these preferences and begun marketing 3- to 5-night cruises. Another popular consumer preference is the chance to visit a private island. Cruise lines are investing big bucks to create this type of destination or upgrade existing ones. Cruise operators know that the main draw for vacationers is convenience and value, especially today.

 

As such, cruise companies bundle lodging, meals, and entertainment. The price often equates to a lower per-night cost than on a land-based vacation. Celebrity-level chefs and Broadway-level shows have replaced the rubber chickens and crew member chorus offerings of yesteryears.

 

Modern-day ships are increasingly resembling ocean-going resorts, complete with floating buffets and satisfied customers—couples like the built-in date-night dining and entertainment options. Families appreciate the kid clubs, water parks, and multi-room lodgings. An expanding list of destinations, such as a cruise to Antarctica or the Arctic, excites and attracts younger adventure seekers.

 

More than 90 percent of U.S. cruise passengers rate their experience as good or very good, according to AAA, and 91 percent have taken multiple cruises. With those kinds of repeat rates, cruise lines expect growth to continue well beyond the next few years. Wall Street likes what it sees and has rewarded these companies with higher stock prices. Rather than rest on their laurels, cruise companies worldwide are expanding their fleets, building destination islands, and upgrading their offerings hand over fist.

 

 

Fifteen thousand U.S. troops mass on land and sea. Facing them, the beleaguered president of a nation 11 times smaller than the U.S. Will we invade and why? "I don't rule out anything," answers the president of the United States.

 

A near naval blockade surrounds tiny Venezuela. President Trump has accused his counterpart, Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, of leading the Cartel de Los Soles, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Maduro denies it, claiming Trump is simply using that pretext to effect regime change. But before you start lambasting Donald Trump for going off the deep end, consider the following.

 

We are witnessing Gunboat Diplomacy, a tried-and-true American tactic that dates back several centuries. For example, one of the first things a Parris Island Marine recruit like me memorizes in boot camp is the Marine Corps Hymn. It starts with "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli; We fight our country's battles …" Want to know where that comes from?

 

In June 1815, the Navy, still in its infancy, blockaded the nations along the North African coastline, bombarding Tripoli until it signed a treaty promising not to attack American trade ships. The capture of Mexico City was next in 1847. A couple of decades later, in 1853, Commodore Matthew Perry's naval expedition steamed into Japan's ports. He was hellbent on asserting U.S. interests and trade by force, if necessary, against the Japanese, which had a long-standing policy of isolation.  

 

The following year, we participated in similar exercises in China along the Yangtze River. Skip a few years, and then again, an invasion of  Panama in 1903. I could go on, but the point is that America has exercised a lot of foreign policy over the years by using the threat or the use of force, most often through the Navy and the Marines on board.

 

In my last column, I outlined some of our history with Venezuela and its current economic, political, and military relationship with both China and Russia. I wrote that our domestic energy production is peaking. Trump's "Drill, Baby, Drill" policy involves a significant expansion of lease sales to drill for oil off the coasts of Alaska, California, and the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Lease sales do not guarantee buyers will drill. To do so requires a higher oil price than we have now, and the president wants energy prices to fall further. Given that conundrum and America's need to procure additional energy reserves, Venezuela's 303 billion barrels of proven reserves are a tempting target.

 

The problem is that Venezuela, under President Nicolas Maduro, is no friend of the U.S. After years of U.S.-imposed sanctions, Venezuela's economy continues to decline, with the only hard money the country earns coming from its role as a transit country for drug smuggling.

 

Despite having the world's largest oil reserves, Venezuela's oil production has been declining for years, from 3.2 million barrels per day in 2000 to roughly 800,000 barrels per day in 2025. The decline is attributed to years of underinvestment and mismanagement, limited access to capital, and little to no maintenance. Maduro, and before him Chavez, drove the industry into bankruptcy. They expropriated foreign oil companies, drove investors and technology away, and engineered an almost complete collapse of infrastructure and refineries.

 

To turn around Venezuela's oil industry would require $20 billion per year over two to three years. Once completed, it would require another four to five years to yield additional production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. At that point, the country could sustain an additional 1 million barrels per day.

 

Another challenge is in the complexion of Venezuela's oil. The Orinoco heavy oil is the largest accumulation of heavy and ultra-heavy crude in the world. About 77 percent of the country's oil reserves are in that region. This oil requires specialized refineries to process this high-density fuel.

 

Extracting this material is difficult and involves high greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the more carbon-intensive oil sources in the world. Believe me, I have been there. It's a complex extraction process in a remote, treacherous jungle environment that requires substantial energy and water and generates significant waste.

 

There are about 125 operational oil refineries located primarily along the Gulf Coast in Texas, Louisiana, California, and the Midwest, that already process a significant amount of heavy oil. The supply of heavy crude has been shrinking, however, due to prolonged OPEC supply cuts and sanctions on Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. A lifting of sanctions on Venezuela would be a welcome development for refineries struggling to find cheap supplies.

 

Trump's gunboat policy might succeed in ousting the present government through the threat of force or an actual invasion. That would be dangerous but doable. A ready replacement, Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who is widely popular in her country, would quickly embrace the U.S. and, presumably, an oil-friendly policy along with it.

 

A harder sell is convincing Maduro to step down and/or abandon his allies, and to embrace the U.S. once again after years of bad blood. It could happen, but it is unlikely. And even if that were to happen, the road ahead would require years of effort and money. The United States would have a hard row to hoe to secure this Latin American country's energy wealth without Machado or someone like her in office.

 

Many critics of the president and administration believe that Trump's Venezuela invasion tactics are a domestically motivated diversionary tactic. If so, the tactic has yet to play out. Clearly, in the short term, Trump's focus is on becoming the "peace president." His reputation as a consummate deal maker is currently fully occupied with accomplishing peace between Russia and Ukraine, while holding together a fragile agreement between Israel and Hamas.

 

It also appears the president is changing his justification for regime change from fentanyl  smuggling (which was a mirage in the first place) to ejecting Russia, Iran, and China from the western hemisphere. To some, Venezuela may be a bridge too far for now, but I wouldn't put anything past this guy in the months ahead. 

 

It was supposed to be about fentanyl, or was it replacing Maduro? The Sleeping Giant has returned, and make no mistake, Venezuela is the target. The stakes, however, are much bigger than most realize.

 

It has been a while so you may need an update on the definition. "Gunboat diplomacy is the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power, implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare should terms not be agreeable to the superior force," according to Wikipedia. 

 

Does that sound familiar in the context of the current situation between the U.S. and Venezuela?

 

For the last several weeks, the full might of the Navy, including the largest, most deadly aircraft carrier in America's arsenal, has been cruising off Venezuelan shores, blowing fishing boats, speed boats, and maybe even row boats out of the water. The toll to date is 22 boats sunk, 83 KIA. The justification — the interdiction of alleged drug smuggling to the U.S. by President Nicolas Maduro's regime, as well as Latin American cartels. 

 

The reasoning is a bit thin, however, since more than 90 percent of fentanyl smuggling into the U.S. is through Mexico and is carried into the country by U.S. citizens. No fentanyl is produced in Venezuela, and none of that drug has been aboard the sunken boats.

 

As for other drugs, while Venezuela does not produce them, it is a transit country. More than 250 tons of cocaine pass through Venezuela every year on its way to Europe (not the U.S.). And while 80 percent of narcotics smuggled into the U.S. are transported via maritime lines, 30 percent are now hauled by narco-submarines. None of those vessels seems to be on the Navy's list of targets.

 

The narrative from most media and political sources is that drugs are just an excuse to accomplish the government's primary purpose — regime change. The stated purpose is to return the country to free and fair elections. Sounds good, but while the American anthem plays in the background, as a cynical Vietnam veteran, I have lived through too many of these "for democracy" playlists.

 

The entire escapade leaves me still looking for a deeper reason behind these excuses. After all, Donald Trump has proven that he has no problem with dictators and strongmen, nor with their governments. Why now, why Venezuela, and why Maduro?

 

Reason one could be Venezuela's relationship with China and Russia. Back in the day, we were friends, allies, and investors in Venezuela. I traveled there often in the 1980s. Caracas was a vibrant and dynamic city back then, known for its freewheeling democracy and oil-fueled economic prosperity. Things changed, however, with the rise in power of left-leaning Hugo Chavez in the 1990s.

 

Beginning in 2005, the U.S. started to sanction Venezuela as Chavez moved to appropriate foreign assets and deepened his relationship with Cuba. Combined with Chavez's economic and political policies, sanctions have weakened Venezuela's economy. After Maduro's 2013 election, sanctions increased again.

 

Maduro sought help from outside nations to keep the country solvent. China has obliged by extending $60 billion in loans over the past 20 years in exchange for oil. They have established satellite positions across the country, along with surveillance equipment, to secure strategic control over Venezuela's natural resources and critical infrastructure. 

 

Russia, for its part, has seen Venezuela as a forward base of influence in the Western Hemisphere and as a counterweight to U.S. military dominance. Putin has provided arms, military access, and expertise totaling more than $14 billion to the country, as well as loan restructuring, oil-for-debt agreements, and energy development.

 

Given this geopolitical background, enter Donald Trump stage right. He assumed the presidency with the promise of lowering inflation. He knew that one significant way to accomplish this was by reducing energy prices. Through his "Drill Baby Drill" policies, he promised to increase America's energy reserves and, at the same time, lower energy prices. Therein lies the rub.

 

The economic truth that the president failed to understand was that oil drillers have less incentive to explore and/or produce oil when energy prices fall. Adding insult to injury, a decades-long boom in U.S. oil production peaked two years ago and is expected to continue to decline. "Drill Baby Drill" seems to have been relegated to the backburner alongside DOGE.

 

After years of surplus energy, the U.S. faces an uncertain energy future. The country needs to procure a safe, reliable, and dependable oil supply. Before and after World War II, the Middle East fulfilled that role. After the creation of OPEC, the world changed, leaving the U.S. to seek out other sources.

 

We successfully developed our own energy resources, but now, with declining production, we need more oil, but where and how? Clearly, Russian oil is out, which leaves Latin America. Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, estimated at 303 billion barrels, primarily located in the Orinoco Belt.

 

Enter Donald Trump and the return of Gunboat Diplomacy. Drugs and regime change may be the first step and the opening gambit in a far deeper, much more strategic ploy to secure additional energy resources for America's future. Next week, I will discuss the moves necessary to accomplish those goals in a global energy chess game that could bring Venezuela back into the fold of US influence in the years ahead.

 

For several years, readers have asked me to establish a website where they can read my past columns and interviews. I am thrilled to announce, "The Retired Investor," a comprehensive collection of my writing and videos, past and present, at www.SchmicksRetiredInvestor.com. I invite you to check it out and share your thoughts. Your feedback is invaluable to me.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of OPI, Inc. or a solicitation to become a client of OPI. The reader should not assume that any strategies or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold, or held by OPI. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct. Investments in securities are not insured, protected, or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal. This communication may include opinions and forward-looking statements, and we can give no assurance that such beliefs and expectations will prove to be correct.

 

The president was correct last week when he stated that the cost of a Thanksgiving meal at Walmart will be lower this year. He neglected to add that this year's dinner contains six fewer products than its 2024 basket and only 22 items, compared to 29. I guess that is no surprise.

 

By this time, shrinkage is everywhere among products. This is a common tactic used by manufacturers to give the appearance of a larger product when, in fact, you're getting less. In the food category, it is running rampant, so why not at Thanksgiving? Cans are smaller. There are fewer items in smaller packages, and, of course, the "fool you" trick of keeping the package size the same but filling it with air.

 

Walmart, among other grocery stores, has announced a 25 percent drop in its 2025 Thanksgiving basket, serving 10 people. This means you, the savvy shopper, can save money this year and still provide a hearty meal for your family.

 

Wells Fargo's Agri-Food Institute provides an annual run-down of the year's prices for the typical Thanksgiving meal. This year, they predict that consumers will pay 2-3 percent less for their Thanksgiving meal, despite food-at-home prices increasing 2.7 percent so far in 2025. The latest Consumer Price Index report indicated that beef, bananas, and coffee were responsible for much of that increase, and (Praise Be) none of them are Thanksgiving staples.

 

As always, those numbers will depend on a shopper's strategies and food choices. For example, if you exclude beef and eggs from the menu, chances are the dinner will be cheaper. If you stick to store brands, a typical menu will come in at $80 versus $95 for a meal of national-name brand items.

 

Some national brands, however, use certain loss-leader items to keep in the running for your holiday dollars. Cranberries and frozen vegetables, for example, may be cheaper than store brands, so do your homework. As for dessert, stick with pumpkin pie, which is down about 3 percent in price from last year,

 

The dinner's pièce de résistance, the turkey, will also drop in price this year. Retail turkey prices are down 3.7 percent. Additionally, keep an eye out for sales. As of last weekend, I scored a 67 cents a pound frozen turkey and an 87 cents a pound ham at my local supermarket chain. Given that I am a bit of a skinflint, I usually buy several turkeys during the holiday season.

 

It is not that I especially crave the taste of a 20-pound big bird, but my dog loves them. At the current price of a 12-ounce can of dog food (between $2-$3), or a premium brand ($3-$7), the price of a turkey is a steal. I throw it in the oven, often while I am writing this column. Once done, I chop it up into bite-sized chunks and freeze it in baggies, except for the drumsticks, which my wife loves. But I digress.

 

Donald Trump has claimed that the only grocery item that has increased in price is beef. We all know that is not true. Why would the nation's president try to pull the wool over our eyes when dozens of food items continue to increase in price? One word — affordability.

 

He knows that consumers are faced with the rising cost of everything. It is an increasing hardship that has become even more difficult lately. Millions of Republicans as well as Democrats depend on SNAP to eat. The same can be said for those enrolled in Obamacare who face massive premium hikes.

 

 Tariffs, immigration, and peace deals may be nice, but they only go so far. The opposition is aware of this. Increasingly, Democrats have used this issue effectively, as evidenced by last week's elections. I suspect that this message of affordability is beginning to ring loud and clear in the Oval Office. I'll leave it at that because my oven (and my dog) are telling me my first roast turkey of the season is done.

 

For several years,  readers have asked me to establish a website where they can read my past columns and interviews. I am thrilled to announce that "The Retired Investor," a comprehensive collection of my writing and videos, past and present, is accessible online at www.schmicksretiredinvestor.com. I invite you to check it out and share your thoughts. Your feedback is invaluable to me.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

It is that time of the year when consumers begin planning for the holidays. It will also be a time when prices on almost everything are expected to rise. You can blame that on tariffs. After several months of absorbing rising import costs due to Donald Trump's tariff policies, American corporations have had enough.

 

Currently, approximately half of all goods imported into the United States are subject to substantial tariffs. Considering duties, limits, and other aspects of the president's trade policies, more than 90 percent of imports have been impacted in some way. This tariff debacle is truly a historic event, not seen in this country in over 100 years.

 

Up until now, the impact on U.S. consumers, who are already reeling from unrelenting inflation, has been negligible. That is because exporters and U.S. corporations have borne the brunt of these tariffs and the associated higher costs. The bad news is that Goldman Sachs economists believe that companies will now begin passing on as much as 70 percent of tariff costs via higher prices to consumers.

 

As it stands, predictions by research firms regarding consumers' willingness to spend over the next two months are mixed. Deloitte expects holiday spending to decline by 10 percent due to economic uncertainty, whereas Visa anticipates a 10 percent increase in holiday gift-giving. Gallup expects neither, with consumers spending about the same as last year. However, these forecasts assumed prices would remain in about the same range as before during the gift-giving season.

 

This week, all eyes were turned toward the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the justices heard arguments over President Trump's unilateral decision to impose these steep tariffs on the world. Three lower courts have already rejected these tariffs on the ground that Trump illegally used a 1977 regulation, the Emergency Economic Powers Act, that grants presidents the power to regulate the economy during an emergency. This act was originally intended to deal with national emergencies, such as war or natural disasters, and its use in this context is a point of contention in the case.

 

At stake is the possibility that the court rules the tariffs illegal. As it stands, the lower courts have allowed the president to continue to collect tariffs until the higher court decides the case. And if the court rules against the president, will they also demand that the tariffs be refunded? 

 

The exact cost of a refund depends on when the case is decided and the amount that has been collected. We know the federal government raised $195 billion in customs duties in Fiscal Year 2025. Analysts expect that roughly $90 billion is in jeopardy. That amount dwarfs any refund the country has refunded in the past.

 

The tariffs collected and paid for by U.S. companies and American consumers have been used to reduce the country's deficit. If that were to be undone, some on Wall Street would not take that lightly because the deficit would balloon higher almost overnight.

 

On the plus side, if a refund were to be issued, corporations and exporters would benefit. Their profit margins would expand since they have paid the lion's share of costs year to date, as for what to we, the consumers, who have paid higher prices because of those tariffs, I see no chance of anyone giving me a refund for the grill or washing machine I purchased at a stiff mark-up this year.

 

No one should be surprised at this situation. Voters have long been aware that their president often takes shortcuts in everything he does, whether in business or politics. The betting market believes that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump's attempt to end-run the rules. The president's actions tell me that they may be right. Trump is preparing a Plan B in the event he loses. There are several laws already on the books that allow him to levy tariffs (with congressional approval), although the rate of tariff and the length of time are not open-ended. This process would take more time, but in the end, he could reinstate about 80-90 percent of the existing tariffs at lower rates. His administration has been working furiously on this fallback plan over the last two months.

 

Readers should not expect a decision from the Supreme Court anytime soon. The case is a thorny one involving the extent of presidential power and authority. It will impact U.S. relationships with numerous countries and could significantly undermine one of Trump's major policy initiatives. The judges know that they are walking a fine line.

 

If their decision is too draconian (i.e., no tariffs, refunds, etc.), this could have serious ramifications for everything from stocks and bonds to commodities, the dollar, and financial markets in general. They will likely find a middle ground that restrains the president but does not cause undue havoc in the financial markets.

 

The first day of hearings reportedly did not go well for Team Trump. The justices seemed skeptical of the president's authority to impose his most sweeping duties. In any case, it is unlikely that the verdict will be announced in time to save the holidays, although some optimists believe it could happen before the end of the year.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.