@@alecjones4135 so 7 years later and he's still spot on. That's some pretty damn good forecasting. I mean, we're seeing his books play out live in front of our eyes.
We should be wary of people like Peter. They're popular within the first 10-20 years of their predictions because it's not that hard to predict the near future. But when their bolder claims never come to pass, they're discredited and we move onto the next person predicting the end of the world in 10-20 years. In the 80s, George Friedman, Zeihan's former boss, predicted a US-Japan conflict and failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union. 20 years later he predicted the fracturing of Russia by 2020 and the complete collapse and dissolution of China by 2030. Zeihan, on the other hand, in his books and blog posts, none of his wild claims cite works from any studies or findings from other experts in the field. In academia, the bolder the claim the higher the burden of proof. That logic would imply that his books would have a truly massive bibliography. The Accidental Superpower doesn't have a bibliography. Zeihan gets away with this because he claims that he's an expert in 6 fields. His website says "Peter combines expert understanding of demography, economics, energy, politics, technology, and security to help clients best prepare for an uncertain future." That's A LOT of areas to be an expert in, quite frankly. He doesn't cite anything but, don't worry, Zeihan knows what he's talking about so we should trust him. This is, of course, a logical fallacy called "argument from authority". It's a well known fallacy and it's often associated with bold or even miraculous claims.
@@Adrian-rb4qp What specific claims has he made that you would take exception to? I’m not trying to be argumentative because I also find the presumption a tall order: that one man can know specific details about things that will or won’t happen, even when based on tectonic global and demographic trends. What would be one of the wild claims? I’ve followed his analyses since the STRATFOR days, so I’m familiar with his general approach to geopolitics and many of the assertions.
@@LRRPFco52 i think most people critique him for not considering culture, politics, technology etc. he bases his predictions mostly on location, and while useful, it’s not the entire picture.
They have microphones in the audience for this talk. His other ones the audience is further away from the microphones so you can barely hear them talk or laugh. In QAs during other talks Peter has to wait for someone to hand the asker a microphone so he can hear them.
odegaard He is not optimistic about the US because we’re amazing or anything I think we’re all ready to admit we kinda suck but because we have the best situation and have always had the best situation. Best geography best demographics and institutions that are good enough to not screw that all up. Whilst everyone else has everything so bad that it’s almost impossible for them to survive let alone thrive
I've read his book a couple of months ago and wasn't surprised the least when I heard of the attack in KSA oil facilities yesterday. This guy is brilliant
We should be wary of people like Peter. They're popular within the first 10-20 years of their predictions because it's not that hard to predict the near future. But when their bolder claims never come to pass, they're discredited and we move onto the next person predicting the end of the world in 10-20 years. In the 80s, George Friedman, Zeihan's former boss, predicted a US-Japan conflict and failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union. 20 years later he predicted the fracturing of Russia by 2020 and the complete collapse and dissolution of China by 2030. Zeihan, on the other hand, in his books and blog posts, none of his wild claims cite works from any studies or findings from other experts in the field. In academia, the bolder the claim the higher the burden of proof. That logic would imply that his books would have a truly massive bibliography. The Accidental Superpower doesn't have a bibliography. Zeihan gets away with this because he claims that he's an expert in 6 fields. His website says "Peter combines expert understanding of demography, economics, energy, politics, technology, and security to help clients best prepare for an uncertain future." That's A LOT of areas to be an expert in, quite frankly. He doesn't cite anything but, don't worry, Zeihan knows what he's talking about so we should trust him. This is, of course, a logical fallacy called "argument from authority". It's a well known fallacy and it's often associated with bold or even miraculous claims.
54:46 summarizes the whole thing. Bottom line: We're going into a renationalization of the global trading network. In other words, Globalization is going into reverse.
So Balkanization. I enjoy these Stratfor guys: The Next 100 Years, The Coming Anarchy, Disunited Nations... Unfortunately, I was born in the wrong place.
@@tortugatech Yeah... The geopolitical interests that superpowers have in this area are what's really scaring me. Given your name, I think we might be neighbors.
His analysis is solid. His newsletters spot on and provocative. Twitter, good. Someone to follow. Seems, from other comments that Peter is striking some nerves. Were people to actually understand Global Macro, Development Economics, Trade, and Global Finance then they would be able to contextualize Peter's perspective better. Indeed, Peter could include a few dozen more useful points, were he to have a better grasp himself. But generally his contours are correct. Problem is, we aren't ordering a pizza here, takes longer than it does to switch the channel, we may be a viewer, but aren't a customer who can have our ignorance valued of our mere expectation. He's worth watching and reading.
We should be wary of people like Peter. They're popular within the first 10-20 years of their predictions because it's not that hard to predict the near future. But when their bolder claims never come to pass, they're discredited and we move onto the next person predicting the end of the world in 10-20 years. In the 80s, George Friedman, Zeihan's former boss, predicted a US-Japan conflict and failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union. 20 years later he predicted the fracturing of Russia by 2020 and the complete collapse and dissolution of China by 2030. Zeihan, on the other hand, in his books and blog posts, none of his wild claims cite works from any studies or findings from other experts in the field. In academia, the bolder the claim the higher the burden of proof. That logic would imply that his books would have a truly massive bibliography. The Accidental Superpower doesn't have a bibliography. Zeihan gets away with this because he claims that he's an expert in 6 fields. His website says "Peter combines expert understanding of demography, economics, energy, politics, technology, and security to help clients best prepare for an uncertain future." That's A LOT of areas to be an expert in, quite frankly. He doesn't cite anything but, don't worry, Zeihan knows what he's talking about so we should trust him. This is, of course, a logical fallacy called "argument from authority". It's a well known fallacy and it's often associated with bold or even miraculous claims.
@@Adrian-rb4qp Chinese trolls are starting to get more upset with Peter the close it gets to facing rebalancing, no Adrian? Someone who challenges the common narrative, not able to be silenced highlighting where the cracks are deepening in the CCP system. Appeal to authority is the logical fallacy not argument from, which isn't even correct grammatical form of a phrase to denote a fallacy
@@cstevenson5256 Has nothing to do with China. Peter lies and gets stuff wrong. He does not cite sources. Most credible people would brush him off, as they should. If you think this is some political debate about China, it's not; it is a factual one. Had Peter provided tens of other experts that agree with him, it would have been noteworthy. and from one thing to another, don't you think China has their own experts? the Chinese are not dumb, in fact, China is a meritocracy. if there were "cracks" in the system, the Chinese would know.
@@Adrian-rb4qp You imagine no supports and a meritocracy in China when there are others supporting Peters conclusions and China is a Kleptocracy of the Children and Grandchildren of the CCP. W should listen to your straw man, of no supposed citations and this somehow transforming into no support of others, this a logical fallacy, and then we should listen to you. No cracks, Official and failed policy from 10th Peoples Congress to Rebalance away from the Investment Led model in China thus accelerating debt and low efficiency of that taken. All the work on the Chinese Demography out there, the gentleman in Pennsylvania, the entire Global Macro community outside of a few Hedge Fund managers with Special Investing rights who get time on the TV. Sounds as if your need of expertise rises no further than the guided CCP narrative you find on TV, while debates internal to China are far less fantasyland. Problem with your statement, is you don't know enough to make the assertion,.
@@cstevenson5256 I’ve seen spam-like comments from “Adrian” now in the comments section. I thought it was a real person, but now it looks like an algorithm.
We should be wary of people like Peter. They're popular within the first 10-20 years of their predictions because it's not that hard to predict the near future. But when their bolder claims never come to pass, they're discredited and we move onto the next person predicting the end of the world in 10-20 years. In the 80s, George Friedman, Zeihan's former boss, predicted a US-Japan conflict and failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union. 20 years later he predicted the fracturing of Russia by 2020 and the complete collapse and dissolution of China by 2030. Zeihan, on the other hand, in his books and blog posts, none of his wild claims cite works from any studies or findings from other experts in the field. In academia, the bolder the claim the higher the burden of proof. That logic would imply that his books would have a truly massive bibliography. The Accidental Superpower doesn't have a bibliography. Zeihan gets away with this because he claims that he's an expert in 6 fields. His website says "Peter combines expert understanding of demography, economics, energy, politics, technology, and security to help clients best prepare for an uncertain future." That's A LOT of areas to be an expert in, quite frankly. He doesn't cite anything but, don't worry, Zeihan knows what he's talking about so we should trust him. This is, of course, a logical fallacy called "argument from authority". It's a well known fallacy and it's often associated with bold or even miraculous claims.
@@harveymoment in 2015 he predicted the collapse of Venezuela in 5 years, the break up of Canada (independence of Alberta or even its integration in US)by around 2020, the inmediate collapse of China (he is insisting on this, enlarging every time its time frame), he predicted US will be the powerhouse of Steel goods production instead of China because all the experienced engineers will go to US by cheap, he predicted Iran will have problems with all its neighbours: Russia, Arabia, Turkey, China... (specially nasty seeing the actual reality and its BRICS integration and its massive new membership petitions ). I can go on and on. But especially funny is his incapacity to predict the internal US actual serious problems.
@@shostako1284 Iran is having problems with its neighbors, so no, he didn't miss, on the contrary he was right, and BRICS is a joke. Venezuela is a failed state, most Venezuelans are leaving the country, I don't know how anyone can look at Venezuela and think that it's still a functional country, where I live you can find Venezuelans who left the country all the time on the street. He did not say that Canada would secede but that it was likely, and remains likely. China is a complete disaster these days.
Because he now is desperate (as all US diplomatic system, with its international catastrophic policies and more evident and desperate brutal crimes are showing). In those days he can defend his lies and wishful thinking to the public, using humor. Now? he is struggling at EVERY lie he tries to sell as "a scientific truth". And I must note... that is very delightful to see ("Muahahaha", as he used to say XD). And in just 4 fucking years!
Good thing, fucking hell. Eight billions and counting. All of this is on articifical breathing machine that is the current and unprecedented energy supply market, which will eventually fall following constantly receding EROI. The average diet in developed countries requires 4000m2 of arable land per inhabitant (mostly for livestock), a figure often close or over the land availabilty, hence heavily sustained by food imports. Of course the demographic stabilisation will fuck up the quality of life of one or two generations for economic reasons, but it's far more desirable than civilisational collapse because of demographic bubble. Zeihan of course knows this, but somehow seems to value population growth regardless of sustainability issues.
Always find Peter Zeihan interesting. This one is mostly the same as his other presos but there are a few new slides… 34:15 - crude and natural gas trapped mid-continent and keystone XL pipeline not happening anytime soon - difficult to export natural gas 35:40 - risk to crude flows - US has light/sweet but refineries tooled for heavy/sour - biggest challenge oil industry faces - also Mexico crude off line 38:00 - US natural gas essentially free for the foreseeable future 41:00 - geopolitics of Steel - coming to US due to low energy costs 42.27 - value added manufacturing (US, Germany, China) 47:00 - Q&A
This is truly fantastic. I bought both of his books last week and finished his last one today. What George Friedmann and other older generations don't dare to say or to be so bold his presentations and visualizations of interdependencies are great.
LOL Not even God can stop China / Russia led Eurasian trade zone from dominating the entire world - recently signed Russia / China / Iran energy deals are worth 800 BILLION DOLLARS - that's just for starters
@@kevinbrown4073 more truth yes, I agree with you on that. But not everything. I mean he does have a history at RAND, he's probably not in the position to tell everything. Even if he would like to.
We should be wary of people like Peter. They're popular within the first 10-20 years of their predictions because it's not that hard to predict the near future. But when their bolder claims never come to pass, they're discredited and we move onto the next person predicting the end of the world in 10-20 years. In the 80s, George Friedman, Zeihan's former boss, predicted a US-Japan conflict and failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union. 20 years later he predicted the fracturing of Russia by 2020 and the complete collapse and dissolution of China by 2030. Zeihan, on the other hand, in his books and blog posts, none of his wild claims cite works from any studies or findings from other experts in the field. In academia, the bolder the claim the higher the burden of proof. That logic would imply that his books would have a truly massive bibliography. The Accidental Superpower doesn't have a bibliography. Zeihan gets away with this because he claims that he's an expert in 6 fields. His website says "Peter combines expert understanding of demography, economics, energy, politics, technology, and security to help clients best prepare for an uncertain future." That's A LOT of areas to be an expert in, quite frankly. He doesn't cite anything but, don't worry, Zeihan knows what he's talking about so we should trust him. This is, of course, a logical fallacy called "argument from authority". It's a well known fallacy and it's often associated with bold or even miraculous claims.
51:20 He's right about DFW. And this has been my angst against the authoritarian environmentalists. If you want to attack the problem, you want to be more innovative in your approach. DFW solves problems with a financial incentive, and as a byproduct, we're environmentally sound. Two birds one stone. It was a great observation by Mr. Zeihan.
A big part of his speeches though is educating those in the room who might not know the history of how we got to today. That doesn't really change much as nothing truly major has happened besides a new American President as far as the audience is concerned. His speeches will rapidly change once one of his predictions or something else truly major happens.
Pete on Saudi Arabia vs Iran competing for regional control: “I can’t wait to see how that shakes out.” After Mullah-ing it over, I think it will Sheik out.
This guy is a geopolitical genius. He really knows how the world works. I have been following his forecasts for a few years now and can say that the world is (de)evolving EXACTLY as he predicted. Read his books and latch onto his every word. I promise that you won't be surprised by all the terrible things that are about to happen over the next decade. You may even profit from them.
We should be wary of people like Peter. They're popular within the first 10-20 years of their predictions because it's not that hard to predict the near future. But when their bolder claims never come to pass, they're discredited and we move onto the next person predicting the end of the world in 10-20 years. In the 80s, George Friedman, Zeihan's former boss, predicted a US-Japan conflict and failed to predict the fall of the Soviet Union. 20 years later he predicted the fracturing of Russia by 2020 and the complete collapse and dissolution of China by 2030. Zeihan, on the other hand, in his books and blog posts, none of his wild claims cite works from any studies or findings from other experts in the field. In academia, the bolder the claim the higher the burden of proof. That logic would imply that his books would have a truly massive bibliography. The Accidental Superpower doesn't have a bibliography. Zeihan gets away with this because he claims that he's an expert in 6 fields. His website says "Peter combines expert understanding of demography, economics, energy, politics, technology, and security to help clients best prepare for an uncertain future." That's A LOT of areas to be an expert in, quite frankly. He doesn't cite anything but, don't worry, Zeihan knows what he's talking about so we should trust him. This is, of course, a logical fallacy called "argument from authority". It's a well known fallacy and it's often associated with bold or even miraculous claims.
@@Adrian-rb4qp Thanks for your advice. I am smart enough and educated enough to combine information from various sources and then come to my OWN conusions. I know Peter is NOT an expert in any particular field. But that's the whole point. He is a GREAT GENERALIST. He collects and combines information from various fields, economics, finance, military, political etc. and gives you the WHOLE picture which NO one expert can give. Of course he is sometimes wrong, but he has been more right about the big picture than any other person I know. Also next 20 yrs forecast is all I need. Because in the very long run we are all dead.
Always exceptional, thank you for uploading! These presentations are always so informative, I learn a little something new each time. There's a lot of China alarmism in our media, and it's good to hear what China is actually contending with. Helpful information in so many ways, recommended to family and friends.
Not really. Remember that those who can, do; those who can't, teach. No disrespect to Zeihan, but his prediction that China will splinter off in a decade is completely wrong. He isn't the first - Japanese economists posited the "China will splinter" idea back in 1992. All of these ideas are based off the idea that China will operate as a nation-state, using liberal capitalist mechanisms, while striving for outward spreading goals. However, China instead operates as a civilization-state, using state capitalist mechanisms, while striving for inward drawing goals. Ultimately any sort of "predictive" issue is useless to think about (for us normal citizens) and only "historical" analysis is useful for knowledge.
@@jyashin Can you explain the difference between nation-state and Civilization -state please? I hear a lot of nation-state (ie Professor Measheimer...) but first time I saw civilization-state. Thank you.
@@centerleft4957 The short answer is that China is very adamant in its identity, but it doesn't fit the mold of a nation-state. Thus, the term "civilization-state" is coined to describe China. -- Long answer (conclusion at end) -- The concept of a nation-state was invented in Europe in order for all the different centralized powers to respect each other's sovereignty. Thus, there were two important aspects at the core of a nation-state. 1) Clear boundaries 2) A distinct ethnic and cultural line -- Boundaries -- The physical boundaries of the past were very much murky. Even today, China's territory disputes with its neighbors are a result of poor cartography in the early 20th century. Exactly where is the Mahoney Line that separates India and China? Etc. But more important is the "emotional" boundary. The idea that this land is my land, and that land is your land. Manchuria was once ruled by Korea, but today its people are most definitely Chinese. Vietnam was once ruled by China, but today its people are most definitely *not* Chinese. Mongolians and Koreans are considered part of the Chinese ethnic family, though they are in a different land. Uyghurs and Tatars are not part of the ethnic family, but are members in the same land. -- Ethnic lines -- Unlike homogeneous Japan, China is extremely diverse. The Han Chinese, which make up 92% of China, doesn't fit the genetic criteria of a single ethnic people. Through history, Han absorbed dozens of ethnic groups, hundreds of cultures. Today, a person from Shandong is very different genetically from a person in Sichuan. Northern Chinese have the pale and slender associated with East Asians (ex. Japanese), while Southern Chinese are dark and rough associated with Southeast Asians (ex. Vietnamese). -- Cultural lines -- Chinese culture is also very diverse. The native Chinese religions, although sharing similarities, differ too much on core issues to be considered a singular religion. The Chinese language itself, although most definitely a single language, differs far too much when spoken that most people simply treat them as hundreds of separate tongues. While the clothing is broadly grouped as "Hanfu", it differs too much depending on time and location. And this doesn't even take into account the 55 recognized minorities, some of whom also would be better described as a collection of various cultures and ethnicities too. -- And yet, one country -- With all these separating factors, you'd think China would be fractured, like Europe, India, or Southeast Asia. Except it isn't. Through roughly 1400 years of feudal China, it was united for about 1150 years. Through China's 2132 years of imperial rule, it was united for 1854 years. And despite all the claims about "the coming collapse of China", modern China has remained united for 70 years. Every sinologist, foreign liaison, and political strategist have always expressed the extremely powerful emotion of one China. -- Conclusion -- Imagine, in a hypothetical scenario, that all Latin American countries plus Spain and Portugal are combined into one single country. This hypothetical country has all the characteristics that currently separate the countries and peoples from each other. However, for some reason, this population of over a billion people firmly believes themselves to be the same people, the same culture, the same history. That is what China is. And that is why it is considered a civilization-state. Hope this helps.
@@jyashin thank you so much. I have few questions. 1. Would you consider U.S to be a nation-state or civilization state? Or U.S. is too young to be consider as a civilization state. 2. You mentioned that India being fractured. Are you considering that India has never being fulling unified in the past as the reason being fractured? Do you consider India as a civilization-state? Your hypothetical scenario about Latin American is a great one. extrapolate from this, do you think the "time " factory is the main cause of civilization-state? Would you recommend any books regarding this subject? Again, thank you very much.
@@centerleft4957 No problem. In regards to your questions. 1) Personally I think the US exhibits both characteristics of nation-state and civilization-state. The US itself firmly calls itself a nation-state. However, I think a major reason for the current societal turmoil in the US is that its people are grappling with both identities. On the one hand, the US has a clear-cut history of centralized rule - as the native populations were all but wiped out. Boundaries are also very easily drawn - ocean to ocean, Rio Grande to St. Lawrence, 49th parallel. On the other hand some states have their distinct histories from their time as different and/or independent countries (Texas, Hawaii, and the SW states). The US calls itself a melting pot, where your past becomes a "clean slate" and you take on a new American identity. But on the other hand certain non-white minorities will never lose their heritage and either won't (Latinos) or can't (Asians) become "real Americans" - as certain ultra right-wing rhetoric put it. 2) India has mostly been fractured in its long and illustrious history, but even today it is fractured as well. Pakistan and Bangladesh were carved out of India. And even within India proper, it lacks a strong unifying factor. Narendra Modi's reign is characterized by his attempt at creating a stronger unifying force via Hinduism - and simultaneously ostracizing the 15% of India that isn't Hindu. I would consider India, as it currently is, to be very similar to a civilization state. However, if India were to fracture even further, this would no longer hold true. The future in the Kashmir region and the nascent Nagaland independence movement could break the concept of a civilization state in India being true. Time will tell. 3) As for time, it is well known as the ultimate test. It certainly plays a factor, as any attempt to transform a country into something it is not will quickly fail after a certain amount of time passes. The best examples are the failed democracies in Africa and the Middle East. Conversely, just because something manages to last a certain amount of time doesn't mean it is necessarily true. The best example is the Islamic Caliphate, lasting hundreds of years, even rivaling the Tang Dynasty of China in terms of power and impact. But we can see from today's Middle East that clearly the Arab World is not a civilization state. 4) The term "civilization state" is a recent one. It only rose in the mid 1990s as academics tried to describe China specifically, as opposed to the centuries long concept of the "nation-state." Due to its short history, and the fact that it really only applies to China (India is trying to join the group) there really isn't a lot of work done on the concept. What we do know is that due to all the failed explanations and predictions of China's rise and unity, something is clearly wrong with applying the "nation-state" model. Martin Jacques book "When China rules the world" is the book that popularized the term civilization-state, but it's certainly not a definitive answer on the concept. It's more a collection of Jacques' own observations, combined with existing theories on the continuity of China. Thus, if you're looking for a specific book to examine the "civilization state," you won't find one yet. But as China continues to reemerge as a global power, more work will be done to analyze the idea of an alternative to nation-statehood.
Only discovered him this evening - convincing theories, apt to the point of woe for some regional issues, including China where I live and my currency is now, with Brexit looming, which may after all pan out as a good idea in the greater long term global future. Studied and taught history/humanities for 30 years and fully accept the premise of the conflict zones - I finally unnerstan Trump's fp in the light of this talk, which is a relief because I thought the USA had gone mad by turning away from the brink of holding the biggest sphere of influence of any power ever; but then I am of the generation that viewed the US through Bush senior lenses. Crikey if I were in the UK today I would probably have changed where I put my x on this weeks ballot paper.
I watch them all because there are little updates and tweaks to every one of them. Its interesting to see as it goes. I suspect that including them all in one video, instead of just smashing all the videos together, would make a 2 and a half hour video total.
Peter speaks on China's economy when he says: "When the loans are free, when the money is bottomless, you can bid up the price of anything because you don't care what the price is" but this applies equally as well to the US higher education economy.
When i saw the date of the video i was impressed ! Agenda 2030 still didnt started like today which made many ppl speculate and give presentations like zeihan, but zeihan did it before hand which is impressive
"If you lose access [to SWIFT], you don't just lose access to American markets, you lose access to international trade" Q2 2022 talking here -- Have China and Russia recently demonstrated that this is no longer the case?
@@jimluebke3869 well for one thing the Russians are surprised at how the Chinese are refusing to offer up direct military aid Because the Chinese fear the economic sanctions imposed by the international community Russia expected the Chinese to assist them much like how Ukraine is being assisted in being given Stinger launchers and HIMARS artillery systems, etc. China has offered none of that, China has participated in the as you said misinformation war because the Chinese government regularly broadcasts the Russian propaganda and the Russian talking points But not any military assistance, no infact the Chinese government has only increased the fire economic situation in Russia because they will purchase Russian supplied energy but at a steep discount China instead participated in a predatory economic opportunity much to Russia's disappointment
He looks more corporate with his pony tail now, and more like closet hippy hiding under a haircut in this video. 😂 The thing I love about Pete is that he embraces the Bold Statement. He’s like the stunt driver of geopolitics, unafraid to go take a curve a little faster than other analysts.
In talking about Brazil, Peter doesn't realize that Brazil can import large amounts of labour from Portuguese speaking nations in Africa like Angola and Mozambique (their demographic profiles are very healthy) - this was done in the past (many Black Brazilians came from there) and can be done in future. He also treats vast swathes of the world like Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa as black boxes - and he ignores the internal tensions in US politics. This is a US centric view of the 21st Century - a century that is too complicated for simple analysis.
@@jekkfractal5164 This is just like saying that "British internal tensions are mostly for show" - but they led to Brexit and real damage - and real divisions.
Finally seeing modification of his presentations. Still impressed. Wondering why none of his presentations discuss the impact of oil fields in Southeast Asia and Alaska. I recall an ROTC instructor in 1970 explain the Vietnam War as a hidden conflict over the potential untapped Oil Field under the South China Sea; looking at it this way and Zeihan’s pitch and current events there, another way to look at it.
Has nothing to do with it, because the cost doesn't worth the pay for such a thing. The whole point of Vietnam was to limit soviet influence and further increase their economic and political suffocation.
currency transactions between two non US countries use a two step currency 'exchange' process if both chose to use US dollars as the mediator- not a 3 step process - but we know what you mean
"Like Austin really isn't part of Texas, the US isn't really part of the world." That's only half right. Austin isn't really part of Texas. But the rest of the world isn't really part of America.
American Exceptionalism, the man. Don't get me wrong, he has insight, I hear everything this man puts out. But let's be real. You need to filter every single word. Some is truth, most is him selling you his books.
Hm couple of inaccuracies. - Saying that only the US had super-carriers in 2019 and that ALL "ski-lift carriers" eg STOBAR or STOVL, regardless of their displacement, capacity or technology can only compete with the Gerald Ford class in a 7:1 ratio is patently nonsense. There were 3 other aircraft carriers with similar displacement in service in 2019 and two more have entered service since then. Though it is entirely accurate to say that no other blue-water navy or combination thereof on the planet could successfully challenge the US navy globally, there are navies which could successfully challenge a single US carrier group, in certain circumstances. - Saying that the Straight of Hormuz is the UK's problem in a situation where the US is supplying its entire domestic oil supply is also nonsense. In 2019, the UK imported no oil which transited through the Straight of Hormuz. Principle supplies came from Norway, the US, Russia and Mediterranean Africa. The UK has been terrified of relying on the Suez canal for energy supplies since 1956 and has pretty successfully decoupled its energy market from suppliers on the Arabian Peninsula. This however has been compromised to a degree since 2022 when finding alternatives to Russian hydrocarbons. All moot in any case. Since 24th Feb 2022, the US has woken up to the fact that the cold war is far from over and if it has any hope of preserving an export market, it desperately needs NATO - and for that it needs its carrier groups in the Straight of Hormuz to keep its allies topped up ;) Oh well Zeihan, you're right about a great many things! But Putin said nope on that.
Peter: "Time to show our gratefulness and appreciation for the millennials" Me: Damn right, about time Peter: "Which won't take nearly as long because there are only three reasons" Me: Fuck
I really hope his third book actually talks about Australia in more than just a paragraph and a half. Don't get me wrong, his analysis on the rest of the world is riveting and data based (rather than ideologically based) and I love it. But it gets tiring when your country is little more than a footnote in talks like this and in books that address these topics.
Cody's Odyssey Well Australia isn’t really going to be around much longer with their stupidity like allowing children to change the sex on their birth certificates (yes that’s happened).
Matthew as far as I know that’s only in Victoria and Tasmania. And the only people who pay that nonsense any mind are the inner-city lefties. It’s really not that prevalent in the country writ large. I’m sure that if this stuff continues election trends are going to swing against that nonsense. There’s no need to scare monger and indulge in worst-case scenario thinking
I understand the patriotic slight you're feeling, but I think the reason that AU largely gets overlooked is because it's geography is not great. And anytime you see "not great" next to "geography" it's time to start thinking "capital intensive". Much of the country itself is wastelands, and setting SE Asia aside, it's a LONG way to get anything to/from AU. Distance is expense, so it's hard to look at AU as being anything other than an adjunct player of some other major power that has the ability to invest enormous piles of capital into protecting AU's trade. Without the US Navy to protect all seaborne trade AU's economic impact on the rest of the world would be vanishingly small and almost entirely limited to digital goods (see: Atlassian) that are mostly independent of physical security or distance issues. He has a map of global land quality here: zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/zeihan-global-lands-map.jpg
Adam Wilson granted a lot of our land sucks. But even that map shows that we have far more easily developed land than most countries have land full stop. Our biggest issue is our lack of rivers. Our rivers are little more than glorified streams. (I was astonished by the size of the rivers in other countries when I traveled overseas). Our Murray-Darling river basin is on par with the Mississippi just in terms of raw size. The thing that sucks is our dry climate and flat geography. If our country had taller mountains that actually supplied enough water to make our rivers navigable we would be like another America. Unfortunately though, we aren’t. We’re stuck dealing with seasonal heatwaves that could become deadly in an instant. But it’s not like we will struggle. We have a a far better geography than Canada or Brazil in many ways. Even Zeihan puts us in the rising stars category. ( zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Global-stability-map.jpg ) I just really want to know more about why. I want to know the specifics. I’m really hoping he writes more about Australia in Disunited Nations. It just really annoys me that Angola of all places gets more than Australia.
@@codysodyssey3818 I think it really comes down to the distance problem. You can be absolutely right about everything else, but it's 12000km from Sydney to LA and 150km from Tijuana to LA. The distance is a blessing in that the distance puts AU well out of the primary future war zones, but it's also a curse in that it puts AU uneconomically far away from the largest markets. AU's ability to be a rising star is contingent on a strong deals with the US to get access to US Navy protection for it's shipping and it ability to make strong connections with other US partners in SE Asia. It's the contingencies that make AU a question mark. Note that map also has Argentina as a rising star, but that was contingent on them not ducking up their politics, which they just did a few months ago in their latest elections. IIRC, Zeihan made it clear that the "rising stars" map was nations that had all the ingredients needed to rise, but that the political will of the nation would be the determining factor in whether or not they did, not that it was a foregone conclusion. It's still up to the AU people to get a grip on their governments and steer them in the right direction. A prime example of this would be AU's shale natgas reserves. While they are extensive the current climate-driven political situation in AU makes exploiting them a non-starter. That'll likely need to change for AU to actually rise, because with China entering a period of existential crisis, they aren't going to have any reason to share the Spratly's with AU, no matter how conciliatory the AU government is towards them. So yes, AU can be a rising star, but some major changes are going to have to break your way first. You do have advantages, you are an English speaking Five Eyes nation with a long history in dealing with the US. But that has to be balanced against the geographic disadvantages.
Canada could easily fall apart. They have had 2 referendums, on splitting up the country, with Quebec leaving. Last referendum, the "leave Canada" side came within 2,000 votes of breaking up Canada. You have to understand the numbers to see how easily it is, for Canada to be destroyed. Canada is a country that has 2 provinces which contain most of it's population. That would be Ontario and Quebec. Quebec isn't really the same as the rest of Canada. It is mostly French speaking people, the historical remainder of the French people in North America. Most of them want their own country. If Quebec left Canada, then Canada would be demographically and politically dominated by one single province of Ontario, who would have 50% of the entire population of Canada. Canada has been kept stable by having 2 giant Provinces, one French speaking, one English speaking, dominate all of Canada and balance off each other. Quebec is one of those giant Province. It's what keeps Canada unique and different from the United States. Most English speaking Canadians in other provinces are almost indistinguishable from Americans. Same language, same values, similar economy, they watch the same TV, read the same books as Americans. If Quebec left, there would be 12 remaining English speaking Provinces left in Canada. Most are tiny, with few people. Only Ontario is huge in numbers, it would contain half of the remaining population of a Canada without Quebec. All 12 Provinces combined would have the same political power as the one Province: Ontario. This has played out in Canadian history, this fact that the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario basically have all the power in Canada. It has caused a lot of tension in Canadian history. The other Provinces don't like it, don't being dominated by Ontario and Quebec. If Quebec left, the rest of Canada would never survive. One of the reasons Quebec leaving Canada would break up the remainder of Canada is you would have a West Pakistan/East Pakistan situation, if Quebec left. Students of history know that when the British left India, two areas of India.....West and East Pakistan, they politically seceded from India. Both Pakistans had a common language and religion....so they tried to operate as one country. The trouble was, they were divided by geography....they were in two separate parts of the Indian subcontinent. That doesn't work. A country with two parts, with a thousand miles of another country in between it's two parts, can't function. It's like trying to make a marriage work, with the husband permanently in New York City, the wife permanently in Los Angeles. That seldom works. Look at a map. That's what Canada would look like, without Quebec. It would have 4 Provinces separated from Ontario, by the new country of Quebec, right in the middle, dividing the whole country of Canada into two parts. That would never work. Those isolated Provinces are Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Quebec leaving means geography alone, would break up Canada. Add to this, one province of Ontario would be half the population of the remainder of Canada. Ontario would completely dominate the remainder of Canada, politically and economically. This political domination would break up Canada. Alberta is an oil rich province that would be the first to leave Canada and join the United States, if Quebec left. Plus, with Quebec gone, it's French heritage gone, Canada would be an entirely English speaking country in North America, almost identical to the United States. And Canada economically relies almost entirely on American trade to survive. So there would be no reason to keep Canada around, as a political unit. Canada would be absorbed into the United States, which should have happened already, long ago, but did not, for quirky historical reasons. That might change. It almost did, twice, with Quebec trying to break up Canada twice. They were timid about it because they didn't know if the Americans would support it, or not. Quebec has a lot of hydro-electricity and good manufacturing. They would need a Free Trade guarantee and American protection, if they held another referendum to leave Canada. If they won the entirely legal vote to break up Canada and if the United States recognized Quebec as an independent country, there is nothing the Government of Canada could do about it. Canada is weak and has no real military. They entirely depend on the United States for protection. President Trump has the wrong idea in trying to buy Greenland. That seller does not want to sell. However it would be pretty easy to break up Canada and absorb all that Canadian real estate, all those resources: Just guarantee Quebec Independence and Free Trade. The rest of Canada would fall apart in a few years, the remaining Provinces would be motivated sellers, wishing to join the United States. Canada is far, far less secure, than people think.
Maybe I am looking at this wrong so I'm hoping someone can give me an answer. He always says the US doesnt need or care about the rest of the world for the most part because of the amount of oil we have. My problem with following his reasoning is that the oil is publicly owned and will be traded on the global market as such. Wouldn't we have to nationalize these resources to keep them in house?
Answer:Export ban. Trump has to options when this happens: let the people pay a lot of money for oil or forbid exports so that they pay a hell of a lot less. I think you know what he will choose.
The slowing of population growth and the aging of the industrial population is good when compared to the alternative which is unsupportable population growth.
The cost of capital increasing by 4? The inflows of foreign money should moderate that figure by half. The interest rates may double, but my guess that quadruple is out there.
I would look at building a thorium molten salt reactor. We had one running in Oak Ridge Tennessee from 1965 to 1970. The concept is different. You don't have a bunch of rods in a pool of water. You have thorium combined with molten salt running through a heat exchanger. It is not pressurized, it cannot blow up. Byproducts would be molybdenum 99 for cancer diagnostics therapies and research. Xenon for Nassau, for interstellar space travel. The excess heat can be used for water desalinization and petroleum distillate manufacturing. I believe Bill Gates is building a prototype in Idaho as we speak. Instead of having a huge regional reactor which could be taken out by terrorist, it would be better to have, smaller reactors in each town or city.
America has explored shale for a reason; that reason is that other types of oil are running out. Eventually, the shale will run out. This doesn't matter to Peter, because he doesn't care about how big the global pie is, only how big America's share is. If the global economy was one hundredth the size and no country could afford the infrastructure for technology past the 1900s, Peter would think it's perfectly fine as long as America was the most powerful out of the remains.
Everything non-renewable will run out and most of the items that are considered renewable are made with raw materials of limited quantities. Hopefully technology can carry us through or we'll see a return to basic survival after a massive die off.
Not the first time isolation has been presented as a remedy/solution ... ming dynasty did it way back in the 1700s and we all know what happened 2 centuries later ... what ultimately helps a country to grow is innovation and it can only happen in an integrated world full of competition where ideas float freely ...and also what he is suggesting is all speculative ... america's growth in 1940s-1950s was even more dramatic then china's ... difference between 1939 and now well all major economies are integrated and everyone knows now that geopolitical disturbances are not suitable ... and for the part where he suggests that skilled people would migrate to USA in future well good luck explaining all that to the majority of Americans, we sometimes tend to forget our tribal mindset ... migration is already the most divisive issue in America and it would continue to grow ...
The Ming Dynasty is a very different form of Isolation than the form he's talking about. Peter is basically saying America goes back to WWI mindset, it's still engaged with the world but they'll let others murder each other then swoop in after both sides are weakened and turn the tide in their favor.
He’s not saying the US is going to seal ourselves off. He’s saying that because the US is the closest country to a true autarky, the US doesn’t have much need or interest in the rest of the world. Innovation has a loose relationship with connections to other countries. There’s more than enough competition within the US, and ideas arguably move more freely in the US than the rest of the world. The US has never had a problem taking the best an brightest. Our current problem is just masses of people trying to get in and undercutting our domestic labor market.
There isn't much need for an explanation. Sure, those skilled laborers will compete with our skilled laborers, driving down their earnings. But it also means I can hire cheaper skilled labor. Even if I'm not an employer of skilled labor, as a consumer those goods and services will be more readily available and cheaper. More competition will drive innovation. New and better products. All without our society having to invest in their education, but reaping the benefits. More people also means more customers. As a carpenter, building new homes or flipping old homes is good for business. Let them in. I really couldn't care less about cultural differences. Just leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. We can build a better world right here at home.
On the stuff around the 45 minute mark, I still don't agree with Zeihan on Argentina and India. I think he overestimates Argentina and underestimates India. I might also put Ethiopia and Nigeria as doing better than he did (though there's still going to be quite a bit of instability). Other than that though, the map looks realistic.
now i know zeihan aint no weather for caster but mmigration, due to climate change might also be an interesting part to take into consideration in these lectures.
It's nonsense. That's just an excuse for the elite class to encourage more migration and depress wages. After covid, the number of open positions have soared, and that's the time that salaries should increase, since workers become more scarce. They increase migration only to inflate the economy and depress wages. Only to deal with the short term consequences of the financial system. Climate change has also become an excuse to funnel elite's capital into new markets and businesses with government spnding at the cost of people's pensions to increase the elite's slice of the pie.
America, internally, can try to be self-sustaining - and as far as I'm concerned, that is fantastic. But you have many corporations taking advantage of weak legislation worldwide, and I do not want a uk-usa free treaty, as it would involve reducing our food standards/ medication standards down to USA levels, which is a horrifying thought.
50:30 he is wrong there. It already pays back and the price fall trend will continue. (but later he is correct that there is a limit because of storage)
@@mrgomelonsolaris If you are a thief who can't add in the 50% subsidies..... yet claim a pay back period of 8 years with NO STORAGE and then it ONLY works in VERY sunny southern USA. Majority dear fool, live north where the sun does not shine for ~4 months of the year. Europe? Oh forget it. Sahara desert is a wonderful place..... PS: I bought used panels and installed myself, with a payback period(real payback with ROI of 10%) of 7 years, but majority cannot due to them not owning their own home free and clear and mortgage company forces them to farm the installation out which require NEW expensive panels instead of 2nd hand cheap panels as I did.
@@w8stral are you in the USA? Because new panels in other countries are way cheaper than USA as is installing. At a minimum Spain and Australia are already at grid parity
