10 ms·

I’ve been following Zeihan since his first book. I’m yet to find a credible counter argument to his theses. And he’s being proven right at an alarming pace this

by spaceman_2020 4y ago

I’ve been following Zeihan since his first book. I’m yet to find a credible counter argument to his theses. And he’s being proven right at an alarming pace this year. So far this year we’ve had: - A land war in Europe - Food insecurity in the developing world - Breakdown of supply chains and shipping routes - Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). Everything that he had talked about in the past and in his latest book. The thing about Zeihan’s arguments is that you can’t really argue against demographics. You can procure any resource from any part of the world, but if you want an 18 year old to consume or work or fight, you HAVE to wait 18 years. Or import them from elsewhere - which causes all sorts of cultural and societal conflicts.

next_xibalba 4y ago
How many of his predictions have failed? How many are timebound and falsifiable? I am not specifically familiar with Zehain, but I am very well acquainted with figures who generate many predictions, have a small number become true, and then get treated as oracles for years before the truth is exposed: predicting the future in massive, chaotic systems is nearly impossible.
- kapp_in_life 4y ago
  Also some of these seem like almost vacuous statements. Predicting food insecurity(or any other type of insecurity) in the developing world is not a groundbreaking prediction.
  - puranjay 4y ago
    He didn’t just say there will be food insecurity in the developing world; he said there will be food insecurity in the developing world because of competition between nation states far, far away. A much more specific prediction. And that’s precisely what’s happening right now - countries like India and Indonesia stopping exports to safeguard their own interests.
  - MR4D 4y ago
    Here’s one for you: He predicted the invasion of Ukraine back in this video from 2017 (actually earlier, but this was the easiest source for me to cite): https://youtu.be/rkuhWA9GdCo https://youtu.be/rkuhWA9GdCo The whole video is pretty short, but he mentions Ukraine about 2 1/2 minutes in.
    - kapp_in_life 4y ago
      Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014. This is similar to claiming the US would invade some N+1 Middle eastern country. He makes a lot of claims and some of them happen to be right.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      I predicted the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 after no one gave a shit about the Crimean invasion. Plenty of other people did too, it wasn't even a difficult prediction to make, Putin has been very clear about his Ukrainian ambition for a long time. Remember Trump's first impeachment? It was literally about withholding military aid to Ukraine, all of the state department officials were bewildered because they knew about the impending invasion.
      - andi999 4y ago
        If it was so clear, then tell me, why did putin wait for so long.
        colinmhayes 4y ago
        Many reasons, waiting for people to forget about the crimean invasion, waiting for people to be distracted, waiting for an especially cold winter that would cause europe more harm if they instituted sanctions, waiting for his health to deteriorate.
        tomp 4y ago
        Because Trump threatened to strike back. Putin was afraid of Trump, but he knows that Biden has no spine. https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/trump-talks-threatening-putin-mocking-merkel-at-mar-a-lago/ https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/trump-talks-threatening-putin-... > “If you move against Ukraine while I’m president,” Trump is said to have told the Russian leader, “I will hit Moscow.” > Putin reportedly scoffed, “No way,” leading Trump to say, “All those beautiful golden turrets will be blown up.”
- puranjay 4y ago
  His core arguments focus on geography and demographics, both of which are “hard” problems. Declining populations simply cannot maintain the “grow at all costs” current economic order. Even an advanced country like Japan with plenty of automation and high productivity rates hasn’t see any growth in two decades since its population itself doesn’t grow anymore. Even if you don’t go by his more alarmist arguments, you have to agree that in the face of declining populations and ageing demographics, we will have to shift to a new economic model where growth isn’t the only goal. And any large scale shift in economic models comes with some grief, at the very least.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    People like to point at Japan and its lack of growth pointing out to various degrees how awful that is, but if you’re actually Japanese, you’re pretty much fine for these decades of zeroish growth. Not to say Japan is an idyllic place free from problems, but the economics of a zero growth society has at least that example of a distinct lack of doom. If the rest of us experience it like that, it’s not really anything to worry about unless your worries revolve around earning money from capital.
    - lostcolony 4y ago
      "People" might, but the post you're replying to didn't. All they said was "Declining populations simply cannot maintain the “grow at all costs” current economic order" which implies a change is necessary, not whether that change is good/bad/whatever.
      - majormajor 4y ago
        But Japan experienced that change already and it wasn't apocalyptic by any means. Puranjay's claim here is almost literally "change will happen, and it will bring grief." So change happening without much grief runs right against that. Meanwhile, the US has had any number of highly-adversarial, occasionally-violent political fights in the last decade while still in that "grow the top line" mindset. You could make a plausible argument that those additional few decades of "growth" has a lot to do with the violence and unrest, even, not the other way around. (For instance, see any of a number of takes from all over the political spectrum blaming increasing stratification of elites.) Hell, wasn't Marx predicting internal upheaval and self-defeat of capitalist economies many, many decades ago based on the same sort of demographics/populations/resources economic arguments? Things will change is an easy prediction, they haven't ever been stable. But it's also a meaningless one if you can't convincingly show that it's this decade not "any time between 10 and 200 years from now."
- wmeredith 4y ago
  Here's a skeptical look at some of his claims: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/peter-zeihan-makes-bad-predictions-with-bad-premises.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/peter-zeihan-makes-bad...
  - mooreds 4y ago
    Thanks! I appreciated this. Some of the links are especially good, where the author goes back to Zeihan's STRATFOR days and talks about how they've been predicting the end of China for years. Note that this is from 2018. I looked at the site briefly and didn't see any more recent predictions.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    > Zeihan has an implicit prediction that neither China or any other power would step into any power void left by the withdrawal of the USA I believe this has already been proven wrong with the One Belt Road. It’s ridiculous to think that no one will step in once there’s a power vacuum. > Japan, Turkey and Argentina will Rise as Future Great Powers I have a really hard time believing this, especially with Japan. It’s under threat from climate change and its xenophobic, anti immigration stance paired with its aging population. Still, not all of his ideas are bad.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  I have the feeling that we might be in our current predicament because a few billionaires are reading the same books, and trying to bring about some ideological nonsense into reality.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Blaming billionaires is like like any sport: fun, but nothing to do with real life.
    - dukeofdoom 4y ago
      Politicians are there to provide cover so you don't blame the billionaires directly. But you would be surprised how much Politicians bend over backwards to protect them when it matters. Putin went after some US connected oligarchs to clean up corruption in his country. US policy towards Russian literally changed overnight and US imposed sanctions, and we have everything that followed. In Michigan a billionaire started building a bridge on public park land. Judge sent him to prison for contempt. Michigan legislature had an emergency midnight session to get him out.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        A quick Google shows you're cherry-picking: - Bernie Madoff was worth $20bn and is in jail for 150 years - Eike Batista was worth $30bn but was jailed for bribery - Alfred Taubman was fined $7m and jailed for a year - The Kwok brothers were worth $16bn but were jailed and fined for bribery Etc etc. There's no point forming a worldview based on cherry picking. Nothing is simple. Politicians, billionares, or any other line you care to draw around people to define a group, are not homogenous. Some will be individually moral and upright, or guilt-ridden but greedy, or pyschopathic and power-hungry.
billbrown 4y ago
I, too, am a fan of Zeihan's. I think his thesis is basically correct, but he is frustratingly cagey with detail. Timeframes matter, as does any citation of sources. Given the level of detail, it seems accurate and reliable but I just feel uneasy without the ability to verify anything.
arcturus17 4y ago
You can’t argue with demographics, so you wouldn’t have argued with Malthus? He was completely wrong, at the very least in timescale.
- harpersealtako 4y ago
  You can't argue with demographics because, outside of immigration, it is physically impossible to change them in the short term. Even if e.g. Korea somehow managed to get a fertility rate of 10 tomorrow, it would takes many decades for that generation to begin to contribute to the economy as a class of high-skilled laborers. No matter what Korea does, absent implausible levels of immigration, they are still set for future economic hardship due to their demographics.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    To me, this is one of America's superpowers. America is quite unique in the world by being so significantly multicultural, and increasingly so. It can tune and balance its demographics with immigration. It is especially good at attracting the best and brightest from around the world, because there is a realistic, and well trodden path, of not only fully integrating yourself and your children into American society, but also integrating into the ruling/upper class. For example, any Chinese citizen can effectively defect and build a safe and sustainable life in America. Millions have already done it. First generation immigrants lead some of America's most powerful corporations. Second generation immigrants are welcome as officials in the government. The current VP is second generation immigrant of Indian/Jamaican descent. On the other hand, an American can never effectively defect to China. Maybe if you are ethnically Chinese, your children could be accepted, but not likely anyone else. China simply doesn't have a culture of fully integrating people of all kinds into it's society. The funnel of exceptional humans is one way, and it's into America.
    - xeromal 4y ago
      Love this and I'm sure a few will start poking into this comment, but I appreciate you saying this. There's a comedian, I think Bill Burr, that says one of the great things about US sports is our incredible diversity. Look at any of our Olympic teams and you'll see all kinds of ethnicities in our teams, whoever is the best. On the other hand, I doubt you'll see the same on the chinese Olympic team. Obviously, there are other countries that do the same as us, but we do it on a pretty big scale and I think our success in medals is often in being comfortable with this. Heck, there are a few athletes that have the option of competing for us or their native land and they choose to go back to their country for that. Naomi Osaka comes to mind. She has lived in the US since she was 3 years old yet chose to play for Japan.
DennisP 4y ago
I just read all Zeihan's books. The only counterargument I can think of is that maybe with our interdependent world, sanctions have gotten effective enough to substitute for US military power to some extent. Zeihan himself has said China has to be reevaluating the idea of an attack on Taiwan, after seeing the sanctions and boycotts against Russia. Sanctions haven't stopped Russia but Russia is a food and fuel exporter. Most countries are more reliant in imports for essentials. E.g. the Saudis need food imports, so maybe going to war with Iran isn't such a good idea for them, and that helps prevent the drastic Asian oil shortages Zeihan describes.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Sanctions are a "one time weapon" I fear, and many many countries are now including "what if we or someone we trade with gets sanctioned by the US" as part of their contingency planning.
  - myself248 4y ago
    Furthermore, after the one-time pain, assuming they survive the pain, the sanctioned nation arguably ends up stronger because they're forced to develop in-house versions of things. I'm just waiting for China to decide they're strong enough to cut the US off. Assuming we survive the pain, that'll be an interesting day.
    - DennisP 4y ago
      China imports over 80% of their oil and food/ag inputs, so it'll be a while.
    - scottyah 4y ago
      The industry developed during sanctions is a lot like those created during times of highly protectionist policies though. Once those walls come down, they have to compete with the rest of the world that has been innovating a lot faster. They’ll need a lot of supplemental income or all these bubble-spawned companies will die off. I think it’d be smarter to NOT try to develop everything in-house if you’re a smaller country with many imports.
CalChris 4y ago
18 years and 9 months. Zeihan is very funny. I don't think he is particularly 'smart' (wait for me a second here). I think he instead makes obvious conclusions from undeniable evidence like demographics and geography. The 'smarter' more institutional types from Brookings and Hoover tend to argue from policy and politics backwards and then the facts become inconvenient.
- slowhand09 4y ago
  I recall an applicable quote (paraphrased) "it's not hard to make truthful predictions. Its hard to get the timing right."
- sbierwagen 4y ago
  >tend to argue from policy and politics backwards and then the facts become inconvenient There's the famous UN population projections where they show Europe and Asia declining for a while, then leveling out around 2050. Why? Well, they published their reasoning: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf#page=15 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Hig... >Evidence from surveys of childbearing preferences indicate that even in populations with low or very low fertility for decades, women continue to express a desire for around two children on average. The myriad reasons for the gap between desired and completed fertility include such factors as an incompatibility between childrearing and the demands of higher education and career building, a lack of affordable highquality child care, the decline of reproductive capacity at advanced maternal ages, and imbalanced gender roles for housework and child care. >The fact that fertility preferences remain close to two children per woman, even as realized fertility has fallen well below that level, suggests that the fertility rate in low-fertility countries may increase as populations learn to manage and mitigate some or all impeding factors. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of that actually happening, though. Japan has been below-replacement since 1973. Ukraine and Russia had TFRs of 1.23 and 1.5 respectively in 2019, and they're busy pointlessly killing a generation of young men, which won't help much with family formation. Where is the "mitigation"? The UN's argument seems to be that it would be stupid for a country just to commit suicide for no reason, so they won't do that. Unfortunately, this report was written in 2019, before the events of the last few years. It is no longer quite so certain that countries won't pursue pointless self-destructive policies for no good reason.
selimthegrim 4y ago
Zeihan is not any better than Perun about the war, and arguably much less right.
dirtyid 4y ago
>credible counter argument to his theses Zeihan's thesis is generic geopolitical analysis, which is a fine model, but there's no reason to credit that to him. Really it's about the quality of his predictions which is hard to gauge other than he throws a lot of shit out to see what sticks and occasionally some do. Broken clock etc. Otherwise, he sells US exceptionalism powerpoints to wealthy boomers over expensive dinners. He tends to pile on "natural 20" dice rolls to America's favour and extrapolates from there why Fortress America will be fine no matter how much she FUBARs which undermines the quality of his prediction. It matters if supply chain break down was due to pandemic driven factors rather than active reshoring. Greece-Iran drama was Greece fulfilling US request and eventual release back to Iran - this isn't anarchy caused by US withdraw but US continued engagement/meddling while countries try to minimize fallout - essentially opposite cause of Zeihan prediction. Hard to credit right predictions for wrong reasons. Lastly if demography was destiny, India would be a super power - divident can turn into curse depending on policy and other structural factors.
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
I've never heard of Zeihan. The article touts his prowess of predicting a Russian invasion of Ukraine in his book published in late 2014. Well, Russia had just seized Crimea and eastern Donbass in February of 2014, so this doesn't strike me as a particularly prescient call.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Except that from January to March this year pundits swore up and down that Russia wouldn’t launch a full invasion of Ukraine. When it happened a lot of people were surprised. You could have made a killing in the stock market if you’d realized that Russia would certainly invade, and they probably had a deadline in order to maximize the summer fighting season. It seemed obvious to me, but not so obvious that I positioned myself properly in the stock market. Everything is obvious after the fact. Look around for the people asserting that it’s obvious BEFORE the fact and measure their accuracy. Those people might have useful insight.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    > When it happened a lot of people were surprised. Meanwhile the US intelligence service had been claiming since summer that an invasion was likely. Trump's impeachment was over withholding military aid that the state department deemed crucial. The career foreign service workers saw this coming.
  - ProjectArcturis 4y ago
    Pundits? Maybe some did. There are lots of pundits and I'm sure many of them get a lot wrong and some get things right by pure chance. On the other hand, US intelligence was shouting loud and clear in mid-February that an invasion was immanent. In any case, making a claim in October 2014 that at some point Russia would continue its invasion of Ukraine is not a particularly impressive feat.
    - togril 4y ago
      It is impressive, as entire nations have literally gambled their (energy) security against this to happen. This is like saying it wasn't impressive to predict and time the GFC. Yeah sure, in retrospect it looks all totally obvious and simple.
billbrown 4y ago
He's made available[1] the charts and maps used in the book. I found this one quite illuminating on demographics.[2] [1] https://zeihan.com/end-of-the-world-maps/ https://zeihan.com/end-of-the-world-maps/ [2] https://zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-fertility-rates-v2-01.jpg https://zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-fertili...
achenet 4y ago
Reading his book The End of Everything is Just Beginning, he posits a history of early human evolution that is throughly debunked in The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow. Not that this invalidates his future predictions, but...
pphysch 4y ago
> Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). The US Navy is a major player here, having recently seized Venezuelan and Iranian tankers on the basis of violating sanctions. Only in retaliation did Iran begin seizing boats. This undermines the thesis that the US Navy is somehow protecting the stability of global trade. They're actively destabilizing to advance Washington's hegemonic interests. > The thing about Zeihan’s arguments is that you can’t really argue against demographics. You can absolutely argue against this. It's called automation. Needing millions of young healthy bodies to push machines around is increasingly outdated. A highly technical population with "bad demographics" will easily outperform a 20th century population with "good demographics" in the 21st century. Not to mention high population growth (required for "good demographics") is increasingly unsustainable due to natural resource limitations. Zeihan is frankly a crock. He makes pretty maps and bold claims, but his evidence-based analysis is incredibly shallow. His MO is selling books: geopolitics as entertainment, not providing useful analysis. You are much better served by listening to experienced realists like John Mearsheimer or Michael Hudson, rather than Zeihan's pop-geopol junk.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  > You can absolutely argue against this. It's called automation. You're viewing it from a myopic production-focused viewpoint. Whereas the problem is our consumption-led economic order and its reliant on adding an ever increasing number of consumers. Compared to young people: A) Machines do not consume goods and trinkets. Western economies are based on consumption, not production. B) Machines do not pay taxes, making it harder and harder for the state to pay for the welfare of ageing populations. C) Automation simply doesn't work for service-focused work. Otherwise there wouldn't be record number of job openings and labor shortages in the US right now.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    > Western economies are based on consumption, not production. Hence their present downfall. > Machines do not pay taxes, making it harder and harder for the state to pay for the welfare of ageing populations. Taxes are a relic of the long-gone physical money era. Vulgar taxation is a legacy technology that provides more waste than utility in the 21st century. > Automation simply doesn't work for service-focused work. Yes it does, increasingly over time. I just ordered my lunch through a virtual cafeteria cashier that was literally a human until a month ago. Someone still prepared it by hand by putting ~10 spoonfuls of different ingredients into a tortilla, but that is already being automated in more advanced societies.
causality0 4y ago
What bothers me is the sheer mass of factually incorrect statements Zeihan makes that would be trivial to check if he bothered. Things like "China only makes the low-end computer chips, anything that's going into a cellphone or laptop is made in the USA"
- Longlius 4y ago
  He's not incorrect on that point. Huawei sources its SoCs from Taiwanese and American fabs, which is why the trade war has absolutely gutted their bottom line. HiSilicon licenses chip designs, adds their specific stuff on top of them, and has the chips fabbed by TSMC.
  - causality0 4y ago
    He's incorrect in that he thinks the destruction of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry during an invasion by the mainland would be a minor inconvenience for the US but an insurmountable obstacle for China.
    - Schiendelman 4y ago
      Why? The US has Intel and AMD, and increasingly TSMC employees. China can’t replace those fabs, they don’t have the knowledge. The US is already building new fabs.
      - seanp2k2 4y ago
        https://www.shiphub.co/worlds-top-semiconductors-producers/ https://www.shiphub.co/worlds-top-semiconductors-producers/
        Schiendelman 4y ago
        Unfortunately, for understanding the root argument that isn’t super useful. China has lots of semiconductor manufacturing, but not with modern processes.
D_Alex 4y ago
I only read the linked article, not the books. I think that the thesis (as professed by the article) that the "deglobalization" is largely due to the decline of the US Navy is pretty silly. "Decline in the standard of US foreign policy and diplomacy" - in itself an ill-judged reaction to the rise of China's economic power and influence - is much closer to the mark. Of course the Covid pandemic didn't help either.
- japhib 4y ago
  > I think that the thesis (as professed by the article) that the "deglobalization" is largely due to the decline of the US Navy is pretty silly Why?
  - D_Alex 4y ago
    This is Australian, but probably relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 Seriously - what does the US Navy have to do with Trump's "trade war" with China? With Russia-Ukraine conflict? With US balance of trade that is $7 trillion out of kilter? And with US sanctions, which not only restrict international trade directly, but also will lead the countries holding some of that $7 trillion to reassess the risks of selling to the US?
leobg 4y ago
I found that when drawing conclusions for the financial markets from demographic changes such as the Boomer generation entering retirement he seems to completely ignore inheritance. People getting older forms just suck money out of the system. It also pumps money into it.
AussieWog93 4y ago
>Or import them from elsewhere - which causes all sorts of cultural and societal conflicts. I might be a bit biased in this regard (see username), but I've always thought the issue of immigration is massively overblown by journalists and politicians in order to get clicks/listeners/votes. Both at home and when traveling, it's surprising how well understood "global culture" is by pretty much everyone who lives in a city or large town. Outside of language barriers, things like catching a train or buying a bottle of Coke are all done much the same way no matter where you came from. I distinctly remember one instance where this old Ethiopian guy, who didn't know a single word of English, successfully managed to communicate that he'd forgotten to grab something and I should save his space in the supermarket queue. Outside of specific conflicts (Serbia/Croatia, India/Pakistan), or particular instances where one particular group has turned out to cause a whole lot of trouble, the policy as a whole seems surprisingly effective.
bergenty 4y ago
This sound like very high level, easy to “predict” predictions. Show me a percentage of how many predictions in a book worked out and how much detail they went into before I buy this snake oil. Yes, I’m using prediction intentionally. This isn’t an analysis, it’s prediction.
syntheweave 4y ago
I went and got the latest book and started reading it right then and there. It's crap. Demography is powerful, yes, but the interpretation matters, and the premises here are of steady-state or linear extrapolation. There is no mention of technological disruption: all the criticism assumes linear progress, allowing analysis to proceed along the lines of resource shortage. This core assumption means the book is already wrong since the progress in key disruptive techs has actually followed exponential curves(see any Tony Seba lecture). If we have the AI and robotics to fill in 18-year old roles, we don't need actual 18 year olds. It's a work of the moment in that it explains near-term problems reasonably well, while also being extremely wrong about anything more than a few years out because it can't imagine a world that gets weirder, when every big epochal shift has made the world weirder in the process of fending off Malthusian logic.
vba616 4y ago
You are impressed that someone predicted a war in 2014, and it happened...? I predict there will be a recession in the next 8 years! And another war! I also predict there will be food insecurity in the developing world! And bad things will happen to countries and ships, somewhere on the globe! Probably including Iran! What do I expect from an expert prognosticator? Opinions with the potential to be wrong. Numbers or quantitative statements help a lot.

next_xibalba 4y ago

How many of his predictions have failed? How many are timebound and falsifiable? I am not specifically familiar with Zehain, but I am very well acquainted with figures who generate many predictions, have a small number become true, and then get treated as oracles for years before the truth is exposed: predicting the future in massive, chaotic systems is nearly impossible.

kapp_in_life 4y ago
Also some of these seem like almost vacuous statements. Predicting food insecurity(or any other type of insecurity) in the developing world is not a groundbreaking prediction.
- puranjay 4y ago
  He didn’t just say there will be food insecurity in the developing world; he said there will be food insecurity in the developing world because of competition between nation states far, far away. A much more specific prediction. And that’s precisely what’s happening right now - countries like India and Indonesia stopping exports to safeguard their own interests.
- MR4D 4y ago
  Here’s one for you: He predicted the invasion of Ukraine back in this video from 2017 (actually earlier, but this was the easiest source for me to cite): https://youtu.be/rkuhWA9GdCo https://youtu.be/rkuhWA9GdCo The whole video is pretty short, but he mentions Ukraine about 2 1/2 minutes in.
  - kapp_in_life 4y ago
    Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014. This is similar to claiming the US would invade some N+1 Middle eastern country. He makes a lot of claims and some of them happen to be right.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    I predicted the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 after no one gave a shit about the Crimean invasion. Plenty of other people did too, it wasn't even a difficult prediction to make, Putin has been very clear about his Ukrainian ambition for a long time. Remember Trump's first impeachment? It was literally about withholding military aid to Ukraine, all of the state department officials were bewildered because they knew about the impending invasion.
    - andi999 4y ago
      If it was so clear, then tell me, why did putin wait for so long.
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        Many reasons, waiting for people to forget about the crimean invasion, waiting for people to be distracted, waiting for an especially cold winter that would cause europe more harm if they instituted sanctions, waiting for his health to deteriorate.
      - tomp 4y ago
        Because Trump threatened to strike back. Putin was afraid of Trump, but he knows that Biden has no spine. https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/trump-talks-threatening-putin-mocking-merkel-at-mar-a-lago/ https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/trump-talks-threatening-putin-... > “If you move against Ukraine while I’m president,” Trump is said to have told the Russian leader, “I will hit Moscow.” > Putin reportedly scoffed, “No way,” leading Trump to say, “All those beautiful golden turrets will be blown up.”
puranjay 4y ago
His core arguments focus on geography and demographics, both of which are “hard” problems. Declining populations simply cannot maintain the “grow at all costs” current economic order. Even an advanced country like Japan with plenty of automation and high productivity rates hasn’t see any growth in two decades since its population itself doesn’t grow anymore. Even if you don’t go by his more alarmist arguments, you have to agree that in the face of declining populations and ageing demographics, we will have to shift to a new economic model where growth isn’t the only goal. And any large scale shift in economic models comes with some grief, at the very least.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  People like to point at Japan and its lack of growth pointing out to various degrees how awful that is, but if you’re actually Japanese, you’re pretty much fine for these decades of zeroish growth. Not to say Japan is an idyllic place free from problems, but the economics of a zero growth society has at least that example of a distinct lack of doom. If the rest of us experience it like that, it’s not really anything to worry about unless your worries revolve around earning money from capital.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    "People" might, but the post you're replying to didn't. All they said was "Declining populations simply cannot maintain the “grow at all costs” current economic order" which implies a change is necessary, not whether that change is good/bad/whatever.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      But Japan experienced that change already and it wasn't apocalyptic by any means. Puranjay's claim here is almost literally "change will happen, and it will bring grief." So change happening without much grief runs right against that. Meanwhile, the US has had any number of highly-adversarial, occasionally-violent political fights in the last decade while still in that "grow the top line" mindset. You could make a plausible argument that those additional few decades of "growth" has a lot to do with the violence and unrest, even, not the other way around. (For instance, see any of a number of takes from all over the political spectrum blaming increasing stratification of elites.) Hell, wasn't Marx predicting internal upheaval and self-defeat of capitalist economies many, many decades ago based on the same sort of demographics/populations/resources economic arguments? Things will change is an easy prediction, they haven't ever been stable. But it's also a meaningless one if you can't convincingly show that it's this decade not "any time between 10 and 200 years from now."
wmeredith 4y ago
Here's a skeptical look at some of his claims: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/peter-zeihan-makes-bad-predictions-with-bad-premises.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/peter-zeihan-makes-bad...
- mooreds 4y ago
  Thanks! I appreciated this. Some of the links are especially good, where the author goes back to Zeihan's STRATFOR days and talks about how they've been predicting the end of China for years. Note that this is from 2018. I looked at the site briefly and didn't see any more recent predictions.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  > Zeihan has an implicit prediction that neither China or any other power would step into any power void left by the withdrawal of the USA I believe this has already been proven wrong with the One Belt Road. It’s ridiculous to think that no one will step in once there’s a power vacuum. > Japan, Turkey and Argentina will Rise as Future Great Powers I have a really hard time believing this, especially with Japan. It’s under threat from climate change and its xenophobic, anti immigration stance paired with its aging population. Still, not all of his ideas are bad.
dukeofdoom 4y ago
I have the feeling that we might be in our current predicament because a few billionaires are reading the same books, and trying to bring about some ideological nonsense into reality.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Blaming billionaires is like like any sport: fun, but nothing to do with real life.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    Politicians are there to provide cover so you don't blame the billionaires directly. But you would be surprised how much Politicians bend over backwards to protect them when it matters. Putin went after some US connected oligarchs to clean up corruption in his country. US policy towards Russian literally changed overnight and US imposed sanctions, and we have everything that followed. In Michigan a billionaire started building a bridge on public park land. Judge sent him to prison for contempt. Michigan legislature had an emergency midnight session to get him out.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      A quick Google shows you're cherry-picking: - Bernie Madoff was worth $20bn and is in jail for 150 years - Eike Batista was worth $30bn but was jailed for bribery - Alfred Taubman was fined $7m and jailed for a year - The Kwok brothers were worth $16bn but were jailed and fined for bribery Etc etc. There's no point forming a worldview based on cherry picking. Nothing is simple. Politicians, billionares, or any other line you care to draw around people to define a group, are not homogenous. Some will be individually moral and upright, or guilt-ridden but greedy, or pyschopathic and power-hungry.

billbrown 4y ago

I, too, am a fan of Zeihan's. I think his thesis is basically correct, but he is frustratingly cagey with detail. Timeframes matter, as does any citation of sources. Given the level of detail, it seems accurate and reliable but I just feel uneasy without the ability to verify anything.

arcturus17 4y ago

You can’t argue with demographics, so you wouldn’t have argued with Malthus? He was completely wrong, at the very least in timescale.

harpersealtako 4y ago
You can't argue with demographics because, outside of immigration, it is physically impossible to change them in the short term. Even if e.g. Korea somehow managed to get a fertility rate of 10 tomorrow, it would takes many decades for that generation to begin to contribute to the economy as a class of high-skilled laborers. No matter what Korea does, absent implausible levels of immigration, they are still set for future economic hardship due to their demographics.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  To me, this is one of America's superpowers. America is quite unique in the world by being so significantly multicultural, and increasingly so. It can tune and balance its demographics with immigration. It is especially good at attracting the best and brightest from around the world, because there is a realistic, and well trodden path, of not only fully integrating yourself and your children into American society, but also integrating into the ruling/upper class. For example, any Chinese citizen can effectively defect and build a safe and sustainable life in America. Millions have already done it. First generation immigrants lead some of America's most powerful corporations. Second generation immigrants are welcome as officials in the government. The current VP is second generation immigrant of Indian/Jamaican descent. On the other hand, an American can never effectively defect to China. Maybe if you are ethnically Chinese, your children could be accepted, but not likely anyone else. China simply doesn't have a culture of fully integrating people of all kinds into it's society. The funnel of exceptional humans is one way, and it's into America.
  - xeromal 4y ago
    Love this and I'm sure a few will start poking into this comment, but I appreciate you saying this. There's a comedian, I think Bill Burr, that says one of the great things about US sports is our incredible diversity. Look at any of our Olympic teams and you'll see all kinds of ethnicities in our teams, whoever is the best. On the other hand, I doubt you'll see the same on the chinese Olympic team. Obviously, there are other countries that do the same as us, but we do it on a pretty big scale and I think our success in medals is often in being comfortable with this. Heck, there are a few athletes that have the option of competing for us or their native land and they choose to go back to their country for that. Naomi Osaka comes to mind. She has lived in the US since she was 3 years old yet chose to play for Japan.

DennisP 4y ago

I just read all Zeihan's books. The only counterargument I can think of is that maybe with our interdependent world, sanctions have gotten effective enough to substitute for US military power to some extent. Zeihan himself has said China has to be reevaluating the idea of an attack on Taiwan, after seeing the sanctions and boycotts against Russia. Sanctions haven't stopped Russia but Russia is a food and fuel exporter. Most countries are more reliant in imports for essentials. E.g. the Saudis need food imports, so maybe going to war with Iran isn't such a good idea for them, and that helps prevent the drastic Asian oil shortages Zeihan describes.

bombcar 4y ago
Sanctions are a "one time weapon" I fear, and many many countries are now including "what if we or someone we trade with gets sanctioned by the US" as part of their contingency planning.
- myself248 4y ago
  Furthermore, after the one-time pain, assuming they survive the pain, the sanctioned nation arguably ends up stronger because they're forced to develop in-house versions of things. I'm just waiting for China to decide they're strong enough to cut the US off. Assuming we survive the pain, that'll be an interesting day.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    China imports over 80% of their oil and food/ag inputs, so it'll be a while.
  - scottyah 4y ago
    The industry developed during sanctions is a lot like those created during times of highly protectionist policies though. Once those walls come down, they have to compete with the rest of the world that has been innovating a lot faster. They’ll need a lot of supplemental income or all these bubble-spawned companies will die off. I think it’d be smarter to NOT try to develop everything in-house if you’re a smaller country with many imports.

CalChris 4y ago

18 years and 9 months. Zeihan is very funny. I don't think he is particularly 'smart' (wait for me a second here). I think he instead makes obvious conclusions from undeniable evidence like demographics and geography. The 'smarter' more institutional types from Brookings and Hoover tend to argue from policy and politics backwards and then the facts become inconvenient.

slowhand09 4y ago
I recall an applicable quote (paraphrased) "it's not hard to make truthful predictions. Its hard to get the timing right."
sbierwagen 4y ago
>tend to argue from policy and politics backwards and then the facts become inconvenient There's the famous UN population projections where they show Europe and Asia declining for a while, then leveling out around 2050. Why? Well, they published their reasoning: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf#page=15 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Hig... >Evidence from surveys of childbearing preferences indicate that even in populations with low or very low fertility for decades, women continue to express a desire for around two children on average. The myriad reasons for the gap between desired and completed fertility include such factors as an incompatibility between childrearing and the demands of higher education and career building, a lack of affordable highquality child care, the decline of reproductive capacity at advanced maternal ages, and imbalanced gender roles for housework and child care. >The fact that fertility preferences remain close to two children per woman, even as realized fertility has fallen well below that level, suggests that the fertility rate in low-fertility countries may increase as populations learn to manage and mitigate some or all impeding factors. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of that actually happening, though. Japan has been below-replacement since 1973. Ukraine and Russia had TFRs of 1.23 and 1.5 respectively in 2019, and they're busy pointlessly killing a generation of young men, which won't help much with family formation. Where is the "mitigation"? The UN's argument seems to be that it would be stupid for a country just to commit suicide for no reason, so they won't do that. Unfortunately, this report was written in 2019, before the events of the last few years. It is no longer quite so certain that countries won't pursue pointless self-destructive policies for no good reason.

selimthegrim 4y ago

Zeihan is not any better than Perun about the war, and arguably much less right.

dirtyid 4y ago

>credible counter argument to his theses Zeihan's thesis is generic geopolitical analysis, which is a fine model, but there's no reason to credit that to him. Really it's about the quality of his predictions which is hard to gauge other than he throws a lot of shit out to see what sticks and occasionally some do. Broken clock etc. Otherwise, he sells US exceptionalism powerpoints to wealthy boomers over expensive dinners. He tends to pile on "natural 20" dice rolls to America's favour and extrapolates from there why Fortress America will be fine no matter how much she FUBARs which undermines the quality of his prediction. It matters if supply chain break down was due to pandemic driven factors rather than active reshoring. Greece-Iran drama was Greece fulfilling US request and eventual release back to Iran - this isn't anarchy caused by US withdraw but US continued engagement/meddling while countries try to minimize fallout - essentially opposite cause of Zeihan prediction. Hard to credit right predictions for wrong reasons. Lastly if demography was destiny, India would be a super power - divident can turn into curse depending on policy and other structural factors.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

I've never heard of Zeihan. The article touts his prowess of predicting a Russian invasion of Ukraine in his book published in late 2014. Well, Russia had just seized Crimea and eastern Donbass in February of 2014, so this doesn't strike me as a particularly prescient call.

more_corn 4y ago
Except that from January to March this year pundits swore up and down that Russia wouldn’t launch a full invasion of Ukraine. When it happened a lot of people were surprised. You could have made a killing in the stock market if you’d realized that Russia would certainly invade, and they probably had a deadline in order to maximize the summer fighting season. It seemed obvious to me, but not so obvious that I positioned myself properly in the stock market. Everything is obvious after the fact. Look around for the people asserting that it’s obvious BEFORE the fact and measure their accuracy. Those people might have useful insight.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > When it happened a lot of people were surprised. Meanwhile the US intelligence service had been claiming since summer that an invasion was likely. Trump's impeachment was over withholding military aid that the state department deemed crucial. The career foreign service workers saw this coming.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  Pundits? Maybe some did. There are lots of pundits and I'm sure many of them get a lot wrong and some get things right by pure chance. On the other hand, US intelligence was shouting loud and clear in mid-February that an invasion was immanent. In any case, making a claim in October 2014 that at some point Russia would continue its invasion of Ukraine is not a particularly impressive feat.
  - togril 4y ago
    It is impressive, as entire nations have literally gambled their (energy) security against this to happen. This is like saying it wasn't impressive to predict and time the GFC. Yeah sure, in retrospect it looks all totally obvious and simple.

billbrown 4y ago

He's made available[1] the charts and maps used in the book. I found this one quite illuminating on demographics.[2] [1] https://zeihan.com/end-of-the-world-maps/ https://zeihan.com/end-of-the-world-maps/ [2] https://zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-fertility-rates-v2-01.jpg https://zeihan.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-fertili...

achenet 4y ago

Reading his book The End of Everything is Just Beginning, he posits a history of early human evolution that is throughly debunked in The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow. Not that this invalidates his future predictions, but...

pphysch 4y ago

> Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). The US Navy is a major player here, having recently seized Venezuelan and Iranian tankers on the basis of violating sanctions. Only in retaliation did Iran begin seizing boats. This undermines the thesis that the US Navy is somehow protecting the stability of global trade. They're actively destabilizing to advance Washington's hegemonic interests. > The thing about Zeihan’s arguments is that you can’t really argue against demographics. You can absolutely argue against this. It's called automation. Needing millions of young healthy bodies to push machines around is increasingly outdated. A highly technical population with "bad demographics" will easily outperform a 20th century population with "good demographics" in the 21st century. Not to mention high population growth (required for "good demographics") is increasingly unsustainable due to natural resource limitations. Zeihan is frankly a crock. He makes pretty maps and bold claims, but his evidence-based analysis is incredibly shallow. His MO is selling books: geopolitics as entertainment, not providing useful analysis. You are much better served by listening to experienced realists like John Mearsheimer or Michael Hudson, rather than Zeihan's pop-geopol junk.

spaceman_2020 4y ago
> You can absolutely argue against this. It's called automation. You're viewing it from a myopic production-focused viewpoint. Whereas the problem is our consumption-led economic order and its reliant on adding an ever increasing number of consumers. Compared to young people: A) Machines do not consume goods and trinkets. Western economies are based on consumption, not production. B) Machines do not pay taxes, making it harder and harder for the state to pay for the welfare of ageing populations. C) Automation simply doesn't work for service-focused work. Otherwise there wouldn't be record number of job openings and labor shortages in the US right now.
- pphysch 4y ago
  > Western economies are based on consumption, not production. Hence their present downfall. > Machines do not pay taxes, making it harder and harder for the state to pay for the welfare of ageing populations. Taxes are a relic of the long-gone physical money era. Vulgar taxation is a legacy technology that provides more waste than utility in the 21st century. > Automation simply doesn't work for service-focused work. Yes it does, increasingly over time. I just ordered my lunch through a virtual cafeteria cashier that was literally a human until a month ago. Someone still prepared it by hand by putting ~10 spoonfuls of different ingredients into a tortilla, but that is already being automated in more advanced societies.

causality0 4y ago

What bothers me is the sheer mass of factually incorrect statements Zeihan makes that would be trivial to check if he bothered. Things like "China only makes the low-end computer chips, anything that's going into a cellphone or laptop is made in the USA"

Longlius 4y ago
He's not incorrect on that point. Huawei sources its SoCs from Taiwanese and American fabs, which is why the trade war has absolutely gutted their bottom line. HiSilicon licenses chip designs, adds their specific stuff on top of them, and has the chips fabbed by TSMC.
- causality0 4y ago
  He's incorrect in that he thinks the destruction of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry during an invasion by the mainland would be a minor inconvenience for the US but an insurmountable obstacle for China.
  - Schiendelman 4y ago
    Why? The US has Intel and AMD, and increasingly TSMC employees. China can’t replace those fabs, they don’t have the knowledge. The US is already building new fabs.
    - seanp2k2 4y ago
      https://www.shiphub.co/worlds-top-semiconductors-producers/ https://www.shiphub.co/worlds-top-semiconductors-producers/
      - Schiendelman 4y ago
        Unfortunately, for understanding the root argument that isn’t super useful. China has lots of semiconductor manufacturing, but not with modern processes.

D_Alex 4y ago

I only read the linked article, not the books. I think that the thesis (as professed by the article) that the "deglobalization" is largely due to the decline of the US Navy is pretty silly. "Decline in the standard of US foreign policy and diplomacy" - in itself an ill-judged reaction to the rise of China's economic power and influence - is much closer to the mark. Of course the Covid pandemic didn't help either.

japhib 4y ago
> I think that the thesis (as professed by the article) that the "deglobalization" is largely due to the decline of the US Navy is pretty silly Why?
- D_Alex 4y ago
  This is Australian, but probably relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18 Seriously - what does the US Navy have to do with Trump's "trade war" with China? With Russia-Ukraine conflict? With US balance of trade that is $7 trillion out of kilter? And with US sanctions, which not only restrict international trade directly, but also will lead the countries holding some of that $7 trillion to reassess the risks of selling to the US?

leobg 4y ago

I found that when drawing conclusions for the financial markets from demographic changes such as the Boomer generation entering retirement he seems to completely ignore inheritance. People getting older forms just suck money out of the system. It also pumps money into it.

AussieWog93 4y ago

>Or import them from elsewhere - which causes all sorts of cultural and societal conflicts. I might be a bit biased in this regard (see username), but I've always thought the issue of immigration is massively overblown by journalists and politicians in order to get clicks/listeners/votes. Both at home and when traveling, it's surprising how well understood "global culture" is by pretty much everyone who lives in a city or large town. Outside of language barriers, things like catching a train or buying a bottle of Coke are all done much the same way no matter where you came from. I distinctly remember one instance where this old Ethiopian guy, who didn't know a single word of English, successfully managed to communicate that he'd forgotten to grab something and I should save his space in the supermarket queue. Outside of specific conflicts (Serbia/Croatia, India/Pakistan), or particular instances where one particular group has turned out to cause a whole lot of trouble, the policy as a whole seems surprisingly effective.

bergenty 4y ago

This sound like very high level, easy to “predict” predictions. Show me a percentage of how many predictions in a book worked out and how much detail they went into before I buy this snake oil. Yes, I’m using prediction intentionally. This isn’t an analysis, it’s prediction.

syntheweave 4y ago

I went and got the latest book and started reading it right then and there. It's crap. Demography is powerful, yes, but the interpretation matters, and the premises here are of steady-state or linear extrapolation. There is no mention of technological disruption: all the criticism assumes linear progress, allowing analysis to proceed along the lines of resource shortage. This core assumption means the book is already wrong since the progress in key disruptive techs has actually followed exponential curves(see any Tony Seba lecture). If we have the AI and robotics to fill in 18-year old roles, we don't need actual 18 year olds. It's a work of the moment in that it explains near-term problems reasonably well, while also being extremely wrong about anything more than a few years out because it can't imagine a world that gets weirder, when every big epochal shift has made the world weirder in the process of fending off Malthusian logic.

vba616 4y ago

You are impressed that someone predicted a war in 2014, and it happened...? I predict there will be a recession in the next 8 years! And another war! I also predict there will be food insecurity in the developing world! And bad things will happen to countries and ships, somewhere on the globe! Probably including Iran! What do I expect from an expert prognosticator? Opinions with the potential to be wrong. Numbers or quantitative statements help a lot.