4 ms·

Every time Peter Zeihan is brought up there's a comment like this, and every time said comment lacks any examples of actual misinformation. Sometimes the occas

Every time Peter Zeihan is brought up there's a comment like this, and every time said comment lacks any examples of actual misinformation. Sometimes the occasional mention of one of his past predictions that didn't/hasn't (yet) come true, but no actual examples of misinformation. This lends his argument more credence in my mind, not less.

causi 4y ago
I would feel better about Zeihan's predictions if he ever directly addressed criticism of them. For example, his "China can only do low-end chips, anything you find in a cell phone or a laptop is made in the US" claim he regularly repeats.
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Yeah, how's Huawai doing again since those sanctions in 2019? https://www.statista.com/statistics/271496/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-vendors-since-4th-quarter-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271496/global-market-sha... Also he's clearly speaking in generalities as a rhetorical device. Obviously China can do "some" high-end chip work, and obviously not all cell phone and laptop chips are made in the US. But he is correct that the high end IP and design work is US-centric, with a decent chunk of manufacturing as Intel maintains US fabs. It's the same as if I said "France doesn't produce oil, all the world's important oil supplies come from the Persian Gulf nations!". That's technically wrong, as France is currently world's 72nd largest oil producer (https://www.worldometers.info/oil/france-oil/ https://www.worldometers.info/oil/france-oil/) and the US/Russia/North Sea/others are a large chunk of global markets. But it is correct in that the world writ large cannot function without middle eastern oil, whereas it can function without French oil. The reason the US doesn't build low-end chips at scale is economics. The reason China doesn't build high-end chips at scale is capability.
  - causi 4y ago
    The reason China doesn't build high-end chips at scale is capability. Does it matter though? Sure, China might be three or four years behind the bleeding edge, but does that gap actually make as much of a difference as Zeihan thinks it will? If you replaced all my electronics with an equivalent that was five years older I would be mildly inconvenienced but my life wouldn't change at all. He also ignores some pretty big things. Like I've read all his books and watched probably twenty hours of his talks and not once has he brought up the fact that American Millennials and Gen z-ers are not having children.
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      When you look at the theoretical capabilities of 5G networks and potential first-mover advantages it might matter quite a bit. It also matters from a standpoint of military tech, which given the Taiwan question could make a big difference. Is it the be-all-end-all? No, and perhaps he's overstating it as a factor, but it is a substantial factor economically. I don't know what talks you've seen or if you've read his latest book, he's brought up quite a bit that Gen-Z is tiny, and that American Millenials only buy the US an extra few decades, and that current millennial fertility rate is extremely low (I've only seen this last point on more recent podcasts, to be fair). We don't get to escape mass-aging, we just get to watch the rest of the developed world go first and hopefully gain better position/draw some lessons on what to do about it.
      - causi 4y ago
        When you look at the theoretical capabilities of 5G networks and potential first-mover advantages it might matter quite a bit. I don't see how. Has 5G changed anything at all? People today are using their smartphones with 300mbit 5G connections for the exact same things they were using them for with 30mbit 4G connections and largely the same things they were using 3mbit 3G connections for. What's changed since 2012? Do you use your smartphone any differently than you did a decade ago?
        jmeister 4y ago
        Videos. Tiktok. Video calls. Zoom.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I didnt say he was spreading misinformation, I said he was saying what his audience wanted to hear. Like his audience from 2005-15 wanted to hear that China was going to collapse in the next 5 years. Did that happen? No. Does that make it misinformation? No. Why was he so confident though? Why did his audience believe it? Because theres a whole lot of misinformation around. I think his basic pitch is that fossil fuels are amazing, America has lots so it will win and the rest of the world but especially China will collapse when it runs out. Can you think of any hot topics of misinformation that might affect your reception of such an argument when China is the world leader in wind, solar, battery, EV, Rail, electrolizer, green hydrogen, HVDC, Hydro, Nuclear etc.
- 121789 4y ago
  No - that's way too narrow of a view of his overall assessment which is basically that a couple of things matter to a country: 1. Access to key resources (food, energy, other products/services). That includes being able to manufacture 2. Demographics His general position is that the current state of the global economy for #1 is due to risk free global trade due to American guarantees on shipping safety post-WWII. He thinks this is unlikely to continue forever, and he works through the scenarios for individual countries if supply chains have to become more regional/local. He basically says some countries are in good positions (France, Norway, Sweden, US, most of Southeast Asia) because they have decent demographics, enough military (mostly naval) power, and enough access to critical resources. Other countries are in bad positions (China, Korea, a bunch of others I'm forgetting) He's "pro-America" mainly because the US is energy independent, food independent, capable of manufacturing anything (and if they can't, they already have alliances with the rest of the Americas to do it), with decent demographics, geographic isolation from other countries that have issues, and a good military to protect shipping. He's "anti-China (and Korea)" because they have rapidly aging demographics, limited access to a bunch of supplies, and no naval power (and in Korea's case, they are stuck in the middle of a bunch of other potentially hostile powers). I think the US audience is definitely more likely to accept his messages, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. He could be completely wrong, but it's at least a very interesting perspective (and I think the basis for some of Elon's recent comments).

causi 4y ago

I would feel better about Zeihan's predictions if he ever directly addressed criticism of them. For example, his "China can only do low-end chips, anything you find in a cell phone or a laptop is made in the US" claim he regularly repeats.

scottLobster 4y ago
Yeah, how's Huawai doing again since those sanctions in 2019? https://www.statista.com/statistics/271496/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-vendors-since-4th-quarter-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/271496/global-market-sha... Also he's clearly speaking in generalities as a rhetorical device. Obviously China can do "some" high-end chip work, and obviously not all cell phone and laptop chips are made in the US. But he is correct that the high end IP and design work is US-centric, with a decent chunk of manufacturing as Intel maintains US fabs. It's the same as if I said "France doesn't produce oil, all the world's important oil supplies come from the Persian Gulf nations!". That's technically wrong, as France is currently world's 72nd largest oil producer (https://www.worldometers.info/oil/france-oil/ https://www.worldometers.info/oil/france-oil/) and the US/Russia/North Sea/others are a large chunk of global markets. But it is correct in that the world writ large cannot function without middle eastern oil, whereas it can function without French oil. The reason the US doesn't build low-end chips at scale is economics. The reason China doesn't build high-end chips at scale is capability.
- causi 4y ago
  The reason China doesn't build high-end chips at scale is capability. Does it matter though? Sure, China might be three or four years behind the bleeding edge, but does that gap actually make as much of a difference as Zeihan thinks it will? If you replaced all my electronics with an equivalent that was five years older I would be mildly inconvenienced but my life wouldn't change at all. He also ignores some pretty big things. Like I've read all his books and watched probably twenty hours of his talks and not once has he brought up the fact that American Millennials and Gen z-ers are not having children.
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    When you look at the theoretical capabilities of 5G networks and potential first-mover advantages it might matter quite a bit. It also matters from a standpoint of military tech, which given the Taiwan question could make a big difference. Is it the be-all-end-all? No, and perhaps he's overstating it as a factor, but it is a substantial factor economically. I don't know what talks you've seen or if you've read his latest book, he's brought up quite a bit that Gen-Z is tiny, and that American Millenials only buy the US an extra few decades, and that current millennial fertility rate is extremely low (I've only seen this last point on more recent podcasts, to be fair). We don't get to escape mass-aging, we just get to watch the rest of the developed world go first and hopefully gain better position/draw some lessons on what to do about it.
    - causi 4y ago
      When you look at the theoretical capabilities of 5G networks and potential first-mover advantages it might matter quite a bit. I don't see how. Has 5G changed anything at all? People today are using their smartphones with 300mbit 5G connections for the exact same things they were using them for with 30mbit 4G connections and largely the same things they were using 3mbit 3G connections for. What's changed since 2012? Do you use your smartphone any differently than you did a decade ago?
      - jmeister 4y ago
        Videos. Tiktok. Video calls. Zoom.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I didnt say he was spreading misinformation, I said he was saying what his audience wanted to hear. Like his audience from 2005-15 wanted to hear that China was going to collapse in the next 5 years. Did that happen? No. Does that make it misinformation? No. Why was he so confident though? Why did his audience believe it? Because theres a whole lot of misinformation around. I think his basic pitch is that fossil fuels are amazing, America has lots so it will win and the rest of the world but especially China will collapse when it runs out. Can you think of any hot topics of misinformation that might affect your reception of such an argument when China is the world leader in wind, solar, battery, EV, Rail, electrolizer, green hydrogen, HVDC, Hydro, Nuclear etc.

121789 4y ago
No - that's way too narrow of a view of his overall assessment which is basically that a couple of things matter to a country: 1. Access to key resources (food, energy, other products/services). That includes being able to manufacture 2. Demographics His general position is that the current state of the global economy for #1 is due to risk free global trade due to American guarantees on shipping safety post-WWII. He thinks this is unlikely to continue forever, and he works through the scenarios for individual countries if supply chains have to become more regional/local. He basically says some countries are in good positions (France, Norway, Sweden, US, most of Southeast Asia) because they have decent demographics, enough military (mostly naval) power, and enough access to critical resources. Other countries are in bad positions (China, Korea, a bunch of others I'm forgetting) He's "pro-America" mainly because the US is energy independent, food independent, capable of manufacturing anything (and if they can't, they already have alliances with the rest of the Americas to do it), with decent demographics, geographic isolation from other countries that have issues, and a good military to protect shipping. He's "anti-China (and Korea)" because they have rapidly aging demographics, limited access to a bunch of supplies, and no naval power (and in Korea's case, they are stuck in the middle of a bunch of other potentially hostile powers). I think the US audience is definitely more likely to accept his messages, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. He could be completely wrong, but it's at least a very interesting perspective (and I think the basis for some of Elon's recent comments).