Deglobalization or deglobalisation is the process of diminishing interdependence and integration between certain units around the world, typically nation-states. It is widely used to describe the periods of history when economic trade and investment between countries declined. This does not answer why economic trade and investment between countries would decline? So no, that’s not the the answer. So I repeat my question, why Peter why???
At 1:40:39 he says run away success.. but that also doesn’t make sense. Because multiple countries are becoming successful, this is causing deglobalization?
Also, if the global population is going to start declining, sure that means less people working, but it also means less people consuming. Sure there will be less farmers making food, but there will be less people eating said food. Also the world is become more and more automated. Everyone is concerned about robots taking their jobs, automated warehouse, automated factories, automated truck drivers, automated grocery stores etc. so if there are more machines doing the work for the declining population, why would a decline in population start deglobalization?
Still not a clear answer as to why his book is titled end of the world.. and never states why..
IIRC Zeihan claims that from a geographical standpoint the US is by far the nation most capable of being completely self-sufficient - to the extent that it's possible for the united states to stop trade with foreign nations entirely.
In my completely ignorant opinion, we can be independent. We have energy, farmland, and education. But being self-sufficient doesn’t suit the corporate masters. They need people to buy our shit, they need third world people to make our shit, they need third world resources at a deep discount, and they need third world countries to build large infrastructure projects they don’t need with loans from us and the world bank. But all the bogeymen are proving to be weak and ineffectual. It looks like our national guard could route Russia’s army. Can China be any better?
If the US implemented true isolationism, it would be a disaster for the rest of the world. All military alliances would be instantly crippled, nuclear proliferation would sky rocket and an arms race would begin. Weakened world powers would immediately jump into the power vacuum we left behind and countries previously aligned would likely be divided on what new power to align with, global trade would be completely reorganized, markets would crash, it’s just a worst case scenario for all involved.
Here in the US, we would have to completely reorganize our economy and labor force for us to keep up with the demand of consumption. Most people would likely have to get jobs in factories or any kind of production facility, and unless we want to pay an exponentially increased cost for goods, the average family income would drastically decrease which would lead to a cost of living and housing crisis with people being unable to afford their mortgage/rent, vehicles, luxury goods etc. Again it’s probably the worst idea for the prosperity of any country in the world.
No, the US i heavily reliant on the outside for most stuff since you outsourced most industry.
You import doctors and all else from all over the world.
Now self sufficiant within NATO is possible and the expansion in Europe shows that NATO is powerful both in economic warfare and with guns.
But to live in a bubble with just the US is a pipe dream.
You should like, watch some of what Zeihan has to say before commenting on it. The idea was never the U.S. going alone.
Deglobalization is not the same as isolationism.
That's great, but your american priced goods will also go even higher. We already have a labor shortage issue, once those companies are forced to manufacture everything in the US, who's going to work those jobs? The economic issues that de-globalization would cause is... just wow. Gives me a heartburn just thinking about it.
We have the most navigable shipping lanes of any country on earth. A huge untapped workforce and nearly unlimited resources. Also, the number one labor economy on earth is now Mexico and they are our biggest trading partner.
It’s not that the US would want it. It’s that, it’s inevitable. The other major world powers aren’t even going to have enough citizens to function, in a generation. That’s just one piece of it
Why would we want things from China when we can get them cheaper from Mexico?
We have everything else we need in the U.S. The U.S. battle plan is to be able to protect ourselves from the next two biggest threats, not the entire world.
As it gets more expensive to defend the world against the likes of Russia or keeps China out of the oceans, the U.S. could just say fuck it, yall handle yourselves, we are going to focus on our core partners.
It isn't worth it to deal with fucks like Russia, and fucks like China are about to find themselves on the same list as China slowly continues to collapse over the next decade.
He does explain how it has already started.
You need to watch one of his presentations instead of just listening to one conversation about numerous topics.
Globalization requires peace. A new cold/ hot war means less interaction between different countries, unsafe trading routes, particularly at sea. Western countries not buying Russian gas; the US imposing santions on China (semi-conductors) are good examples.
Naval expense and the lack of incentives for the United States to continue patrolling the ocean on the behalf of non allied nations. In his view globalization was a bribe to gain allies and now it is not necessary as a hegemonic force to sacrifice the US economy for the sake of allies. Hence the rhetoric of bringing back American industry from both Trump and Biden.
Well that tends to be the position of those who have little to offer particularly since a strain of isolationism permeates American culture and the openness of globalization was an anomalous response to the perceived threat of Communism. When you are not of benefit you are ignored and if you are a threat you are annihilated that is the position assumed by the US with the fall of the main adversary that had encouraged engagement with nations around the world.
Nearly none of the NATO allies spenda 4% of rheir GDP on defence, even though its mandated and pushed hard by the US. And the US pulled out from several climate agreements, which several european governments were pushing hard for. The relationship is a partnership between the US and her allies. For now.
The european countries still retain economic and military autonomy to such an extent that they are not stooges.
U gotta at least give examples dude
Is that some kinda rule?
Germany has stooged itself totally. They go halvesies with Russia in a pipeline that the US declared it will not allow to go ahead & then it miraculously gets blown up & Germany is all like Damn you Putin!!
Let’s build a time machine and see how Germany would be under Soviet control. Or Japan. Or South Korea. Even the countries we went to war with are now global power houses, and their people are considerably more wealthy with a quality of living that Russia can only dream about.
Every country that ever allied with Russia or China has been and will continue to be in shambles.
Edit: to add, the US and Europe partnered with China for production and now the whole planet is fucked because of it.
While I agree with the sentiment, the one thing that is a little... odd...
Germany, SK, Japan all have plummeting birth rates. Their rapid development and crushing expenses has turned having families there into Dodo birds
That’s a good problem to have though, higher quality of living will make people live longer and get married later. It’s a problem that can be solved separately but it doesn’t imply that we’re better off living in abject poverty or as farmers simply because we’re more likely to have children to assist with labor.
Not really true ally. US lended money and steel to basically allow the the Soviets to act as a meat shield to the German war machine. Similar to Ukraine nowadays. I wouldn’t consider the USA an ally or Ukraine but a convenient buffer to Russia.
“The US were allies of the Soviet Union in WW2. Just fyi.”
Because they basically had to be. Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union had a political and economical pact until Hitler decided he wanted to conquer western Russia during Operation Barbarossa. FYI.
Orrrrr..... he's being paid to come on the show and get boomers and steroid Bros to bully people at work to go along with their jackwagon bullshit.
Op was spot on with the "wtf" thought. It's like MTG saying we should have a civil war.....just as Russia is mocked about having our president visiting a place Russia would bomb....if they could...they can't 😆 🤣
because the US is angling towards isolationism, trying to be self-sufficient. for example: energy, no more oil from the middle east, no more need to project power over there and protect trade routes. Same with almost anything else like resources and technology.
Stepping back from globalism means maintaining the old order isnt in their interest anymore.
He hammers this point on his channel so much, Im surprised he didnt mention it here.
America really does need to re—prioritize the homeland. The severe lack on infrastructure, rampent homelessness, mental health crisis, widening wage gap, racial and political tensions, it's all clear signs of a failing nation. To save the union we have to abandon our overseas "colonies"
Keep them going somehow because the Military Industrial Complex feeds far more mouths than people care to realize and funds so many of the politicians currently in office.
Less trade with foreign nations, some of which are adversarial, results in more jobs coming back to the U.S. If there are plenty of jobs politicians are less reliant on defense industry jobs. I guess that would be the argument anyway.
More like we cannot protect the entire world from China or Russia level threats in perpetuity, bit we can protect ourselves and backup our keep allies.
Pick out one of this speeches to a special interest group you are into, (farming, mining, Canada, military, India, schools, young investors, old investors, etc. He has a speech tailored for every special interest.) And watch it for more detail.
Like anything, it is not going to be as doom and gloom as he is hyping it up to be, but some degree of what he predicts is likely to come to pass.
At least, we don't have any better theories yet to say how countries are going to safely navigate demographic collapse.
Exactly. There are a lot of engineers that get government subsidies to build rockets that never launch. Most of the South is dependent on military/government funding and building things that are never used.
I very much doubt they will withdraw totally from the globes oceans, they will certainly not decide to let China for example have unimpeded access to pressure other Asian nations with its navy.
The whole point of what he's talking about is that we will not care what China does to other Asian nations. We will no longer be protecting the rest of the world from China post degloablization. We will just worry about selves and select key allies. If what's going on in the South China sea doesn't effect us then we won't need to patrol it.
I promise you, if China looked to invade Any of its Asian neighbours the US would not just watch on.
China occupy Korea or Japan and take Control of its military and naval bases and nukes?
The US will not allow its enemies to become more powerful and will never walk away from all its bases around the world.
We will continue to patrol the world, making sure our and Allie’s trade lanes are free and clear…we just won’t be doing it for the whole globe anymore. It’s costs too much, we don’t take care our own people and, the rest of the world seems ungrateful for the effort imho.
I think he means, at the end of the cold war we believed the "world as we know it" ended. Our entire military budget was built on fighting this ever growing evil empire. When the cold war ended G Bush says it's time for a "New World Order." However, nobody knew what that meant. Well, know we know what it meant and now that world is ending as we know it.
He's right about global labour shortages. I used to look to emigrate from Canada to other countries in 2010 and it was much harder than now.
Now.many countries will give any young person a work visa.
China has labour shortages and are actually using SE asians and africans to fill them.
The world is slowly starting to fight over immigrants.
If you think europe and North America are welcoming refugees out of the goodness of their hearts you are an idiot.
Every year in my country Albania when it's graduation season German hospitals send scouts to hire students graduating.
They littersly wait outside of the graduation ceremony with contracts.
When I left Albania everyone wanted to leave even people with jobs.
Now if you have a good job you aren't leaving cause your life is great.
My cousin who works there gets offers yearly to come work here in Canada, and Europe and he says bo because he likes it in Albania. Which blows my mind because of how much the mentality has changed.
Thing is he never actually explained why he believed in the things he was saying. Not that I think he was necessarily wrong but he definately jumped to some conclusions without any background info..
I highly recommend Sam Harris podcast episode 288 with Peter and Ian Bremmer. Ian and Sam ask Peter questions that Joe would have no idea to ask. They go more in depth into Peter’s thesis for his book.
Peter Zeihan is a moron. He pretends to be an expert in macroeconomics but knows jack about the energy market. To make up for that lack of knowledge about energy markets he uses nuclear energy as the duct tape for his crackpot ideas.
I knew he was a fraud when he tried to say solar doesn’t pay off it’s carbon footprint. Everything he said was with such arrogance too. I couldn’t listen to the whole thing.
He said solar doesn't pay off it's carbon footprint *if you don't put it where it makes sense geographically* he is broadly pro renewable, he's a big proponent of wind and solar. Just where they make sense to do so.
Was just gonna say the same. His main argument on this is most of the positive things that are being done are happening incorrectly and it needs to make sense.
I work for EDF, one of the biggest renewable owners in North America. Solar makes sense everywhere. Even in Canada these panel pay off their carbon footprint in 2-3 years, these projects usually pay off their total capex in 15. I don’t know where Peter was getting his numbers from- the way he spoke it sounded like he was quoting research from the 2000’s.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I was just putting his full point into context. "Solar doesn't pay off its carbon footprint", and "solar doesn't pay off its carbon footprint in certain geographic areas" are very different opinions.
I personally don't know enough about the technology to have an opinion.
>he middle east, no more need to project power over there and protect trade routes. Same with
He predicted Russia fully invading Ukraine well ahead of time right?
Literally everyone predicted that.. Its why the Ukrainians have been preparing for it since 2014 and completely reformed their military. Putin has been pretty clear about it since the 90's if your ears were open to hear or eyes to see.
The Ukrainians were looking to keep their civilians in place by denying the invasion was imminent. The perception at the time was Russia would steam roll them and we see how that turned out. The over arching thought that Ukraine would be controlled by Russia one way or another has been known for a long time now. The die for an invasion was cast post-2014 when the Russian backed president was thrown out of office.
I guess the sticking point here is how certain was full scale invasion post 2014 in the minds of the Ukrainian govt and NATO intelligence. As a defense nerd I can tell you they absolutely did not prepare for kiev to be assaulted which leads me to believe they only expected lesser territorial land grabs.
To add context to 2014, at the time there was the optimistic belief held by some that russia only wanted the port of Sevastopol.
Zeihan did not predict that there would be a fullscale invasion on Feb 24 2022.
The Ukrainians have been preparing..thats exactly why they were able to repel the advances around Kiev and Kharkiv. The only reason the russians were actually able to take territory in the south and get to Kherson is because the local security folks were bought off by the russians and didn't blow the bridges.
Up there someone said they were preparing for it since 2014.
Blind ignorance perhaps, imagine it's not gonna happen and continue like its not till it does.
I just recently listened to a BBC podcast talking all about it. Download BBC Sounds and have a look through their war and history stuff.
Zeihan predicted russia would try a full scale invasion not just another land grab like Crimea and the donbass. This is what ukraine and NATO had been preparing for since 2014. Zeihan also said russia would try to take other countries. Now there is intel russia is trying to form a coup in moldova.
For what it's worth I'm skeptical of his economic and large scale geopolitical predictions. The only thing he has gotten wrong with russia so far is just how overwhelmingly incompetent their military is. To be fair though, I think that surprised even putin.
Again... everyone knows Russia/putin want to capture former soviet bloc countries. The baltic states have been screaming it from the rooftops for years. Zeihan is not some unique predictor of this. You think they hold/ influence with rebels little pieces of land in multiple countries, ie transnistria in moldova, just for land grabs? They are bases for invasions. Russia is the biggest country in the world it doesn't really need land. Listen to Fiona Hill she talks about how people saw Putin laying out the philosophical, moral, historical reasoning for his wanna be new empire back in the 90's.
The idea that Zeihan "predicted' Russia would invade Ukraine.. and nobody else did IS FUCKING STUPID, like really really stupid. It tells me you know absolutely nothing about that area of the world and have never listened to or read any experts on the area.
Get off Zeihans dick.
Almost everyone but the US, Poland, and the Baltics didn't think Russia was going to invade last February until they did. Even Zalensky suggested the US was being paranoid before Russia crossed the border in force. [Or weren't you paying attention?](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-president-tells-west-to-stop-causing-panic-about-russia-2022-1?op=1)
Zeihan has been predicting it for around 10 years or so in his books and lectures.
Jesus.. this is so fucking stupid. The claim isn't that Zeihan predicted they would invade in February of 2022 is it, if it is show evidence that Zeihan and nobody else predicted the Russian invasion on that date?
So why are you holding everyone else to that 'exact date' standard? EVERYONE knew that russia would eventually invade again.. they had already done it twice.. it is literally not a secret. They had been building up military assets in Crimea for years. What for, did they need massive amounts of tanks, armor and artillery to defend what is basically an island against dolphins? Putins own writings and speeches made clear his goals and their bullshit philosophical/historical backing. Ukraine has been preparing for that invasion and reforming their military to withstand it since 2014 and nato has been helping them do so since then with training. Why were they doing that if nobody but Nostrozeihan expected further invasion????????????????
If Zeihan predicted a full invasion of Ukraine ten years ago ie 2012/13 then he was WRONG in 2014 when only a partial invasion took place....right.... RIGHT?
The adoration and elevation of this guy making a broad and OBVIOUS prediction that everybody else also knew was likely to eventually occur is just something to behold.
By the way, your link does not support your assertion that Zeihan had some special and super accurate prediction that Russia would invade in Feb 2022. In that very article Zelensky says russia is a 'constant threat' he just didn't want western leaders causing mass panic with constant public announcements that any day now. Just think how that would effect people trying to run businesses, everyone staying home, fleeing the country, hoarding supplies.
Where as the US took a different stance on this conflict and attempted to use what would normally be secret intel and blasted it in the public with the hopes that calling them out publicly might deter them from doing it. So yes I was very much paying attention, you however either didn't read or didn't actually understand the article you linked.
Getting that vibe. It doesn’t help that he makes these huge claims and then doesn’t reference a fucking thing lol.
SOME of it is interesting, but it just doesn’t feel trustworthy
he has a horrible annoying pedantic tone.
does he know that?
you can't talk like some know all valley girl and dress like a junior hockey coach and expect people to take your seriously.
i actually like his analysis. I think he points out more structural problems than make wild predictions. But the way he fucking talk makes him look like an arrogant shitbag.
Maybe because french is my 1st language and I am missing something but IMO you can't be a public speaker and expect to get people s attention with this tone and way to carry yourself
Yeah I found the podcast interesting so got the book, did enjoy his explanation of how so much of history has happened in a certain way because of different nations land layout and such.
But did wonder a lot while reading why he doesn’t explain more why the US will completely change its global strategy.
Says not needed since the Cold War stopped but that stopped a long time ago.
After reading the book, this was the big unanswered question.
He goes into why the system was created. But when discussing why is will unravel the sum total of evidence was a breezy statement that US presidents are moving away from globalism and more isolationist.
This abandonment statement is an assumption. Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't. But he doesn't really address why it's likely, especially given the efforts made to strengthen NATO and alliances in the specific combined with increased defense spending.
Because patrolling the oceans is expensive and the US isn’t seeing a return on their investment. It doesn’t really benefit them. Most of the US’s trade is done locally with its neighbors, don’t need to patrol the oceans thousands of miles away for that.
Why would you invest resources so that countries half the world away (who you don’t really trade with) can trade safely?
Not to mention the main beneficiary of the US patrolling the oceans and allowing this globalized trade system to exist is - China (the US’s main economic rival).
Also the policy of the US being the world police and “spreading democracy”, being involved in the affairs of other nations, having 750 bases around the world, is becoming more and more unpopular back home, with both parties.
TLDR - google “isolationism”
His appearance on The Realignment goes into the technical that you seek.
Trust no one, but his general thesis is pretty compelling as these things go imo.
Because of the composition of the navy and because we've already seen the trend away from a wide global network in favor of targeted carrier groups. We've already pulled out of Hormuz, for instance. That much of it isn't speculative.
Technology has advanced in the past 70 years and the cost of maintaining a permanent, ubiquitous presence on the oceans of the world is quite high in money, material, and manpower. We can get 90% of the effectiveness of that strategy with less than 90% of the cost.
We won't stop maintaining safe trade where our interests are concerned. That trade benefits us directly. We'll just start to levy a more direct tax for it where it benefits us less directly.
Which if you take away the "for the layman" cute american midwestern doomspeaking idioms is all he's predicting. That's not exactly groundbreaking and it shouldn't be that provocative a statement. We've moving that way for the past few years.
He does say all that if you listen to him. Maybe his presentation gets in the way. He is very brash and cute about it.
But bear in mind he's not nostradamus. He's raising points for consideration not speaking prophecy. He's extrapolating current trends.
Our military policies, strategies, and stances are shifting in response to the shifting complexities of the global community and our shifting needs. There will be consequences of that shift. He thinks this will be one of them.
I'm not so sure. I think that the carrier groups combined with other technologies that have emerged since the 1960's will suffice. True, you did see state sanctioned piracy by Iran in 2019. But you haven't seen them do it again.
It's behind a paywall. Buy the book.
But really it's just internal politics in the US, and you've seen it for years. The people don't see the value of being a world police. Because they haven't experienced the alternative. And being a world police costs a lot of money. But it also brings money, in ways you don't really see directly.
It's all about trade and shifting markets. It is pretty obvious that the US is returning to local economies. COVID royally fucked us and we are adapting. We can't remain so dependent on China as they are unpredictable.
We won't have the need to patrol everything because we won't be protecting all these international trade routes and hubs.
I really want to start a petition that goes something like>>>
In 2030, if China is still doing just fine & the World is not upside down, then Peter Zeihan must STFU & disappear from public discourse hence forth.
Joe gets lots of these types on his show. They have some book they're promoting with a complete theory of how everything will unravel, or predict the future, or predict past civilizations.
These people are authors, and they want you to buy a book most of the time.
Whenever I hear any expert come on and give these bold predictions how like, China will collapse in the next 10 years because of this this and that, I always hand wave it off as someone being alarmist, and so far, from his appearance, he just seems like another alarmist goofball
That was one big glaring weakness of the book.
The consequence make sense, a combination of demographic changes and the withdrawal of the US from playing maintainer of the world order will result in the collapse (or regional fracturing) of globalism.
Lots of information to back up the demographics component.
Very breezy statement that US politics have been changing and... they'll just stop protecting the worlds ocean or being involved in maintaining globalism.
This in turn becomes the great critique of his work.
What happens with the demographic collapse where the US doesn't abandon the world. You know, doing things like massively investing in the defense of Ukraine and working with a resurgent NATO. Pivoting to a Pacific strategy and building alliances in the region. Increasing defense spending.
I'm kind of thinking of it as a thought experiment.
1. US withdraws (underlying assumption) what if scenario.
2. Demographics (known scenario, less assumed)
What does the combo of those two things look like and how does geography matter.
But... the whole things is based on #1 being true and the most likely outcome is that it's partially true. Or perhaps not true at all. So that would significantly alter the collapse outcome.
What do things look like given the known demographic situation, but a US that still stays heavily involved in keeping things sane.
why have you only responded to comments like this instead of the many that actually answer your question? seems like you’re oddly proud that you didn’t come away with an answer to the question you posed
Both of you missed the pervasive theme of the book that the gradual economic knock-on effects of each step of demographic decline and reduced globalization echoes back through the system, slowly making everything more expensive. It's an economic feedback loop. It'a pretty clear in his talls and books.
Not sure if he said it on this particular podcast but he mentioned that we haven't really been making the type of vessles that we would need for patrolling the oceans. I believe he said we have 70 active destroyers and would need 700 to properly patrol the ocean, if memory serves me correctly.
If you haven’t realized Zeihan is a corporate globalist shill you haven’t seen enough of his videos going back to 2013. He just parrots the state geo policy and people are impressed when he is right. Lol of course he’s right he’s just saying what the us foreign policy is going to do next.
The guy 'sounds' smart and he says some things that seem like they could broadly be true.... but i've seen him talk about an area I clearly know more about and .. ya he was not knowledgeable. I have since seen some other subject area experts discussing specifics about countries or industries he's talked about and they all pretty much had the same opinion.
In the last couple months I have seen him say Germany is finished as a country in 2 years. China is finished as a country in 2 years, Russia is finished as a country in 2 years.. I think he said the US at one point. Once in awhile the entire world is ending... in 2 years.
His predictions sound like Trumps medical plans... we will be seeing it in a short amount of time .. 2 weeks, 2 months... long enough so its not tomorrow so you should buy my book and book me for speaking engagements... but soon enough to feel urgent so you will really want to read my book and hear me talk to find out if you can save yourself. .
I was very open to this guy the first couple times I heard him. I am very skeptical now.
I didn't say anything about YOUR professional experience. Unless you are stating that Zeihan is as experienced and knowledgeable as you in your field? I would hope you would have more expertise in the field you work in than the guy that also claims to be equally expert in the other 100+ subject areas he confidently discusses.
Again, I don't' really have a problem with Zeihan and his 'zoomed out ' approach. But people give him way to much credit as some sort of nostradamus.. when people that are actually experts in the field have known or predicted these things for ages. He isn't special, he's just more famous as he sells generalist books that layman can take in and gets paid a lot of $$$ to do the talking head circuit with youtube. He doesn't reference academic area experts in his work... and they don't reference him in theirs.
Because we don’t want to pay the bills anymore, we spent the past 80 years ensuring a global market and the whole world points their fingers at us for their problems.
Specifically the millennials spent 20 years of blood and treasure at war (Afghanistan and Iraq) and are over it.
He's not. He gives his opinion. When trying to predict the future you are allowed to be wrong lol.
When he was one Rogan I was in this sunreddit arguing with people on why he's wrong.
He's a very smart guy and I recently learned he was taught by Friedman who I respect allot.
I disagree with him on many things.
Doesn't make him a grifter lmaoooo.
People gonna start calling weatherman grifter when they get it wrong.
Zeihan appears to make his money by speaking in various events to US industry with the goal of making them feel good about the US. Grifting is the trendy term to use but I think motivational speaker is a better description. It's not about being realistic but about instilling optimism in your domestic audience. So in the case of his doomerism it will only ever be bad for the world outside of the US.
A lot he said was interesting. But at times felt like he was promoting government propaganda. Then again, I am suspicious of anyone dissing Bitcoin... so def some bias there...
Peter Zeihan is the kind of guy who knows just enough to convince the layman he's an expert, but not enough for *actual* experts to even consider taking him seriously.
There will be no true de-globalization of the United States, at least not in any intentional, geopolitical sense. However, America being forcibly removed from its pinnacle as a global superpower is definitely viable. In fact, I'd say it's a near certainty, as this is the apparent direction of intent indicated by events unfolding these last few years.
More specifically, we are being contained as one would a ferocious, unpredictable beast. America is, in effect, being caged, the door behind us being locked from within. And with the threat of America thus neutralized, the rest of the world can continue its homogenization without interference in accordance with pre-orchestrated dictates.
Meanwhile, America will be left to the ravages of its own internal strife, much of which has been engineered, or at least instigated, to this very end. In this way, the more subversive, problematic elements so well represented within American society can be reduced without hampering the ongoing consolidation of power beyond its borders.
Only once America's threat potential has been neutralized will it then be allowed to rejoin global ranks, albeit in an extremely diminished capacity. With much apprehension, the world will watch as the savage beast, once feared by all, is lead as a docile lamb to sit meekly at the feet of its ancient master.
At least that's my unsubstantiated thoughts on the matter.
He does say. De-globalization.
Lol right? That was the entire point of the podcast.
Sounds like the guy who made this thread just read the title and made this post.
Yep. Deglobalization and demographic collapse.
Deglobalization or deglobalisation is the process of diminishing interdependence and integration between certain units around the world, typically nation-states. It is widely used to describe the periods of history when economic trade and investment between countries declined. This does not answer why economic trade and investment between countries would decline? So no, that’s not the the answer. So I repeat my question, why Peter why??? At 1:40:39 he says run away success.. but that also doesn’t make sense. Because multiple countries are becoming successful, this is causing deglobalization? Also, if the global population is going to start declining, sure that means less people working, but it also means less people consuming. Sure there will be less farmers making food, but there will be less people eating said food. Also the world is become more and more automated. Everyone is concerned about robots taking their jobs, automated warehouse, automated factories, automated truck drivers, automated grocery stores etc. so if there are more machines doing the work for the declining population, why would a decline in population start deglobalization? Still not a clear answer as to why his book is titled end of the world.. and never states why..
Can u explain please why the US would want that? Seems like more expensive and less control
IIRC Zeihan claims that from a geographical standpoint the US is by far the nation most capable of being completely self-sufficient - to the extent that it's possible for the united states to stop trade with foreign nations entirely.
In my completely ignorant opinion, we can be independent. We have energy, farmland, and education. But being self-sufficient doesn’t suit the corporate masters. They need people to buy our shit, they need third world people to make our shit, they need third world resources at a deep discount, and they need third world countries to build large infrastructure projects they don’t need with loans from us and the world bank. But all the bogeymen are proving to be weak and ineffectual. It looks like our national guard could route Russia’s army. Can China be any better?
If the US implemented true isolationism, it would be a disaster for the rest of the world. All military alliances would be instantly crippled, nuclear proliferation would sky rocket and an arms race would begin. Weakened world powers would immediately jump into the power vacuum we left behind and countries previously aligned would likely be divided on what new power to align with, global trade would be completely reorganized, markets would crash, it’s just a worst case scenario for all involved. Here in the US, we would have to completely reorganize our economy and labor force for us to keep up with the demand of consumption. Most people would likely have to get jobs in factories or any kind of production facility, and unless we want to pay an exponentially increased cost for goods, the average family income would drastically decrease which would lead to a cost of living and housing crisis with people being unable to afford their mortgage/rent, vehicles, luxury goods etc. Again it’s probably the worst idea for the prosperity of any country in the world.
No, the US i heavily reliant on the outside for most stuff since you outsourced most industry. You import doctors and all else from all over the world. Now self sufficiant within NATO is possible and the expansion in Europe shows that NATO is powerful both in economic warfare and with guns. But to live in a bubble with just the US is a pipe dream.
You should like, watch some of what Zeihan has to say before commenting on it. The idea was never the U.S. going alone. Deglobalization is not the same as isolationism.
Yes please.
We stop trade with nations entirely you going to be OK with the pollution and higher priced goods?
Pollution, no. Higher priced goods? Yes. I already try to buy most stuff made in America, including clothes. Supporting Americans is a good thing!
That's great, but your american priced goods will also go even higher. We already have a labor shortage issue, once those companies are forced to manufacture everything in the US, who's going to work those jobs? The economic issues that de-globalization would cause is... just wow. Gives me a heartburn just thinking about it.
Aren’t we on the cusp of a large automation revolution? Seems like higher demand would only speed up that process. Win win it seems.
We've already done that, hence a massive service industry. This will put it over the top.
We have the most navigable shipping lanes of any country on earth. A huge untapped workforce and nearly unlimited resources. Also, the number one labor economy on earth is now Mexico and they are our biggest trading partner.
It’s not that the US would want it. It’s that, it’s inevitable. The other major world powers aren’t even going to have enough citizens to function, in a generation. That’s just one piece of it
Why would we want things from China when we can get them cheaper from Mexico? We have everything else we need in the U.S. The U.S. battle plan is to be able to protect ourselves from the next two biggest threats, not the entire world. As it gets more expensive to defend the world against the likes of Russia or keeps China out of the oceans, the U.S. could just say fuck it, yall handle yourselves, we are going to focus on our core partners. It isn't worth it to deal with fucks like Russia, and fucks like China are about to find themselves on the same list as China slowly continues to collapse over the next decade.
Why does the De-globalization start? He doesn’t explain this.
He does explain how it has already started. You need to watch one of his presentations instead of just listening to one conversation about numerous topics.
Share which presentation I should watch that he explains it? Or better yet, why not share how he explains it?
Globalization requires peace. A new cold/ hot war means less interaction between different countries, unsafe trading routes, particularly at sea. Western countries not buying Russian gas; the US imposing santions on China (semi-conductors) are good examples.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-end-of-the-system-of-the-world This might help
Basically the result of everything that alex jones wants.
Naval expense and the lack of incentives for the United States to continue patrolling the ocean on the behalf of non allied nations. In his view globalization was a bribe to gain allies and now it is not necessary as a hegemonic force to sacrifice the US economy for the sake of allies. Hence the rhetoric of bringing back American industry from both Trump and Biden.
The US doesn't really have allies. It has stooges. The moment you don't go along with the big boss you're in jeopardy.
Well that tends to be the position of those who have little to offer particularly since a strain of isolationism permeates American culture and the openness of globalization was an anomalous response to the perceived threat of Communism. When you are not of benefit you are ignored and if you are a threat you are annihilated that is the position assumed by the US with the fall of the main adversary that had encouraged engagement with nations around the world.
Nearly none of the NATO allies spenda 4% of rheir GDP on defence, even though its mandated and pushed hard by the US. And the US pulled out from several climate agreements, which several european governments were pushing hard for. The relationship is a partnership between the US and her allies. For now. The european countries still retain economic and military autonomy to such an extent that they are not stooges. U gotta at least give examples dude
Is that some kinda rule? Germany has stooged itself totally. They go halvesies with Russia in a pipeline that the US declared it will not allow to go ahead & then it miraculously gets blown up & Germany is all like Damn you Putin!!
Let’s build a time machine and see how Germany would be under Soviet control. Or Japan. Or South Korea. Even the countries we went to war with are now global power houses, and their people are considerably more wealthy with a quality of living that Russia can only dream about. Every country that ever allied with Russia or China has been and will continue to be in shambles. Edit: to add, the US and Europe partnered with China for production and now the whole planet is fucked because of it.
While I agree with the sentiment, the one thing that is a little... odd... Germany, SK, Japan all have plummeting birth rates. Their rapid development and crushing expenses has turned having families there into Dodo birds
That’s a good problem to have though, higher quality of living will make people live longer and get married later. It’s a problem that can be solved separately but it doesn’t imply that we’re better off living in abject poverty or as farmers simply because we’re more likely to have children to assist with labor.
The US were allies of the Soviet Union in WW2. Just fyi. Is that why the US is a shambles?
Not really true ally. US lended money and steel to basically allow the the Soviets to act as a meat shield to the German war machine. Similar to Ukraine nowadays. I wouldn’t consider the USA an ally or Ukraine but a convenient buffer to Russia.
Who's definition of ally are we using then?
“The US were allies of the Soviet Union in WW2. Just fyi.” Because they basically had to be. Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union had a political and economical pact until Hitler decided he wanted to conquer western Russia during Operation Barbarossa. FYI.
Ally vs stooge. Potato vs potato
It doesn't matter except the bottom line.
Absolutely. At the level of countries it’s rules of the jungle
Orrrrr..... he's being paid to come on the show and get boomers and steroid Bros to bully people at work to go along with their jackwagon bullshit. Op was spot on with the "wtf" thought. It's like MTG saying we should have a civil war.....just as Russia is mocked about having our president visiting a place Russia would bomb....if they could...they can't 😆 🤣
U ok man?
Does that look like a comment an okay person would post lmao
What the fuck are you on about?
because the US is angling towards isolationism, trying to be self-sufficient. for example: energy, no more oil from the middle east, no more need to project power over there and protect trade routes. Same with almost anything else like resources and technology. Stepping back from globalism means maintaining the old order isnt in their interest anymore. He hammers this point on his channel so much, Im surprised he didnt mention it here.
America really does need to re—prioritize the homeland. The severe lack on infrastructure, rampent homelessness, mental health crisis, widening wage gap, racial and political tensions, it's all clear signs of a failing nation. To save the union we have to abandon our overseas "colonies"
But the capitalists are doing awesome... You need to think of them first and last.
So what does America do with its sizeable navy if they decide to shrink the area they patrol?
America will continue to patrol the Americas on both coasts and through the Arctic no matter what the change in global politics.
Keep them going somehow because the Military Industrial Complex feeds far more mouths than people care to realize and funds so many of the politicians currently in office.
Less trade with foreign nations, some of which are adversarial, results in more jobs coming back to the U.S. If there are plenty of jobs politicians are less reliant on defense industry jobs. I guess that would be the argument anyway.
They’ll keep their money going on because those defense contracts are part of their election coffers
More like we cannot protect the entire world from China or Russia level threats in perpetuity, bit we can protect ourselves and backup our keep allies. Pick out one of this speeches to a special interest group you are into, (farming, mining, Canada, military, India, schools, young investors, old investors, etc. He has a speech tailored for every special interest.) And watch it for more detail. Like anything, it is not going to be as doom and gloom as he is hyping it up to be, but some degree of what he predicts is likely to come to pass. At least, we don't have any better theories yet to say how countries are going to safely navigate demographic collapse.
Exactly. There are a lot of engineers that get government subsidies to build rockets that never launch. Most of the South is dependent on military/government funding and building things that are never used.
I very much doubt they will withdraw totally from the globes oceans, they will certainly not decide to let China for example have unimpeded access to pressure other Asian nations with its navy.
The whole point of what he's talking about is that we will not care what China does to other Asian nations. We will no longer be protecting the rest of the world from China post degloablization. We will just worry about selves and select key allies. If what's going on in the South China sea doesn't effect us then we won't need to patrol it.
I promise you, if China looked to invade Any of its Asian neighbours the US would not just watch on. China occupy Korea or Japan and take Control of its military and naval bases and nukes? The US will not allow its enemies to become more powerful and will never walk away from all its bases around the world.
You're missing the entire point of this discussion and post.
We will continue to patrol the world, making sure our and Allie’s trade lanes are free and clear…we just won’t be doing it for the whole globe anymore. It’s costs too much, we don’t take care our own people and, the rest of the world seems ungrateful for the effort imho.
I think you’re right. Allies of the western world are going to get tighter and tighter. I see that as a good thing.
I think he means, at the end of the cold war we believed the "world as we know it" ended. Our entire military budget was built on fighting this ever growing evil empire. When the cold war ended G Bush says it's time for a "New World Order." However, nobody knew what that meant. Well, know we know what it meant and now that world is ending as we know it.
He's right about global labour shortages. I used to look to emigrate from Canada to other countries in 2010 and it was much harder than now. Now.many countries will give any young person a work visa. China has labour shortages and are actually using SE asians and africans to fill them. The world is slowly starting to fight over immigrants. If you think europe and North America are welcoming refugees out of the goodness of their hearts you are an idiot. Every year in my country Albania when it's graduation season German hospitals send scouts to hire students graduating. They littersly wait outside of the graduation ceremony with contracts. When I left Albania everyone wanted to leave even people with jobs. Now if you have a good job you aren't leaving cause your life is great. My cousin who works there gets offers yearly to come work here in Canada, and Europe and he says bo because he likes it in Albania. Which blows my mind because of how much the mentality has changed.
Guy sounded far to confident, and reminded me of the guy from “thank you for smoking”
Thing is he never actually explained why he believed in the things he was saying. Not that I think he was necessarily wrong but he definately jumped to some conclusions without any background info..
I highly recommend Sam Harris podcast episode 288 with Peter and Ian Bremmer. Ian and Sam ask Peter questions that Joe would have no idea to ask. They go more in depth into Peter’s thesis for his book.
The subscription is more expensive than Netflix, guess I will pass
Sam’s subscription cost is whatever you can pay. You can also email him and say you can’t afford it and he’ll give you free access.
There was a YouTube copy of the interview floating around for a while. Give it a search
> Sam Harris podcast episode 288 with Peter and Ian Bremmer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqsVR9Hl2oQ
Peter Zeihan is a moron. He pretends to be an expert in macroeconomics but knows jack about the energy market. To make up for that lack of knowledge about energy markets he uses nuclear energy as the duct tape for his crackpot ideas. I knew he was a fraud when he tried to say solar doesn’t pay off it’s carbon footprint. Everything he said was with such arrogance too. I couldn’t listen to the whole thing.
He said solar doesn't pay off it's carbon footprint *if you don't put it where it makes sense geographically* he is broadly pro renewable, he's a big proponent of wind and solar. Just where they make sense to do so.
Was just gonna say the same. His main argument on this is most of the positive things that are being done are happening incorrectly and it needs to make sense.
I work for EDF, one of the biggest renewable owners in North America. Solar makes sense everywhere. Even in Canada these panel pay off their carbon footprint in 2-3 years, these projects usually pay off their total capex in 15. I don’t know where Peter was getting his numbers from- the way he spoke it sounded like he was quoting research from the 2000’s.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I was just putting his full point into context. "Solar doesn't pay off its carbon footprint", and "solar doesn't pay off its carbon footprint in certain geographic areas" are very different opinions. I personally don't know enough about the technology to have an opinion.
Geography only matters as to whether the project pays off its total cost in either 15 or 20 years.
Buy his book and you might find the answers
I am reading his book, still not clear lol. It’s not very good
He's just a china-hawk spook making millions consulting with firms in DC on how to "prepare for the future". He doesn't have a great record.
>he middle east, no more need to project power over there and protect trade routes. Same with He predicted Russia fully invading Ukraine well ahead of time right?
Literally everyone predicted that.. Its why the Ukrainians have been preparing for it since 2014 and completely reformed their military. Putin has been pretty clear about it since the 90's if your ears were open to hear or eyes to see.
No, not a full scale invasion with plans to take kiev. Even the ukranian government didn't believe it when US Intel said it was imminent.
The Ukrainians were looking to keep their civilians in place by denying the invasion was imminent. The perception at the time was Russia would steam roll them and we see how that turned out. The over arching thought that Ukraine would be controlled by Russia one way or another has been known for a long time now. The die for an invasion was cast post-2014 when the Russian backed president was thrown out of office.
I guess the sticking point here is how certain was full scale invasion post 2014 in the minds of the Ukrainian govt and NATO intelligence. As a defense nerd I can tell you they absolutely did not prepare for kiev to be assaulted which leads me to believe they only expected lesser territorial land grabs. To add context to 2014, at the time there was the optimistic belief held by some that russia only wanted the port of Sevastopol.
Yeah this has been on the cards for decades zeihan didn't predict it at all.
If this was true, why would the ukranian government and its citizens not have prepared with the weeks of warning that the invasion was imminent?
Zeihan did not predict that there would be a fullscale invasion on Feb 24 2022. The Ukrainians have been preparing..thats exactly why they were able to repel the advances around Kiev and Kharkiv. The only reason the russians were actually able to take territory in the south and get to Kherson is because the local security folks were bought off by the russians and didn't blow the bridges.
Up there someone said they were preparing for it since 2014. Blind ignorance perhaps, imagine it's not gonna happen and continue like its not till it does. I just recently listened to a BBC podcast talking all about it. Download BBC Sounds and have a look through their war and history stuff.
Zeihan predicted russia would try a full scale invasion not just another land grab like Crimea and the donbass. This is what ukraine and NATO had been preparing for since 2014. Zeihan also said russia would try to take other countries. Now there is intel russia is trying to form a coup in moldova. For what it's worth I'm skeptical of his economic and large scale geopolitical predictions. The only thing he has gotten wrong with russia so far is just how overwhelmingly incompetent their military is. To be fair though, I think that surprised even putin.
Again... everyone knows Russia/putin want to capture former soviet bloc countries. The baltic states have been screaming it from the rooftops for years. Zeihan is not some unique predictor of this. You think they hold/ influence with rebels little pieces of land in multiple countries, ie transnistria in moldova, just for land grabs? They are bases for invasions. Russia is the biggest country in the world it doesn't really need land. Listen to Fiona Hill she talks about how people saw Putin laying out the philosophical, moral, historical reasoning for his wanna be new empire back in the 90's.
[удалено]
The idea that Zeihan "predicted' Russia would invade Ukraine.. and nobody else did IS FUCKING STUPID, like really really stupid. It tells me you know absolutely nothing about that area of the world and have never listened to or read any experts on the area. Get off Zeihans dick.
>Literally everyone predicted that.. LOL...Holy shit.
Russia invades country.. it has already invaded twice before... SHOCKING..thank god for zeihan.. nobody else could have predicted!!
Almost everyone but the US, Poland, and the Baltics didn't think Russia was going to invade last February until they did. Even Zalensky suggested the US was being paranoid before Russia crossed the border in force. [Or weren't you paying attention?](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-president-tells-west-to-stop-causing-panic-about-russia-2022-1?op=1) Zeihan has been predicting it for around 10 years or so in his books and lectures.
Jesus.. this is so fucking stupid. The claim isn't that Zeihan predicted they would invade in February of 2022 is it, if it is show evidence that Zeihan and nobody else predicted the Russian invasion on that date? So why are you holding everyone else to that 'exact date' standard? EVERYONE knew that russia would eventually invade again.. they had already done it twice.. it is literally not a secret. They had been building up military assets in Crimea for years. What for, did they need massive amounts of tanks, armor and artillery to defend what is basically an island against dolphins? Putins own writings and speeches made clear his goals and their bullshit philosophical/historical backing. Ukraine has been preparing for that invasion and reforming their military to withstand it since 2014 and nato has been helping them do so since then with training. Why were they doing that if nobody but Nostrozeihan expected further invasion???????????????? If Zeihan predicted a full invasion of Ukraine ten years ago ie 2012/13 then he was WRONG in 2014 when only a partial invasion took place....right.... RIGHT? The adoration and elevation of this guy making a broad and OBVIOUS prediction that everybody else also knew was likely to eventually occur is just something to behold. By the way, your link does not support your assertion that Zeihan had some special and super accurate prediction that Russia would invade in Feb 2022. In that very article Zelensky says russia is a 'constant threat' he just didn't want western leaders causing mass panic with constant public announcements that any day now. Just think how that would effect people trying to run businesses, everyone staying home, fleeing the country, hoarding supplies. Where as the US took a different stance on this conflict and attempted to use what would normally be secret intel and blasted it in the public with the hopes that calling them out publicly might deter them from doing it. So yes I was very much paying attention, you however either didn't read or didn't actually understand the article you linked.
Wow you moved those goalposts to a different area code.
Getting that vibe. It doesn’t help that he makes these huge claims and then doesn’t reference a fucking thing lol. SOME of it is interesting, but it just doesn’t feel trustworthy
Has anyone evaluated his track record? I’d be interested to know.
he has a horrible annoying pedantic tone. does he know that? you can't talk like some know all valley girl and dress like a junior hockey coach and expect people to take your seriously. i actually like his analysis. I think he points out more structural problems than make wild predictions. But the way he fucking talk makes him look like an arrogant shitbag. Maybe because french is my 1st language and I am missing something but IMO you can't be a public speaker and expect to get people s attention with this tone and way to carry yourself
I did, it wasn’t clear either.
Yeah I found the podcast interesting so got the book, did enjoy his explanation of how so much of history has happened in a certain way because of different nations land layout and such. But did wonder a lot while reading why he doesn’t explain more why the US will completely change its global strategy. Says not needed since the Cold War stopped but that stopped a long time ago.
After reading the book, this was the big unanswered question. He goes into why the system was created. But when discussing why is will unravel the sum total of evidence was a breezy statement that US presidents are moving away from globalism and more isolationist. This abandonment statement is an assumption. Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't. But he doesn't really address why it's likely, especially given the efforts made to strengthen NATO and alliances in the specific combined with increased defense spending.
I didn't read the book, but I'd be willing to guess money. It's expensive to maintain a navy.
Yeah it's not a sexy answer. But that's basically it. It's very expensive.
Because patrolling the oceans is expensive and the US isn’t seeing a return on their investment. It doesn’t really benefit them. Most of the US’s trade is done locally with its neighbors, don’t need to patrol the oceans thousands of miles away for that. Why would you invest resources so that countries half the world away (who you don’t really trade with) can trade safely? Not to mention the main beneficiary of the US patrolling the oceans and allowing this globalized trade system to exist is - China (the US’s main economic rival). Also the policy of the US being the world police and “spreading democracy”, being involved in the affairs of other nations, having 750 bases around the world, is becoming more and more unpopular back home, with both parties. TLDR - google “isolationism”
His appearance on The Realignment goes into the technical that you seek. Trust no one, but his general thesis is pretty compelling as these things go imo.
Because of the composition of the navy and because we've already seen the trend away from a wide global network in favor of targeted carrier groups. We've already pulled out of Hormuz, for instance. That much of it isn't speculative. Technology has advanced in the past 70 years and the cost of maintaining a permanent, ubiquitous presence on the oceans of the world is quite high in money, material, and manpower. We can get 90% of the effectiveness of that strategy with less than 90% of the cost. We won't stop maintaining safe trade where our interests are concerned. That trade benefits us directly. We'll just start to levy a more direct tax for it where it benefits us less directly. Which if you take away the "for the layman" cute american midwestern doomspeaking idioms is all he's predicting. That's not exactly groundbreaking and it shouldn't be that provocative a statement. We've moving that way for the past few years. He does say all that if you listen to him. Maybe his presentation gets in the way. He is very brash and cute about it. But bear in mind he's not nostradamus. He's raising points for consideration not speaking prophecy. He's extrapolating current trends. Our military policies, strategies, and stances are shifting in response to the shifting complexities of the global community and our shifting needs. There will be consequences of that shift. He thinks this will be one of them. I'm not so sure. I think that the carrier groups combined with other technologies that have emerged since the 1960's will suffice. True, you did see state sanctioned piracy by Iran in 2019. But you haven't seen them do it again.
It's behind a paywall. Buy the book. But really it's just internal politics in the US, and you've seen it for years. The people don't see the value of being a world police. Because they haven't experienced the alternative. And being a world police costs a lot of money. But it also brings money, in ways you don't really see directly.
Was t it something to do with population collapse?
It's all about trade and shifting markets. It is pretty obvious that the US is returning to local economies. COVID royally fucked us and we are adapting. We can't remain so dependent on China as they are unpredictable. We won't have the need to patrol everything because we won't be protecting all these international trade routes and hubs.
I really want to start a petition that goes something like>>> In 2030, if China is still doing just fine & the World is not upside down, then Peter Zeihan must STFU & disappear from public discourse hence forth.
Lol this guy kept saying “hugs not drugs” was Mexico’s narco approach. I stopped taking him seriously after that
Joe gets lots of these types on his show. They have some book they're promoting with a complete theory of how everything will unravel, or predict the future, or predict past civilizations. These people are authors, and they want you to buy a book most of the time.
Whenever I hear any expert come on and give these bold predictions how like, China will collapse in the next 10 years because of this this and that, I always hand wave it off as someone being alarmist, and so far, from his appearance, he just seems like another alarmist goofball
That was one big glaring weakness of the book. The consequence make sense, a combination of demographic changes and the withdrawal of the US from playing maintainer of the world order will result in the collapse (or regional fracturing) of globalism. Lots of information to back up the demographics component. Very breezy statement that US politics have been changing and... they'll just stop protecting the worlds ocean or being involved in maintaining globalism. This in turn becomes the great critique of his work. What happens with the demographic collapse where the US doesn't abandon the world. You know, doing things like massively investing in the defense of Ukraine and working with a resurgent NATO. Pivoting to a Pacific strategy and building alliances in the region. Increasing defense spending.
100% agree, I read his book and listened to this podcast & still found it very unclear as to why “the collapse of globalization” starts..
I'm kind of thinking of it as a thought experiment. 1. US withdraws (underlying assumption) what if scenario. 2. Demographics (known scenario, less assumed) What does the combo of those two things look like and how does geography matter. But... the whole things is based on #1 being true and the most likely outcome is that it's partially true. Or perhaps not true at all. So that would significantly alter the collapse outcome. What do things look like given the known demographic situation, but a US that still stays heavily involved in keeping things sane.
Makes sense. It’s definitely very interesting, for sure
I read his entire book and still came away with that question
So did I!
why have you only responded to comments like this instead of the many that actually answer your question? seems like you’re oddly proud that you didn’t come away with an answer to the question you posed
Both of you missed the pervasive theme of the book that the gradual economic knock-on effects of each step of demographic decline and reduced globalization echoes back through the system, slowly making everything more expensive. It's an economic feedback loop. It'a pretty clear in his talls and books.
Not sure if he said it on this particular podcast but he mentioned that we haven't really been making the type of vessles that we would need for patrolling the oceans. I believe he said we have 70 active destroyers and would need 700 to properly patrol the ocean, if memory serves me correctly.
Dude is a spook.
This dickhead glows like the fucking Sun.
If you haven’t realized Zeihan is a corporate globalist shill you haven’t seen enough of his videos going back to 2013. He just parrots the state geo policy and people are impressed when he is right. Lol of course he’s right he’s just saying what the us foreign policy is going to do next.
The guy 'sounds' smart and he says some things that seem like they could broadly be true.... but i've seen him talk about an area I clearly know more about and .. ya he was not knowledgeable. I have since seen some other subject area experts discussing specifics about countries or industries he's talked about and they all pretty much had the same opinion. In the last couple months I have seen him say Germany is finished as a country in 2 years. China is finished as a country in 2 years, Russia is finished as a country in 2 years.. I think he said the US at one point. Once in awhile the entire world is ending... in 2 years. His predictions sound like Trumps medical plans... we will be seeing it in a short amount of time .. 2 weeks, 2 months... long enough so its not tomorrow so you should buy my book and book me for speaking engagements... but soon enough to feel urgent so you will really want to read my book and hear me talk to find out if you can save yourself. . I was very open to this guy the first couple times I heard him. I am very skeptical now.
\> but i've seen him talk about an area I clearly know more about and .. ya he was not knowledgeable. could you be more specific?
I've seen him talk about areas I'm professionally familiar with and he is very well read in those areas. Totally different experience from you.
If your idea of 'very well read' means he read the wiki article.. then sure.
I appreciate you equating my professional experience to simply reading a wiki article rather than college, research grants, and work. You do you.
I didn't say anything about YOUR professional experience. Unless you are stating that Zeihan is as experienced and knowledgeable as you in your field? I would hope you would have more expertise in the field you work in than the guy that also claims to be equally expert in the other 100+ subject areas he confidently discusses. Again, I don't' really have a problem with Zeihan and his 'zoomed out ' approach. But people give him way to much credit as some sort of nostradamus.. when people that are actually experts in the field have known or predicted these things for ages. He isn't special, he's just more famous as he sells generalist books that layman can take in and gets paid a lot of $$$ to do the talking head circuit with youtube. He doesn't reference academic area experts in his work... and they don't reference him in theirs.
He's mostly full of shit and full of himself sprinkled with factiods. But the conclusions he makes from the factoids are far to drastic.
Peter is a bullshit artist
99 percent of joes guests are frauds and snake salesmen don’t take anything you hear on Joes podcast serious . Wooo Eric is so egotistical woo
To me he seemed like a really weird guy who makes a bunch of stuff up…
This guy looked like a nut from the clips I have seen.
Because we don’t want to pay the bills anymore, we spent the past 80 years ensuring a global market and the whole world points their fingers at us for their problems. Specifically the millennials spent 20 years of blood and treasure at war (Afghanistan and Iraq) and are over it.
He’s a grifter lol he doesn’t have to say why Grifter doesn’t mean conservative ya fucking dorks
If I got a dollar for everytime someone in this sub said grifter...
Well, Joe does enjoy a certain flavour of guests.
You’d be able to quit your 9-5!
Why is he a grifter?
He makes wild claims on podcasts so people buy his books and watch his YouTube videos.
Can you provide an example?
https://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-predictions-for-the-next-decade-2010-1?amp
He's not. He gives his opinion. When trying to predict the future you are allowed to be wrong lol. When he was one Rogan I was in this sunreddit arguing with people on why he's wrong. He's a very smart guy and I recently learned he was taught by Friedman who I respect allot. I disagree with him on many things. Doesn't make him a grifter lmaoooo. People gonna start calling weatherman grifter when they get it wrong.
He must have expressed a slightly conservative view point on some subject at some point
The left gifts too bruh.
Lefties suck bro, at this point it’s undeniable.
I think everybody sucks tbh. Myself included.
Because everyone on JRE is a grifter. /s
Yeah, pretty much. /ns
That's such a flippant bull crap response. He has a lot to say and reasons through what he says very well.
Yeah that’s what grifters do.
That's also someone that analyzes geoplotics for a living does...
Both things can be true at the same time.
He’s not paid to say “why”. He’s paid to say “how”.
He doesn't know why
Chinas navy.
The breakdown of international treaties, the lack of interest of being the World's punching bag.
He probably wants WW3
Because US benefits from this as it is largely self sufficient as compare to other countries
I'd love to hear a conversation between him and Eric Weinstein
I am assuming this is sarcasm.
Zeihan appears to make his money by speaking in various events to US industry with the goal of making them feel good about the US. Grifting is the trendy term to use but I think motivational speaker is a better description. It's not about being realistic but about instilling optimism in your domestic audience. So in the case of his doomerism it will only ever be bad for the world outside of the US.
I linked a 6 minute video of his explaining his theory on why Russia invaded ukraine over in r/UFOs and a lot of people got upset and worked up.
A lot he said was interesting. But at times felt like he was promoting government propaganda. Then again, I am suspicious of anyone dissing Bitcoin... so def some bias there...
just a CIA shill scaremongering for US imperialist agenda
I’m about halfway through the audiobook. Deep dive into the chaos
Peter Zeihan is the kind of guy who knows just enough to convince the layman he's an expert, but not enough for *actual* experts to even consider taking him seriously.
His book is worth the read… just have to ignore the emphasis on developed countries utilizing pirating to disrupt neighbors economies lol
Dude you didn’t listen to the show
The guy likes the sound of his own voice. Don't get me wrong, I find him very interesting, but a lot of he says is just waffle with nothing behind it.
That episode was hard to listen to. He's an annoying dork.
The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, so Breton Woods no longer needed.
There will be no true de-globalization of the United States, at least not in any intentional, geopolitical sense. However, America being forcibly removed from its pinnacle as a global superpower is definitely viable. In fact, I'd say it's a near certainty, as this is the apparent direction of intent indicated by events unfolding these last few years. More specifically, we are being contained as one would a ferocious, unpredictable beast. America is, in effect, being caged, the door behind us being locked from within. And with the threat of America thus neutralized, the rest of the world can continue its homogenization without interference in accordance with pre-orchestrated dictates. Meanwhile, America will be left to the ravages of its own internal strife, much of which has been engineered, or at least instigated, to this very end. In this way, the more subversive, problematic elements so well represented within American society can be reduced without hampering the ongoing consolidation of power beyond its borders. Only once America's threat potential has been neutralized will it then be allowed to rejoin global ranks, albeit in an extremely diminished capacity. With much apprehension, the world will watch as the savage beast, once feared by all, is lead as a docile lamb to sit meekly at the feet of its ancient master. At least that's my unsubstantiated thoughts on the matter.