Is Zeihan wrong on Russia?

Peter Zeihan has been predicting a Russian collapse for some time.  He's predicting the same for China, for that matter.  But is he right? Here's an alternate view.  My personal belief is that in the long run, demographically there's no way Peter Zeihan isn't correct, barring some miraculous changes in birth rates. It's likely the truth is somewhere in between these two opposing views, at least in the short to medium term.  

An interesting take on the Jones Act

America first is a real necessity, but what about protectionism?  Here's Peter Zeihan's take on the Jones Act:

I need to spend some more time on the subject because it's complex.  Unfortunately, today is not the day for that.

Geopolitics of Hamas and Israel

Remember when president Trump was leading the United States and Middle Eastern countries were signing peace deals with Israel?  Good times, good times. But after Let's Go Brandon 'acquired' 81 million votes to become president one of the things he's done was to give Iran $6 billion because apparently he can't give everything to Ukraine.  Anyway, Iran is a primary sponsor of Hamas, and weeks after the 'humanitarian aid' Hamas rains down rockets on Israel.  This is not a coincidence. It's not even stupidity on Let's Go Brandon's part.  There are a lot of Hamas sympathizers in his inner circle. It is at a minimum unintentionally deliberate.

Here's Peter Zeihan's take (keep in mind he's a Democrat-leaning analyst and is giving Let's Go Brandon credit for the work the Trump administration did in the Middle East.  Otherwise the fallout and what to look for portion of his take is worth noting).

The war you haven't heard about

Armenia vs. Azerbaijan is a war that just broke out but as Peter Zeihan indicates, it's been a conflict brewing for a long time.

Peter Zeihan all in on China collapse

One one hand Ray Dalio claims China is the ascendant power.  On the other hand Peter Zeihan continues to argue, China's collapse is already under way.  I tend to side with Zeihan on the issue, however that does not mean Ray Dalio is wrong about the state of the United States.  One 'empire' can collapse without another filling the vacuum right away.

Here's what Peter Zeihan is saying about China today:

Kerch Strait bridge attack - bad for Russia?

Strategically, this latest attack on the Kerch Strait bridge is bad news for Russia according to Peter Zeihan:

I know the popular conservative position on Ukraine is now hands off. I understand why. In some measure, I agree.  But Russia is still a belligerent actor, and a geopolitical threat to a stable world. Seeing Russia collapse to a nation incapable of international aggression would be a good thing. While a far more nuanced way to assist would be better and smarter, some manner of support for Ukraine in what appears to have become a war of attrition and logistics is beneficial to America, as well as the civilized world. 

If that comes in the form of intel and perhaps the occasional bridge attack that minimizes risk to American military personnel, it should be a no-brainer.  When you factor in cost of sending equipment, we are in a different conversation.

For starters, the same Let's Go Brandon who wastefully left billions of dollars of equipment in Afghanistan, is the one spending billions here, billions America truly cannot afford. This is where NATO partners could, and should step in to help.  If they don't have the wherewithal to supply equipment themselves, they could purchase equipment from the United States to share with Ukraine.  There are plenty of ways to do it.

Russia is a nation in decline, economically, geopolitically and demographically.  They are lashing out with this Ukraine incursion as part of an effort to stave off that decline. It will not work, but if the aggression goes unchecked they will keep at it as long as they can.

California failure

Peter Zeihan discusses the decline of California. Forget the stupidity of their voters and leaders, it might be beyond their control.

Peter Zeihan's take on hypersonic missiles

Hypersonic missiles are not "all that" according to Peter Zeihan. At least for Russia and China.

Peter Zeihan's take on the Russian non-coup

I think there's a confluence of things happening that are shaping Russian opposition to the war in Ukraine, or perhaps more accurately, eroding confidence in Putin's leadership.  A deep fake Putin TV broadcast is one such example; even though it was stopped and discredited quickly, the fact that it could happen in mother Russia has to have some people thinking about the ramifications of it happening in the first place.  

Another example is the non-coup. How does this impact Russian thinking about the war? Certainly not in a patriotic way.  Peter Zeihan opines on the implications of the non-coup.

The coup accomplished nothing, as far as the Wagner Group is concerned but as part of a broader picture, it may be an important signal of coming events that do not bode well for Russia.

Stuff you didn't know about Manchin's agenda

Peter Zeihan has disappointed me on politics but his understanding of geo-politics is typically spot on.  Here he answers a question about what Joe Manchin's machinations have delivered to his state. It's an interesting take.

Russians attacking Russians now

 Peter Zeihan's take on the latest turn of events in the Russia Ukraine war.

The state of intelligence and signal intelligence

 Some intelligence FYIs.

Global Economic Growth collapsing

Peter Zeihan talks about the latest IMF take on global economic growth. In my opinion this problem has been around for a long time, probably 2 decades already, and has been mitigated by the monetary policy of loose money (money printing) and low interest rates, to disguise or hide the issue.  But that has only made things worse from an economic view.

The opportunity of a century lies before you!

Jack Chapple has an interesting take on demographics in the 21st century, arguing that only one country will be able to emerge from a global downturn in population [SPOILER ALERT: If you want to skip over the details behind his predicted winner, it's Egypt].  Here's his argument, before I move on the my own premise which is markedly different.

A lot of what he points out is simply factual.Developed countries have a serious demographic challenge that no one has really every overcome to this point.  Global population is expected to start to decline at some point in this century (or perhaps the next).  As Chapple points out, this creates economic challenges on a global scale.  Not to mention, it may create demographic challenges that are even more catastrophic than economic ones.  

Peter Zeihan sees the same demographic trends, which seems undeniable.  He sees different winners emerging than does Chapple:

Regardless of who might win globally, and I do think that the United States will be fine, there is the opportunity of a century for conservatives in the United States, and really the entirety of Western civilization that may pass us by if we do not seize it right now and begin building ahead for it.

I'm speaking of what I have argued in favor of doing before, what Jeff Deist has also argued before.  De-urbanization. I'll argue for it again now with an additional flavor added because it serves two purposes with one effort. 

Technology has finally enabled de-urbanization.  You do not need to live close to a major city to be able to commute to your job (in large part, manufacturing and some other industries remain aside).  That means you can live in a small town, or some other remote rural location and work from home. This obviates the need for office space, for commuter trains, for massively expanded super highways in urbanized locations, for subways, for as many bank machines, and coffee shops etc.  Most of those things do not go away, they morph and disperse into a more diffused set of locations.   Small towns grow, big megalopolis sized cities shrink.  Why?  Housing costs, crime stats, quality of life differences, among other reasons.

This requires a lot of transition.  Much as the United States and much of the Western world are transitioning production away from China (finally), with the adjunct pains of transition, transition to a more rural or at least less urban nation will be painful in the short term.  New fiber optic cabling spanning tens of thousands of miles must be laid. That's a primary requirement.  But so too will be water, sewage handling, fuel pipelines, medical facilities, police services, and everything necessary to support smaller local communities that are spread further apart.  These things do not happen overnight and they certainly do not happen without a concerted political effort to make the option to de-urbanize possible.  That's what needs to be happening right now.

There are certainly benefits for conservatives if this geographic shift occurs.  Urban centers tend to be far more liberal and rural areas and smaller towns tend to be far more conservative.  This is an environment that offers home field advantage as it were, in terms of political momentum.  Smaller communities tend to be more religious, more friendly, and cleaner.  They also may help level the playing field between mega-corporations and mom and pop shops. It could help regrow the entrepreneurial spirit that made America a great economic power . 

Here's the added benefit that not only benefits conservative demographics, it argues against the inevitability of population decline and global economic stagnation: rural populations have higher birth rates than urban populations.  It's easier to raise children in an environment that is safer, that has more room for them to play, that does not require tens of thousands of extra dollars spent on car payments and mortgages and commutes and enhanced security etc. With less distraction there's more opportunity to procreate. There's more time to spend with family.  That benefits conservatives.  It benefits America, and it benefits America's contribution to global population.  It's a win win win.

Lastly, here's a bonus thought on this; it would be easier to co-opt the environmental movement to get the political effort started because you can argue it will result in a significantly lower carbon footprint without the need for such a massive volume of commuters. As conservatives, we just need to get out in front of this because this opportunity of a century will not remain available forever.  States should probably start this effort on a localized basis.  If you live in Kansas for example, this is something that can be started in a more localized effort, which makes it easier and the chances that you can succeed that much higher.

Is India the next China?

 First, Peter Zeihan's take on it:

He seems to predict a mixed bag but positive future for India.  The have labor in abundance, they have less land than appears on the surface due to the mountainous nature of much of the country.  They are not capital rich.  Those are the 3 classical factors of production.  The 4th, more modern component of production is entrepreneurship.  The latter factor boils down to the notion of maximizing what you do with the other 3 factors.  Because India still has one foot in the Soviet era Russia camp, their is less of an entrepreneurship than there could be.

Much of what vaulted China into its current economic zenith was Western investment.  A naive West pumped a lot into China in the mistaken notion that China would liberalize and a whole massive new market would be created and available for a new source of demand.  Now that this particular illusion is evaporating, India is one of the countries in a position to benefit.  For the United State the cheap labor option is clearly Mexico.  But there's Europe and Japan who will still need a low to middle range tech production option.  India is in a position to take advantage of this.  But so is Turkey, which does have a geographic locality advantage for Europe. There's also Vietnam as a potential competitor in that regard.  And Bangladesh for the really low tech industries like textiles.

I'm not sure India won't benefit from the new paradigm.  In fact I believe they will, but I don't know that they will benefit as much as they could potentially.  They are not a point politically where they  are seizing the opportunity and availing themselves to situation.  It's always hard to predict the future because things change, political decision impact the landscape, be they internal or external.  Nevertheless India has an opportunity, whether it does its best to seize that opportunity is the real unknown.

Putin's START Treaty withdrawal

Peter Zeihan's take on Putin's decision to withdrawal Russia from the START Treaty.  Have we actually already slow-rolled into WWIII?

A critical eye on Peter Zeihan

From time to time I have shared videos from geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan because he's right about a lot of stuff.  But I'm no zombie.  Unlike a mindless horde of woke leftists, I like to validate my beliefs and part of that comes from applying a critical eye towards what I believe in.  Question your beliefs.  Yaron Brook, whom I also like, spent a long form monologue critiquing Zeihan's analyses.  While he also appreciates Zeihan's assessments, he also raises some valid points about where he believes Zeihan was not correct, or not completely correct.

As I said, the critical eye towards your own accepted views is one of the best tools a person has to check if he or she is on the right path. That's what critical thinking is all about.

U.S., Mexico, drugs, trade and the future

This morning on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM, I was listening to senator Joni Earnst talk about the border with Mexico and the issues in Mexico in broader.   She was making the point about the flow of drugs such as fentanyl into the United States, but also equally important is the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico particularly the fact that most of those were flowing to the drug cartels.

The United States and Mexico have mutual problems, but equally important is that the two countries have a mutual opportunity. It's readily apparent that Mexico wants to stop the inbound flow of weapons as much as the U.S. wants to stop the inbound flow of drugs.  The Mexican government cannot fight an increasingly armed and impervious ring of cartels without a co-operative effort within the United States, and the same is true for America with respect to the drug flow.  The inertia that prevents doing something about both of these issues (spawned by Democrats' desire for more illegal voters to pad their vote totals) really mostly benefits the drug cartels at the expense of the people of both countries. 

Aside from the obvious notion that a wall would benefit both countries (thank you president Trump for pushing for that), it's less obvious but still true that there is a potential for mutual economic benefit.  

The Background

As Peter Zeihan points out, there is a massive onshoring of manufacturing coming to North America in this decade. The below video provides a good summary of his reasoning as to why it's happening. 

Specifically here, he expounds on the Texas-Mexico manufacturing landscape:

Because of demographics, this cannot be an entirely American effort.  Mexico has the demographics to assist.  Canada doesn't really.  Mexico is also changing it's tune on dealing with the drug cartels. It has to do so and despite the current relations blip, it will inevitably require increased cooperation between the two countries.

Assuming Peter Zeihan is even only partly right (and I believe he's more than just a little bit right), the economic integration of the United States and Mexico is inevitable.  Mutual interest means that co-operation in the short term will aid economic synergy in the medium to longer term.

The Future

With both countries needing to industrialize or re-industrialize rapidly, the need to begin several things in earnest is strong.  Economic and security cooperation must not only start right away, they need to start hand in hand.  They are interlinked and inseparable;  Mexico not be considered a secure place for lower end industrialization if it is overrun with cartels. For its part, the United States, with an emphasis on higher end industrialization and not the best demographic situation, cannot do lower end manufacturing internally, at least not all of it.  It's in both nations' best interest to make Mexico safer and the border more secure so that rapid industrialization and mutual beneficial trade can occur.  For the United States this also helps significantly (though not completely) neuter China economically. Its a win win win.

How this happens depends on a lot of things.  To me the obvious way forward is to not parcel the pieces together and deal with each issue independently. 

(1) Work with Mexico to build the wall as a mutually beneficial exercise as part of a broader effort.

Focus on it as part of holistic plan for controlling the flow of drugs, guns and illegal immigrants; it needs to be more than just a wall.  It requires proper documentation of all travelers (yes sneaking drugs and people and guns is going to be more than just at proper ports of entry), hence the wall. But it will also require enhanced enforcement and surveillance of delivery systems (e.g. FedEx, postal systems, shipping).  This will require additional people (maybe those 86,000 newly hired and armed IRS agents could be appropriated to more serviceable roles). It will require a new and innovative way to allow express trade but still monitor for the illegal transfers.

The slowing of the illegal guns to Mexico as Earnest pointed out this morning will weaken the cartels and help Mexico combat them.  The benefit to the United States from that is that weakened cartels will decrease their ability to smuggle drugs into America AND weaken their ability to impinge on future manufacturing zones thus helping trade.

(2) Work with Mexico to develop a high speed trade corridor.

A high speed trade corridor, dedicated to shipments and not human traffic will expedite not only trade but the mutually beneficial trade.  I would not expect the exports to flow entirely one way.  Firstly as a subcomponent of this, it would b good to establish spheres of specialization among the two countries to enhance trade relations.  Peter Zeihan touched on this. Left out however was the idea that American trade goods need to flow into Mexico as well.  The balance of payments cannot be one-sided.  Replacing a massive trade deficit with China to that of one with Mexico only weakens China; it does not strengthen America except in relative terms with China.  Therefore American goods need to flow into Mexico as well.

With manufacturing jobs developing in Mexico and increased Mexican security against the cartels (hopefully in a snowball effect), Mexicans should have more disposable income and thus be able to purchase more American goods.  A growing and more stable GDP in Mexico should allow Mexico more tax revenue to purchase military equipment and police force equipment as well, to help fight the cartels while at the same time mitigating the potential trade imbalance.

In conjunction with this, both countries could improve trade (particularly exports) with the soon to be struggling European countries.  This would be a further boon to both nations' economies.

Improved domestic economic conditions could also significantly reduce illegal immigration to the United States with more jobs and security becoming available within Mexico. There is a language and cultural advantage for Hispanics to remain in a Hispanic and Spanish-speaking country. Ironically, this may eventually shift the illegal immigration problem to Mexico's southern border. 

(3) Plan for the next stage.

It's possible that as this shift occurs, Mexican birth rates inevitably decline as the nation becomes wealthier.   This has been the inevitable fate of industrialized nations.  To sustain it's economic growth Mexico may be forced to allow increased immigration into its southern border to fill the need.  Alternately it could lead to a further southward migration of low tech manufacturing as Mexico itself upgrades to higher tech industrial manufacturing and outsources the lower end of the scale to Central America, while the United States does the same into ultra-high tech.  This in effect would expand prosperity ever southward.  That of course is only one possible outcome but possible nonetheless.

All of this is hypothetical of course, but the current paradigm offers a massive opportunity for both nations, far greater than allowing the status quo to continue.  For its part the United States should push these ideas where it can but not in such a way as to demand specific actions by Mexico.  Pointing out the mutual benefit (using the carrot) will yield far more than threats (the stick) ever will.

Electric vehicles redux

Late last year I posted a Bill Whittle discussion about the electric vehicle market, it's a good listen.  Peter Zeihan also discussed it yesterday.  There are some interesting takeaways from both talks.

American tech crunch

 Peter Zeihan discusses the onshoring of tech jobs, which seems to be coming.