Getting Ready for Trump’s Tariffs – TEASER

AI generated image of supply containers with the flags of the US, Mexico, and Canada on them

Today on Patreon, I released the full video covering Trump’s next round of tariffs set for early April and the impact they’ll have on the economy. For access to that video, join the Patreon now!

We’re also excited to announce our next LIVE Q&A session will be on April 9th! This is an exclusive perk for our Analyst members on Patreon. More info can be found on the Patreon page.

Click here to learn more

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a bright and sunny Colorado today. Oh. This is going to be a big one. I have to warn you about the recession that’s just around the corner. Now, if you go back to my work from last year, I have been of the belief that we had no reason to fear recession at all. 

U.S. consumer spending was strong. Industrial construction spending had been hitting records for almost two years straight. Technological productivity was starting to pick up again. Things looked pretty good. There was no big debt overhang except for in the federal government. And that’s not new. And in private sphere, credit card Defaults, mortgage and car loan defaults were well below historic norms. 

They were simply off the record lows that we had in the aftermath of Covid. Things looked pretty good. But we’ve had a significant degradation in the environment in just the last several weeks, and it’s worth outlining to everyone on how we got to where we are, and especially what’s just around the corner. And if you were to sum it up in one word, it’s tariffs…

Will the US and Canada Actually Merge?

Photo of US and Canada Flag

Listen, I didn’t want to make this video, but too many people asked for it…so here we go. What would a potential merger of the US and Canada look like?

The US won’t be invading Canada and there won’t be a nationwide Canadian petition for US membership, but how would it happen? It’s more likely that individual Canadian provinces – like Alberta and Saskatchewan- would secede and apply for US statehood.

These two provinces are young and wealthy, meaning they’re going to have to put the rest of Canada on their backs (financially speaking). They already have strong economic ties to the US, so a merger isn’t as far-fetched for them. The rest of Canada would likely destabilize if those provinces left, due to aging demographics and financial struggles.

For the US, incorporating Canadian provinces would mean a significant reshaping of American politics. However, that doesn’t mean it would be all that difficult to add them in; it’s a much easier process adding states than amending the constitution.

Regardless, I don’t see this happening anytime soon. There’s too many financial, political, and demographic factors at play. But if it did happen, both countries’ political and economic landscapes would dramatically shift.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

All right. I didn’t want to do this video, but too many people on both sides of the border have asked so what would a merger of the United States and Canada look like? All right. Let’s start with the simple thing. The United States is not going to invade Canada. There is no serious talk about Trump. He hasn’t even really joked about it. 

So let’s just put that to the side. Canada has just shy of 40 million people. So if it was to join in a single piece, it would be right up with California as our first or second most populous States. But it has a demographic picture that’s kind of a mix. And so what would be far more likely to happen? 

Because the idea that a majority of Canadians are going to petition for U.S. membership is a stretch. We’ll be far more likely to happen. Is individual provinces of Canada would secede from the Canadian nation, and then apply for statehood for the United States. 

The first two states to watch are the two that are youngest demographically, that are the richest in per capita terms, that export the most commodities per capita, and are already fairly culturally linked in with the United States. 

And those are Alberta and Saskatchewan. And if you’re looking at a map of Canada, keep in mind that everyone lives in a thin strip along the southern border. So you’ve got British Columbia on the Pacific. You’ve got some mountains, big mountains, and then Alberta and Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the third of the prairie provinces. And then you crossed something called the Canadian Shield, which is about 1000km of very rugged terrain, heavily forested, where there’s only one road and one rail line. 

Before you get to eastern Canada and in eastern Canada, you’ve got the population bloc of Ontario and Quebec, which are the bulk of the country’s population. And then fringed around them are something they call the maritime territories, which are provinces, but lightly populated. And, basically, I’m overstating this, so apologies. Heavily populated by retirees. So from from a financial point of view, there’s not a lot there. 

Where the money is, is Ontario and Quebec, the two most populous provinces? British Columbia, which has a big population around Vancouver and serves as the Pacific Gateway and then Alberta, which is the energy hub. Saskatchewan is kind of a little bit of the energy hub. And then a lot of agriculture, just like Alberta. What would happen is Alberta and Saskatchewan or Alberta or Saskatchewan would leave, the Canadian nation, which is legal in Canada. 

You just have to have a plebiscite that was affirmed by A90 ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court quite some time ago. With regard to tobacco separatism. Anyway, the reason that these two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, would leave is largely financial. When Quebec was having all of its fits in the 70s and 80s and early 90s about secession. 

The the what? The deal that was struck was that Ontario, which at the time was the richest and the most populous province, would basically pay Quebec to just stop it. So, Quebec has basically been paid for the last few decades to remain part of Canada and not have secession votes. It’s gotten more and more expensive because Quebec’s birthrate, is among the lowest of the major. 

It is the lowest of the major provinces. And so the whole province has already functionally slid into obsolescence. The problem is, in Ontario. The birth rate has been very low for a long time. And if it wasn’t for the huge surges of immigration, which have had other complications. 

Ontario has now aged to the point that if it wasn’t for huge surges in immigration which generate their own problems, Ontario wouldn’t be able to pay to keep, Quebec in the country anyway, but it is still aging very rapidly. 

And of late, Canadians have pushed back against this open door immigration policy, which hasn’t been necessary for economic reasons. But now, culturally, it’s kind of hit a breaking point and everything has slowed significantly, which means that Ontario is now rapidly aging again. And within five years, Alberta will be the province that is expected to pay for, Quebec to remain in the country with a little bit of help from Saskatchewan. 

The maritime provinces have already aged out, and if the two most populous provinces age out, there is no way that Saskatchewan and Alberta, which collectively have less than 7 million people, can pay for the rest of Canada to continue to exist unless they just become destitute. That’s the financial argument for why you might see secession in the prairie provinces. 

And that’s before you consider that every individual Canadian province, trades more with the United States, and it does with the rest of Canada. And that is true for none of them more than it is for Alberta. So you’d actually solve a fair number of problems if Alberta applied and Saskatchewan applied for American, statehood. Now, the question then is what happens next? 

Because these are the two richest bits of the country. And if you split British Columbia off from the rest of the country, because now the prairies have gone a different way, it basically devolves into fourth world status very quickly. It’s industry is already wildly noncompetitive, and basically what has kept B.C. afloat for the last several years is capital flight coming in, most notably from China to be processed in BC and then spread throughout the Canadian economy? 

That would stop if there was no land connection. The only other business that you really have in BC is it serves as the entrepot for Asian exports coming into Canada. If you use the super port in Vancouver, repackage everything on the rail and send it east. If you can’t get through Alberta and Saskatchewan. That’s not going to work either. 

So BC looks really awful in that circumstances, and the rest of Canada out east doesn’t look great too, because basically it’s a retired country that looks worse than most European demographics. So. If all of these other provinces, either in combination or independently, were to ask for statehood in the United States, we’d have to do some really hard math as to whether it would be worth it. 

Picking up a half a dozen states that economically are almost destitute. Basically, you’d be adding a half a dozen mississippis. I’m not sure we would be willing to do that. And that’s before you consider the politics of it. By the way, the United States does political math. Saskatchewan and Alberta would probably be considered 1990s style Texas Republicans a little bit more libertarian, socially moderate, economically conservative. 

They wouldn’t get along with today’s MAGA all that well. But the rest of Canada, especially BC and Ontario and Quebec, would be of the Elizabeth Warren branch of the Democratic Party. And getting that through Congress might be kind of interesting. Now, that said, adding states is not as complicated as amending the Constitution. You want to amend the Constitution, you need two thirds vote from both houses of Congress. 

And then in three quarters of the states, legislators legislatures have to ratify it. You want to add a state, you just need a simple majority. So you just need a simple majority of Congress. You don’t ask the states at all. And then the president signs off just like a normal bill. So if if if if if if we get to that point, Canada will very quickly become a political flashpoint regardless of what politics looks like in the United States, because you’re talking about potentially adding ten provinces or ten states to the United States, a system that’s 20 senators and about the same number of representatives as California has, which I believe is around 50 right now. So a significant shift in the balance of power, that would completely re fabricate how we have our politics. Now, if that happened in a year, wow. That would be all kinds of explosive, because the United States is in the midst of a pretty deep political reorientation, by itself. But at any time that, you have that sort of disruption, you’re going to change the political math by how the country works. 

And then and then you get to talk about how things like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which are the three of the four biggest line items in the U.S. budget, get re fabricated when you add so many people who are already retired. It would be a hoot. Don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon, but if it was going to happen, that’s how it would go down.

Trump Takes on Trade

Photo of man standing in front of trade shipping containers

There’s plenty of tools at the disposal of the US President and tariffs are one of them. When used appropriately – i.e., to get something else or discourage a certain action – tariffs can be a very effective measure. However, Trump is using them as an end, rather than a means to an end.

This has blossomed into “reciprocal tariffs”. These aim to match foreign tariffs on US goods. At first glance, this idea seems fair, but the complexity of international trade, vast product categories, and admin that would be involved make this nearly impossible.

If Trump continues down this path, it is likely that US international trade would come screeching to a stop and a severe recession would follow.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. We are continuing with our, coverage of Trump’s first month in office. We’ve gone through the Middle East and China, the former Soviet Union, Europe. Today we’re going to talk about, international trade, specifically tariffs. Now, tariffs obviously are something that Trump is quite fond of. And it’s pretty clear by this point that he doesn’t necessarily see tariffs as a means to an end, but just an end in of of themselves, which is not great economic policy unless you already have your industrial plants set up. 

And even then it’s wildly inefficient. But let’s focus on more of the specifics. I’ve talked at least briefly about the tariffs on America’s closest trading partners. I think it’s worth underlining what a couple of these things would do. One of the new ones is Trump says he wants to do a 100% automotive tariff on Canada. 

Keep in mind that every car manufactured in the United States includes a substantial percentage of parts that come from Canada and Mexico, most of them over one third, a lot of them two thirds. And vice versa. It’s a very integrated system. So if you were to put anything more than about a 15 to 20% tariff on autos specifically, are you going to be taxing things as they go back and forth across the border? 

And you’re going to cause a massive headache for American consumers, raising the price of your average vehicle by somewhere between 4 and $8000. If you do 100% tariff, we just stop making cars. Detroit collapses within a week, and Texas within a month. So, you know, not my recommendation. But I think a more interesting topic is one that’s gotten a little coverage. 

The Trump implemented last week and something called reciprocal tariffs. And it sound on a surface to be pretty fair. The idea is if somebody else has a 15% tariff versus a product, that comes from the United States, then you should flip that and have a 15% tariff on anything that you take from them that is in that product category, and at least on the surface, against places like China where tariffs are high and subsidization is high, in order to force American products out of the product mix. 

It seems like a great idea, right? A couple problems here. Number one doesn’t always line up that way for climactic reasons. So, for example, if Kenya has a tariff on imported coffee, we’re going to what tariff coffee we bring in from Kenya because, you know, we don’t export coffee, so we’d just be charging our people more. 

That’s a pretty minor one. The bigger one, though, is administration. There are literally hundreds of thousands of product categories. And that’s before you consider intermediate product trade. And so if you want to do a reciprocal tariff, number one, you need a massive staff, at least an order of magnitude more than what we have a Customs Enforcement in the FTC, Federal Trade Commission right now just to learn all the product categories and all the tariffs for all 200 odd countries in the world. 

And then you would need at least five times as many of that staff to then enforce, these tariffs at the border. Keep in mind that most international trade, even today, is not digitized fully. It might be on the container level, but each container is going to contain somewhere between dozens and thousands of products, and typically not all from the same country, because as container ships go around the world, they drop things off, they pick things up. 

If there’s space in a container, you can always shove more in there. And by the time it gets to the United States, it’s a mess. And then what comes off is not all of it necessarily. Some of it gets shipped back out. And so somebody has to manually enter every single product. So it’s not so much that, reciprocal tariffs isn’t fair or is at least intellectually a good idea, but actually putting it into process basically ends trade, because it’s impossible to administrate with anything approaching the number of people we have in government right now in total. 

Much less if you wanted to do anything else. Now, the fact that Trump has announced this anyway gets back to the general theme of all of this is that he’s built a completely incompetent administration that won’t tell him the truth, because the truth might not make him look great. But on this specific topic, it’s less of a designed incompetence and more a purposeful incompetence by his other staff. 

Trump’s trade representative is a guy by the name of Jamison Greer, who is a smart dude who basically was raised from a pup by Robert Lighthizer. And Lighthizer was Trump’s first term trade representative. And Lighthizer has been in and out of government and at the center of American trade law going back to the 1980s into the Reagan administration. 

So, I mean, this is a guy who knows everything, is everything about trade. He’s not shy about using tariffs, but it’s always when there’s a specific goal in mind in order to reshape the relationship. He just doesn’t just do tariffs or turfs anyway. Greer learned at Lighthizer he was his chief of staff, during Trump’s first term. 

Definitely knows what’s going on. And definitely knows that reciprocal tariffs is a horrible idea unless you’re going to do an absolutely massive state expansion, which is definitely not in the cards. So one of two things either happened. Number one, he probably took the advice of Lighthizer because one of the things that Lighthizer learned from his four years working with Trump the first time around is you never contradict Trump. 

Not in public, not in private. You just nod. You smile. You make him think that you were one of the brainless people that he has surrounded himself, that do nothing but tell him how wonderful he is, and then hopefully he gives you enough room and enough lack of attention, for you to actually go and do your real work. 

And for Lighthizer, at least in part, that worked. He was able to renegotiate NAFTA and the Korean trade deal. He got a new trade deal with Japan, made a lot of progress on a trade deal with the United Kingdom. But then, we just ran out of time. And then there were the events of January 6th. So, Greer clearly knows that reciprocal tariffs are horrible. 

Just beyond stupid idea. But either one. He kept his mouth shut, nodded, and smiled. Or number two. He told Trump this and, managed to do it in a way that didn’t get himself fired already. Even odds for probably the first one being the way one or whatever went. 

So we’re going to see more things like this. 

Because the only way that reciprocal tariffs can work is with a staff you can’t build. So either we go 1 or 2 directions at this time. Number one, reciprocal tariffs are actually implemented, in which case pretty much all international trade stops in the United States falls into a really, really ugly recession in a short period of time or, or there’s an actually an effort to implement it on a case by case basis for specific countries, absolutely wrecking trade relations with that country. 

That could get interesting based on who you choose to go after. Hopefully it would not be a country like Canada. Oh my god. But if you did against India, that could actually set the stage for changing the relationship in any number of ways. But Trump coming to that conclusion would require someone to explain to him how reciprocal tariffs overall are. 

Really bad idea. And I don’t think that is going to happen at all.

Can Tariffs Replace Income Taxes?

An AI generated image of connex boxes with American and Chinese flags on them

Imagine never paying income tax again. Sounds damn nice to me too. That’s until reality kicks in and you start looking at the math on how large the tariffs would need to be to replace those taxes…

Tariffs on imported goods would need to be roughly 50-65% and you could imagine the fallout that would have. Trade with key partners would collapse, prices would surge, supply chains would be disrupted, and energy supplies would take a hit. Tariffs once worked as a revenue source for the US, but with all the current programs and expenses, they barely scratch the surface.

In theory, there could be a way to make this work; like implementing entitlement programs, so a lower tariff would suffice. However, that would require some massive political changes that the US just isn’t ready for.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey, all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from a windy Colorado. We’re taking a couple of questions from the Patreon page today, specifically. A lot of talk in Washington these days is about replacing all income taxes with import tariffs. Is this possible? What do you think about what it would look like? Great question. The proposal dates back to something that predates the income tax, which was really adopted only about a century ago. 

But you have to keep in mind the volumes in question. Today, the United States imports about 1.14. trillion dollars of goods and services, about, three quarters of that as goods. And the tax generates about 2.6 to $2.7 trillion of income. So if your goal is to zero out the income tax, you need a tariff on everything, not just from China, everything that is in the range of 50 to 65%. 

I guarantee you, if you increase the price of things by half, it’s going to change how we live. For example, we bring in a lot of Canadian crude, heavy stuff that is then refined into, distillates such as gasoline and diesel, which are the primary fuel source for most of, say, the Midwestern part of the United States. That would go to zero almost overnight with a 50% increase. So we’d have lots of reshuffling. We’d have to basically shut down trade relations with all of our major countries that participate. Link supply chains with us. And, anything that is electronic come to Asia would get very expensive. 

So you’d have some big impacts. The reason why you’d have this, such as mismatches. We don’t have the same economy that we had back during the times in the 1800s, when tariffs were our primary source of income. So we have built out the social welfare state with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense now being our four biggest line items in the government. 

So if you were to zero out Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, then you could perhaps talk about doing an equalization with a tariff that’s only around 20 or 30%. But I would argue that that would require a lot of political evolutions in the United States that we are not quite ready to cope with at the moment. So it’s an interesting idea, but as a, as an income tax eliminator, we’re nowhere near to tariffs, being the solution to that particular problem.

Trump Goes A-Conquerin’

Photo of a ship in the panama canal

Trump just kicked around invading and coercing some allies. Oh boy….

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

There Goes the Canadian Government

Photo of the Canadian Parliament building in winter

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to demote former Finance Minister and deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has triggered a new round of speculation over his political future.

Trudeau’s Liberal Party currently rules as a minority government. While this has emerged as the norm in Federal politics in recent decades, the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP)’s decision to remove their support from Trudeau in September has made his position all the more precarious. While the NDP declined to move toward a vote of no confidence in the Fall, Freeland’s exit is equally unsettling as it is exciting for those within government.

It’s not just that Freeland is easily one of the most effective minister in Canada’s modern history; nor the fact that Freeland is one of the most intelligent members of any global government. She is. But Freeland has been part of a very loyal cabinet of an increasingly unpopular Prime Minister–until that loyalty was not returned.

On Monday the 16th, Freeland released a public letter not only announcing her resignation, but–in typical Canadian fashion–effectively calling her former boss an out-of-his-league idiot. But politely. Canadian-ly.

Those within the Liberal Party and without have smelled the blood in the water. Part of Trudeau’s ability to hold onto the reins of party leadership has been the lack of a clear and effective challenger. That may very well be changing.

As Canada faces a bevy of upcoming challenges, chief among them Trump’s tariff threats and USMCA/NAFTA2.0 renegotiation talks. Not having Freeland at the helm of managing both processes is terrifying for most serious folks within Canada’s political establishment, and it should be.

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Trump Tariffs Part 2 – Canada and Mexico

Photo of a bicycle in front of the Canadian flag

Unlike Trump’s proposed tariffs for China, the tariffs heading for Canada and Mexico can be viewed as leverage (or bargaining chips) to address issues amongst our North American trade partners.

Trump’s goal isn’t to disrupt North American manufacturing, he’s just looking to gain the upper hand for negotiations on things like migration and drug control. But that doesn’t mean these tariffs won’t sting. US citizens should expect to see a nice bump in costs to goods crossing these borders. Trump’s North American tariff strategy is a bit reminiscent of Cold War policies where trade access was tied to concessions.

How are our neighbors going to react? I would expect Mexico to cooperate, especially with their new (and hopefully more pragmatic) President Claudia Sheinbaum at the helm. Relations with Canada could sour as they are resistant to any action that could be perceived as ‘bending the knee’ to the US.

Tomorrow we’ll dive a bit deeper on one of the things Trump is looking to stop…fentanyl.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Alright. We’re trying the drone today. Today is part two of the Trump’s Tariffs series. Yesterday, we covered China and discussed how what Trump is achieving there is an industrial reorganization. Tariffs may actually, in the right policy combination, work for that.

That’s very different from what’s going on with Mexico and Canada. Mexico and Canada are the number two and number one trading partners collectively.

If the tariffs that Trump says he’s going to put on actually happen and there is no retaliation, we’re looking at something along the lines of roughly a $1,500 hit to every man, woman, and child in the United States. So, potentially big. That’ll hit some industries more than others. Automotive is definitely the one that will get hit the most because there are a lot of products, especially in U.S.-Mexico trade, where intermediate products go back and forth, and back and forth, and back and forth across the border.

The administrative cost of imposing a single 25% would be huge. It would be easier just to do it every time something crosses. So, all of a sudden, you’re adding $5,000 to $10,000 to the cost of a vehicle that is made in North America. It’s an inflationary issue, an employment issue, and an industry issue. There is no version of the future of the United States that is post-China that does not involve Mexico and Canada very, very strongly.

Keep in mind that Trump put his name on the most recent trade deal with both countries. That’s NAFTA Two. So, potentially very, very, very big.

However, what Trump is attempting to achieve with Mexico and Canada is not the same as what he’s trying to achieve in China. In China, he’s actually trying to move industry. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with the manufacturing supply chains we have here in North America.

His concern is he wants to use the lever or the hammer of trade and tariffs to get progress, in his view, on immigration, migration, and especially on fentanyl. So basically, it’s an “if this, then that.”

Now, that’s not a crazy idea. In fact, there are a couple of reasons to expect it to work. First off, that’s the whole concept of globalization and the Cold War: that the United States used its Navy to patrol the global oceans to force open international trade, including our own market.

We would do this for you if, in exchange, you would allow the United States to write your security policies. That was the policy right up until 1992.

Now, we got away from that in the post-Cold War era, where free trade became a goal in and of itself. Trump wants to dial the clock back 35 years and start renegotiating what security policies mean to include migration and fentanyl.

The idea that you can do that makes a lot of sense because the United States is the only large, rich, consumption-led economy in the world. That means that the U.S. president, whoever that happens to be, has a huge amount of negotiating room to get what he wants, whatever the issue happens to be. So, you want access to this market? That’s fine.

You have to do XYZ, A, B, and C, and you have to do that maybe first.

The question is time frame.

In the case of Mexico, it’s probably going to work because it’s worked before. In Trump’s first term, he tried something very similar on migration issues and forced a deal with the then-president, Lopez Obrador. We now have a new president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who is much better at math than her predecessor.

So, it’s just a question of how these two ultimately do or do not get along.

In the case of Canada, it’s probably going to be a little bit more sticky. The ruling government of Justin Trudeau is a minority government. It is in trouble, it’s not popular, and it faces an election next year. Capitulating to Donald Trump is generally not a great way to win accolades with leftist supporters.

So, we might actually see relations between the United States and Mexico pull forward in its own way, while relations between the United States and Canada suffer.

But a much bigger issue is whether or not what Trump is wanting to do with Mexico and Canada can actually work.

There are ways that Mexico, in particular, can cooperate with the United States on migration. That has happened in the past. I’m sure it will happen again in the future. But fentanyl is different.

Trump’s understanding of fentanyl is that the precursor materials come from China, whereas the turning to finish the drugs happens in Mexico, and then they cross the border into the U.S. That’s accurate, but it’s an incomplete understanding because fentanyl is different from cocaine.

Cocaine has very specific economics and geography of production and transport. Fentanyl does not.

To understand the pros and cons of what Trump is trying to achieve with trade policy, we need to look at the supply chain for fentanyl. Then, we might see how things could work a little bit differently.

That’s going to take a whole other video. We will tackle that tomorrow.

Canada, After America

FOR MORE ON THE POST-AMERICAN WORLD, SEE DISUNITED NATIONS

PURCHASE DISUNITED NATIONS HERE

The Accidental Superpower: Ten Years On

With a new “10 years later” epilogue for every chapter, comes an eye-opening assessment of American power and deglobalization in the bestselling tradition of The World is Flat and The Next 100 Years.

PRE-ORDER MY NEW BOOK HERE

Today, we’re looking at the Great White North. While they’re near the US, they still have plenty of issues to sort out before seeing a clear path to success in a deglobalized world.

The Canadians are having a bit of a demographic problem. While immigration has solved some of their problems – leveling out income levels and addressing demographic decline – it’s stirred up a handful of new ones. The most significant being heightened societal tensions and an increase in housing costs.

There’s another new issue on the horizon, and it’s one that will only worsen over the next few years. The US is becoming more protectionist, and the trade concessions the Canadians have known and loved for so long will no longer be around.

US-Canda relations will remain healthy, just a bit more direct and harsher than they once were. As long as Canada can get its ducks in a row, they’ll be just fine in the next chapter of the global story.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

TranscripT

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. And on this chilly morning, I thought it would be a great time to talk about our neighbors to the Great White North, the Canadians specifically. This is an entry in our post American series about what happens in the world where the United States becomes less interested in really everything. Now, Canada today has three major problems.

The first one is immigration. Now, this is the most pro-immigration country in the world because they faced a German or an Italian or Korean style demographic decline and collapse as recently as 20 years ago. But unlike the Germans or the Italians or the Koreans, they decided to reach towards immigration as a way to address it. And so over the course of the next 15 years, they brought in something obscene, like 4 million migrants, more than 10% of the population, with most of them being under age 35.

So unlike the immigration debate they had been on before, everyone came in in the fifties and the retired and the Canadians never got more money out of them in taxes and than they paid in services for pensions. These are people who are going to pay into the system and contribute as workers and consumers for decades before they become a liability.

And that is changed the demographic of Canada because they’re bringing in people who have already been through primary and secondary education and are ready to work and spend and pay taxes. So it’s kind of the best of all deals from a demographic point of view. The complication, of course, is that these are people who are coming from places they don’t intend to return to, and so they have to have a place to live.

And if you have to have a place to live, you will pay whatever you have to do it. And that is driven up housing costs in all of the gateway cities in Canada that most notably Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto and is now even reached into the secondary cities, places like even Winnipeg. And that’s made a lot of social tension in Canada that didn’t exist before.

Nowhere near the nativist sentiments that we’re seeing a lot of the rest of the world because, you know, this is still Canada, but it is notable. The second problem is income imbalance. Now, this is something that is also gotten a little bit better. If you go back 15, 20 years, you will be in a situation where there was only one province, Alberta, that was, in effect, pain for everyone.

All the other provinces were aging towards mass retire amant with the chemical to the furthest along in the Ontarians not far behind that, And the whole compact that had allowed Canada to exist was basically that Ontario taxpayers would pay for Quebec to not succeed. Well, that only works until the Ontarians start to hit mass retirement, and that left it to the Albertans to pay for everything, and they were pretty cheesed off about it.

Well, because of that immigration surge, suddenly there are more people in British Columbia and Ontario, and to a lesser degree Quebec to pay for that compact and that’s bought the Canadian state a lot of wiggle room. But the third problem is one that’s definitely not going to get better, and that’s the United States. Now, Canada has always benefited from the fact that it is from population point of view, very small.

And has it posed a threat to the American mainland since the war of 1812? However, they have managed to wring concession after concession after concession out of Washington simply because they’re not all that important. So when the United States gets embroiled in like the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Berlin Wall fiasco or the Iraq war, whatever it happens to be, Canada can say, you know, we’re here, we will help you.

But that exchange, could we get a little concessions on auto parts that worked throughout the Cold War and into the post-Cold War period? But when you get into the post-9-11 period, and especially Trump and beyond, where the United States starts to equate trade issues with national security and more directly, all of a sudden Canada doesn’t have anywhere to run.

And as the United States steps back from maintaining the world, there are less things like the Berlin airlift that we hear about. And Canada goes from being like number 23 on the American watch list to like number three or four. And in that sort of situation, the Canadians have lost their wiggle room. So good for them. But Canadians have found a way to at least manage their immigration issue, and they’ve found a way to kind of deaden think of it like geopolitical novocaine, their internal imbalances.

But that’s coming at the cost of a much harsher, more direct, more bare knuckled relationship with the United States, because the United States that is really only concerned with North America must put more of its attention towards Canada. And since the Canadians have always been in a Confederacy where different provinces basically set different free policy, even that makes Canada as a whole one of the most protectionist countries that the United States deals with on a regular basis.

And now we’re paying attention to that. And we have a lot more lovers than they do in the relationship. All right. I don’t know who’s next. We’ll get back to you.

Unifor Strikes: Issues with the Canadian Industrial System

Unifor – a Candian public service union – has declared a strike on the St. Lawrence Seaway (a crucial maritime transport route). This has essentially cut off the direct delivery of seaborne goods from the Canadian interior and will disrupt the entire industrial base.

Strikes like this shouldn’t come as a surprise. With the population in decline, labor shortages will become the status quo. That’s before we mix in policies like the Jones Act, which places added stress on the Canadian system.

As bad as this strike may seem, we’re only looking at the tip of the iceberg. And if employers don’t begin fostering healthier relationships with their workforces…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Grand Rapids, Michigan. And the story today on the 23rd of October is that yesterday a Canadian public service union by the name of Unifor announced a strike on the Saint Lawrence Seaway. And there’s a bunch of things that come from this. Number one, what the Seaway is. It is a system of locks, I think 14, that connect the western Great Lakes to the St Lawrence Seaway itself, which goes out to the Atlantic Ocean.

It is the primary artery for getting cargo from the interior of the continent as well as from all of Ontario and Quebec out to the Atlantic Ocean. A Basically without the Seaway, you can’t go up river beyond Quebec City. And so you’re talking about the bulk of the industrial base of Canada being affected by this. In addition, the Seaway is part of what allows the Erie Canal to work, which allows the New York area to access the interior of the continent as well.

So as long as it’s off line, what is traditionally the primary and cheapest method of moving cargo in and out of interior? Canada is off line. And it complicates things for the United States as well. We’re going to see a lot more stuff like this coming forward. One of the things that’s going on right now in North America is that we are experiencing protracted population decline because we’ve had low birth rates for 40 years.

Now it’s not nearly as advanced as it is in places like Northeast Asia or Europe, but it’s still a factor. And in the United States, specifically in calendar year 2022, the difference between the retirees who are 18 to 65 and the people coming into the workforce who are aged into 18 was just under a half a million workers shortage just in this calendar year.

And that number is going to continue to be negative for a minimum of the next 20. In fact, it’s just going to go up and up and up for at least the next 11 because the people already been born. We know exactly what the inflow into the labor market is for the next decade or two. Two decades. Yeah.

Anyway, so that’s kind of the first problem. The second problem is there’s not a good alternative for the Canadians, courtesy of something called the Jones Act. You really can’t use the American Waterway Network. It prevents any cargo from being transported through the American system unless it’s using a ship that is American built, owned, captained and crewed, which by definition eliminates pretty much everything that comes from Canada.

So we’re going to be seeing a lot of stress in the Canadian system and a lot of stress, especially in greens, a lot of interior Canada. Their only way to get to the wider world is to use the Seaway. Their only alternative is to use rail now to a place like the Quad Cities in Iowa or all the way to New Orleans, which is, you know, technically possible, but a lot more expensive anyway because of the worker shortage.

We’re going to be seeing activities like this over and over and over again in the United States. We’re having issues with the United Auto Workers in places like Detroit right now, where they’re on strike. And the folks up in Canada are thinking they should be able to get at least as much out of their operators as the strikers are aiming for.

And so the is a 30 to a 40% wage increase to be phased in over three years, but not say that they’re not worth it. I don’t know what I am saying. That is in an environment where labor is ever more scarce in North America, you should expect to see more and more and more industrial labor action at all levels.

And this is just part of the environment now, so you best get used to it. And if you’re an employer, you’re best built as positive a relationship with your workers as you possibly can because they have become something that we’re not used to thinking of workers in North America as a scarce resource, and they’re going to be priced accordingly.

All right.

India Assassinated a Sikh Emigrant on Canadian Soil

While giving a parliamentary testimony, Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, accused the Indian Government of assassinating a Sikh emigrant living in Canada who supported an Indian separatist group.

Intelligence from the Five Eyes has revealed that Trudeau’s claim was valid. This is significant because it means India is willing to “take care of business” outside its borders and could impact the entire Indian diaspora globally.

This will undoubtedly strain relationships between the Five Eyes and India moving forward, but there are still greater power politics at play. Although India’s stance will tarnish some relationships, it will still benefit from the anti-China actions taken by the West and the rest of the world.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado today. We’re going to talk about something that you guys have been writing in for weeks about what is up with the Indians and the Canadians yelling at one another over this assassination plot. For those of you who are unaware, the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, accused, who actually kind of mentioned it in passing in a parliamentary testimony that the Indian government had assassinated a Sikh emigre on Canadian soil.

The guy had Canadian citizenship. He had renounced his Indian citizenship. But the Indians have never liked this guy because he supports one of the separatist groups in India. It wasn’t a group that was part. I mean, this issue has basically been resolved in India’s favor. But he didn’t stop talking about it while he was abroad. And so as the accusation goes, the Indians wanted him dead and did it.

This has a number of implications. It took me so long just to kind of get to the bottom of it, because it involves intel that hasn’t been made public for the most part. But let’s say five things. Number one, looks like it was true. The intelligence didn’t come from Canada. It came from the United States and the Five Eyes system.

Five Eyes is a group of five Anglo countries Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States that share intelligence on almost everything. Anyway, the intelligence originated from the United States because that’s going to sound weird. Or maybe not. The United States has much better intelligence capabilities in Canada than the Canadian government does. So yeah. And then it was verified by the British government.

And the Brits have much better information gathering in India than the Canadians do. So all of the five eyes have basically kind of quietly said Canada was right on this one. That makes things a little bit complicated because, two, we have never seen the Indian government assassinate anyone outside of arm’s reach of their own borders. This is a fundamentally new capacity for them.

Now, assassinations are a little bit coming into vogue. The Russians have obviously picked up the pace for that considerably, even before the Ukraine war with radiation and poisoning and polonium being their preferred methods, although they’re not afraid of a gunshot to the head. And if you ever see somebody jumping out of a hospital window, that was only an assassination.

These kind of Russian culture are the Americans, of course, are are fans of it, too, as long as it’s done by a drone where we really frowned upon it when it’s done in person for some reason probably left over from the Cold War issues. And then, of course, the Brits are good at it anyway. Seeing this with India is significant because the Indian diaspora is arguably the largest on the planet, and if the Indian government starts patrolling it using extraterritorial and extralegal means that is going to rub a lot of people wrong in a lot of places, and eventually it’ll probably end up offing someone that actually matters to a government and not just because

it’s a citizen. So this is not yet a really big deal, but it has the potential to become a very big deal in the not too distant future. Number three, Canada is among the largest destinations for Indian students traveling abroad, and the Indian diaspora in Canada has become its fastest growing ethnic group. Now, obviously, the people who leave a country are not Brazil patriots.

So expect to see a lot more agitation within Canada as a result of this, as opposed to quieting down. If the Indian goal was to quell discussion of these topics, they probably just achieved the opposite because Canada, for all, for its faults, is a free country with a more or less free press, even if it is a little bit slanted, in my opinion.

And it’s very easy for anyone to say anything about anyone, anywhere. And because of freedom of information and the ability to send electrons around the world in a second, that will generate actually a lot more publicity in India as well. So this probably wasn’t the smartest play by New Delhi if their goal was to keep this very, very quiet.

Okay. More significantly, number four, relations with India. You know, by the five eyes putting their stamp of approval on the Canadian statement, that obviously raises the question about what relations between the Brits, the Australians and the Americans are going to be with the Indians. The Americans and the Australians are in the quad grouping with India, which is a kind of a security talk shop.

And the Brits obviously have ongoing relations and economic and otherwise with everyone who’s in the Commonwealth in their former colonies. So if you’ve got a major power, India starting to do things that are incredibly unsavory from the point of view of democratic norms, that is absolutely going to impact relations. The question is how much? The issue for the Americans and the Australians, of course, is China trying to try to try to China.

And honestly, I don’t think in this relationship we’re going to see too much of a change. Which brings us to the fifth issue, which is the nature of great power politics. When you have identified a country that you see as a large threat, a lot of the niceties that dominate the normal diplomatic and economic discourse fall by the wayside side in favor of hard security concerns.

And that means you are willing to partner with different sorts of countries and personalities that you normally wouldn’t even consider. So, for example, when Hitler was on the scene, we were best buds with Stalin, sent him billions in today’s terms, tens of billions of dollars of military aid in order to fight off the Nazis. Then when Hitler fell, we got into bed with Mao, who was the greatest mass murderer in history, in order to counter Stalin.

So the idea that we would partner with a mostly democratic but little bit unsavory India in order to counter what has become the most totalitarian government in the world. That’s an easy decision to make, but it does mean that the nature of the American and to a lesser degree British and Australian relationship with the Indians is going to change.

We never considered Stalin or Mao or French. They were allies against a very specific threat. And when that threat was neutralized, the relationship changed again. Now, there are a lot of decisions that Indians are going to have to make in the next several years as actions against the Chinese heat up. And the question will be whether or not they want a more productive relationship with these Western nations.

There’s a lot of water under that bridge. The answer may very well be no, but that means India will be doing Indian things with Indian policy for Indian interests. And to be perfectly honest, looking back on the last 70 years, that’s not much of a change. India unofficially sided with the Soviets in the Cold War, but they were very big on non-alignment for the most part carried it out.

What we’re seeing today is just kind of the slightly greater power equivalent of that same sort of political ideology. Now, sitting here in the United States, it’s easy for me to wag my finger and say that this is not the best thing for India or Indians, but I don’t get a vote in this. This is a decision to be made in New Delhi specifically, and to be perfectly blunt, in a world where lots and lots of countries are aligned against the Chinese and in my opinion, the Chinese are long for this world.

India is going to do very well regardless of what the relationship with the West happens to look like. This is their decision. Doesn’t mean we have to like it.