Demographics Part 9: The Advanced Developing World

The advanced developing world is about to have its moment. We’re talking about India, Turkey, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Brazil. These countries were a little late to the global scene, but now it’s their time to shine, hopefully…

The path to globalization is well-traveled, but that doesn’t mean its obstacle-free. These countries will have to work hard to balance their shifting demographics with changes to their economic structures and movement along the value-add chain.

For a country like Brazil, their current trajectory could very likely send them into a crippling demographic situation with no way to pull themselves out. If a country like Turkey continues to move up the value-add chain steadily, I could see them flourishing in the coming years.

These countries are not facing a terminal demographic situation quite yet, but if history has taught us anything…now is the time for them to reconcile their declining demographics and prepare for what comes next.

Prefer to read the transcript of the video? 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.

CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT MEDSHARE’S UKRAINE FUND

CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT MEDSHARE’S EFFORTS GLOBALLY

TRANSCIPT

Hey Everybody. Peter Zeihan coming to you from Colorado. I am in training for my upcoming New Zealand trip and so I wanted to record a couple of videos that would last a little bit longer. So this is the most recent installment in our demographic series. And today we’re going to talk about the advanced developing world, a group of countries that includes India, Turkey, Indonesia, to a lesser degree Vietnam, certainly Brazil.

These countries have a lot of things in common, not just in terms of their demographic structure, but their economic history. So until World War Two, these were all either colonies or kind of isolated systems. And they had that traditional, pre developed world pyramidal structure that was very high consumption, high inflationary and relatively low value added. But even in the early decades of the post-World War Two era, they didn’t really join into the Bretton Woods free trade system, even though some of them, several of them were signatories to the pact. They kept their economies to themselves for nationalistic reasons. And to be perfectly blunt, there was a fair amount of the advanced world, most notably Europe, where even though global trade was available, they really didn’t globalized their supply chains. They were export products, but they tried to not become dependent upon anybody else in terms of the production cycle. Well, you play that forward until 1992. And what changed in 1992 is, of course, the Cold War ended. And that’s meant that a lot of the strictures that had made it difficult to do things went away. And these countries came in from the cold from a little bit a second in 1992, the Europeans signed the Treaty of Mashhad, which did away with a lot of the internal tariff and non-tariff barriers that existed within the European space. And that meant that the Europeans started to integrate and especially German supply chains started to link to the rest of Europe over the course of the next 20 years. That was extended first as economic links and later as full EU membership to all of the states of Central Europe, from Estonia down to Bulgaria, with Poland being the most important one. And that meant that the European space, or if you want to be honest, the German economy became suddenly this global powerhouse and started exporting products that were a lot more value added from a lot more product sectors. But most importantly, of course, 1979 was the year that the Chinese started to tiptoe into the international system and then really join in in the 1990s and 2000s, which meant that the Chinese were ravenous for raw commodities and would pay pretty much anything to get whatever they needed.

This all benefited the advanced countries of the developed world because they could get certain products from the Germans and the Chinese that they could make at home, and then they could work on either raw materials or manufacturing to fill in the niches that the bigger economies didn’t provide. So for most of this class of country, 1990 really was the break point where they started to urbanize and industrialize. It took the combination of not just the global trading system, but also a change in the way that other major economies viewed economics. In the case of Mexico. 1992 is when after was adopted and of course, the early 1990s when the WTO came into existence.

So what this means is that these countries started this rapid process not in the forties or fifties, like, say, the Koreans or the Japanese or the Europeans, but not until the 1990s. But by that point, the process of developing and industrializing and urbanizing was kind of old hat for a lot of the world. So these countries were able to proceed down that path a lot faster than the countries that have come before. So for the Brits, it took seven centuries. For the Germans, closer to five. For the Americans…America’s a special case, let’s leave them out. For the Spanish, it really only took 2 to 3. These countries have done it in really one, one and a half to two. And as a result, starting in the 1990s, their birthrates plummeted, in most cases dropping by half to two thirds. So if you look at the population structure of their demographics, it’s a pure a pyramid for people who are above about age 35 and then it goes straight down in a column. Now, this is hardly a disaster. By having fewer children, more money can be focused on education, on infrastructure, general business investment. And so all of these countries have been moving bit by bit up the value added scale. We’ll look at Mexico from a value add point of view, comparing the value of the inputs versus the value of the exports. It’s probably the most high value added economy in the world. So, you know, no slouches in any of these categories.

But this has some consequences because if this continues, these countries are going to age at a much faster rate than the countries that preceded them. So, you know, we’re talking about these countries reaching a mass impact in really under 20 years. And in the case of the United States, as a point of comparison, the U.S. is going to be a younger country, demographically speaking, on average, than Brazil in the early 2040s in Mexico and Indonesia are going to pass by us in the early 2050s and probably even India by 2060.

Now there’s a lot of history to be written between here and there, but these countries all have a demographic moment and if they take advantage of it, to become developed by moving up the value added chain very, very rapidly, kind of like Mexico is, then by the time they get to these points, they will be developed enough to deal with those sort of demographic consequences. But if they become stuck in the middle, which is definitely what seems to be happening with Brazil, they’re going to have some real problems because they’ll have gotten old without becoming developed.

The case of Brazil is a special one and it’s almost entirely because of China. The Chinese came in under President Lula, his first term, and they signed a number of deals to build joint ventures for producing products in Brazil. But the Chinese basically lied and stole all the technology from all the Brazilian firms and then took it back home, produces in mass and basically drove all the Brazilian companies out of the global market. So the Brazilian industry now only basically services the Brazilian system. Indonesia has not fallen prey to that because they didn’t have the technological aptitude in the first place. They’re trying to move up the value added scale, getting out of raw commodities into processing and ultimately into things like battery assembly, which is overall a pretty good plan, inconvenient for the rest of the world, who is trying to go green quickly, but definitely in Indonesia’s best interests. Mexico is definitely the furthest along overall and moving up the value added scale. And in terms of labor productivity, I’d argue they’re above Canada already. Who am I leaving out? Turkey? The Europeans have integrated with Turkey to kind of be the Mexico for Europe. And Turkey began with a much more sophisticated labor force and infrastructure than the Mexicans had in the 1990s. They haven’t moved as fast, but you have a much deeper penetration of these technologies in these skills throughout the Turkish system than in any other countries in this class. So if the Europeans were to vanish tomorrow, the Turks would obviously feel it. But they definitely remain the most powerful country in the neighborhood, and their demographics are young enough and their neighbors are even younger that I could see a Turkish manufacturing system really taking off. Obviously, this isn’t Germany would be the same quality, quality of product, but would still be a pretty good result anyway.

Bottom line of all of this is that these countries all had a moment, the historical moment that is approximately as long as the one we’ve just completed with the hyper globalization of the post-World War Two era. But it is still only a moment, and they all need to really buckle up and get down to business if they want to do well in what comes next.

All right. That’s it for me today. See you guys next time.

Is India the Next China?

When I get the question – “Is India the next China?” – to the surprise of many, I respond with a resounding NO! And the Indians should be extremely happy about that. When most people look at India, they see a ton of people and cheap labor. But once you dive a little deeper, the stark differences between India and China start to appear.

Thanks to globalization, China became the manufacturing powerhouse it is today; India missed the globalization train. So India will probably be just fine when the rug gets pulled out from under the global system.

China’s economy owes much of its success to hyper-financialization due to the government flooding projects with loans and capital. Great for the appearance of economic growth, but wildly inefficient and unproductive. In India, capital availability is low, so the projects that get funding are actually productive.

And finally, my favorite topic, demographics. China is a mess; just go watch my videos on that. India is just now industrializing, so their demography has shifted into the chimney we often see (having the same amount of people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and so on). However, this has happened much later and is proceeding much slower than their peers.

On top of all that, India is geographically blessed with access to food and energy right around the corner. Don’t get me wrong, India has its own set of issues, but they are all on a magnitude lower than what China’s got going on.

Prefer to read the transcript of the video? 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.

CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT MEDSHARE’S UKRAINE FUND

CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT MEDSHARE’S EFFORTS GLOBALLY

TRANSCIPT

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from the great golf course wilds of Ojai, California. Today, I wanted to do something that a lot of folks have been asking for a while and talk about India. So this is kind of like half in the demographic series, half on its own.

Lots of folks are always wondering if India is going to be the next China because it’s a big country. It has more people now. It has a faster growth rate. And, you know, it’s a legitimate question, but I have to give it a resounding no. And that is something the Indians should be very happy about. Chinese success to this point has been based on three factors. First of all, the strategic largesse of the United States in creating the globalized system, to allow the import and the export of everything on a global basis without having to first secure territory or sea lanes militarily. This came about as a result of not just the American globalization push after the Second World War, but when Nixon went to see Mao in China and to engineer the Soviet Sino split, which ultimately made China an ally of the United States in the later years of the Cold War. That is what created the manufacturing powerhouse that we know as China today.

Now, the United States have lost interest in that, and the United States sees China as a rival. So the continued existence of the Chinese economic model is dependent upon the ongoing strategic largesse of the United States, which is a very bad plan. And we’re seeing the United States hack out bit after bit after bit. It’s already happened in agriculture and energy, in manufacturing, especially in semiconductors. And the United States has the ability to kill any of this overnight if it should choose to. So the economic future of China is, one, without exports and imports and market access. And I don’t know how they can square that circle.

In the case of India. India never joined the system. India was pro-Soviet during the Cold War, and even when the Soviet system went away, the Indians kind of reflexively remained a degree pro-Russian in the years since. So their system is never internationalized. Now that means they missed out on the big growth push that the Chinese had in the eighties, 19, 20 and 2010s. And that’s why the Indian economy is so much smaller. But it also means that when the rug gets pulled out, India really doesn’t suffer all that much.

The second big piece of China’s success is hyper financialization. The idea that the state confiscates the bank deposits and the savings of the population and just floods would be projects without money, making sure that everybody has a bottomless supply of 0% loans so that everyone can have a job. Now you will get economic growth with this, but it will be wildly inefficient and in many cases flat out nonproductive. The closest comparison we have in the United States is Enron and subprime. We know how that went. Now, imagine doing that for every single economic subsector throughout the entire economic structure, which means when it goes down. And it will go down. You don’t just have a financial and a housing crisis. You have an everything crisis. And the economic sector that has been most exposed, that is most dependent to this capital is agriculture. So you can toss a famine on top of that. This isn’t a problem in India.

Now, the Indians system is capital poor, no navigable waterways of note, very high population per person capital availability in India is among the lowest in the world, lower than most of sub-Saharan Africa. But that means that the Indians actually treat capital like money. It’s an economic good as it should be, as opposed to a political good as it is in China, which can be thrown at whatever you want. So again, you don’t get the growth, but you also don’t get the instability.

The third big factor is demographics. Now, we’ve already talked about China at length in terms of just the hollowing out of the entire system. This simply hasn’t happened in India at all. Now, India has, like everybody else, started to industrialize. And so India has, like everyone else, slowly transition to kind of that chimney demography where they have as many people in their forties as the thirties of their twenties. Those are teens. But the process started a lot later than it did in China, and it’s proceeding a lot slower. And so while India is in the midst of rapid aging, it’s from a very late start, at a relatively slow speed compared to a lot of other countries in their peer group, much less the Chinese, which really are in a category all their own. Which means that India today has plenty of people under age 40 to do consuming and even still have kids. If they can find a way to reverse some of these trends. And that means in 10, 20, 30, 40 years, India is going to have a lot of people aged 40 to 65 who are going to be capital rich and high value add and in a system with one and a half billion people, even if that’s only 10% of the population, and it’s more, that’s still a whole lot going on.

Now, in the worst case scenario, where birthrates continue to shrink and the Indian population continues to age, we are still talking about it still being the world’s largest population for at least another half a century. And they won’t be in a European style crunch for their demographic within 40 years. So even if they do everything wrong, even if everything turns against them, the future of India looks pretty good. And they’ve got one other thing going for them that the Chinese don’t. They’re a lot closer to the things that they need. Australia is a much more friendly nation to the Indians than it is to China, and so there’s always going to be some extra food supply or mineral supply that’s available. And India, the subcontinent is the first stop out of the Persian Gulf.

So India is one of the last countries in the world that you should expect to ever have an energy crisis. Whereas China, is the last country on a very, very long easy to disrupt chain. So all of the normal issues that we think about when we think of India inefficiency, women’s rights issues, what that means for their economic growth, the fact that Pakistan is right there. Now, these are all relevant along with corruption. These are things we should worry about. But they’re an order of magnitude less than the problems that are plaguing China now, and they’re all survivable.

There are solutions that the Indians can come up, and even if they can’t, they can cope with these as they continue to grow. Whereas China, we are very close to the end. Alright. That’s it for me. See you guys next time.

Where in the World: Fagradalsfjall, and Breakthrough Tech

Some questions I’ve been asked about as of late have been on the topic of what technologies do I see that could move the needle on some of the more… dire forecasts that I’ve made.

Some of the most impactful are going to be in the field of agriculture. The industrial revolution sparked massive changes in how humans grow and distribute food. Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, tractors, combines, storage, refrigeration, global transport—the things that give us tomatoes in winter (no matter the quality) are also what has allowed fewer people to feed a global population that has ballooned over the last century.

But what industrialization has brought, deglobalization can take away. Concentration of production of farm equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, and capital means that in the absence of the safe and secure transport modes of The Order most of the world’s current mega producers (Brazil, China, India) face precipitous declines in caloric output.

One answer to avoiding a catastrophic decline in food output? Technology. The same science behind increasingly powerful facial recognition has promising potential utility in conjunction with automated field equipment, more efficiently administering water, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to crops in the field. The attentiveness and nurturing care of pre-industrial gardening, but on a much more massive scale.

If you enjoy our free newsletters, the team at Zeihan on Geopolitics asks you to consider donating to Feeding America.

The economic lockdowns in the wake of COVID-19 left many without jobs and additional tens of millions of people, including children, without reliable food. Feeding America works with food manufacturers and suppliers to provide meals for those in need and provides direct support to America’s food banks.

Food pantries are facing declining donations from grocery stores with stretched supply chains. At the same time, they are doing what they can to quickly scale their operations to meet demand. But they need donations – they need cash – to do so now.

Feeding America is a great way to help in difficult times.

The team at Zeihan on Geopolitics thanks you and hopes you continue to enjoy our work.

DONATE TO FEEDING AMERICA

Coronavirus: The Developing World Guide

As governments in Washington, DC and London and Paris took their time to push their respective populations to shelter in place, the novel coronavirus did what it does best: spread quickly and efficiently through dense populations, the sort of dense communities that define the US Atlantic coast and most of Northwestern Europe.

Continue reading