How Was Trump’s Trip to Asia?

Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at the G20 Summit

President Trump has wrapped up a whirlwind trip to Asia; he met with several key regional leaders—including Japan’s new prime minister Sanae Takaichi and Chinese president Xi Jinping, participated in summits, and crafted some new deals (at least he said he did).

The United States is pivoting away from China and focusing on younger, faster-growing countries in Southeast Asia. This transition has been anything but smooth; wild tariff policies and inconsistent messaging are keeping things…interesting. The Trump administration has made a temporary truce with China, but let’s not expect that to hold very long. Deals with other countries will be nice if they happen, but until I see someone other than President Trump confirm them, I won’t get my hopes up. South Korea is the only tangible progress I’ve seen so far, with $150 billion in US investment in exchange for lower tariffs.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. Today, I gonna give you a quick breakdown of what happened in Asia last week. Donald Trump had multiple summits in Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia, up to and including a one on one with, the chairman of the Chinese system, Jinping. So. We’re in the midst of a major transition in the United States in terms of trading partners. 

And whether you think it’s for strategic reasons like the, the micro group and Trump seems to think or you think it’s for demographics reasons, which is kind of my general feel, there’s not a lot of disagreement, as to what’s happening as opposed to why it’s happening. So what’s happening from my point of view, is that the northeastern Asian countries, most notably China, are aging into not just obsolescence but national dissolution. 

And so the trade relationships with countries like China, have to go to zero more or less. Anyway. Now, if you want to do that earlier for political reasons, there’s some complications there. But, we’re going to get to the same places. It’s a question of time frame. On the opposite side of the ledger is Southeast Asia, where the demographics are broadly healthy and the relations with the United States are broadly positive. 

So it makes sense. You want these relationships to grow over time because they can. And if you choose to, denigrate those relationships, you’re making a political choice to punish yourself economically. So the relationships from a tariff point of view under Trump have been, in a word, erratic, with multiple times threats on the Chinese going up to 100% tariffs, and sometimes actually being there, but at the same time, in Southeast Asia, some of the codified tariffs that the Trump administration has put in place, not negotiation tactics, actually codified tariffs are some of the highest in the world, which is directly been penalizing American companies that have been working to move their trade exposure, away from China, since Covid. Anyway, Trump was known in Southeast Asia, met with a lot of the Asean leaders and hammered out a series of deals, most notably with Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia. And really across all of them, the the core issue is that these really were only deals as declared by, Donald Trump himself. 

And none of the four countries are really talking about them in the same way. Most of these deals never even had a text released or even a press statement from the hosting government. So it’s all very much in progress. Basically, the approach that Trump seems to be taking is that our trade deficit in goods has been imposed on us. 

And his unfair, but our trade surplus in digital goods has been earned. And so therefore it is fair. If you don’t accept that, you can have tariffs. And needless to say, there’s a lot of countries who find that general negotiating position to be unfair. And so there hasn’t really been any meaningful progress made on the talks. A lot of little details have been popped up like, say, rare earths exports from Malaysia as being a big deal. 

But, you know, Malaysia already exported rare earths to the United States. They just put a limit on the exports to the world, not just the United States. So they would have enough of themselves. None of this has really been changed. And the country that is probably, from my point of view, the most important to the United States mid term as a trade partner would be a Vietnam and more technically technologically advanced than the Chinese are. 

They have over a, you know, workforce. It’s almost 100 million people. If you’re looking to plug gaps, it’s a country you want to plug them with. And we really didn’t get a meaningful deal out of these agreements. Moving up to Northeast Asia, there does seem to be more progress with the Japanese and the Koreans. The Koreans are in a desperate position because the demographics are so bad, and they realize that if they can’t maintain a working relationship with the United States of the kind of screwed as a country. 

So they were willing to give a lot more and we actually got our most detailed deal yet. Out of all the trade negotiations between the Trump administration and the rest of the planet just came out of Korea just a few days ago. That doesn’t mean it’s done. Basically promises that the North Koreans are going to dump, over $150 billion of investment to the United States, which I would argue they were going to do anyway. 

But now it’s codified. And then in exchange, they got a lower tariff rate. This is really the first deal we’ve seen out of the white House that actually has numbers to it. Now, it remains to be seen whether it can be done, because some of the numbers involved are pretty big for a country the size of South Korea, which has under 50 million people, but still progress. 

And then the final deal, with the Chinese will come back to that. Now, before you think that I’m just like, Trump’s an idiot and he doesn’t know how to negotiate, he certainly doesn’t understand trade. Let’s look at this from the Chinese side, because Chairman XI Jinping went to Asean almost immediately after Trump was there and talked about multilateralism and unicorns and chocolate and how we’re all one big happy family and signed a trade deal with the Asean countries, a face three day trade deal. 

So while the Southeast Asians and to a lesser degree, the Koreans and the Japanese are looking at Trump like God, when will this end? They’re not looking at gee and think, oh, thank God she was there. No, no. They’re like, you expect us to believe us that you’re the nice guy, the one who’s been bullying us on every issue for the last 30 years, that suddenly we’re going to love you. 

So you look at Trump and they say he doesn’t understand economics or trade and the right and then they look at gee and like he doesn’t understand diplomacy or trade. And the right one of the things to keep in mind about both leaders is both of them have actively circumscribed the type of people that they allow in the early circle to be people who will never even appear to know more about any topic than they do, because they don’t want to be told that they might be wrong. 

So we have these completely ossified Jared autocracies running the two largest countries in the world right now, and it’s showing up and how they’re dealing with every other country. So really all that leaves for today’s topic is how they dealt with one another because she and Trump met directly in Korea. We have a temporary defuzing of the trade tensions. 

There’s no reason on any side to think that this is going to last. But the Americans agreed to reduce the tariff rate. They were charging the Chinese. They removed their threat of an additional 100% tariff. So based on what the product is, the tariff rate from products coming from China, somewhere between 20 and 50%, again, in exchange, the Chinese agreed to limit fentanyl precursor exports to the United States and to start buying some soy. 

So from my point of view, on the outside looking in, the Chinese agreed to do some of the things that they have agreed to do over and over and over these last 15 years in exchange for actual concessions. And if the Chinese actually do what they say they’re going to do this time, it will be the first time that has ever happened. 

Part of the problem that the United States always has in trade relations with the Chinese is there’s rarely any follow up, and there won’t be this time, because that requires a team that is actually staffed out to enforce the trade deals. And even under normal circumstances, where the United States has the Commerce and the Treasury Department of the U.S. Trade Representative’s office dealing with trade issues, that’s a lot to do. 

And this time around, Commerce and Treasury in the USTR aren’t even staffed out. And Trump is handling the negotiations personally. So just as what happened in phase one trade deals between the Chinese and the Trump administration in the first Trump presidency, the Chinese aren’t going to do any of this. And we’ll be right back where we started six months from now. 

And one more thing. One thing that doesn’t change. You know, the more the things change, the more they stay the same. With these adjustments. This last week, we are now in our 540th tariff policy since January 20th. So the ambient chaos that is confusing American traders and manufacturers and consumers. Showing no sign of letting up. There’s no reason to expect that any of these deals are the final version. And until we get, well, maybe, maybe, maybe Korea. So maybe we have one. Until we have a whole raft of those, the back and forth and the ebb and flow continues.

Imminent US Strikes Against Venezuelan Government

A US Fighter jet conducting a barrel roll

It appears that US military strikes against the Venezuelan government are imminent. Let’s take a look at what passes for a military in Venezuela.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. And today we’re talking about Venezuela because it looks like the United States is getting ready to overthrow the Venezuelan government. We now have the USS Ford, which is the largest and newest of the American super carriers in the region, by far the most important and powerful battle platform that humanity has ever created. 

A along with roping in certain countries in the region like, say, Trinidad and Tobago, which are directly off the coast of Venezuela. And then, of course, the US facilities in Puerto Rico being used very aggressively to push troops and ships into the regions. 

Let’s talk about what the other side looks like. Okay. That’s about it. One of the fun things about Latin American militaries is back in the 1970s and 1980s, they were involved in coups. And so when democracy kicked back in in the 90s and 2000, the military’s were deliberately gutted. 

And so as a result, they’re really not capable of much. 

Venezuela was a partial exemption to that because in Venezuela, you actually had a relatively robust democracy throughout this entire period until a guy by the name of Hugo Chavez, who was a military dude, through his own coup and overthrew the democratically elected government and basically imposed an authoritarian system that has since, under his successor, become flat out dictatorial. Chavez. Maduro and their click have basically robbed the country blind, ripping up everything that wasn’t bolted down and even a lot of things that were bolted down and basically destroying the entire, non-oil economy of the country. And they haven’t exactly done a great job with the oil economy either. So what used to be the most technically, educationally, and industrially advanced country in all of Latin America is now a laggard. 

What that means for the military. Well, Chavez, when he came in, was not a general. I think he was a colonel. Was even that? No, I don’t think he was even that. I’m not a big dude. So his coup wasn’t really military in the traditional sense, and the military had been a pillar of support for the old government. 

So Chavez started by buying off the leadership of the military directly, but no longer really purchased a lot of equipment. Then when it became apparent that he was going to be opposed to the United States and he realized the military hardware would be useful. He started buying hardware from the Russians. But the Russians, not having a lot of respect for Chavez, sold him a lot of crap. 

That didn’t even operate when it was purchased in the 2000. Well, it’s now 2025. And for the last several years, the leader of Venezuela has been a bus driver. So the military has not been given a priority. It’s been gutted of all of its leadership. It’s basically been turned into a corruption sieve. And they haven’t gotten really good equipment since the 1990s. 

So if it came up to a straight up fight between the United States embassy guards in Caracas and the Venezuelan military, I would bet on the embassy guards. Even those are only a couple dozen of them, because they’re Marines and dirt. In a straight up fight between the military of Venezuela and the military, the United States. There’s no math here. 

If the United States decides that it wants to knock off the government of Nicolas Maduro, this is an operation that will be measured in hours, days if they get really lucky. That doesn’t mean that this is a great idea, because there’s always the question of what happens the next day. Knocking the government off is the easy part, especially in a place like Venezuela. 

Putting a government back together on the other side. Well, the United States tried to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we saw how much fun that was. Venezuela is in better shape than Afghanistan, but I’d say worse shape than Iraq was under Saddam. 

Oh, and one more thing. Under the previous government, Chavez, the Venezuelan government 

imported a huge number of AK 47. Not for the military, but for the population. And then built an AK 47 facility to make more. By a very, very, very, very conservative assessment. There’s 100,000 AK 47 in public circulation with the approach of eastern gangs. 

And a probably a more realistic number is upwards of a half a million. So no matter who the next political authority is who tries to run Venezuela, there are literally hundreds of thousands of assault rifles in the hands of a population that has literally been paid for the last 25 years to be on the side of the government that will now be deposed. 

So whatever comes next to Venezuela, Lord, it’s going to be messy.

Would You Like Some Plutonium with That?

Fragment of Plutonium | Photo by wikimedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Plutonium_%28Element_-_94%29_3.jpg

The US needs to massively expand its ability to generate electricity. A possible solution? Mixed-oxide nuclear fuel. We’re talking repurposed weapons-grade plutonium mixed with uranium. This is complex, expensive, and time intensive. And perhaps more to the point, there’s a proliferation concern. No surprise that Russia is the only country that has done this so far…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hello. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. Today we’re going to talk about an old technology that the Trump administration is dusting off and seeing if it’s applicable for the current environment. The reason is that the United States has just massive electricity shortages right now, and a number of states are on the verge of having, rolling brownouts. 

And we’re not talking here about California. We’re talking about everybody. Trump administration says that it wants to massively expand manufacturing output. We can debate whether the policy that is in place is going to enact that. But I would argue that we need to expand, the industrial plant by at least double in order to prepare for a globalized world. 

Most of the products that we’re used to importing, we’re gonna have to make ourselves one way or the other. Plenty of debate to happen about the specifics of Washington’s policy. But if any version of this is going to happen, we need more electricity. We probably need to expand the grid by about 50%. 

And at the moment, pretty much all electricity expansions in the country are on hold. The Trump administration’s tariff policies have massively driven up the cost of doing everything that is related to the grid. For example, copper and aluminum, the two biggest inputs. And those now have a surplus tariff of 50%. And the government has actually canceled a number of power plants that it doesn’t like. 

Because Donald Trump doesn’t like windmills. So the government, as a partner in the process of expanding the grid, has basically become a burden rather than a bolster. So this new technology, old technology, is something that maybe the government can actually step in, in a constructive way. And it’s called mixed oxide fuel. In essence, you modify a nuclear power reactor. 

So instead of running on a down blended uranium, where, say, 3 to 5% of the uranium is a fissile component, in a broader block of power fuel, you instead use MOX, which is a mix of uranium and plutonium. Whether one technology is better or worse than the other from an economic point of view is very much in debate. 

The only country that uses Mox at the moment for their civilian power systems is Russia. And Russia does it because it had 30,000 nuclear warheads, mostly plutonium driven, as part of its arsenal. When the Cold War ended. And they basically when they decommissioned them as part of arms control agreements, they took all of those warheads and spun them into the fuel. 

So from their point of view, it’s a big savings. As a rule, once you factor in the cost of expanding or modifying your nuclear power system in order to use the MOX, it’s probably a wash for an economic point of view, because the up cost investment is so high. And if you’re going to use it just to use spent military, surplus equipment, eventually you’re going to run out of that. 

You don’t have to have a plutonium supply chain. So a number of countries have played with this technology, most notably Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Japan, also India. But no one has actually instituted as a civilian program. The problem is very simple. Not a lot of countries have nuclear weapons. Not a lot of countries had tens of thousands of them to decommission to serve as an input fuel source. 

Really just the United States and Russia in that regard. Which means that if you want this to work, you have to build a civilian plutonium production system. Now, plutonium does not occur naturally in the world. It’s pretty much only generated as a byproduct of a, you guessed it, uranium power plant. One of the waste products that comes out of spent uranium based nuclear fuel is plutonium. 

So if you want to have a MOX industry, first you have to have a uranium power plant industry, and then you have to have a system that takes the spent nuclear fuel and separates out the plutonium and purifies it. So basically, to have this sort of power sector, you have to have a civilian system that creates large volumes of weapons grade plutonium as part of their supply chains, which explains why most countries have not embraced it. 

The Trump plan would do basically an echo of the Russian plan and take some plutonium cores from weapons that we have decommissioned and convert them to MOX. The problem they’re going to come across in addition to the proliferation question, is the same problem of everyone else who has decided to play this game. It’s a processing issue. You have to take the plutonium cores from the old decommissioned weapons, spin them into a different form in a different geometry. 

it’s a manufacturing issue. It’s a fabrication. And above all, it’s a processing issue. And one of the problems the United States has at every level right now is we don’t have enough materials processing. We need to be able to turn bauxite into aluminum. We need to be able to turn iron ore into steel. We need to be able to turn copper ore into copper wire. 

And if this program was going to work, would need to be able to turn surplus plutonium cores from decommissioned weapons into fuel. So it’s an interesting idea, but there’s a lot of upfront investment that has to be done before you can seriously try it. 

They are hoping, hoping, hoping, hoping to have a little pilot program going by the end of calendar year 2026 to see if it’s even viable. I don’t know if it’s going to be viable, but as part of this process, you also then have to prepare a fuel cycle that puts weapons grade plutonium civilian hands on a regular basis. 

And to this point, the only country in the world that have decided that that’s a good idea is Russia. And Russia, of course, is one of the world’s great proliferator.

A Dark Future for American Agriculture

Large white barn in imploding stage with white concrete silo

Next up on Trump’s chopping block, we have US agriculture. Staring down a broad list of restrictive tariffs, US agriculture is entering a crisis of its own.

Many countries, including China, are now avoiding American farm products. Since a significant portion of farm output is sold abroad, this threatens farm incomes across the board. This is happening at a time where US population growth is stalling, so that lost income can’t be made up through domestic demand.

And as you could imagine, federal relief is unlikely. The USDA and other agencies remain understaffed and unable to navigate this trying time and Trump’s erratic policymaking adds another layer of complexity to the mix. Ironically, Argentina (one of America’s largest competitors in the farm industry) is getting a $20 billion bailout from the US…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from a sunny Colorado day. And today we’re going to talk about the American agricultural sector, which is facing some very, very dark times, as a result of the Trump tariffs on everyone. Most countries in the world have decided that they will never purchase American agricultural products ever again unless they have no other choice. 

Now, there are a lot of countries that have no other choice. Mexico is by far at the top of that list, but Mexico is only one of a number of countries that are of concern for the American farmers. China is obviously the country that they’re most obsessed about right now, because it’s been the number one consumer of most of our agricultural exports, minus Mexico, of course. 

For several years now. And new purchases of American beef and soy have basically stopped. Beef purchases have gone down by over 90%, this year, and soy purchases have gone to zero. And it looks like production cycles in places like Brazil and Argentina are going to be solid enough this year that the Chinese won’t need to purchase any product. 

In those sectors from the United States at all this calendar year. so three things here. Number one, something I’ve been telling American producers for years is you need to prepare for the world where China doesn’t buy any of your stuff. Not because of politics, not because of trade policy, but because they’re dying out. And their demographics are beyond terminal. 

And over the course of the next decade, we’re looking at state collapse. So any business plan that is based on sales to China is one that is going to make you lose the farm. Literally. The Trump tariffs have simply moved that forward. We’re now having to deal with it. Number two is the scope of what’s happening here. 

The American population has not grown very much over the last 30 years. It’s been a very slow creep up. And because of Donald Trump’s, policies that have increased the cost of living drastically this year across the country, as well as driven migration to zero and even into negative territory. Calendar year 2025 will be the first year in American history that the American population will actually shrink. 

Shrinking means no increases in food consumption. So about 95% of the increase in farm income since 1992, when hyper globalization became a thing, has been from selling, not to Americans, but to selling to foreigners, which means that today, roughly one third of all agricultural produce in the United States is exported. And with exports now flatlining, going sharply negative. 

That suggests that we are looking at a massive decrease in the take home for any American agriculture producer. That’s going to be a lot more than one third, because you only eat so much food. And if food becomes cheaper, if all food becomes cheaper because people are dumping it on the local market, you don’t only lose your premium from exporting, you lose income at home. 

So a one third reduction in demand for American product is actually more like a two thirds reduction in income for farms, and we’re not going to see anything quite that drastic, but it is going to be horrific and probably over the course of the next two years, or one quarter of American producers are going to go out of business and the remainder will be under extreme financial stress. 

Which brings us to the third issue. There’s not a lot that the federal government can do about this. There are now conversations going on about using some of the tariff income to bail the farmers. But one of the American bureaus that was hit most strongly by Dodge in the early days of the Trump administration was the Department of Agriculture, and USDA cannot implement the policies it has now, much less design and implement a new one. 

So the ability of the federal government to do meaningful bailouts is almost nil at this point, even if the cash was appropriated by Congress, which is unclear whether or not that would even happen. Even if the money flowed, we don’t have the ability to administrate it anymore. 

And against this backdrop, we are continuing to see policy incompetence out of the Trump administration because of a lack of personnel. Trump’s tell is he doesn’t like anyone in the room to think that they’re smarter than him. And he certainly doesn’t want to think that he’s not the smartest person in the room is very Obama esque in that regard. 

And so the way he dealt with this when he was out of power was instead of turning the Republican Party into a policy arm that could implement his policies, he took over the institution and basically got rid of any policy expert so that he would always be the smartest person in the room from his point of view, which means when he came in, instead of having this cadre of thousands of people that he could use to staff the government to make his vision possible, he came in with almost no one. 

Certainly the fewest number of skilled hands of any president in modern history. And most of the people who he did bring in were like Pete Hegseth, who were just absolutely incompetent in their portfolios. What that means for places like USDA is it’s still not staffed up. Well, neither is commerce. And here is USTR. Neither is energy. 

None of them are, So the president is not getting good policy recommendations. And as we’ve seen recently with his decision to, basically discourage everyone to use Tylenol because it apparently causes autism now because that’s what he feels. We’re getting some of his feels in foreign policy, and one of his feels is that he likes Argentina. 

Because the government there is led by a guy by the name of Malay that who he thinks of as an ideological ally. Now, nothing could be further from the truth. Malay is a libertarian, and Malay personally is just horrified by some of the economic policies that are going on in the United States, where Trump and it’s moving us very rapidly to some form of Argentinian style socialism. 

But that’s a topic for another day. Anyway, since this is what Trump feels, Trump is doing a 20 billion odd bailout for Argentina. Now, I am one of those people who thinks that Argentina is a country that’s going to be with us long haul, and having decent relationships is a solid idea. But, but, but Argentina has defaulted on every debt it has ever had over the course of the last 120 years, and in the last 30 years, the pace of those defaults has accelerated. 

So any bailout for Argentina is money that you simply won’t get back on top of that, Argentina is one of the world’s leading producers of soy and beef, along with any number of other agricultural products. And in the world to come, the single largest long term competitor for American agriculture will be Argentina Freakin Tina. And now the Trump administration is bailing it out. 

And Argentina is preferencing sales to American competitors. Like China, that’s basically shutting American producers out of the market. So farmers are getting hit from a foreign policy angle. They’re getting hit from a policy incompetence angle, their getting hit from a financial angle and demographic angle and a market angle. And really, the only possible way that we exit this next five year period with all of our producers is if somehow the Trump administration works out a French style support system that basically pays the farmers to exist not very American, not very capitalistic, and something that arguably the Trump administration can’t even staff up right now.

America’s Generals Gathered for…That?

Official government photo of Pete Hegseth

It appears Trump and Hegseth have been getting the Led out, because the song ‘Ramble On’ pretty much summarizes how their speeches went the other day.

With America’s generals gathered, I was worried that Defense Secretary Hegseth and President Trump would make some dangerous comments or announcements. While they both managed to make everyone seriously uneasy, it was more mush than alarming.

Hegseth focused on culture-war themes. Trump rambled about God-knows-what, with a few coherent sentences that the teleprompter fed him. But both speeches highlighted the lack of strategy and alarming drift of US military leadership.

Don’t believe me? We are including the text of the speeches so you can enjoy the fun yourself.

Link to Hegseth’s speech

Link to Trump’s speech

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. This is a topic I was hoping to avoid, but so many people have written in on the Patreon page, and I feel like I kind of have to. Today’s the 1st of October. Yesterday was the 30th September. And, yesterday was the day that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the US president, Donald Trump, addressed the entire coterie of American generals who were flown in for the speeches. 

Honestly, it reminded me of, Gaddafi of Libya or Fidel Castro of Cuba in their later decades when they would stand in front of an audience, says blah, blah, blah about nothing for hours. There didn’t seem to be a point to the speech at all. And the day before, two days before, when Trump was talking about putting himself on the agenda, he said something along those lines. 

Isn’t it nice that so many people are coming from so far away? But Secretary of Defense ordered them to come. This wasn’t a social call. 

I was originally very much dreading the speech. I was expecting perhaps a really dark turn in American form and strategic policy. Luckily, we did not see that, which is not mean that there was anything that happened to the speech that makes me feel good. I just that sense of dread I was feeling is no longer there. So, let’s start with Haig stuff, because that was the more substantive context. 

And then we’ll move on to, Donald Trump, because of, least qualified defense secretary in American history. His words, not mine. I just happened to agree with them. He said them during his, confirmation hearing. He actually said somebody who doesn’t know anything about the sector whatsoever, if they were to go in, could actually do better, than any of the secretaries of defense that we’ve had since World War two. 

He has proven that to be lovely, inaccurate. At this point, most of his speech was spent on the culture war. Basically, it was like he was giving a long monologue back from when he was on Fox News as a correspondent. Very, very short version. He made it very clear that any sort of protections that existed for any sort of group, whether it’s women or blacks or whatever, they were all going away, the physical requirements for anyone who is in a combat role will be based on men, which basically will exclude, 80 to 90% of women who are already serving from continuing if these policies are instituted. 

Keep in mind that the United States is going through demographic decline and the single largest growth unit in terms of recruitment for the military for the last half decade has been women, especially as we move to a more technical military. So by establishing these criteria, we’re basically guaranteeing that we’re not going to be able to hit our, recruitment numbers, and it’s going make hitting the technical numbers very, very difficult. 

Probably what this will mean is the United States will have to take a page from what it did during the war on terror, specifically in Iraq, and start playing, six figure salaries to contractors because we can’t generate the staff that is necessary. So from a strategic technical, recruiting, equity and especially warfighting capability, these pieces are just a series of horrible ideas. 

He also made it very clear that all of these generals who have decades of experience, if they don’t like it, they can quit, which is, you know, how it’s supposed to go with policy. But he was kind of rude about it. Anyway, I spoke to a number of people who were in the room, and, let’s just say that Secretary Hegseth is not exactly well respected because there’s a lack of credentials. 

And, well, some secretaries, like, say, Secretary Rollins in agriculture came in not knowing much, but really put her nose to the grindstone in order to school herself up on the issues in play. Hegseth has done nothing like that. He hasn’t even built a senior staff yet. So he does a lot of proclamations like this speech today or yesterday. 

And then he goes and does some social media or maybe pumps iron with the troops, because that’s what a secretary of defense is apparently supposed to be. My favorite line from someone in the room was that, if Secretary Hegseth just wanted to remind us all that he was incompetent and not worthy of the position. He could have just done that in an email. So harsh. Then Donald Trump. Oh, okay. So we’re going to append the full text of both speeches, Hegseth and Trump’s to you. So you can read this for yourselves. But oh my God. 

If I were to sum it up in one word, it would be bumbling. There were really only about three full sentences and an hour of him yammering on about loves lost and fights one, and how wife is one of his favorite words. And it was obvious when those three sentences came up because he was reading directly from the teleprompter. 

In his opening paragraph, he said, you guys can do whatever you want. You can laugh, you can cry, whatever. Of course, if you leave the room, then there goes your career. Super inspiring. Dude. There were no policy announcements. There was no strategic guidance. There was really no reason to be there. aside from the fact that he had a captive audience, and from what I heard from the people who were in the room, everyone was just sitting there. 

Stone faced the whole time because it wasn’t even a political speech. It was just rambling and the line of somebody who shared it with me that really got me was like, if the president wanted to highlight to us that he was no longer capable. Mission accomplished. I’ll let you read the speech yourself. I’ll let you decide for yourself. 

The one item that did perk people’s ears up is when the president said that he was considering using American cities as proving grounds for the US military. There is not a successful country in human history that has done that. Because once you turn the defenders of the nation on the citizens and the social contract is broken, and you need something new that is based on fear, that is the downfall of the Roman Empire and the Hittites and the Byzantines and any number of things since you keep your internal security forces and your external security forces separate at all costs and yes, yes, yes, Portland annoys me too. 

But the idea that you’re going to use Chicago or Nashville or anything else as a training ground, no, it was almost as if the president was daring the assembled generals to carry out their oath to defend the constitution of the country from all foes, foreign and domestic. And I am not comfortable with where this might lead. About the only thing I can say about it is that this was one of those bumbling passages that was made in passing, that was not the centerpiece of the speech. 

It was one line amongst a lot of mush. 

I don’t think anyone walked out of that room encouraged by their leadership or the current state of military policy. But considering some of the things that we have seen in military and strategic policy in the last few months, I still count this as a win.

And You Thought the Jones Act Was Dumb…

A mack truck on the highway

If you tasked me with creating a list of the greatest threats to America, I’m not sure cabinets, name-brand drugs, and semi-trucks would be on there…but the President disagrees.

So, get ready for a massive economic bulldozer to hit the US due to these new tariffs. With 90% of all US cargo moving by truck, these higher costs will create a ripple effect through every sector. This all started back with the Jones Act, which made domestic shipping prohibitively expensive, causing a shift in freight from ships to rail to (almost entirely) trucks.

Since those trucks are made across an integrated North American supply chain, dipping into Canada, the US, and Mexico, tariffs are hitting hard. That means everything Americans consume, from your food to your clothes, will cost a whole lot more.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado today. We’re talking about the newest hit to the American economy. We now have tariffs on cabinetry, semi-trucks. And what was the third one? Name brand drugs, all of which have been classified as national security threats. Cabinetry. That’s an interesting one. Anyway, we could pick apart this all day, but I’m going to focus on the trucks because that’s the one we’re all going to feel soon. 

And most deeply, right now about 90% of all cargo, all ten miles of cargo that are transported to the United States are transported on the roads by semi-trucks. Now, it didn’t used to be this way. If you go back to, the depression, we had something called the Jones Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, which said that any to any cargo transported between any two American ports, regardless of where they were, had to be on a ship that was American built, American captain, American crude and American owned. 

As a result, we saw the cost of transport on the waterways increase in terms of, cost per ten mile by a factor of five. And we went from transporting most of our goods and especially most of our intermediate manufactured goods, especially in places like, the Great Lakes in the upper Midwest. We went from that being the dominant mode of transport to basically at whittling away to today in terms of ton miles, we only use our waterways for about 1% of our total cargo. 

It has been, in my opinion, the stupidest law that the United States has ever adopted. And it’s now been in place for a century. As a result, things went places where those restrictions were not in place. first with train and now with truck. Now with the Trump administration policy, there’s 100% tax on those trucks, of which about 80% of the imports come from Mexico. 

Another 10% from Canada. And As with anything that involves NAFTA, nothing that just made in one of the three countries. It’s an integrated supply chain that uses all three. So basically what we’re doing with this new tariff is saying this multi-step supply chain that we have, where parts of the trucks go back and forth among the three countries, if the finished product is actually done in Mexico, which is the relatively low cost work we will then tariff the cost of the entire truck when it comes back. 

So, in essence, retrofitting American workers and American companies who are making American products, who just happen to have the bumper stamped on in Mexico, and since 90% of our cargo is transported by heavy truck, you’re going to feel this in every sector. It doesn’t matter if you’re a hog farmer in Iowa sending your hogs to market, or if you are just ordering something on Amazon, it’s getting shipped across the country. 

The only people who will not feel this are the people who are in a physical position where supply chains for imported goods do not use the trucks, and that means you would have to be in one of the major port cities that has a mega port. So those are New York, new Jersey, Miami, Houston, Savannah, to Colma and LA Long Beach. 

Anyone else? This is going to hit everything that you consume. So I have long said that the Jones act is the dumbest law we’ve ever had, but it’s got some competition.

What Does a Post US NATO Look Like?

A NATO flag with buttons of other countries flags on it

As the US steps back from NATO, which country is best suited to take the seat at the head of the table?

While the Germans have been the backbone of the EU’s financial model, they no longer have the people to keep up. So, who will step up? The French scratch this itch best, both militarily and as the future anchor of Europe. They have the most solid mix of everything necessary: population growth, nuclear arsenal, wine, etc.

There are some support players rising in the background as well. Poland and the Scandinavian countries have economies, militaries, and enough resilience to weather the storm that is headed for the EU. Together, these countries will define the future of Europe.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here coming from, where am I? Bottom of the Tilden Canyon in northwest Yosemite. Taking another question from the Patreon crowd, specifically with the United States stepping back from NATO, do you think anyone will step up, most notably France? Yes, but probably not for the reasons you’re thinking. 

Europe has two institutions that define it NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of which the United States and Canada are members. 

Everyone else is in Europe and the European Union, of which 27. I think it’s like people keep coming and going. 27 countries are members. NATO is a military alliance. The EU is a economic and financial grouping. The problem is, is the economic and financial grouping is failing for demographic reasons. The country that is paid for everything to this point has been Germany primarily. 

And Germany over the next ten years will basically age into an old folks home and convalescence can’t pay a lot of income. So, you’re going to have to see the entire European Union structure renegotiated away from the financial and economic union that we have right now. Because if there’s one thing the French are sure of, they’re not going to pay everyone to be part of the group. 

But if you make it a political and a military grouping, perhaps affiliated with NATO, perhaps not, then you’re talking about something that plays to French proclivities and their strengths. Remember, this is a country that has an aircraft carrier. This is a country that has an independent nuclear arsenal, and this is the only major country in Europe that has seen population growth. So whatever future Europe has ten, 20, 30, 40 years from now, France is going to be by far the most important piece of it. 

Second, there are a few other countries to look at. The number one is Poland. Poland is having a demographic moment. If they can’t get their birth rate up, they’re going to have some problems in 30 years. 

But that’s a problem for 30 years from now. For now, they’re a robust economy. They’re getting to the manufacturer in every possible way. They’re getting to defense industries courtesy of the South Koreans and since they have the Ukraine war going on right on the doorstep, they’re getting very big into drone technology as well. So whatever the future of warfare looks like, the poles are about as prepared as you can be. 

Everyone else is playing catch up. And then finally there’s a third group, the Scandinavians, mostly centered on Sweden. These are countries with better demographics, better financial situations. They’re not as dependent upon the European Union and the euro. In fact, some countries in the Scandinavian bloc aren’t even in the euro. So it could go away and they’ll probably be more or less okay. 

I mean, it’ll be a it’ll be a hard couple of years, but, it doesn’t define them in the way that it defines countries like the Netherlands or Italy. These are also countries that have always maintained an independent defense posture. Sweden and Finland, most notably. So whatever future defense issues in Europe bubble up. Sweden, Poland and France are by far the ones to watch the most. 

They’re also the ones to watch the most in terms of, economics, because their demographics are pretty good. And so if there is a post EU economic grouping in the region, these three are going to be part of it.

The Federal Reserve’s Dilemma

Photo of the building of the US Federal Reserve

The Fed is facing a catch-22. While they would typically lower rates when consumption and growth begin to slow, there are also competing policies that are shrinking the labor force and driving up costs via tariffs. Other countries have faced similar dilemmas due to demographic issues, but the US is in this pickle largely due to policy decisions.

With record deficits and no political will to cut entitlements, cooperation between Trump and the Fed isn’t going to happen. So, the Fed is stuck between a rock and a hard place…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from a breezy Colorado. This week we have a Federal Reserve meeting in D.C. where they’re going to decide what to do with interest rates. The idea is, if you lower interest rates, you reduce the cost of capital, which spurs economic growth, whereas if you raise interest rates, you dampen demand, which tends to get inflation under control and balancing growth versus inflation. 

That is basically why the Federal Reserve exists and why we have monetary policy in the first place. The real problem the Federal Reserve is facing right now is policy out of the white House. The combination of high and rising tariffs are increasing the cost of operation for American businesses and increasing purchasing costs for American consumers, which is reducing economic growth. 

At the same time, anti migration policies the Trump administration has implemented is shrinking the labor pool to the point that the American population is actually expected to shrink this year for the first time in American history. And that is triggering inflationary pressures throughout the supply chain that are complemented by the tariffs. So tariffs like 50% tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper drastically increase the cost of building for, among other things. 

And so the fed is kind of in a catch 22. The slower growth caused by the tariffs on the consumption side would seem to indicate that it wants to lower interest rates to spark growth, but the higher inflation, because of the tariffs and the immigration policies are raising the cost of everything or raising inflation, suggesting that the Federal Reserve should, if anything, raise rates in order to keep inflation under control. 

And there is no way to win this, there’s no way to make everybody happy and there is no balance to be found. So the Federal Reserve is in a catch 22. Now, this is not a unique situation. If you go back to the last 20 years in Europe and Japan, we’ve had somewhat similar situation, but largely caused by demographic issues as populations age out of the 2030s and 40s and into their 50s, 60s and 70s, consumption naturally goes down and eventually you lose people from the workforce on the tax base altogether. 

And when that happens, monetary policy is not nearly as useful tool. And you’re dealing with exactly these same issues, chronically lower demand and consumption because the population is getting poorer and older and ongoing inflationary pressures as the labor force shrinks. The difference between the European and the Japanese experience and the American experience is in the European. In the Japanese experience, it was primarily a demographic issue, whereas in the American experience, at least so far this year, it’s primarily a policy issue. 

Now, what has happened in the United States in the past is the Federal Reserve chair has sat down with the American president to discuss priorities and what it takes to get what you want. This was most famously done by Federal Reserve chair, former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan and former American President Bill Clinton back in the 90s, where the discussion was, if you can keep the budget under control, if you don’t do a lot of deficit spending, then I, the Federal Reserve chair, can keep interest rates low and generate a boom which lasted for the better part of a decade. 

Unfortunately, that is not possible this time around, and not just because the president doesn’t like the Federal Reserve chair. The other problem is simply that the fiscal deficit we have today is bigger than we have had at any time in American history, with the exception of a couple of hiccups during war time and getting that deficit under control would require basically eliminating Medicaid and cutting Medicare and Social Security by half. 

That’s how overextended we are. So it leaves the fed in a no win situation. Governance is hard, especially when you’re a quasi independent institution like the Federal Reserve.

While I Was Gone, Part 4: US Security

Shield of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

To wrap up this short series on things that went down while I was away, we’ll be looking at some alarming developments in US security.

The FBI raided former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s home and office, under accusations of mishandling classified documents; that’s a bit rich coming from the current administration, but I digress. The bigger issue is that using federal law enforcement as a political weapon mirrors authoritarian states like Russia and China. This relates to the other big news, where Trump has ordered the US military to form specialized units for patrolling American cities; this is just all-around bad policy.

If there was a time for Congress to assert itself as the adults in the room, it would be now.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from the Lake of the Ozarks. This is the last in our series of. What the hell were you thinking while I was gone? Was I backpacking for two weeks? And the world kind of fell apart. This time we’re going to talk about security in the United States borders. There are two big things that went down when I was gone, both of which concern me greatly. 

The first involves a gentleman by the name of John Bolton. John Bolton was a national security adviser, which is kind of America’s top foreign policy coordinator during the first Trump administration. But after seeing how the sausage was made inside, he left the administration and basically became a critic and has now been one of the more reliable voices for saying when Donald Trump is doing something that perhaps isn’t the brightest. 

Well, while I was gone, the FBI was ordered to raid his business and raid his personal residence. And he has now been accused of improperly handling classified materials. The hypocrisy of this is pretty rich. Anyone who is, like, independently minded will be able to tell in a second that the Trump administration is the least information secure administration we’ve ever had. 

We’ve already had a number of cabinet ministers, up to including the vice president, included in signal checks, which is a Russian penetrated not particularly secure platform in which they shared operational data. We’ve had situations most recently in the, the Alaska summit where informations and the personal information of security and diplomatic personnel, including their contact information, was just left on a printer. 

And we’re seeing a general disregard for all the counselor generals, assuming they haven’t been fired already, which are the people who are supposed to maintain information security within the administration. So this administration is leaking classified information massively. We even have our DNI who’s in charge of the intelligence system. Outing covert covert agents around the world on Twitter. 

And so to accuse Bolton of doing something inappropriate with documents is is really rich, especially since he has been in government service in this sort of role for over 20 years and has never even had a hint of that concern brought up, ever. I mean, there’s a lot of reasons to not like John Bolton. Mostly political or personal. 

He’s not a particularly nice gentleman, but no one has ever accused him of not being competent. So that’s number one. Using the FBI as a hit squad for political opponents, is something the United States has never done. This is right out of modern China or 2000s. Russia, or maybe a Latin American democracy. This is not a great thing. 

The second thing which actually concerns me even more is what’s being done with the military. The US military is designed to do military operations overseas. They’re designed to kill people and detect threats. But Trump has given the order for the military to form specialized units designed to specifically patrol and pacify American urban centers. Now, the US military is not good at law enforcement, and it has never been trained to be good at law enforcement. 

Third thing is to get in a tank or getting a jet and go overseas and do things there. When you put them into a law enforcement role, like we saw, say, in the Iraq occupation, things go to hell really quickly. Their equipment’s not right for the training is not right for it. It’s a mismatch. And so a lot of people died that probably didn’t need to. 

You take those same people and you put them on American soil and tell them to do law enforcement. And we’re in a very different situation. The only governments in modern history that use their military for urban pacification are those countries where occupying their own people is a national security issue. This is Iran. This is, to a degree, Russia. 

This is to a degree, North Korea. This is not something we want to see. Not only would it be violent, not only will there be a lot of political degradation because of it, not only will this erode the US military’s capacity to function. It is by far the most expensive way that you could possibly do it, because you’re taking people that you’d like to say trained to work on an Abrams tank. 

It’s people that you probably cost at least a quarter of $1 million just to do their training and then beaten them. Beat cops? No. So we have this cascading list of economic and social and political and health and national security military issues that just in the last two weeks have taken an absolute nosedive. 

I’m not a call to action guy, but we’re nearing the point pretty quickly where if Congress cannot find a backbone to re inject some sanity into American policy, we’re going to be having some severe degradations in our economic, social, and military models that are literally going to take us decades to unfuck. This is getting very real.

While I Was Gone, Part 3: Economic Status

Person using Forex trading on a laptop and phone

Today, we’ll be turning our attention towards the economic moves that the Trump admin made while I was away.

Intel was partially nationalized (10% government stake); this move supports semiconductor security but could also turn the company into a defense contractor rather than an innovator driven by profit. The Block Island wind farm project was completely halted…despite being nearly completed; this undermines US energy reliability, trust in government contracts, and the need for rapid energy expansion. And of course, Trump had to throw in an out-of-pocket personal attack with a Fed board member (Lisa Cook) over mortgage discrepancies, which is just another step towards making the Fed a political tool.

All these economic actions nudge the US further away from free-market capitalism, and closer to something where the government dominates industry, contracts, and monetary policy. However, experimenting with new economic models is inevitable, it would just be nice to let some other countries be the guinea pigs.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from a rainy lake of the Ozarks. We’re continuing our series on. What the hell were you guys thinking while I was gone backpacking? Today we’re going to talk about some economic issues in the United States. We’ve got three things that you guys decided were good idea to do. A certain green. Got three ideas that you guys decided were good ones while I was gone. 

The first one was that Donald Trump partially nationalize Intel. Intel is, of course, America’s premier semiconductor manufacturing firm, taking a 10% stake for the government. This does not give the United States a seat on the board, but it does obligate the United States to pay for a lot of R&D. And if your goal is to near-shore semiconductor fabrication, there’s some serious logic here. 

And if your goal is to deepen the government’s involvement in design and control the technology, there’s some logic there as well. But it does come at a pretty significant cost. When you start to nationalize companies, they treat the government as one of their stakeholders, and they start to optimize their operations to do whatever the government wants that might achieve a national security goal, perhaps, but it comes at the cost of the company basically letting everything else fly, and reducing the profit motive to actually make the company better. 

They become more of a defense contractor. So pros and cons, Second big item is that the Trump administration issued a cease order for the Block Island windfarm off the coast of Rhode Island, and it’s really hard to spin this as a positive. The money had already been allotted. Things have been paid for. Remember, you have to pay for green tech projects pretty much upfront. And so the financing was all in place. 

The project was already 80% completed and was about to start wiring power next year. And now it’s just completely stopped. So number one, this is an investment issue. Number two, this is a foreign investment issue because the Danish companies were involved. And number three, it’s a power issue for the eastern seaboard. But most importantly, the federal government has now decided to kill the project specifically because Donald Trump doesn’t like wind turbines. 

He doesn’t like the way that they look now. Wind turbines in the right spots are among the most efficient ways of generating power. This isn’t like solar, where the it’s dark half the year. Wind, especially offshore wind, is a very strong, reliable source of energy. But Donald Trump doesn’t like the look of them. So from the point of view of contract law, the federal government has now established itself as a relatively unreliable partner in the power sector. 

And no matter what your interpretation of America’s near term future, whether you’re like me and you see, we need to double size of the industrial space with your tech guy and you want to massively expand AI. Whether all you want to do is replace the old infrastructure with new infrastructure. The United States needs to expand its power grid by at least 50% over the next several years, and all of a sudden, the federal government is no longer a positive contributing partner to that. 

And everyone who is involved in government contracting in the power sector is now going to be wondering if there’s any reliability at all. That’s really bad. If you’re trying to do something quickly, because the federal government will always be the single largest economic entity in the United States. And now it’s got people wondering if they can be trusted of all, because there’s no scientific reason, there’s no economic reason, there’s no financial reason. 

There’s no national security reason for this contract to be canceled. It’s just been canceled because Trump doesn’t like the look of windmills. That is very, very Latin American. The third issue is that Donald Trump has tried to fire or has fired a woman by the name of Lisa Cook, who is a member of the Federal Reserve Board. Now, the US Federal Reserve is basically the central bank of the United States. 

They say interest rates and manage monetary policies in order to manage the American economy. And under existing law, you cannot fire a board member unless there’s cause. The cause that Donald Trump cited was that Lisa Cook now stands accused of falsifying some data, on free home purchases she’s made over the last 10 to 15 years. I believe. 

In total, the three mortgages in question have a total finance value of about $1 million. Have all since been paid off. And he’s saying that she lied about it being her primary residence in order to get a slightly better interest rates. And we’re talking here about less than a half a percent. This is kind of rich because no charges have been brought. 

It’s simply an accusation. No data has been presented. But Donald Trump has been convicted in a court of law of over a half $1 billion of real estate fraud. So you know, there’s a little bit of a ocracy here. Whether or not if she were charged and found guilty, is qualifies her as a being fired for cause is a really open question. It’s really questionable whether the Supreme Court would rule that way. And this is a court that will absolutely go all the way it up. But the core issue here is Donald Trump has found a way to remake the Federal Reserve in his own image. 

One of the problems that Trump is facing is a lot of the tariff policies that are in place at the moment are highly inflationary and are driving economic activity out of the United States by making the United States a less reliable partner in things like manufacturing supply chains in addition, things like steel and aluminum, copper tariffs to make it much more difficult to construct anything, whether it’s in the power grid or your house. 

And so we are set up for higher inflationary, lower growth environment moving forward. So Trump’s idea is if we can reduce capital costs significantly, then we will have more economic activity. And faster growth that people will get credit for. The Federal Reserve would never go for that because that would be wildly inflationary. Think about what happened under the Biden administration when we had a series of federal spending projects, none of which Donald Trump has really trimmed down. 

That dumped a lot of money into the economy post Covid and generated faster economic growth, but faster inflation because we saw demand go up and up and up and up without an underlying increase in supply. What Trump is doing is constructing supply and now trying to goosed demand with interest rate policies, achieving something that’s at least as bad, for political reasons, demand scarcity or a directed demand, something like that. It’s a lot like, like wartime mobilization, where the government takes a larger role in the system controlling the production, but it’s not driven by a crisis, is driven by a change in macroeconomic fundamentals, and it’s is focused on demand as it is on supply. 

And if that sounds not particularly capitalistic, that’s because it’s not even remotely capitalistic. But as we’ve seen from the Donald Trump administration so far, that is really not a major concern. Nationalizing companies, he sees as a plus, taking over direct control, personal control of the monetary authority he sees as a plus. And the sacrosanct nature of contracts is not something he seems even remotely bothered by. 

These are characteristics that have a lot more in common with, like the Latin American flavor of socialism or even modern day China. And one thing that they do not generate is efficiency, or private ownership or private decision making. But kind of that’s the point. 

So none of these steps are good. They all basically make the federal government part of the problem, in a way that five years ago we would have said something that the liberals prefer to do, but now Donald Trump is there. The reason that this bothers me so much, but the reason why I’m trying to maintain an open mind is that the models that we use to manage our economy and by our, I mean humans are changing and need to change. 

For the last century, we’ve basically had four overarching economic models. We’ve had free market capitalism, which is something the United States tends to champion. Not anymore. We’ve had a European social model that is more based on social placidity and equality, but doesn’t generate as fast of economic growth and as much economic dynamism. Europe, of course, is known for that. 

You get command communism, where you have a central authority that makes most of the economic decisions. That’s Maoist China, that is the Soviet Union. And then you have something called fascist corporatism, where there’s a fusion of corporate interests and government interests. And that’s classically Nazi Germany, but also like 1970s and 1980s Korea, maybe a little bit of, Japan and certainly China today. 

All four of these models are based on the relationship between supply and demand and capital and labor. And with the world going not just through a globalization phase, but a massive population phase, we are losing access to labor and capital in the volumes and in the ratios that we’re used to, because when people retire, they take their money with them and they are no longer working. 

So we’re seeing a change in the fundamentals that define our four economic models. And we need to try something new. What that something will be is very much in play. But what the Trump administration seems to be pushing us towards, whether it’s consciously or not, is something that’s kind of like a constrained, managed demand model where the government is the single largest player in determining who gets what, and because of problems with supply and consumption. 

They’re actively ratcheting down demand because there won’t be enough stuff to go around. But Trump is also constraining artificially the supply of product within the American market. So whether this, constrained demand model is something that is going to be a thing in the future, I don’t know, it’ll probably need to be a lot more cohered than what we’re seeing out of Washington right now. 

But it is something we shouldn’t reject out of hand because we know the old models aren’t going to work. The primary concern that I have at the moment is that the United States has the healthiest democracy of any major country in the world, which means we don’t need to make the adjustments first. We can wait to see what everybody else does first and then sort of pick and choose. 

The idea that we are needs to be the ones at the vanguard of this next phase of economic theory, I think, is a bit of a stretch. And if we are going to do it, I would like to see it be a system that is a lot more coherent and a lot more geared to American strengths and weaknesses than what we’ve seen out of the administration these last couple of weeks. 

Soooo….