The Winner of the 2024 US Presidential Election Is…

By the time you see this, I’ll already be on the other side of the world, so I figured it was the perfect opportunity to talk politics…specifically, who will walk away with the 2024 US Presidency.

This will piss everyone off, but the only way I see this election playing out is with another Biden v. Trump showdown. The cult following that Trump has garnered practically locked him in as the Republican nominee. And there’s really no one else that the Democratic Party is willing to let replace Biden. So get ready for a 2020 rematch.

Issues like age and vice presidents won’t move the needle on this election. To understand how this will shake out, we need to break down the voting behaviors of the Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Most Democrats and Republicans vote within party lines, and a large majority of Independents always vote one way or another.

So this election really comes down to 10% of Independent voters who actually give a s*** about who wins. And based on the midterm turnout, Biden has all the numbers stacking up in his favor. All he has to do is stay alive and keep from drooling on stage, and he’s going to win the office for another four years.

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 San Francisco airport where I am getting ready to be going on my first real big boy vacation since COVID started, they’ve all kind of stacked up. So I figured as long as I was leaving the country and you weren’t going to see this until after I was on the other side of the international dateline, now would be a good time to talk about American politics and tell you who’s going to win the next presidential election.

Now, the person to understand, if you want to see how this election is going to play out is Bernie Sanders. Because I think most people in America agree that he’s a bit cuckoo and his ideas are crazy. And if you sit down and actually force him to go through the math, how some people have done, he will admit that the math doesn’t make sense and he’ll just raise taxes until it does. And if that raises the marginal tax rate to the point that it destroys everything, he has no problem with that. And people who support Bernie Sanders, once you walk them through that, will come to the same general realization. But they will not change their minds because they are committed to the cause. Put another way, Bernie Sanders is not a political leader. He’s a religious leader, and he has a cult following as a result. And so does Donald Trump. Now, what that means is somewhere between one quarter and one third of people who self-identify as Republicans don’t care what Trump does or what he says. I mean, hell, he could livestream the abortion of his trans lover and they would still support him, which means that if only three other people run against him for the Republican nomination, he’s going to win the way the Republican Party works when it comes to delegates, as is in most of the races, as long as you get one more vote than whoever comes in in second place, you walk away with every single delegate. So it’s really easy for someone to come in from the outside, just like Donald Trump did, because by most metrics, he’s not a conservative in the American sense, certainly not the Republican sense. But he was able to mobilize a group of people who had been left to the outside of the populace and has catapulted not just to the presidency, but to control the Republican Party as a result. So in the environment that we’re in now, since we already have another three people have declared for the presidency, it doesn’t matter if someone like Florida Governor DeSantis runs at this point. The vote is already sufficiently split that Donald Trump will walk away with the Republican nomination. That’s pretty much hardwired in at this point. So that’s the Republicans. 

So let’s talk about the Democrats. The Democrats select their candidates a little bit differently. They don’t have that winner take all mentality when it comes to the delegates. So if you get a number of strong candidates, they were going to break up the delegate count among them and it’s going to come down to the convention. And at the convention, there are a significant number of what they call superdelegates, which are people who are not representative of the primary, the caucus system, but instead represent kind of the party’s institution, which are primarily centrists. And the superdelegates came into play in the last presidential cycle when for a brief, shining, terrifying moment, it looked like Bernie Sanders might actually get the Democratic nominee. And since most centrist and center left Democrats were like, Oh, that would be disastrous by any number of manners. They all rallied together and used the party apparatus to make sure that Bernie did not get the nomination. And as a result, Biden was able to squeak through and then ultimately ran for president and ultimately gained the White House. Now, the centrists and the center left within the Democratic coalition have made the decision already that they’re not going through that again. And so if Bernie or more likely when Bernie decides to once again run for president, the centrists will swing into action to make sure it’s nipped in the bud as quickly as possible. In addition, the Democrats have always had a problem, I shouldn’t say always. The Democrats in the last 25 years have had a problem that it’s really hard for them to bring in fresh blood, because you’ve got these charismatic people at the top who are politically and maybe even economically powerful, who kind of suck all the oxygen out of the room and make it very difficult for young up and comers to make it into the system. Republicans don’t have that particular problem. And so you get a lot of people who are in their seventies, people like Biden, people like Pelosi, people like Schumer who dominate the scene. And there really isn’t a cadre of people below them. There is no deep bench. In that sort of environment, it’s really, really hard to get a primary system that runs on actual competitive candidates. You just get these freaks that come in from the outside, freaks like Bernie Sanders. Well, since the centrists have already decided what they’re going to do this time around, that means Biden is a shoo in to get the nomination, which puts us into a weird race. You get Republicans who are cult dedicated to Donald Trump and you’ve got Democrats who are willing to shut out everyone else so long as Biden doesn’t have a complete meltdown and start drooling effusively on stage, barring those two extreme events, we’re talking about a redux of the last election of Biden versus Trump.

And I don’t think that any of the things that people are talking about right now as having an impact on the election would really matter at all. So, for example, the age issue, I mean. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Biden is older than dirt by a wide margin and he would be the oldest president ever if he wins again. However, if Trump beats him, Trump would then be the oldest president ever. So the age issue is really a non condition for any voter who says it is. It may be a compacting factor, but since the runner up in this case is almost as old, it doesn’t play. And the same comes for replacing the vice presidency with somebody besides Kamala Harris. Has she risen to the occasion? No. Has she turned out to be a good VP, probably not by most measures. But replacing her isn’t going to really change anyone’s mind. Nobody votes for the vice president, so we’re left with Biden versus Trump. So the question then is who walks away with that? From my point of view, it’s pretty straightforward.

Roughly 20 to 25% of the electorate is either hardcore Republican or hardcore Democrat, and they might not like the candidate, but they’ll hold their nose and they’ll pull the lever on no vote for whoever their party’s candidate is. They are locked in. There’s no negotiating room there. Then you have another about 20% on each side that says they’re independent. But, like in 85% of races, they vote for either a Republican or a Democrat. So they’re really only independent. And they really they’re just subsidiaries of the left and the right in the American system. There’s not a lot of wiggle room there. There’s only 10% of the American electorate that is truly independent. And they’re wishy washy and they’re judgmental and they get buyer’s remorse. And the votes of this last 10% is the primary reason why in mid-terms, usually the party in power loses because they’re having buyer’s remorse. And I know this very, very clearly because I’m part of that 10%. We’re never happy with what we are and we’re not part of the decision making to determine what the candidates are. And so we get handed this pallet that we just don’t like but we have to make do with. And that usually manifests as us voting against whoever happens to be the guy in charge at the moment.

So that is how it normally runs. That’s how it’s always run. It’s how it ran until we got to the 2022 midterms, because in the 2022 midterms, almost exclusively, the independents were polled as not liking Joe Biden, particularly on economic affairs. They saw his continued governance as being against their own economic best interests, and yet they decisively sided with Democrats in all the races that really matter. And so for the most part, independents polled as not liking the Biden administration’s economic policies. And they saw a continuation of those policies as against their own personal economic interests, and yet they decisively voted against Republicans. Why? Well, it is not too hard to understand. A lot of this talk about what’s going on with the election system is real, but you have to look at it from the independents point of view to really understand if the Republican Party under Trump is able to change the electoral system in the way that they say they want to, then swing voters don’t matter anymore and independent voters don’t have a party. That’s the general election is the only way that they play in American democracy. And if you remove that, they are powerless. So the United States government under Democrats and Republicans has this interesting saying when it comes to democracy in the Middle East, we want one person, one vote, but not just one time. And if we go down the path of Donald Trump wants to, you know, that’s compromised. That and Donald Trump has made personal loyalty the predominant issue in any political system in which he touches, which brings us crap candidates like Oz or Walker who are very, very easy to vote against. And so from the point of view of the independents, the people who have decided the last seven general elections, there’s nothing to decide anymore.

And so it’s pretty safe to say that if the midterms were decided by independents who usually don’t even show up to midterms and they were willing to vote against what they see as their own economic best interests, you can bet your ass they’re going to show up in the general election in two years and vote against Trump and everything that he stands for. So for that purpose, primarily, I see this election as a shoo in for Biden. Round two. All he has to do is not die and he’s going to win.

Okay, in Queenstown now let’s see. What were we talking about…Biden and Trump? Oh yeah. Why it matters. Now, obviously, if you’re obsessed about who wins the US presidential election, it matters independently. But beyond that it raises the possibility that the United States is going to have the first extended period of agreement in its foreign policy across administrations. Now, let me explain that a little bit for Obama was infamous for never having conversations with anyone. So for seven of his eight years as president, we basically had no foreign policy at all. Then Donald Trump comes in and Donald Trump would tweet something bold and assume that that made it policy. But then nothing would ever be done with it because he could be bothered to have a constructive conversation with anyone in the government or the bureaucracy or Congress. In fact, at one point he said that his tweets were notification to Congress of certain policies, which clearly legally is not kosher. So for his four years, very little happened at the federal level. Biden has come in and Biden almost to a tee, shares Trump’s approach to foreign economic policy making. Extraordinarily populist, extraordinarily nationalist. But the difference between the two is that Joe Biden actually believes in the power of government. And can sit through a meeting in a way that Barack Obama could not. And so he is actually going back through Donald Trump’s tweets and turning them one after another into foreign economic policy and then embedding them into governance and into the American government bureaucracy. So if you are a Biden supporter, you should be furious because he’s taken all of his cues from Trump. And if you are a Trump supporter, you should be furious because Biden is getting all of the credit for Trump’s economic decision making and policy statements.

So there’s plenty in this video for everyone to get pissed off at. Now, if you disagree with my assessments on where this election is going and who we should blame for why, that’s fine. That’s fine. Go ahead and reach out and contact me. You can reach me at [email protected]. That’s [email protected]. I’m going to be here in New Zealand for the next three or four weeks and I will be doing a number of videos and reporting back to you. It might not be on the most current of current events because for most of this I’m going to be backpacking and I’m not going to have information access, but I will be back in time and we’re going to do a lot of deep dive stuff while I am gone.

So everyone have a great month and I will see you near the end of April. Bye.

Austin’s Role in the Texas Triangle

I may have ditched the “howdys” and “y’alls” for the high mountains of Colorado, but Austin remains part of one of the fastest-growing economic and urban zones in the western hemisphere. However, Austin can’t credit all of its success to the “Keep Austin Weird” bumper stickers…

The key here is in the neighborhood. It’s a blue city in a red state, so they get low taxes and a high level of city services. More importantly, Austin falls right in the middle of the Texas Triangle – a zone comprised of San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas.

Houston is an energy hub and heavy into manufacturing. Dallas is an auto and aerospace hub. Both of those are financial centers in their own way. San Antonio offers a low cost of living and low labor costs. Austin happens to be the missing piece in the Texas Triangle, high-end tech. Austin can operationalize the research the other cities need and disseminate the plans from there.

It doesn’t look like Austin’s growth will be slowing down anytime soon. As the world faces deglobalization, Texas (the triangle specifically) will play a critical role for the US.

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 Lamar Passenger Bridge in downtown Austin. As some of you remember, this was my home for 20 odd years. And I am proud to say that the city is still doing strong.

Austin is at the middle of what is called the Texas Triangle, which has been the fastest growing economics and urban zone in the Western Hemisphere for about 25 years now. And the story is in the neighborhood. So Texas is a red state. So the taxes are low. In fact, in the state of Texas, there is no income tax at all. But this is a relatively blue city, so it has a reasonably high level of city services. That sort of combination has really helped urban areas in a similar match, places like Lexington, Kentucky or Atlanta, Georgia.

But there’s more than that. The Texas Triangle, as you might expect, has three major urban zones of which Austin is not technically one. The big three are San Antonio, Houston and Dallas. Houston is obviously an energy and heavy manufacturing hub. Dallas is an automotive and aerospace hub. Both of them are financial centers in their own way. And then San Antonio has lower cost of living and lower labor costs, and so is great at mass manufacturing, especially in automotive.

Where Austin plugs in is on the higher end. There’s an area to the northwest of town called Silicon Hills, which, as you might guess, is kind of an echo of Silicon Valley, but where Silicon Valley focuses on the base research and being a hotbed of core tech innovation. Austin takes a lot of that research and then turns it into operationalized development plans, which are then applied throughout the rest of the Texas Triangle. So it’s not that Austin could do this by itself, but Austin, plugged into the triangle, makes it the perfect interlocutor for everything, for turning modern manufacturing into reality. And if you see kind of behind me, you know, there’s quite a skyline here. This is a city that as recently as 1985 only had about 600,000 people, and now they’re over two and a half million in the entire metro. And all of the buildings in the immediate background were not there when I moved to Austin back in 2000. And the ones a little bit further back now, maybe two thirds of those are new in the last 20 years. So Austin has been one of the top ten fastest growing urban centers in the Western Hemisphere now for almost 30 years straight. And even though it is the most expensive city in Texas, and even though the cost of living has now risen above the national average, it has a long way to grow because it can physically grow to the northwest, the north, the northeast, the east, the southeast, the south and the southwest very easily. And the land just to the west where I used to live is called the Hill Country and as you might guess, it’s hilly but not mountainous. This is an advantage that a lot of the Texas cities have. They can just physically expand with reasonably few restrictions.

Talk to you guys later. Bye.

The Financial Crisis of 2023?

No, we’re not headed for another financial crisis…although, to those with more than 250k in one of the three failing banks, it may seem like we are. Silicon Valley Bank is the largest of the three, but it’s still only the 16th largest in the nation.

The problem for Silicon Valley Bank and the smaller Silvergate and Signature Bank is that they all took on a questionable amount of exposure to illiquid assets. For SVB, it was a variety of long-term bonds and securities with long durations. Then interest rates started to go up–way up. And SVB was not left with many tools to manage interest rate risk it had not hedged for. When its primary customers–the tech industry–found out, they sounded the alarm. Being the tech world, they’re all relatively well-connected and active on social media, triggering a stampede of customers wanting to pull their cash out more or less simultaneously, or what we’d call a good old-fashioned bank run.

The real thread connecting all of these banking mishaps, however, is one that’s not going to go away anytime soon. Rising capital costs. Many of these banks and their customers have been operating in a world where money has been as close to free as it has ever been in human history. Over the past year, we’ve seen interest rates rise–sharply–and there’s little reason to believe that we’re anywhere near done yet. The fundamental operating paradigm for banks and the financial paradigm of the past decade and a half is shifting, and we’re going to see which financial institutions are able to deal with the change and which ones won’t be able to keep up.

The Biden administration has now stated that the FDIC will make all depositors whole. That’s great for ending any potential bank runs, but those CFOs who thought it was a good idea to put all of their company’s capital into one bank won’t be learning their lesson this time around.

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 Bloomington, Illinois. Sorry, I forgot where I was there for a second. It is the 14th of March. Tuesday. And for those of you that have been following the news, you, of course, know that the United States is facing a little bit of a banking hiccup right now. Over the course of the last few days, three banks of note Silvergate Signature and Silicon Valley have either been closed by regulators or just simply collapsed. And this is something that honestly, I don’t think anyone should really overly worry about. The biggest of them, Silicon Valley, is like number 16 in the country. So this is nothing like the financial crisis of 2007 when all of our Big Ten banks were in trouble all at the same time. Now, normally when you have a financial crisis, it’s because of a problem with loans. Whenever the business cycle turns, the cost of capital goes up and loans that may have made sense in the past don’t anymore. So in the 2007, the issue was subprime. We had, based on how you measure the math, somewhere between a half trillion and two and a half trillion dollars of questionable loans in the real estate market. And that meant that touched almost every single bank within the entire system. So when the real estate market turned and we realized that a lot of these people were baristas who had no incomes and had qualified for 100% mortgages on million dollar homes, and those loans went bad. We had problems across the entire space. Nothing like that is going on this time. We’ve had a very strong expansion and certainly capital has probably been overly cheap and there is some rot in the system that does need to be worked out. And what basically what’s going on is the financial system is going through the process of taking out the trash right now. You would expect some banks to go down. That’s not necessarily a signal of a broader contagion, systemic risk sort of thing.

In addition, the United States has something called the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is a system by where all banks pay a monthly fee into the system in order to get insurance for their depositors. So as long as your deposit is under a quarter of $1,000,000, you are federally guaranteed to get your money back without the federal government having to do anything. That system has kicked in and depositors will be made whole. It makes sense that these three banks are the ones that went under first. They won’t be the last, probably. Although that doesn’t mean I’m concerned about something like eating through the entire system like a cancer. It’s just that they’re all related to tech and tech tends to be a capital intensive industry, and especially when you’re talking about newer firms and startup firms and research firms, which are what these banks cater to. You’re talking about institutions and companies that don’t make money today. They’re hoping to make money next year or the year after, the year after that, or invest in the next big thing. So they tend to be more perspective. They don’t have to have any income. And so when capital costs go up, they face problems. And so these banks are the ones that are facing the issues. So there’s nothing about this that is any more than a run of the mill bank failure, that matches most of our understandings about macroeconomic trends. I don’t want to say it’s nothing to worry about, but I’m really not concerned about an overall national bank contagion or broad bank run. And I think what the stock markets have done in discounting all things financial is a gross overreaction. So there’s that.

Now, there are three reasons why this time it is a little bit different. First of all, tech has been on a tear for the last several years and not just because capital has been cheap, but because of COVID. When we all found ourselves living and working at home, we needed better cameras, we needed ring lights, we needed computers. We need to update our phones. And so in the year 2020 and 2021, and to a lesser degree in 2022, we were all buying all kinds of tech related products, generating a bit of a boom. Well, once you buy the newest and greatest computer and phone, you probably are going to wait before you get the next one. And so we were always going to have a little bit of a tech bust independent of what was happening with the overall economy. So that’s one. Number two, this is a little atypical for a bank run or a bank crash because normally the problem is on the loan side. It really isn’t this time. It’s not that there hasn’t been a capital crunch, but in the tech start up space, these companies usually don’t go to like the Small Business Administration to get a business loan. They get their capital directly from a venture capitalist. And it’s the venture capitalists who are finding themselves with less capital to throw at situations. So they’re not as able as they have been to throw money at these small startups. And so the startups have been drawing down on their cash, which means the problem from the bank point of view hasn’t been with the money that they’ve lent out. They don’t lend out very much. It’s been with the money that they thought they had. So as deposits have been drawn down, they haven’t had enough operating capital to continue normal operations.

Now, this is mostly good news because it means the overall exposure to the financial sector, which is normally what happens when you sell loans among banks, just isn’t there. But it is a very big problem for the tech sector.

And then we get to our third problem, which is how the Biden administration has chosen to deal with it. Now, if you are dealing with a deposit that’s under a quarter of $1,000,000, the federal government doesn’t have to lift a finger because the FDIC will take care of it. But a lot of these small startups, they put all of their money into individual banks, most notably Silicon Valley Bank. So it was a lot more than a quarter of a million now more than a quarter million is not insured. So what the federal government has done under the Biden administration is step in and say that all depositors will be made whole by the FDIC.

What will happen is banks will have to pay a little bit higher. All banks. Into the FDIC system in order to ultimately make up for this so that taxpayers don’t have to pay for the actual bailout. Now, this does put a hard stop on any risk of a bank run. So it’s definitely the right tool for the job there. But what it does is, is it encourages companies that have done stupid things like this to continue doing them, because now all of us have to pay through lower bank interest or more difficult loan conditions for a handful of startup companies who had CFOs who were just too dumb to realize that there is a limited limit to the deposit insurance system. And so this has injected a permanent level of stupidity into the financial system that was really not necessary. And by backing all depositors, the federal government, the Biden administration specifically has chosen to introduce what we call moral hazard into the system at the base level, which in my opinion, was really not a great idea, although it definitely does put a bit of a backstop on the financial maybe kind of sort of itty bitty crisis.

Okay. I’d like to give a little shout out here to Marci Rossell, who is an economist that I actually just saw on stage, who is fantastic. So if you ever have a chance to see her in person, she is definitely an entertaining show and will constantly give you new things to challenge your assumptions and think in new directions. Alright. That’s it for me. See you guys next time.

Cartels Part 2: Origins of the Drug Trade

Flashback to the 80s with me for a moment…we can leave out the big hair and leg warmers…but let’s talk drugs. Most of the cartel activity came from one place, Colombia. If you’ve ever seen Miami Vice, you get the idea. But once the US caught onto the cartels’ “distribution strategy,” new ways of getting “product” into the US had to be created.

Money started flowing through Mexico, and the drug trafficking business was the place to be; it wasn’t long before the cartels we know today began to form. It’s important to note that not all of these cartels operated the same.

To most cartels, violence was a necessary aspect of the drug trade. The Sinaloa Cartel worked a bit differently; they treated this like a business, and El Chapo was the “CEO.” They partnered with the community, bribed law enforcement, and crime stayed relatively low while they were around.

Once El Chapo was captured and the Sinaloa Cartel started to fall off, groups like Jalisco New Generation surged back onto the scene. Unfortunately, this new wave of cartels brought back the violence and crime levels we see today.

For the US, carrying out military strikes on these cartels across the border just doesn’t make sense…it would be like shooting a fly with a handgun. However, beefing up border security to prevent these cartels from crossing into the states is probably a good idea.

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 Peter Zeihan here, still in Vegas, still talking about cartels. The thing to remember is if you go back to the 1980s, most cartel activity was not Mexican, it was Colombian because that’s where the cocaine came from. And it would flow up into the Caribbean. It would avoid Cuba like the plague, because the Cubans would just kill everybody who was associated with the drug trade at that time and would flow into Miami almost exclusively. And this is literally the setting for the show. Miami Vice, all the drug wars, continental in scope, going into a single place. But by the time we got to the 1990s, the United States started to shoot down small planes that were flying ten feet over the water at night with no lights on because those were not scuba divers and the cartels were forced to change the way they shipped. And so they started sending shorter hops not to the United States directly, but into Central America, where they go on land and then go up through Mexico to the U.S. border where there’s a 2000 mile border. And before you say, building a wall will help with drugs. No, no, no, no, no, no. You can put a half a million dollars of product in your backpack. A wall is not going to impede you, especially since a wall requires 50 construction roads going down to the border to build the road in the first place. Which means you have no obviated half of the physical border of a Sonora in the Chihuahuan Desert. So if anything, the road has made it a lot easier for illegal migrants and drugs to get into the country. So remember Donald Trump, most pro narcotic, most pro illegal migration president the United States has ever had. Now, where was I? All right. Okay.

So when the cartels were going on land, that meant that the Colombian cartels had to either find middlemen and or bribe the locals in order to help with transit that generated the money flows that ultimately led to the rise of drug trafficking groups within the Mexican system itself. Now, if you fast forward to about 2012 to 2015, one of these cartels took a fundamentally different view of drugs from the rest. The other saw it as a means to power, and they were basically gangs at scale. But the Sinaloa cartel rose up and thought differently. It saw drugs as a business, and anything that interfered with the core business was something to be ruthlessly rooted out from within the organization. So you don’t steal ladies purses, you don’t shoot up the cops, you buy them off, you make them your friends. Because as long as you can bring drugs through a community, you are making money. And that is your primary reason to be. And that sort of attitude allowed them to put roots deep into Mexican society and expand north of the border fairly easily, where they interfaced with the American gang infrastructure.

If it was a Hispanic gang, you had the choice of joining them or dying. Most died. And if you were a black gang, you were probably just killed. One of the reasons that the murder rate in the United States dropped so precipitously in the 2000s is that the Sinaloa in the United States killed the people who were doing the killing. So use that to inform our general assessment of how much progress we’ve made. Now in the United States this allowed Sinaloa to not just become the largest cartel in Mexico, but in the United States and the largest organized crime group in the world. So the Obama administration worked with the Mexican government to capture the leader of that cartel, El Chapo. And then he got out and we got him again. And this started the disintegration of the Sinaloa cartel. El Chapo’s former accountant has tried to take over a chunk of it. Some of his lieutenants have tried to take a chunk of it. Some of his sons have tried to take a chunk of it. One of his sons is on the process of being extradited to the United States right now, but they all lead their own factions. And so this umbrella organization that was Sinaloa really doesn’t exist anymore in the way that it used to. And whenever you’ve got factions in a system, you’ve got violence. And it’s going to sound weird. But when El Chapo was in charge and when Sinaloa was a top down organization, Mexico was reasonably peaceful because there wasn’t infighting within his own organization and Sinaloa was able to cut a series of deals with the Mexican government to go after the other cartels.

Now, on the other side of the equation, the cartel that suffered the most from that alliance with the Gulf or the Zetas cartel. Two different groups that have kind of interwoven history. One group was the enforcers to the other. But once the government and the Sinaloa both turned on them, they basically shattered. And if you go to the eastern third of Mexico, you’re in a situation which is gang on gang violence, nominally under the name of Gulf and Zetas. And the Americans who disappeared and were kidnaped and killed this past week were people who fell in with the Gulf and the Zetas. So if you want to go with this idea of wanting military strikes south of the border against the Gulf, that’ll do nothing, because that’s basically going after the Crips or the Bloods with military hardware. It will do nothing to change the environment because there is no hierarchical organizational structure to disrupt in the first place. You’d literally be going after street thugs, and that’s just not the right tool for the job. And this group, it’s breakdown. That is the primary reason why Mexican murder rates are so high, because you just have gang on gang action, not just at the regional level or the city level, but the block by block level. And they’re fighting over the income that comes from the drug trade.

Now, in the middle, you have another group that used to be at least partially affiliated with Sinaloa that calls itself a Jalisco New Generation. They were led by a dude named El Mencho. Now, El Mencho does not have the same view of El Chapo. So El Chapo, you could basically sum up his position as don’t shit where you sleep. Well for El Mencho the violence is the point.

We’re a gang that gets money from drug trafficking, not we’re drug traffickers who happen to be a gang. So the first thing he tells his people to do when they move into a town is go shoot up the mayor’s office, the police office and any gang headquarters that you can find. Make it very clear to everyone who’s in charge and who has the guns and what the penalty for noncooperation happens to be. And that has made Jalisco New Generation very hierarchical, very violent, and has contributed massively to the violence south of the border. Now they are in the process of attempting to go north of the border to challenge Sinaloa in basically what is the the great fields of income generation opportunities in the United States. They haven’t succeeded yet and if there is a fight to be had in the United States, it is at the plazas and the border cities to make sure all this go. New generation does not cross in because if they do, wow, we think our murder rate went up because of COVID. Holy crap, Jalisco would go into Phoenix and Dallas and El Paso and Houston and Austin and San Diego and just start killing people to prove to everyone that they can. And if you want a 1930 Chicago level of violence in the United States and every city within 500 miles of the border, that’s exactly what will happen if Jalisco New Generation punches forward.

So military strikes south of the border. This isn’t going to fix anything, but perhaps an increased security presence in the city specifically to prevent Jalisco from crossing north that might be a pretty good idea.

Alright. Next time, we’ll talk about some of the economics of drugs and those things have changed.

Cartels Part 1: Americans Caught in the Crossfire

On March 7th, two of the four US citizens kidnapped shortly after crossing the border into Mexico were found dead. This raises several questions, but perhaps the most significant is how this will change the United States’ policy on Mexican cartels.

The cartels have a long and deep-rooted history of flushing the American system with drugs, laundering money, and other illicit activities. However deserving of the designation as a terrorist group, we have seen in recent history how our actions on terrorist groups have played out…just look at Pakistan.

Any action taken against the cartels would ultimately damage American and Mexican relations. As the US moves away from its ties with the Chinese, that’s the last thing anyone wants. It’s a tricky situation, and the solution isn’t black and white…but maybe everyone should lay off the white stuff for a while.

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 Las Vegas. Today is the 7th of March. And if you’ve been following the news, you knew that there were a few Americans who went down to Mexico to get some tummy tuck surgery. And shortly after they crossed the border, they were assaulted, kidnaped. And some of them have now turned up dead. And so the discussion in Washington is whether or not we should designate cartels in Mexico as terrorist groups and start doing cross-border strikes. I’m not saying I’ve got a solution to this problem because I do not. Well, actually, I do. We’ll get to that. But military strikes on Mexico are not not not the solution. It’s not that the cartels are not deserving. I mean, these are people who have basically been preying on civilians now for decades, shoving drugs into our system. First cocaine, now fentanyl. And they’re into any number of criminal enterprises and they’re trying to launder their money through other licit sectors in Mexico, in the United States, which has made the money go deep and go far.

However, we have seen exactly this sort of situation in recent American history. We know exactly where it leads. So during the Afghan war, we discovered that there were militants operating in northwest Pakistan in a place called North-West Frontier Province that were launching assaults against American forces and Afghan forces backed by the United States north of the border in Afghanistan. And then they would retreat back south of the border. And so we ended up carrying out a number of military operations on both sides of the border to chase them down. The problem we rapidly discovered is that Pakistan is a weak state and they do not control North-West Frontier Province. And by launching strikes south of the border we were inflaming local passions of Pakistanis, even if they were not in support of these militant groups. And we ended up weakening the Pakistani state, which made it even easier for these groups to operate.

So in this case, strikes across the border just poured fuel on the fire. If we were to do this in Mexico, two problems. Number one, Mexico is a weaker state than Pakistan. And so anything that inhibits its ability to function would probably make the situation even worse. And second, the most pro-American portion of Mexico are the northern tier of states where we would be likely to launch these strikes. So we’d be taking our regional allies who are not just political allies, but economic partners. Remember that the United States and Mexico are now each other’s largest trading partners, and especially if we decide we want to move away from the Chinese system, we need help with mid-skill, mid-range manufacturing. And that is a sector in which Mexico absolutely excels, is arguably the world leader. And launching military assaults on what is the location of our most important and most tightly integrated supply chain networks would be a disaster for aerospace and automotive and manufacturing in general. So I really would encourage you to think otherwise.

This is a thorny problem. The solution is not to not get tummy tucks in Mexico, although I would argue that maybe common sense would tell you that you don’t need to do that anyway. The solution is to stop using so much goddamn cocaine, because as long as we are providing the financial existence of the system, it’s going to persist.

Now, this is far too big of a topic for me to do in a single video, so I’m going to be breaking this into a few different topics where you talk about some of the individual cartels and the economics of the drug war and how it has evolved in recent years. So think of this as a starter, and in the days to come, we’re going to be turning this into a full on series. So stay tuned. See you soon.

Can the US Military Fight Russia and China?

With the potential for the Americans to get caught up in simultaneous wars with the Russians and Chinese, do I think the US can handle it? The short answer is that the US will be fine, but if you had asked me this during the Cold War – it would have been a cakewalk for the Americans.

While I don’t think it’s likely (and it is most certainly not recommended), simultaneous wars with the Russians and Chinese wouldn’t be overwhelming for the US military. That is because those two wars would boast extremely different circumstances.

War with the Russians would be a war of supply, providing munitions – specifically the decommissioned and outdated stuff – to the Ukrainians. On the flip side, war with the Chinese would be fought on the seas; the navies would be doing much of the heavy lifting.

The military assets needed to fight these wars would strain different structures, allowing the US military to operate at a manageable and sustainable level.

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 California. A lot of people have written in some questions about U.S. military strategy in light of the Ukraine war and perhaps hostilities with the Chinese. Back during the Cold War, the United States maintained a military policy of being able to fight two and a half wars. The idea that there would be two major conflicts with the Soviets. And, you know, we still need enough dry powder to fight like a small brushfire conflict and in the post-Cold War era that’s basically shrunk down to one. The idea that the United States assets are now more concentrated than they used to be, and that means they need to be more focused. And so if we end up into a conflict with the Russians and the Chinese at the same time, am I concerned that we can’t pull that off?

And the short version is no. Now, the nature of the conflict in Ukraine is one where the United States feels it can’t become directly involved because the risk of a nuclear escalation will be huge. And that means we’re supplying the Ukrainians to fight the war for us…from a certain point of view. And in doing so to this point, the military assets that are being transferred are things that we don’t use. Most of this is equipment that dates back to the seventies and the eighties that was decommissioned in the nineties in the 2000s. And honestly, the United States doesn’t think of that as part of its balance sheet in terms of its order of forces. It’s stuff that we had to dispose of, actually. So in many ways, the Ukrainians are saving us money in a weird sort of way. That means that the army is still available to do whatever with all of the equipment that it would use anyway. There hasn’t been anything taken off the top except for maybe some ammo, and we’re already producing five times as many artillery shells a day as we did before the war. So I’m not really overly concerned there.

In addition, if we do get into a clash with the Chinese, which I don’t think we will, but if we do, that is going to be primarily a naval fight. So it’s entirely possible, if not necessarily recommended, that the United States could be involved in a land war on the western end of Eurasia, while being involved in a naval war on the Eastern End. And the sort of military supplies that go to those two different types of forces are ones the United States is perfectly capable of providing simultaneously.

So while I’m not advocating for a war with either power, and I don’t think a war with either power is likely, the United States actually is capable of doing both of those at the same time. This is not chewing and walking. This is doing two radically different things with radically different command structures and especially military assets that don’t necessarily need to be in the same place at the same time.

Alright. Hope that makes a few people feel a little bit better about a few things. See you guys next time.

US Policy: Russia Gets Blacklisted 

Senator Lindsey Graham captured the essence of what today’s video is all about – “If you jump on the Putin train now, you’re dumber than dirt.”

Between President Biden’s visit to Ukraine and VP Harris’ comment on Russia’s crimes against humanity, it’s clear that the US has drawn a line in the sand, and Russia is on the other side. This means that Russia (or at least Putin’s government) is on the blacklist of world affairs.

According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the Chinese are considering providing lethal aid to the Russians, so that blacklist might be getting a little bigger. Unfortunately for the Chinese, any disruption to the already crumbling relations between the US and China could prove catastrophic.

The breaking point has been on the horizon for years now, and we all should have seen this coming. The ramifications will be huge, and a complete reordering of the global economic system is just the tip of the iceberg.

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

Why the Fed Is Shrinking the Balance Sheet

Before we jump into the newsletter, I wanted to remind you that tomorrow is the big day! Join the webinar and learn how the Ukraine War has affected global supply chains, agriculture and much more. Click the link below for more info, and I look forward to seeing you there!

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell wants to shrink the balance sheet to zero over the next few years. And while this may be good for the economy and the US overall, not everyone will like the outcome…especially our vest-wearing friends down on Wall Street.

So how did we get here? Well, the Fed is in the business of preventing economic crises, and one function of that is having the “tools” to do so. The typical “tools” we see are using interest rates and other money operations to manipulate the financial system, but what happens when that’s not enough?

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the US economy has seen all the unorthodox tools in the toolbox. One of those is purchasing bonds on the secondary markets…to the tune of $9 trillion. That’s not an easy pill to swallow for everyone, but it goes down a bit easier when the alternative is a depression.

Now that the economy has seen a few years of growth and unemployment is at an all-time low, the Fed is ready to pack up its unorthodox “toolbox” to be better prepared for a future economic downturn. So what does this all mean?

Lots of money is coming off the table very soon. With the Fed pulling back and the Baby Boomers aging into retirement, we’re about to see almost a third of all available capital leave the system. Hopefully, your financial advisor is really, really good.

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

Good morning from still chilly Colorado. Peter Zeihan coming to you to talk about what’s going on in the world of finance. For those of you who have not been watching, the US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell has indicated he plans to shrink the balance sheet down to zero over the course of the next couple of years. So, you know, real quick, what’s the balance sheet and why does it exist?

The Federal Reserve prefers to use interest rates and money operations in order to manipulate the financial system to regulate the flow of capital, the cost of capital, and in general, what happens in the wider world. But from time to time, that is not enough. You can only push interest rates so low. I mean, once you hit zero, there’s really no further to go. And you can only shove so much money into the banking system to encourage lending. If people aren’t borrowing, people are not borrowing.

So from time to time, certainly at the end of the or in the middle of the financial crisis and into COVID, the Federal Reserve dipped into a series of relatively unorthodox tools that use the balance sheet. And what they did is they would expand the money supply to print currency and then use that money to purchase bonds on the secondary market. And they could be car loans or college loans or credit card debt, mortgages, whatever happened to be. And from 2008 until the peak, which was about about two years ago now, they did $9 trillion that way. So, you know, the U.S. federal budget deficit is about a trillion. So you get an idea of just how stimulatory that was. And there are a lot of people who thought that this was irresponsible and that it was inflationary, and it was another unorthodox. You know, they have a point. But from the Federal Reserve’s point of view, the alternative was to fall into a deep recession or maybe even depression, and didn’t feel they had much of a choice.

What’s going on now is the economy is on sounder footing. We are at record low unemployment levels and growth has been moderate to strong for three years in a row. So the Federal Reserve feels it’s time to kind of get out of that business and get back to normal. And if from the point that they really started this process a year ago to two years being done. 3 year process, you know, that’s like three or four times as fast as they built the thing up. So really quick, actually, when you’re thinking about the size of this $9 trillion, that’s a lot.

Now, what will that mean? It should, under normal circumstances, typically mean slower economic growth, because when you reduce the cost of capital, less stuff gets funded and the stuff that does get funded tends to be more viable. So more industrial plant, more infrastructure, more education, less on things that are like emerging technologies that haven’t made it to the prototype stage yet. Less on technologies that don’t seem to be working out in terms of cost benefit analysis. Overall, from an economic efficiency point of view, this is a really good step because shaking out some of the dead weight that has evolved in this environment we’ve had for the last 15 years of nearly free capital. You know, we’ve seen a lot of crazy shit go down and we’re finally going to see a lot of that get shaken out. Interest rates are getting back to a more normal posture. The Fed is not done raising. He’s got at least another full percentage point to go. I would argue probably closer to three. And we’re finally seeing all this surplus liquidity go out of the system and return us to a more balanced system, which means when we get to the next financial crisis or the next recession, the Fed will have a lot more tools, a lot more wiggle room, and the overall economy will be a lot healthier. These are all good things, but what is good for the system as a whole is not necessarily good for each individual piece.

So think of all the things that we have seen bubble up over the last 15 years because of cheap capital. In part, this is the Green Revolution, the technologies that on a cost benefit basis, once you include things like intermittency and geography, you know, are not really ready for prime time. EVs which are very materials intensive and tap supply chains that are not secure that we want to produce at scale, even though their carbon footprint in a lot of the country is heavier than ICEs internal combustion engines for at least several years. And then you’ve got your more traditional crap, your subprime, your Beanie Babies, your Bitcoin things that probably should have never existed in the first place. All of that is going to be in a much more difficult capital environment, and we should expect that to adjust appropriately. But perhaps where we’re going to see the most pain is in finance.

When the amount of money to be managed shrinks, the number of money managers that you need goes down. And it’s not like the Federal Reserve is the only player here. There are other things going on in the overall economic system that are also pushing us in the direction of less capital. I’d say the single biggest one, maybe even more significant than the Federal Reserve in the long term, is what’s happening with the baby boomers.

As you get older, you get better at your job, you earn more money, and after age 50 to 55, your kids have moved out of your house has been paid down. So from 55 to 65, that’s the most money you will ever have in your life. And then you retire. And when you retire, you take your money out of more prospective investments with higher velocity of capital, things like stocks and bonds. And you put them into T-bills and cash because the next time there’s a market crash, if you haven’t done that, you lose your shirt and you’re no longer working and you can’t buy a new one.

So the baby boomers, for the last 15 years have kind of been in that magical era between 55 and 65, where they’ve been saving money and investing it. And that has happened at the same time that the Federal Reserve has maintained an ultra loose monetary policy. Well, on average, the baby boomers retired last year, which means that their money is rapidly draining away from the system. At the same time that the Federal Reserve is tightening policy. So over the course of the next 2 to 3 years, we’re looking at a global reduction in available capital of at least a third and we will probably see the number of people employed in the financial sector in the United States drop by a similar number.

Good luck, folks. It’s going to be all about quality moving forward. Alright. Until next time.

Life After Trump

Disclaimer: The following newsletters were originally published in early 2021. As the newsletter continues to grow, I will occasionally re-share some of my older releases for the newer members of the audience.

The years of Donald Trump’s presidency are known far and wide. And the impact those 4 years had was…not small. The Trump-era of American politics has left the world with a number of questions, perhaps the most important being…what does life after Trump look like? Not just for Americans, but for everyone. This question is something still being discussed on the daily, and as the 2024 elections close in, we’ll continue to see the name Trump in the headlines for years to come.

I’m not sure precisely what I’m expecting to achieve with this series. Perhaps we’ll figure that out together.

Read the installments in this series:
 
Life after Trump, Part I: Living in the Lightning
Life after Trump, Part II: Searching for Truth in a Flood of Freedom
Life After Trump, Part III: The End of the Republican Alliance
Life After Trump, Part IV: Building a Better Democrat…Maybe
Life After Trump, Part V: The Opening Roster
Life After Trump, Part VI: The Crisis List—Russia
Life After Trump, Part VII: The Crisis List—The Middle East
Life After Trump, Part VIII: The Crisis List—China

Life after Trump, Part I: Living in the Lightning

Let me start of by saying that in an advanced democracy like the United States, political violence must never be tolerated. We have institutions and courts and elections expressly to manage our differences and debates. That isn’t simply how things are, that is how things should be. The ban on political violence is entrenched in both our norms and our laws and is the foundation of not simply our Constitution or our civilization, but of civilization itself. Anyone who encourages otherwise should rot.
 
Many have compared the events of the January 6 Capitol riots with the violence which occurred concurrently with the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020. The idea cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. But not being correct isn’t the same as being right. During the 2020 protests, some figures in national leadership encouraged people to do more than simply march, and cheerfully paid their bail after their arrests. AOC comes to mind. That is indeed crassly irresponsible. Damaging. Stupid.
 
But we expect different things from different people. We hold four-year-olds to different standards than college students, much less parents of four. That’s life.
 
So, while I am the polar opposite of impressed when folks like AOC engage in dubious political acts and grandstanding, I can’t say that I’m shocked or offended or mourning for the future of my country. I expect that sort of crap from young, first term Congresspeople and I weigh it against some of the less-than-wise things I did in my 20s. Yes, from time to time they besmirch their office and their place in history, but they are rabble-rousers. It’s their schtick. It isn’t like they are leaders.
 
In contrast, Trump is the president. He is the leader of the free world. The presidential standard is higher than the standard for a 31-year-old-until-recently-bartender-now-first-term-Congresswomen.
 
Even if the standard were the same, Trump has surrounded himself with people seeped in law & order conservatism and respect for American institutions like Reince Priebus, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, John Kelly, Nikki Haley, and HR McMaster. Even folks on TeamTrump that I might personally disagree with more often – such as John Bolton, Jeff Sessions and Gary Cohn – are hardly what I would call fascists or anarchists. Even if you hate any or all these men and women on ideological grounds, you must admit that they are adults and that they realize spending a month of your time encouraging the most violent portions of American society to descend on the capital to lay siege to the Capital complex isn’t a good call. I have zero doubt that all of them warned Trump against similar actions on multiple occasions.
 
I have zero doubt such warnings were the proximate reasons all no longer serve in the White House.

Continue reading

Where in the World: Adair and Winds, Pt. 2

Read the other installment in this series
WHERE IN THE WORLD: ADAIR AND WINDS, PT. 1

NB: The following video is one I recorded while on my annual backpacking trip in August; please excuse any potential anachronisms.

With the foundation laid out in Part 1, we’ll now look into agricultural zones that are most at risk based upon changes to their moisture and input profiles. More specifically, areas that were not capable of being global producers of foodstuffs until the Industrial Age.

Each of these agricultural zones are already experiencing impacts to their inputs, whether that’s fertilizers, equipment or chemicals. Compounding these impacts with changes to their moisture profiles could be catastrophic.

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, everyone. I’m still at Adair. Just look in the other direction. So this is after the next pour off. I’m standing on the last little bit of granite that the glacier was able to flow over rather than through. I forgot to mention parts of the world that are going to see more versus less disruption from what’s coming from wind current disruption.

The three areas I’m most concerned about are ones that are heavily dependent not just on a certain moisture profile, but also a certain input profile. These are zones that until the industrial age really were not on the map in terms of being global producers of foodstuffs. Elevation. The first is Brazil. The Brazilian Cerrado really has no nutrient profile in the soil, and so they’re completely dependent on imported fertilizers, primarily from the Russian space. Those haven’t been disrupted because of the Ukraine work, but that’s not long coming. That is primarily a soy region.

The second is the Russian wheat belt itself, particularly the eastern three quarters of it stretching roughly from the north west corner of Kazakhstan, east into eastern Siberia. It’s not that this area can’t grow, it’s just that it can’t grow without high level inputs. Russia’s enterprise farms import a lot of foreign equipment and chemicals, and that is basically stopped. So you change the nutrient excuse me, the moisture profile at all. And a lot of that just goes off the market. And Russia is no longer the world’s largest wheat exporter.

The third is Western Australia. In a situation somewhat similar to what’s going on in Brazil. They’ve got a very special soil type that has very low nutrient profile. There the problem is that when water hits it, the clay particles in the soil enlarge until they dissolve within the water. And then you basically just have a swampy mess and you cannot farm this at volume without a huge amount of capital and foreign inputs for equipment and fertilizer. You can add peat, but it takes a long time.

Anyway, disrupt the moisture profile in any of the three in an environment where already the input profile is being disrupted and you’re looking at the world losing three of its great bread baskets. Okay, that’s it for real. Until next time.