So about a year ago, I started seeing this guy everywhere. He’s apparently some geopolitical expert.
I enjoy his videos. But I question the certainty with which he makes his claims.
For instance, he has a number of videos about demographics, and the coming aging crisis. OK, that’s not news. But he’s literally declared Germany and China dead, due to this (and some other things). Now, I think his arguments are reasonable, but I am skeptical of anyone who thinks their prognostication skills are as infallible as this guy.
He’s also incredibly bullish on the US’ future. I happen to agree that in general we Americans need to chill out- the US is still strong, prosperous, and capable. But many of Zeihan’s videos seem to predict an ashen world with an angelic US standing in the middle of it.
His latest series of videos is about how the world will cope, change, and fight as the US retreats from its role as protector of the world order (which he says will happen because we were only doing it to keep the Soviets down in the first place). In that series of videos he’s predicting with certainty who is going to fight whom, why, and so-on.
So anyone knowledgeable enough to tell me whether he’s a crackpot, genius, charlatan, or just some know-it-all who really doesn’t? You like him? Hate him? respect him?
As I said, I enjoy his videos and as much as I am familiar with a topic, his facts seem to match mine, where I have them. But anyone who thinks he knows the future as well as him sets off my alarm.
At least some of what’s going on with his YouTube videos is catchy titles and productions to capture the eyes and clicks of people, massaging the algorithm to maximize views, subscribes, and revenue.
Zeihan has been ‘around’ publicly for over a decade (he published his first book, A Crucible of Nations, in 2011, and The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disaster in 2014 to broad acclaim or at least public interest) but only started hitting YouTube as the COVID-19 pandemic was on its upswing. He was previously at Stratfor, which bills itself as a “strategic intelligence company” but it is really a boutique consluting firm focused on international investment. Zeihan left Stratfor in ~2012 to found his own firm, Zeihan on Geopolitics and does a lot of advising and speechifying, mostly for investment banks, big ag concerns, and the occasional gov’t think tank.
Is he knowledgeable? Well, he has a broad knowledge of geopolitics and investment forecasting on an open source intelligence (OSINT) basis, and seems particularly focused on the confluence of energy, materials utilization, global trade, and demographics. He generally talks and writes in broad, sweeping terms about trends that are generally pretty evident if you are steeped in these topics, so as a clearinghouse of issues involving global commerce he’s pretty good, although as a conslutant he’s conditioned to draw strong conclusions even with sparse data, so he tends to offer definitive conclusions rather than tentative claims
I’ll say that when Zeihan gets down into the weeds on particular topics, especially regional and ethnic politics, logistics and shipping, and technical details of mineral and energy extraction, you can often find specific gaps in his knowledge that aren’t readily apparent to a casual reader. (Sal Mercogliano who runs the “What’s Going On With Shipping?” podcast and YT channel often takes issues with Zeihan’s claims, particularly his interpretation of the Jones Act of 1917, credibly arguing that Zeihan frequently misinterprets both the purpose and interpretation of the act, even as he agrees with some of the general conclusions Zeihan makes regarding global shipping and trade.) I’ve found several errors in Zeihan’s claims about the specifics of minerals extraction and industrialization, although they are generally minor and don’t completely invalidate his statements. I’m not an ‘expert’ in geopolitics but I know enough about certain regional conflicts and the impact upon dominant industries in them to perceive when he’s making strong claims that should really be offered with a lot of conditional statements. I suspect his topics and presentation in YT videos are cultivated to particularly ‘feed’ and get attention from the promotional algorithm.
I’m currently reading his latest book, The End of the World is Just The Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization. I’ll say that he has a gift for writing about global trade and geopolitics in a colloquial manner, and has learned the trick of providing information consolidated into bite-sized chunks that allow one to read a few pages before bedtime every night. I don’t think it is providing some unique insights that can’t be found elsewhere but it is applied in a relatively cohesive narrative that doesn’t get bogged down in a lot of figures and charts that would bore the casual reader, and I think his general view that we are at the end of globalization is fundamentally correct, although his prognostications on how quickly it will collapse and how prepared the United States in particular is to re-onshore its manufacturing and industrial capacities are overstated.
With regard to claims on demographics, Zeihan is not wrong although I think he understates the impact that this will have not only on those countries but upon trade networks and industry overall. China is not only in a state of incipient demographic collapse but they have massively overbuilt, essentially going through the cycle of industrial development in the last three decades that Europe and the United States did in 120 years, and making all of the same fiscal policy and regulatory errors except at a much accelerated rate. This will not go well for an authoritarian nation that is actual a polity of many different ethnicities only crudely quilted together, and which is almost completely dependent upon external trade for energy and many vital resources. South Korea is in a similar state although they at least have global alliances that are not just purely transactional, although how many partners will (or will be capable) of standing up for them is questionable in a post-globalized world.
Germany is in dire straights demographically, and without immigration cannot fix that problem, but its larger problem is its almost complete dependence on foreign energy and materials, and that it just can’t build enough renewable capacity to achieve independence. (And no, a return to nuclear won’t solve that although it would at least let them stretch out energy imports longer.) A desperate Germany is a fierce Germany as we’ve discovered repeatedly, and while it has been the centerpiece of mostly tolerant industrialized liberal democracy in Europe since WWII, I think most people underestimate how quickly that can change. It’s success in post-globalization will depend upon how much it can stay above the fray of ethnic strife and regional conflict that is almost certainly returning to mainland Europe.
The United States is theoretically well positioned to be secure and prosperous in the post-global economy because of its geographic isolation from enemies, its status as a home for immigrants, its bounty of natural and energy resources (and with three coasts and a sunny Southwest is especially well-positioned geographically for renewables), and a domestic demographic situation that while not great is not as fundamentally precipitous as many industrialized nations. Unfortunately, it is also beset with cultural and political divides which are often functioning contrary to its own interests, an aging transportation and energy infrastructure (true all over the world but the US is particularly sensitive because of the scale of the nation and the weak federalization of regulatory authority), and the sensitivity of many of its key industries to climate change and resource depletion. So, I think Zeihan is being overoptimistic about how great things are going to be for the United States in coming decades, but again, he’s ‘selling’ his views to people who want to hear that they are in pole position for coming economic changes.
One area that Zeihan treads very lightly on are the effects of climate change; he seems to assume a gradualist approach in terms of impacts that will allow for planning and adaptation, even though it is becoming increasingly clear that changes due to climate effects may have precipitous consequences upon agriculture, political stability and regional conflicts, et cetera. Of course, it is essentially impossible to make any validated claims based upon the highly uncertain and variable impact of climate change effects, and he is probably wise from a business standpoint to avoid the topic (even though anybody who is investing in materials, energy, and agriculture should be aware and keenly interested in the science) but it does create a large cloud of uncertainty about any projections of future investment and capability beyond even just a few years out.
He has got that typical American optimism where the US will be okay and every other country is screwed (except Vietnam and Mexico). But he generally seems to know his stuff. So maybe the US, Mexico and Vietnam will be living the high life while the rest of the world burns.
