DiscussMormonism.com

I hadn't heard of Peter Zeihan until his name came up in discussions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. After seeing Gad, Philo Sophie, and possibly others mention him I checked him out then subscribed to his newsletter. Agree or disagree, I find his thinking engaging at minimum.

His book, The End of the World is Just the Beginning, just made it to the top of my stack. I'm curious if anyone else has read it?

Please summarize its key points for us.

I haven’t read anything by him, but I finally subscribed to his YouTube channel two or three months ago after checking him out occasionally on YouTube thanks to Gunnar, Philo, and Gad talking about him. I believe this is the first time he was brought up, maybe:

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 8#p2776368

Perhaps it’s time to pick up a book?

- Doc

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:58 pm

Please summarize its key points for us.

I haven't read it yet. I'll be starting tonight and will maybe follow up later once I can. I just brought it up to see if anyone who had mentioned him before I had heard of him had read it already and had thoughts.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:00 pm

I haven’t read anything by him, but I finally subscribed to his YouTube channel two or three months ago after checking him out occasionally on YouTube thanks to Gunnar, Philo, and Gad talking about him. I believe this is the first time he was brought up, maybe:

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 8#p2776368

Perhaps it’s time to pick up a book?

- Doc

Thanks!

I've watched a lot of his coverage on Russia and China. He's articulate and easy to digest. I sometimes think he leads with the most negative outlook because it pulls in hits, but I think he has a lot of good things to say.

When the war started, I don't think I'd heard the word "geopolitics" before. Zeihan was one of the first youtube hits when trying for a basic understanding of what's going on. He brings up great starting points for the conversation, from there, who knows. For Russia specific commentary, Kotkin or Fiona Hill are better I think. He's an American exceptionalist for sure.

I believe a big part of that book (I haven't read it) is world population implosion and the destabilization of the world order.

a) people aren't having kids. For Russia and China, it means the end. For America, it's bad, but not as bad as elsewhere.

b) The united States military since WW2 has provided security for the world order of trade -- the world of globalization. America is no longer interested in that role, and coupled with a collapsing China, will need to re-visit its trade policy.

insourcing is an issue that left and right have in common to degree -- both sides see a problem with continued reliance on China. What the right doesn't comprehend, Ajax in particular, is that "America first" -- America decoupling with China and sealing up borders, is the ultimate inflationary scenario.

Zeihan, for instance, is all about kicking China to the curb. He liked Trump's attempts to revive NAFTA and at least right in principle to stand up to China, but sees a future in a highly integrated US and Mexico, including bringing in workers from Mexico by the truckload. The scenario MAGA republicans pine for is the scenario of suicidal stagflation.

So far, I'd describe the book as the primer Joseph Tainter called for explaining globalization and why simplification is looming.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:51 pm

a) people aren't having kids. For Russia and China, it means the end. For America, it's bad, but not as bad as elsewhere.

I put the book down for tonight after the chapter introducing the demographic problem and population collapse. I'm interested in where it goes but my impression here is the US belongs to a very tiny list of countries with sufficient development levels that we've been buffered from the worst of population collapse. My instinct is future chapters will have to expand on this to clarify where he sees the demographics of immigration playing into something longer term as we deal with the economic reversals required to come to grips with the end of growth.

Joseph Tainter has argued the most likely "best" outcome for the west is for a steady state economy, but he uses the concept more pessimistically than many steady state enthusiasts. He seems to differ with the champions of the cause over how incentives and capitalism can be replaced and doesn't seem thrilled by the results. I saw a couple of Q&A sessions where bright eyed youth had their naïve, "We can solve the problems of the future with good will once the greedy boomers get out of the way" given the grandfather treatment.

I’m always amused by the messianic phase of younglings. Their understanding of economics is about as deep as A18’s understanding of ethics (or investing, it seems). Out of curiosity, what would a ‘steady state economy’ look like? There seems to be a lot of wiggle room with the term as used.

- Doc