peter Zeihan 2020

Cherico

Well-known member
Ahh, thank you and I'm sorry you are stuck in California. One of my managers has to go out there for a week or so.

Warn him that there will be homeless people everywhere even in the small cities also if he wants to visit a park or the beach have him or his kids wear shoes at all times. Glass, needles and human waste are issues.
 

MrBirthday

Agent of Catgirl Genocide

Well, Zeihan has demonstrated once again that, whatever expertise he has on economics on a global level, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to domestic politics. (It's obvious that he still completely believes the MSM narrative about January 6th, as well as thinking that populist candidates are unelectable.)
 
Last edited:

Cherico

Well-known member
Well, Zeihan has demonstrated once again that, whatever expertise he has on economics on a global level, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it's comes to domestic politics.

Oh yeah he is shit at domestic politics, the problem is and he admits it is that he bases his information on what our media puts out. The problem is the media and he admits it is completely offline as a reliable insitution. So its very much a garbage in garbage out situation.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Well, Zeihan has demonstrated once again that, whatever expertise he has on economics on a global level, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to domestic politics. (It's obvious that he still completely believes the MSM narrative about January 6th, as well as thinking that populist candidates are unelectable.)
I just stopped listening to him after he started calling everyone who supported Trump idiots; the man knows about as much about domestic politics as your average teenager on social media does, and he is clearly letting his personal bias color whatever information he come across. Makes you wonder what else his bias might be blinding him to.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I just stopped listening to him after he started calling everyone who supported Trump idiots; the man knows about as much about domestic politics as your average teenager on social media does, and he is clearly letting his personal bias color whatever information he come across. Makes you wonder what else his bias might be blinding him to.

He has a narrow skill set, for international stuff he knows his stuff for domestic stuff he doesn't know what hes talking about for the most part.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
He has a narrow skill set, for international stuff he knows his stuff for domestic stuff he doesn't know what hes talking about for the most part.

Eh, I've already said before that everything he says about foreign stuff that I can do any confirmation on is bullshit as well, and he models everything on economic assumptions that are, well, stupid. His idea for example that China can't boat is, well, stupid. Or at least boat well enough to do what they need it to do.

And, well, if he has a narrow skill set, trying to opine on the things he does means he's going to be generally wrong. Because everything he's opining on is extremely broad and complex. He seems to sometimes epitomize midwittery.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I just stopped listening to him after he started calling everyone who supported Trump idiots; the man knows about as much about domestic politics as your average teenager on social media does, and he is clearly letting his personal bias color whatever information he come across. Makes you wonder what else his bias might be blinding him to.

When has he ever said that Trump supporters were idiots?
 

Cherico

Well-known member


"Today, this is what the Republican coalition looks like; it is custom-made for the culture war. But it can't read a map, and it can't do math."

I'm sorry; but how else am I supposed to interpret that statement?


to be fair winning or just surviving the culture war is pretty damned important. And while losing the fiscal and nat defense conservatives hurts they proved they were just unwilling to put in any effort to fight the cultural battle that needs to be fought. Conservatism failed and lost. It did remmarkably well considering what it was up against but in the end its a spent force.

Next option is populism, and if your a fisccal conservative like Zeihan or like me...oh man you are not happy at all. Essentally no one cares about fiscal disipline anymore and your just left feeling bitter as fuck. Zeihan is in that catagory he's politically homeless.

Because neither the neo optimates or the new populist party cares about that. I'm bitter about it too, but I also weigh a lot of things I want and realize I'm going to sacerfice somethings to keep the stuff I value the most. I want to play the shit hand as best I can, Zeihan is bitter about the shit hand.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder


"Today, this is what the Republican coalition looks like; it is custom-made for the culture war. But it can't read a map, and it can't do math."

I'm sorry; but how else am I supposed to interpret that statement?


Valid criticism?

He doesn't mean they're too stupid to look at a map and know what it says or how to do basic math--he means can you look at a map and understand the significance? Understand the strategic threats and opportunities? Can you understand the complicated mathematics that goes into economics and social models?

And for most of the current Republican party, the answer is no. More importantly, even if they could, they wouldn't care. That doesn't mean that the Republican party doesn't have some good points of their own. They do. They absolutely do. But they've thrown out the people who are concerned with grand strategy and economies of scale. And impart for good reason.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Valid criticism?

He doesn't mean they're too stupid to look at a map and know what it says or how to do basic math--he means can you look at a map and understand the significance? Understand the strategic threats and opportunities? Can you understand the complicated mathematics that goes into economics and social models?

And for most of the current Republican party, the answer is no. More importantly, even if they could, they wouldn't care. That doesn't mean that the Republican party doesn't have some good points of their own. They do. They absolutely do. But they've thrown out the people who are concerned with grand strategy and economies of scale. And impart for good reason.
I think you're stretching in an attempt to be charitable to Zeihan, but that's your prerogative. Personally though? I don't buy it. Whatever you think he means, that's not what he said.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I think you're stretching in an attempt to be charitable to Zeihan, but that's your prerogative. Personally though? I don't buy it. Whatever you think he means, that's not what he said.

No, Peter often speaks figuratively or exaggerates to emphasize a point. And looking at his greater body of work in regards to that particular subject, it's rather apparent that he is bemoaning the loss of grand strategic thinking and experts within the Republican party for the sake of populism. That's not surprising given that he's probably a right of the middle voter.

Zeihan was a fan of the first Bush. That should really tell you how he thinks of the world and politics. He does not agree with the populists in the Republican party. Period. He understands why they're doing what they're doing and the context it's occurring, but that doesn't mean he has to like it. If the worst he's said about you is that you need to learn a bit about geography and economic/demographic models, then you should feel lucky.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
I haven't gotten around to watching the video yet, but by your description it sounds like he's calling the Republicans dumb for not being a neoliberal like he is?

Not sharing his grand strategic thinking is different than not having it. Bannon and that crew have it. It involves allying with the likes of Le Pens and Russia often against China and the American and European left.

This is maybe where so much of his thinking breaks down. The great threat to Republicans is Democrats/domestic Communists, to the degree those two overlap. Global politics is an extension of domestic politics: Islam is a partisan issue. China is a partisian issue. Cuba is a partisian issue.

In an increasingly globablized world, the global is closely tied to the local. There's a reason there's so much focus on French politics. Because whether France gets a right wing government matters globally.

That Russia has a right wing ish government matters globally. Like, how many right wing creators are kept afloat thanks to subscribe star, a Russian company, which gives them enough insulation to not be crushed by Silicon Valley.

Edit: At least, I think Subscribestar is a Russian Company. There does not seem to be a wiki page on it, my go to still to get those kinds of basic info like operating country, which is very odd.
 
Last edited:

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
They absolutely do. But they've thrown out the people who are concerned with grand strategy and economies of scale. And impart for good reason.
While I agree that much of the establishment people concerned with such things have been thrown out, when it comes to Economics, I cannot help but feel like... good riddance? I mean, seriously, can you name a time in recent history where the "mainstream establishment" economists have actually been right about anything? More often it has been the economics who are outside the mainstream that have been accurate, and the populist right still embraces many very good economic thinkers like Sowell and Walter Williams (RIP) who are usually rejected by the mainstream establishment economists.

I mean, we even see it play out with policies. Obama, and now Biden, embraced the economic establishment, and followed their policies to the letter, and all we saw was anemic low growth, wages getting outpaced by inflation, and systemic offshoring. Trump rejected Modern Monetary Theory and the economic establishment, which led to them constantly projecting a collapse of the economy under Trump because his policies were out of step with their ideas... but instead we saw major economic growth, real wage growth outpacing inflation and the lowest unemployment rate in decades... it took the Pandemic and the systemic year long lockdowns to actually collapse the Trump economy... and those polices were not Trump's natural instinct, rather, those were the ones forced on him by the same technocratic elites who hated him.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
While I agree that much of the establishment people concerned with such things have been thrown out, when it comes to Economics, I cannot help but feel like... good riddance?

I agree. It is good riddance.

I mean, seriously, can you name a time in recent history where the "mainstream establishment" economists have actually been right about anything? More often it has been the economics who are outside the mainstream that have been accurate, and the populist right still embraces many very good economic thinkers like Sowell and Walter Williams (RIP) who are usually rejected by the mainstream establishment economists.

The economic establishment has been right about a lot of stuff. The problem they ran into was in my opinion, geography. They assumed that the United States would easily merge itself with the global order in the same way that Germany or China did. Allowing countries like China to take all of our manufacturing was how they intended to merge America with the global order and make it more efficient. The intent, as far as I can tell, was that Americans would move up the value added scale. In my observation, the flaw with THAT strategy was that after they sent all the jobs to China, instead of helping those who had lost their jobs retool to the new economic environment, the experts pretty much washed their hands and clapped each other on the back.

And instead of allowing those areas to be competitive, it was all centralized on the coastal and major city areas, which had the advantage of drawing in that sort of talent over more rural areas. So the coastal cities got to enjoy most of the benefits of low cost labor, while the rural areas were basically decimated. And since the vast majority of experts now have only been long enough to live within the US's global strategic blanket, they assume that this is the natural state of the world and it could never (and should never) change.

I mean, we even see it play out with policies. Obama, and now Biden, embraced the economic establishment, and followed their policies to the letter, and all we saw was anemic low growth, wages getting outpaced by inflation, and systemic offshoring.

I would actually disagree with that.

Obama certainly did not listen to anyone who had anything to say that he didn't like. Obama sealing himself in a gilded cage was a common issue that many politicians, Republican or Democrat, were upset about. And the people that Obama did trust were generally incompetent, because they were most probably chosen for their ideological cohesion with Obama (or knew when to keep their mouth's shut) rather than skill. Obama for example, took the Iran deal from the people who came up with the strategy (which was to balance them against Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and handed it to his team, who got slaughtered at the negotiations.

Biden is different in that he DOES listen to experts and members of the establishment, in fact, I expect he's almost entirely reliant upon them, but one area he has not compromised on is that of the party's new strategic goal. When you look at trade policies, there are only three major differences between Trump and Biden.

  1. Biden has relaxed trade barriers against the Europeans.
  2. Biden prefers a more green approach; the Paris Accords (which is basically a joke) and the pipeline deals come to mind.
  3. Biden prefers to phrase things as "Made by America" or as a humanitarian angle.
Other than this, there have been NO changes to Trump's trade policies. Biden's team is already in the process of suing Mexico and Canada, who thought they could renege on the deal after Trump was gone. Biden's team is also in the process of suing China and there already appears to be consideration within his administration on how to address the coming Olympic Games in China. There's rumor that it might be a full on boycott. Which would pretty much destroy what remains in relations with the Chinese. US-Chinese trade relations could end as soon as the winter Olympics.

You might also notice that Biden's military policy is also similar to Trump's. There only differences that I can find are again:

  1. Biden is less confrontational than Trump.
  2. Biden says he is more committed to defending Europe (but won't really contribute money or troops).

Biden's military policy is NOT globalist. He is continuing the drawback in the Middle East and isn't really committing any sort of military power, save perhaps in promises to Europe and reinforcing East Asia against the growing antagonism of China. If Biden were following a globalist strategy, he would immediately have reinforced Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan's government is currently on the losing side of their war against the Taliban. They NEED American troops to stay in power.


Trump rejected Modern Monetary Theory and the economic establishment, which led to them constantly projecting a collapse of the economy under Trump because his policies were out of step with their ideas... but instead we saw major economic growth, real wage growth outpacing inflation and the lowest unemployment rate in decades... it took the Pandemic and the systemic year long lockdowns to actually collapse the Trump economy... and those polices were not Trump's natural instinct, rather, those were the ones forced on him by the same technocratic elites who hated him.

Trump's greatest contribution to the Union was how he changed the nature of debate on economics and globalism. And he was ultimately proven right in how the US should conduct itself economically. But by the very nature of the US's then economic position and his goals, there was always going to be an economic backlash. Supply shortages and downturn in certain sectors as rival powers slapped their own tariffs and restrictions on the USA. And those were coming to a head in 2020...but it was swallowed up by the pandemic. Things that people have attributed to the pandemic were instead the result of Trump's trade policy--necessary pain to change our strategy to something more domestic.

Trump proved that not only were his ideas sound, achievable without losing office, but that there was a deep demand for it. The Democrats have noticed that. And despite all their moaning and crying during his time in office, Biden is following most of Trump's policies. The difference is that Trump tended to lead from the front and was more cowboy in how he dealt with rival powers and was primarily an expression of intuitive thinking. So you could have relations change in a matter of hours, but you could also have inefficient results. China for example, managed to avoid economic ruin by repeatedly wooing Trump and outright lying to his face about their promises to accept the new trade arrangements...then repeatedly doing nothing. Trump repaid them by declaring their actions in Xinxiang genocide and declaring that US officials could visit Taiwan without permission.

Biden is different. He relies on more rational thinking, because he needs the experts to do most of the work for him. All he can (at best) do is provide a general direction. The disadvantage is that he lacks the spontaneity of Trump, but his experts are better at pressing the advantages that Trump provided them through his own policies. Iran, China, and even Russia have all been put on notice. Biden outright threatened Putin that if he didn't get his hackers under control, the US might shut down THEIR gas pipes. Iran, which hoped it would get a new, easier deal with Biden are now dealing with a team that is adamant that the new deal recognize the new strategic situation. And China is facing greater military threats from the US Navy AND may be facing a boycott at the Olympic Games.

For all the false blame and credit Trump gets, this is one that seems to evade most people. In four years, Trump has completely redefined the discussion from something that didn't work to something that is working. So much so that his own opponents have come to assume most of his positions on trade and the military.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I haven't gotten around to watching the video yet, but by your description it sounds like he's calling the Republicans dumb for not being a neoliberal like he is?

Zeihan isn't a neo-liberal. He's identified himself as a fiscal conservative. He was someone whose policies were most highlighted by the first Bush. Zeihan has repeatedly focused on the American moderates as the saving buffer against the extremists within both parties.

Not sharing his grand strategic thinking is different than not having it. Bannon and that crew have it. It involves allying with the likes of Le Pens and Russia often against China and the American and European left.

That's not really grand strategy. That's mostly domestic strategy calling upon foreign allies. And while Zeihan has made his preferences plain, he's never thrown around the accusation of ignorance against someone, simply because of their ideology. He identified Bolton as one of the last people who knew anything about Grand Strategy in the Trump Administration. And he really does not like Bolton's policies.

This is maybe where so much of his thinking breaks down. The great threat to Republicans is Democrats/domestic Communists, to the degree those two overlap. Global politics is an extension of domestic politics: Islam is a partisan issue. China is a partisian issue. Cuba is a partisian issue.

That's been a growing issue for the past two decades. We're not at the boiling point, where there is few areas where the two parties can negotiate with each other. Everything has been turned into a partisian issue. Trump intensified that, but he wasn't the cause of it--even if he got the blame. Nor are socialists the current primary threat. Because they burned all their bridges during the last election. They got pissed when neither of their candidates got the nomination and made good on their threat to riot. And while the Democrats looked the other way for the sake of political expedience, that was NOT what they'd wanted. They had wanted mass demonstrations--not mass rioting.

The Squad, Bernie Sanders, and the rest of the SJWs/Socialists are being isolated from the Democratic party. Because they fucked them over in 2016 and nearly fucked them over again in 2020. Instead, the Democrats are shifting toward a more nationalist and populist platform. Because they know they have no choice.

In an increasingly globablized world, the global is closely tied to the local. There's a reason there's so much focus on French politics. Because whether France gets a right wing government matters globally.

It does and it doesn't. France will have to adjust its global position, because France must do so. The French are already preparing to shift and they're one of the few European powers (well, only) who can do this. Their dominance of Western Africa is already nearly complete under the American strategic umbrella. Left to their own devices, they're going to shift to neo-colonialism. It doesn't matter what government is in power, they have no choice.

That Russia has a right wing ish government matters globally. Like, how many right wing creators are kept afloat thanks to subscribe star, a Russian company, which gives them enough insulation to not be crushed by Silicon Valley.

Look, as much as I empathize with the Russians, the Russians are not the Right's friends. They are at best, allies of convenience. Right now, the biggest issue with Russia and America is that they have no real conflict strategic interests, but have been locked into thinking they do for the past seventy years.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
@The Original Sixth
Eh, Bush one is like the model neoliberal however, so I'm not sure how that's proof he wasn't a neoliberal. He was one of the pushers of the New World Order, which was the neoliberal world order.

I also would not say the Socialists lost, more the populist socialists lost. The elite socialists who believe the experts can carefully guide and nudge people into the master plan seem very much in control at the top. As the Hillary Clinton supporters used to argue, Clinton and Sanders voted the same on 90% of issues. Socialism is built on a lot of world views, which most of the democrats implicitly embrace. The disagreement seems to be generally not over the socialist vision, but over how quickly it can be implemented and how the socialist vision will be implemented and ruled: by the people, or by an enlightened elite ruling for the people.

Oh, there's definitely conflicts of interests with Russia: between the them and the NeoLiberal/Socialist World Order. There's not a conflict necessarily with the right wing, but that's the thing I was saying: foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy.

I've seen nothing of the left moving to nationalism of all things. France's global position, especially in something as unimportant as Africa, is also not what anyone cares about France in. Its a very weird thing to focus on. The importance of France going right wing or not is if it frees up more breathing room for the global leftist vs rightist fight for the right to operate and grow in influence in Europe and maybe undermine the EU, or at least add another check to it.

What exactly is the difference between "grand strategy" vs calling on foreign allies? Or recognizing that being global police hurts the US? It seems a very trivial distinction, amounting to saying things that aren't my strategy aren't real strategy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top