Peter Zeihan: America’s Evolving Geopolitical Landscape

Summary

Enterprising Investor: Peter Zeihan on America’s Evolving Geopolitical Landscape

Podcast Information:

• Title: Enterprising Investor
• Host: Mike Wahlberg
• Guest: Peter Zeihan
• Episode Title: America’s Evolving Geopolitical Landscape
• Release Date: March 15, 2025

---

Introduction

In this insightful episode of Enterprising Investor, host Mike Wahlberg engages in a deep conversation with renowned geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan. Building upon Zeihan's extensive work, including his latest book update to "The Accidental Superpower," Zeihan delves into the intricate shifts shaping America’s geopolitical stance and the broader implications for the global landscape.

America's Geographical Advantages

Peter Zeihan begins by outlining the United States' unmatched geographical advantages. He emphasizes that the U.S. benefits from vast "ocean moats" and a sparsely populated northern border, minimizing historical security threats. This unique positioning has historically shielded the nation from significant conflicts and allowed it to thrive economically and demographically.

Peter Zeihan [03:47]: "The United States has the best geography in the world... overlaid by the most dense, knit, naturally navigable waterways on the planet all to itself."

Demographic Shifts and Economic Models

Zeihan transitions to discuss demographic changes, highlighting how urbanization and industrialization have transformed population structures worldwide. Countries like Germany, Japan, and China are experiencing aging populations, leading to economic models that struggle to balance consumption and investment-driven systems. In contrast, the U.S. still maintains a relatively youthful demographic trajectory, postponing the demographic crisis faced by its counterparts until possibly the late 21st century.

Peter Zeihan [06:50]: "When you have a lot of people under age 45, it's all about the consumption. It's a consumption-driven system that tends to be relatively inflationary."

US Political System and Trump's Influence

The conversation shifts to the U.S. political landscape, where Zeihan critiques the first-past-the-post, two-party system for its instability amid evolving economic and technological paradigms. He posits that Donald Trump's rise is a culmination of decades of political polarization and the inability to adapt governance structures to contemporary challenges.

Peter Zeihan [09:10]: "Donald Trump, regardless of his policies, had the potential to be the most significant American political leader since at least Lincoln."

Trade Policies and Tariffs Impact on North America

A significant portion of the discussion centers on recent tariff implementations against Canada and Mexico. Zeihan warns that these tariffs could precipitate a recession in North America by disrupting integrated supply chains and freezing investments. He underscores the mutual dependency between these economies and the detrimental effects of Trump's protectionist measures.

Peter Zeihan [12:32]: "Tariffs... hurt you more. We're going to have a recession in North America this quarter and next quarter."

Energy Independence and Raw Materials Processing

Zeihan acknowledges the United States' strides toward energy independence through shale production. However, he highlights that the U.S.'s vulnerability lies not in raw materials acquisition but in processing capacity. He critiques Canada's reliance on exporting raw materials without sufficient domestic processing infrastructure, exacerbating economic vulnerabilities amidst tariff-induced disruptions.

Peter Zeihan [14:05]: "The weak point in the American system on the raw materials question isn't the actual materials, it's the processing capacity."

Alberta's Role and Potential Secession

A focal point of the episode is the economic plight of Alberta, Canada's oil-rich province. Zeihan revisits his earlier proposition of Alberta potentially seceding and joining the U.S., driven by historical tensions and economic grievances. He discusses recent political maneuvers, such as Alberta's premier seeking a larger share of Canada Pension Plan assets, hinting at secessionist undercurrents. Zeihan notes that demographic changes through increased immigration have somewhat alleviated Alberta's fiscal burdens, reducing the economic impetus for secession.

Peter Zeihan [17:07]: "The economic argument for secession is a lot weaker now than it was 15 years ago."

Shift from Globalization to Isolationism

Zeihan critiques the post-Cold War globalization framework established by George H.W. Bush, which sought to maintain open trade lanes and alliances. He argues that the failure to reevaluate and adapt this framework has led to its erosion under Trump's administration, which favors isolationist and nationalistic policies. This shift undermines global trade security, impacting not only international partners but also American economic interests reliant on stable trade routes.

Peter Zeihan [20:17]: "It's not just a small factor... People who believe that George Herbert Walker Bush was onto something... have lost nine federal elections in a row."

Zeihan's Forecast on Global Geopolitical Landscape

In concluding, Zeihan presents a sobering forecast for the global geopolitical landscape. He anticipates the disintegration of major economic and political entities like the People's Republic of China and the Eurozone. Zeihan underscores the varied preparedness of countries to navigate this transition, citing Turkey and Indonesia as relatively well-positioned, while nations like Brazil are likely to face significant challenges. He warns that the U.S.'s retreat from its global leadership role will lead to increased regional isolation and strategic vulnerabilities.

Peter Zeihan [22:45]: "We're looking at the national disassociation of the People's Republic of China... the end of the Eurozone and the EU as an economic entity."

Conclusion

Mike Wahlberg wraps up the episode by expressing gratitude for Zeihan's profound insights, acknowledging the blend of enlightening and concerning perspectives shared. He reiterates the significance of Zeihan's participation in upcoming CFA Institute events and encourages listeners to engage with his work for a deeper understanding of the evolving geopolitical dynamics.

Mike Wahlberg [23:59]: "This has been an enlightening and slightly depressing 20 minutes with Peter Zeihan. Thank you so much for coming on today."

---

Notable Quotes

1. Peter Zeihan [03:47]: "The United States has the best geography in the world... overlaid by the most dense, knit, naturally navigable waterways on the planet all to itself."

2. Peter Zeihan [06:50]: "When you have a lot of people under age 45, it's all about the consumption. It's a consumption-driven system that tends to be relatively inflationary."

3. Peter Zeihan [09:10]: "Donald Trump, regardless of his policies, had the potential to be the most significant American political leader since at least Lincoln."

4. Peter Zeihan [12:32]: "Tariffs... hurt you more. We're going to have a recession in North America this quarter and next quarter."

5. Peter Zeihan [14:05]: "The weak point in the American system on the raw materials question isn't the actual materials, it's the processing capacity."

6. Peter Zeihan [17:07]: "The economic argument for secession is a lot weaker now than it was 15 years ago."

7. Peter Zeihan [20:17]: "It's not just a small factor... People who believe that George Herbert Walker Bush was onto something... have lost nine federal elections in a row."

8. Peter Zeihan [22:45]: "We're looking at the national disassociation of the People's Republic of China... the end of the Eurozone and the EU as an economic entity."

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of Enterprising Investor offers a comprehensive exploration of the shifting geopolitical sands, particularly focusing on the United States' evolving role on the global stage. Peter Zeihan's analysis provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the interplay between geography, demographics, political systems, and economic policies, highlighting the profound implications of current trends for the future of international relations and economic stability.

Transcript

[Fintool Representative]

Fintool is ChatGPT for SEC filings and earnings calls. Are you still doing keyword searches and going to the individual filing and using control? F that's the old way of doing things before AI. With Fintool, you can ask any question and it's going to automatically generate the best answer. So they may pull from a portion of an earnings call or a 10k, whatever it may be, and then answer your question. The best part? Every portion of the answer is cited with the source document. Now, if you've tried to do any of this in ChatGPT, you may know that the answers are often wrong or full of hallucinations. The way Fintool is able to outperform ChatGPT is their focus on the SEC filings. If you're an analyst or a portfolio manager at a hedge fund, check them.

[Podcast Announcer]

[e-mail] the views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the host and guest and do not necessarily reflect the official position of CFA Institute.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Hello and welcome to the Enterprising Investor, the flagship investment podcast for CFA Institute. I'm Mike Wahlberg and I'm joined today by none other than Peter Zion. Peter is a friend to the show and has the distinction of generating the highest downloads from a single episode of ours in our 13 years, which was our January 2023 conversation, which is awesome. If you have time, I definitely recommend going back and having a listen there. Peter's the author of five books, but his main day job is consulting directly to companies and governments around the world when he's not posting to his hugely successful YouTube channel. Anyone who has heard Peter speak knows they're in for a whirlwind of facts, figures and insights into the world of geopolitical strategy. And I'm. I for one, I'm certainly excited to have you back on the show. Peter, good to see you. It's good to see you, I should say as well. On on the last episode of this podcast, Peter de Lazarov and I were talking about the upcoming CFA Institute investment conference in Chicago in May, where he and I are both hosting panels and recording podcast interviews with speakers. Peter, I. I believe you will also be there delivering the keynote on the closing day titled Getting through the End of the World.

[Podcast Announcer]

Yeah, the title's a little bit more per than I had intended when I picked that one.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Well, we are recording here in early March and yeah, the world does seem to be ending around us, especially up here in Canada. So I look forward to getting into that conversation with you. And I should say as well. Peter, I really enjoyed your latest book. You did an update to the Accidental Superpower, which has a new suffix called 10 years, on which for our listeners, as I mentioned, is an update to that 2013 book. In both books, you lay out the broad theme of us and as a superpower who got there for a variety of reasons really, geography, demography, policy. Maybe a bit of luck in there, but the main thing that's keeping me up at night since reading that book is, is this one passage I'm going to bear with me here. I'm going to read it to you and we can all have a little silent cry about it here. We may well be getting what for most countries is the worst of all possible worlds. And America utterly disinterested in maintaining global trading structures and maritime security while also pursuing an ever more nationalistic economic policy set while simultaneously demonstrating a willingness to put his finger on the security scales. Populous isolationist economic policy married to activist indirect military interventions. Buckle up.

[Podcast Announcer]

Yeah, sorry about that.

[Mike Wahlberg]

It's a massive topic. We can't possibly tackle all of this in the 30 minutes or so that we have, but I wonder if you could walk us through the broad strokes of how we got to say, January 2025, and then we can get into how Trump's policies may be reflecting these changing priorities.

[Podcast Announcer]

Sure. Let's do three things. Let's do this in three steps. So geography, demography, and then what's going on with the American political system? The United States has the best geography in the world. We have ocean moats. The country to our north is lightly populated compared to its geography, so it has not been in a security threat except for when the Red Coats were present. And we had one war of consequence with the Mexicans over 170 years ago. Now that basically took the good part of the border zone and put it into California, Texas, and left the Mexicans high up on the mountains in the plateau where they could never project power from again. So basically, you've got this amazing chunk of range and farmland overlaid by the most dense, knit, naturally navigable, navigable waterways on the planet all to itself. And it really doesn't matter politically who is in charge of that sort of environment. With the obvious exceptions of people like Lincoln who stitched the country or held the country together, and Washington who made it in the first place. The United States is not known for having quality leadership and we don't need it. And that hasn't changed. And then there's demographics. As you urbanize and industrialize, your country's Population moves off the farm and into the cities. And as you do that, you go from having lots of kids to fewer kids. And the faster you do that process, the faster your birth rate drops. So we have gone from a world roughly a century, century and a half ago, where 90% of the population lived on farms, to 1 today where in the advanced world less than 5% do. In the United States, the number is less than 2%. As you urbanize and you have fewer kids and you do this decade on decade and decade on decade, eventually your population structure changes. So in the pre industrial system, you would have more 10 year olds than 20 year olds, than 30 year olds and 40 year olds and so on. But after a century roughly of heavy industrialization and urbanization, there are any number of countries that include, but are not limited to Korea, China, Japan, Spain, Poland, Germany and Italy that now have more people in their 50s and their 40s and their 30s and their 20s than their tens, than children. Some of these even had more people in their 60s now than those other going down. And this is a bit of a problem because it changes the economic model. When you have a lot of people under age 45, it's all about the consumption. It's a consumption driven system that tends to be relatively inflationary because of that. And when you have a lot of people age 45 to 65, the consumption has stopped because the kids have all moved out and your house has been paid down, but your incomes are high. So you get an investment led system and a government tax led system until you retire. And then all of a sudden we don't have an economic model for what that looks like. And this decade was always going to be the decade where countries as various as China and Japan and Korea and Italy and Germany all age out into something new. And we don't know what that looks like because it's never happened before. And in the case of the United States, because we have so much elbow room, we urbanized a lot more slowly. And we didn't just go from farm to city, we had a couple steps in the middle with suburbs and small towns. And so our birth rate drop has been much, much, much slower. So if we keep aging at our current rate, we're not going to face the crisis like the rest of the advanced world until about 2070, maybe even 2080. And that assumes immigration never picks up and that assumes the millennials never have kids. Those are two big gifts, right?

[Mike Wahlberg]

And the rest of the world. I know. And across your series of books here, you talk about that that timeline is much shorter for a lot of those countries you mentioned. In China, Japan, Korea, Poland, Germany, Italy.

[Podcast Announcer]

For the Germans and the Chinese specifically, we're talking less than eight years at this point. It's just there isn't an economic model that will work with what their structures will be. So you put that kind of collectively in one bucket where the US Geographically and demographically looks really good. And then you consider the politics of the United States and how we decided to fight the Cold War. I mean, we knew we needed allies to stand with us, or more accurately, in front of us to face down the Soviets. And so we created this little thing called globalization, where we used our navy to keep the global waterways open so that anyone could trade with anyone else, but we didn't shove our economy into that system because then it wouldn't have been a bribe. So most of the world, especially the advanced world, are heavily dependent on this international trading system. But we, by design, on purpose, are not. One of the things that Donald Trump forgets is that was the plan. It's like we get to write your security policies if you get access to global trade. That was. That was the deal. That's the backdrop of all of my work. That, like three minutes of exposition. What's going on right now in the United States is we have a first past the post single member district system, which is a really fancy way of saying that we have geographic zones where you vote for one person who represents that group of people and they need to get one more vote than whoever comes in second. And this tends to generate two very large parties, two big tent parties that try to bring in as many groups as they can to get that extra marginal vote so they can win elections. But that system becomes unstable every generation or so as the coalitions move around because of changes in economic patterns or technology. And if you think about what's gone down in the United States in the last 30 years, we've had the rise of hyperglobalization, and now it's fall. We've had the digital revolution in social media. We've had the baby boomers at the peak of their lives and earning potential, and now two thirds of them are retired. And our political system at this moment is shifting around. So what I said at the very beginning, it doesn't matter who runs the United States. That is true. Unless you're in one of these moments of transition and you're in a moment of global change. And both of those boxes are very heavily checked right now, which means that Donald Trump, regardless of his policies had the potential to be the most significant American political leader since at least Lincoln. And he's acting on that because at this moment, our two parties are gone. They don't function. And so the entire legislative branch of the United States governing system is on hiatus and will remain on hiatus until the party system reforms that will still be a few years from now, providing a window of opportunity for the don to do more or less whatever he wants.

[Mike Wahlberg]

The dawn. Is that a result of the personality of Donald Trump or is this. No, this is.

[Podcast Announcer]

This is a reflection of his personality will definitely guide where this goes. I don't mean to suggest he has no agency here, but this is just, this is just a moment in time where we're going through a structural shift globally and a structural shift domestically. He just happens to be in the right spot at the right time.

[Mike Wahlberg]

So he's in the right place at the right time. And the priorities. You know, you talked about the, you know, Bretton woods, we didn't mention it, but that's where, that's where it all started post World War II. And this, this setup of the kind of playing the global military cop to keep these trade lanes open for everybody. US was a beneficiary of it, but not dependent on it. And so what's, what's happening there? What's been the evolution of that that gets us to where we are?

[Podcast Announcer]

Well, the idea that the globalized system needs a rejiggering is not a controversial one in the United States at all. It was designed for the Cold War. And when the Cold War ended, we had this president, George Herbert Walker Bush, who had a crazy idea that maybe, just maybe, we should have a conversation with ourselves, an open, honest conversation about what we want next. How do we take this alliance, the greatest alliance in human history, and play it forward for another generation, another century of American preeminence, but in a fundamentally changed world where we improve the human condition? And so, of course, we voted him out of office and never had that conversation. And in the next nine presidential elections, we went with the candidate who espoused a more skeptical view of globalization. Trump is not an aberration. He is the logical conclusion of 36 years of the Americans refusing to talk with one another about this. And so we are now in a moment of time where he can impose whatever he wants, and he is working on that.

[Mike Wahlberg]

So how this is transpiring, I mean, we talked about the fact that we. It's been. What is it? What has it been now? Six weeks. Six weeks.

[Podcast Announcer]

Six weeks, two days.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Who's counting? Yeah, so let's, I don't know, let's pick some of these off. So obviously I'm sitting here in Canada. Let's talk tariffs here. Do these tariffs against Canada and Mexico, even against that big backdrop, do they surprise you at all? And what do you think Trump's endgame is?

[Podcast Announcer]

Okay, we need to make this conversation a lot broader because tariffs are just one piece of this for Canada specifically. I mean, I understand why you're concerned. You should be concerned. Canada's demographic has aged quite a bit. Immigration is helped with that of late in a very big way. However, you still don't have the consumption led economy that is necessary to go it alone, which means you have to integrate with the United States and you have to do that with manufacturing, which means that the tariffs, while they are devastating to any industry in the United States that is linked with Canada and Mexico, hurt you more. We're going to have a recession in North America this quarter and next quarter. That even assumes that Trump walks the tariffs back between now and when this releases on the 15th. The damage is done, investment has frozen, and no one has any interest in building anything in North America until there's a degree of clarity. And Trump is not ever going to generate that clarity. As for raw materials, I don't want to be mean, but it's not that big of a deal for the United States. The weak point in the American system on the raw materials question isn't the actual materials, it's the processing capacity. And to be perfectly blunt, Canada doesn't help with that at all because you don't process any of your own stuff, you just export.

[Mike Wahlberg]

We send it all down.

[Podcast Announcer]

So if you were to send nothing to the United States, which would be dumb, but possible, it would just go into the international system and would bring in more from say, Brazil or Australia. It's not right.

[Mike Wahlberg]

And the US as you wrote about in your book, has become energy self sufficient in the last few years anyways. Through shale. Right?

[Podcast Announcer]

Yeah. Now, to be clear, this is not a recommendation. Right. There's an easy way to prepare for a post globalized world, and that involves Canada being part of the inner circle. Like I said, the Americans. The Trump administration seems committed to doing this by the most painful, destructive way possible, which is going to take what should have been a very inflationary 5 to 10 year period and turn into a hyperinflationary 15 to 20 year period if Trump does what he says he's going to do.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Yeah, and I wonder about that too though, because I mean inflation was one of his promises. Markets correcting.

[Podcast Announcer]

He doesn't seem to care about the markets anymore, which I think is actually a little sign of personal growth on his part. But take it for what it is.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Interesting.

[Podcast Announcer]

If you're looking for the low hanging fruit for Canada, get into minerals processing already. I mean, come on, you've been a beaver pelt economy for a century and a half. It's time to move on. And if you move into the value added part of the manufacturing and the processes system, you make so much more money than just exporting the raw stuff. The downside is you're competing with the Chinese who subsidize that industry and you're going to have to make environmental decisions that you really don't want to.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Yeah, yeah, that's something that's been, been on the books and I don't know what it is about, about the Canadian experience historically if it's risk, risk aversion or it was too easy and, and tempting to ship it out rather than build processing. It's true in energy as well as minerals. Right. It's like all our oil.

[Podcast Announcer]

It's a manpower and a capital issue. I mean you only have 30 people based on who's doing the math and they're all up against, in a thin line against the southern border. So infrastructure is always going to be this weird combination of completely open and completely choked. And you have a lot of people who are on the very edge of retirement in Ontario and who have just retired in Quebec. And so capital is not nearly as available as it would likely need to be. But every year that you wait, that becomes more true and the cost of capital only goes up more and you get closer to the point where the Chinese system is going to collapse anyway anyway. So you, you have to do this. You might as well do it before labor and capital costs become even more onerous than they are now.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Yeah, it's a good point. It makes me think about Alberta, which is another topic I wanted to cover with you. But one of the, I mean in your update chapter in this, I know you kind of walk back some of your, your case for what you call the Alberta question here in Canada. For listeners who aren't aware, Alberta is our sort of Texas north, it's our oil producing region. The economy has diversified in the last 30 or 40 years with some effort, but it's still very dominated by energy. And Peter, you made a case in your original accidental superpower for Alberta joining the U.S. which it's always kind of flirted with over the years, especially back in the 80s when Trudeau Sr. Pierre Elliott introduced national energy program. Very unpopular. I lived in Calgary in the late 90s for a couple years, and people were still talking about that and how unhappy they were, even though it was walked back in 85. And so there's always been sort of.

[Podcast Announcer]

This, oh, it was searing for Alberta.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Very, very close to the heart. Basically, they, they kind of reallocated a lot of the economic benefit of the oil, of the oil revenues from Alberta to Ottawa and then who then turned it to the rest of us. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, so there was a case, you know, there has been a case on and off over the years for, for them to succeed and join, join the U.S. but even before the last eight weeks, there, there seemed to be less, in your, in your view, less appetite for that after, I guess, after witnessing one term of, of Trump. But, you know, we've still seen some, some grumblings there. You know, their, their premier, you know, was talking about trying to reallocate half the, the Canada pension plan assets to Alberta. She felt she had a claim on that a few months ago, which seemed like it was kind of girding for some type of secessionist movement. But I, I gotta think after the last eight weeks that even they might be thinking twice about that.

[Podcast Announcer]

Well, I don't mean to belittle the cultural aspect and difference between Canada and the United States, especially in light of the Trump administration, but the economic argument for secession is a lot weaker now than it was 15 years ago. And that's largely because under Harper and then later under Trudeau, you guys threw the doors open to immigration, which fleshed out the demographics, which reduced a lot of the fiscal burden that Albert. Alberta was bearing more or less by itself, or maybe hand in hand with Saskatchewan, now that you've brought in another 5 million people who are aged 20 to 45, it's leveled out the tax base in a way that just didn't play true 15 years ago. So 15 years ago, if the federal government in Canada wanted to do anything, the answer was always the same, Take more money from Alberta. Now there's a broader base.

[Mike Wahlberg]

So I want to circle back, Peter, on sort of the broader theme that you outlined at the beginning there, which is this deal that the US had set up with the rest of the world and assume that there is, you know, that Trump's policies now, I mean, we'll assume we don't understand what, what they're for or why. But you did set it up, you know, As a back against the backdrop of increasing willingness to abandon certain agreements or positions of being the global policeman, taking care of the world trade lanes and all of that. And at the end of your, in the end of the book here, you, you sort of, you, you paint a picture of what that looks like for the rest of the world. So other countries will no longer have the security of trade. The trade lanes won't be policed in the same way. It won't be good for them. And that will manifest itself in a number of ways. But one of the questions that kept popping up in my mind when I was reading that is that even if the US can go it alone and it doesn't need these trailers anymore, and it's energy independent because it's, you know, it's developed its shale production capacity, so it doesn't need the Saudis, it doesn't need access to the tankers to make it from, you know, from the Persian Gulf to the American shores. If it abandons that role as a global policeman, won't it still negatively impact Americans as well? I mean, they are still importers and exporters. They still need those trade lanes themselves. Even something as simple as travelers, which, you know, the baby boomers seem to be pretty keen on, on doing more and more as they get older. So what, what, what's the outlook for that?

[Podcast Announcer]

It's not that I think you're wrong. I just think it's such a small factor in the American political discussion that it's almost a rounding error. People who believe that George Herbert Walker Bush was onto something, people like me, we've lost nine federal elections in a row, and it would take a hell of a shock across the nation for that belief system to come back into vogue in a way that might affect policy. And it's certainly not going to happen under this administration.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Gotcha.

[Podcast Announcer]

My preference would be that if we are going to back away from the world, that we do it in a measured capacity, we do it in a style of retrenchment rather than isolationism, and we choose intelligently which countries to bring along with us to make a smaller version of globalization that is completely under the American umbrella that rides out the storm to come. But that's not the only way that it could be done. What Trump is doing is a much more haphazard, unplanned, disassociated version. But you gotta remember that most of the world, even if the United States really did want to be engaged and we don't, we're still gonna break. So we still need to prepare for a world where northeast Asia becomes a bit of a wasteland, we still need to prepare for a world where Europe falls back in the 1800s and when it comes to security policy. And if you're willing to absorb that into your mind, all of a sudden the Eastern hemisphere becomes something to isolate yourself from or at worst, or at best maybe manage from a distance. Which means that the United States is going to be far more focused on what it can see from home. And that means Mexico and Canada, while I would like to see them as part of the solution, could also be perceived in American politics as part of the problem. The point is you're going to be perceived and it's one thing to be like the 15th or 30th country on America's concern list when you're in the top three. It's a different world.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Yeah, so you kind of, you're redrawing the lines everywhere outside the U. S border. So I mean the rest of the world really has no choice but to band together in that sort of a scenario. Right, Right.

[Podcast Announcer]

But there's not enough young people, there's not enough people under age 55 in the advanced world for banding together to achieve anything.

[Mike Wahlberg]

So. So what does that look like then? Maybe you can walk us through the, the final chapter of your, of your book here.

[Podcast Announcer]

Well, at a minimum, we're looking at the national disassociation of the People's Republic of China as a political entity and as a modern. When we're looking at the end of the Eurozone and the EU as an economic entity, as the countries that do have more positive demographics, places like Sweden and France, basically hold their consumers dear and don't let anyone have excess. And so countries that were built around exporting to the wider world, Germany have to go through a complete economic overhaul. At the same time they have to go through a complete economic rearmy. I don't know if you remember your history from Europe the last three times the Germans did that, but shit got real. I think that's a very reasonable concern. As for the advanced developing world, the question is whether they've built up sufficient institutional and infrastructure capacity to kind of maybe not go it alone, but go it with a smaller circle of groups. Turkey looks very good in that regard. Indonesia looks pretty good. Brazil looks disastrous. It's a different story everywhere. Based on the combination of political structures, demographic structures and physical infrastructure that is already in place. It's. For most of these countries it's too late to do a mass build out. It's a question of what they'd have behind them already.

[Mike Wahlberg]

Well, this has been a enlightening and slightly depressing 20 minutes with with Peter Zion. Thank you so much for coming on today, Peter. It's always such so enlightening having these conversations with you. I really enjoy our chats. Peter's, as I mentioned, is going to be at the CFA Institute conference in Chicago in May. So be sure to check him out if you're down there. And also, you know, come find me too, as I'll be. Peter, as I mentioned, is a speaker, author, YouTube sensation and founder of Zion on Geopolitics. Thanks again, Peter, for coming on the show today.

[Podcast Announcer]

My pleasure.

[Mike Wahlberg]

I'm Mike Wahlberg, and this has been the enterprising investor.