Comments by "Carey\x27s Corner" (@careylymanjones) on "Peter Zeihan || Is India the Next China?" video.

@mrgyani Peter's thesis is that Globalization is living on borrowed time, because it is dependent on America, and America is tired of Globalization. And when America stops supporting Globalism, the countries that depend on it face economic disaster. India stayed out of the Globalist system, so when America goes full protectionist and calls its navy home, India will lose nothing, while China will lose everything. As an American, I think Peter is right about America's declining support for Globalism. In 7 of our last 8 Presidential elections, Americans voted for the less Globalist candidate. And in the last one, NEITHER candidate gave a damn about Globalism. China's days are numbered, and that number is getting smaller, by the day. India should be eternally thankful it did not climb out on the Globalist limb. It's about to break off.
8
Short version is that prior to globalization, you traded within your empire, which was defined by what YOUR navy could protect. Trading beyond your navy's reach, or at least what armed merchantmen could reach, was an invitation to piracy, possibly state-supported piracy. As an example, the Spanish had problems with Brits raiding their treasure fleets from the Americas. The current Globalist system replaced the hodgepodge of imperial navies patrolling the seas with the US Navy, which was larger than everyone else's navies, combined. This let anyone trade with anyone for anything, and a lot of nations were able to industrialize by importing commodities they lacked. But America is tired of sending its ships abroad to protect and subsidize the profits of Chinese slavemasters. The only reason we started, in the first place, was to buy allies against the Soviets. The Soviets are 30 years gone. Globalism was never profitable for America, compared to what leveraging its market's power for domestic growth would have yielded. It is time, and past time, that America quit subsidizing its global competitors. When America stops being the policeman of the world's oceans, the First Island Chain will become Pirate Central. ALL of China's global maritime trade will be vulnerable to piracy, including state-supported piracy. None of China's neighbors would weep over Chinese losses to pirates. It's not difficult to see India charging "tolls" on China's Middle Eastern oil shipments. China would have little choice but to pay whatever India demanded, as it lacks the blue water ships to contest the Indian Ocean against the Indian Navy AND Air Force. ANY sea lane beyond the reach of anyone's navy will become a haven for piracy. The Strait of Malacca and the West Coast of Africa will see upsurges in piracy. Finally, some of the nations that were able to industrialize by importing needed materials will be unable to maintain their industries. They will de-industrialize and have to go back to agrarian economies that may not be able to feed their people
8
India has the Himalayas between them and China. Geography matters. For that matter, if China annoys India too much, in the aftermath of the Globalist system, India is well-positioned to cut off China's Middle Eastern and African oil imports. China doesn't begin to have the blue water ships to tangle with India in the Indian Ocean.
5
@MrOkadaman28 Sub-Saharan Africa is so geographically hosed that George Washington, Constantine the Great, and the Golden Emperor couldn't build an industrial civilization there. Sub-Saharan Africa is fragmented into tribes, because it has no geographical features, such as navigable rivers, to unite Africans. Civilizations grow in river valleys. Rivers create opportunities for trade that bind a country together. Egypt is the creation of the Nile. Europe is the creation of its numerous navigable rivers. The United States is the creation of the Greater Mississippi River Basin. Russia is poor, to this day, because of its lack of navigable waterways.
4
@Bigbudd0045 India has oceans and the world's highest mountains between it and China. And China's oil supply lines run through Indian-controlled waters. China doesn't pose a serious military threat to India. Wars are won by logistics. And China's logistics in a war with India are untenable.
3
@SnowRookie India is certainly in a better position, demographically, than China, South Korea, Japan, etc. India has the 20-40 year-olds to have healthy demand. India's problem is that they're relatively poor. If India had the per capita income of say, Japan, it would be a huge market. India is definitely the best of the BRICS, looking forward. Their demography is better than most. They're close to the Persian Gulf and Australia, giving them good access to energy and raw materials. They have strong borders, protected by oceans and mountains. They don't have the navigable river system that Europe and the US have, but you can't have everything.
3
@fitnessleague909 First, China gets about 30% of its oil domestically. Of the other 70%, about 30% comes from Russia, by pipeline. The rest comes from the Middle East and Africa. This oil passes within easy reach of the Indian Navy, and is too far from China for the Chinese Navy to effectively protect it. It's just under half of China's oil supply. China's navy is about 90% short-ranged coastal defense vessels that don't have the range to reach the Indian Ocean. Second, the Indian Navy, operating in the Indian Ocean, would have support from the Indian Air Force. Within the China Seas, the PLAN is a nasty handful, but it's not a blue water force capable of long-range power projection.
3
@SnowRookie If you're talking about the effects of external demand on export-driven economies, such as China's, it's fairly straightforward. China produces more than its domestic economy can consume. If China cannot export, its economy collapses. China is dependent on its trading partners having robust demand for its goods. When America (or any other Chinese trading partner) has a decline in demand, China cannot sell as much. Recessions, or even demographic shifts, can reduce demand. Demand in a country is largely driven by its 20-40 year-old demographic, young adults buying houses and cars and raising kids. Western Europe's baby boomers didn't have large families, so their 20-40 year-old demographic is small, relative to the United States, whose baby boomers did have larger families. America has the largest 20-40 year-old demographic of any developed country. Export-driven economies, such as China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc. NEED access to the US market. No other country in the world can absorb as much imported goods as America. But even if they have free access, if America has a recession, demand will drop, and the export-driven countries will be hurt. And if America becomes angry enough to shut an export-driven country out of its market, that country is in severe economic trouble.
2
@Ea-pb2tu The EU's demographics are so bad, they're becoming export-driven. They don't have the 20-40 year-olds to drive demand high enough to absorb their own goods, let alone Asia's. The only developed nation with the demographics to drive strong demand is the US. And the US is getting tired of Globalism's damaging effects on our economy. In seven of the last eight presidential elections, we voted for the candidate who was less Globalist. And in the last election NEITHER candidate was by any stretch of the imagination Globalist. America is tired of bearing the burdens of Globalism so that a handful of investors can make billions, while working Americans get screwed. It won't be long before America withdraws its protection of the sea lanes. And when that happens, nations without navies will become de facto colonies of nations that do.
2
India and China could square off, for real, some day. India would be able to cut off Chinese imports of Middle Eastern oil, which would devastate China's economy, likely resulting in major famine in China. China's major rivers originate in Tibet, too. Which is what has driven China's conquest of Tibet. Here's a link to a video of Peter's address to the Indian Economic Conclave. https://youtu.be/QD5GqMainjY
2
Based on his books, I don't think he worries about peak oil and gas, thanks to the shale revolution. We've figured out how to extract oil and gas from shale cheaply, and more importantly, quickly. Shale oil production can easily be expanded in times of high demand by extending existing horizontal drill runs, or drilling new horizontal runs from an existing well head. Shale oil fields are also inland, so they're not really affected by hurricanes the way offshore wells are.
2
@deezeed2817 And when your trading partners turn away from you, as America is about to do, you're screwed. The Globalist system depends upon American support, both trade and military, and Americans are tired of providing that support. We didn't do it to benefit OUR economy, we did it to buy allies against the Soviets. The Soviets are 30 years gone, now, and Americans are tired of sending our good manufacturing jobs to China. In 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections, we elected the less Globalist candidate. And in the last election, NEITHER candidate gave a damn about maintaining global trade. China is doomed. Even Apple is pulling out of China. It recently committed half a billion dollars to building facilities in India, to replace the ones they have in China. Sony has pulled camera production for non-Chinese markets out of China. China tied it's economy so closely to the Globalist system that when that system falls (and it will fall, soon), China is done. India should thank all of its gods it did not emulate China.
1
@ursodermatt8809 And unlike China, which, without the global trade system, loses everything it has built in the last 30 years. When America closes its markets to China, when America withdraws its protection of Chinese shipping, China is done. China is dependent on maritime trade its navy cannot protect, with a trading partner it CANNOT replace. A trading partner that is increasingly hostile to China. American companies are no longer investing in China. Even Apple is building factories in India, because it can't depend on its Chinese factories. Long-term, India is far better off than China is. China is doomed as an industrial power. And the collapse will probably happen before this decade is over. India is closer to raw materials suppliers than China is. India has not angered everybody who might buy its products. India has much healthier demographics.
1
@mrgyani And by missing the globalization bus, India will miss when the globalization bus runs off a cliff. Globalization requires America's active participation to continue. America's navy guards the sea lanes, which enables the cheap, secure, shipping that globalization requires. Not to mention America accepting the world's exports. If America stops doing either of those things, globalization is done. There is no other navy that can patrol the world's oceans. There is no other export market to match America. In 7 of the last 8 elections, Americans chose the less globalist presidential candidate. Clinton beat Bush I and Dole. Bush II beat Gore and Kerry. Obama beat McCain and Romney. Trump beat Clinton. And in the last election, NEITHER candidate was globalist. Biden continued Trump's anti-China policies and expanded on them. Americans are tired of being the world's policeman. We will still respond to major aggressions, such as Ukraine, but little stuff, like piracy, not so much. It's not worth America's time, treasure, and blood to protect the profits of Chinese slavemasters.
1
apocain Or China. About half of China's oil passes through the Malacca Strait. Actually, India wouldn't have to wait until the ships reached the Malacca Strait. India could be pick them off coming out of the Persian Gulf. Easy enough for the Indians to reach, and pretty much impossible for China to protect.
1
apocain A couple of ships get sunk, and no more private insurance. No more private insurance, and no one will carry cargoes to China unless the Chinese government provides insurance. Good luck collecting from the Chinese government. Russia's having problems with that now. The Russian government is having to insure tankers carrying Russian oil, because private insurance companies all stopped. Anything happens to one of those tankers, and Russia's out of the oil export business, at least oil shipped by tanker. China simply doesn't have the blue water ships to convoy tankers to and from the Persian Gulf. China doesn't have the reach to convoy freighters anywhere beyond the First Island Chain. Which means that if China provokes any naval power beyond its navy's reach (India, Japan, and the US, to name three) , it will find itself under a blockade it cannot break.
1
apocain Building fleets of ships requires energy resources that China doesn't have, domestically, and must import. Approximately half of China's oil comes from the Persian Gulf. If that is cut off, China doesn't have fuel to plant its crops, feed stocks to make fertilizer and pesticides, fuel to harvest what it DOES grow, or fuel to distribute what it manages to harvest. And without food imports to make up the difference, China is looking at up to half a billion dead of famine. I'm thinking the survivors might decide Xi has lost the Mandate of Heaven. You should probably find some sources other than the SCMP. And China's "second largest fleet" is 90% frigates, corvettes, and torpedo fasts, with insufficient range to project power beyond the First Island Chain, at maximum. And if the Chinese Navy were foolish enough to sortie beyond its land-based air and missile support, it would quickly become Chinese Junk, courtesy of air strikes by American Carrier Battle Groups. Two, possibly three Carrier Battle Groups would be quite sufficient to dispatch any elements of the Chinese Navy capable of sailing beyond the First Island Chain. In the event of war between the US and China, we would cut off China's access to food, energy, and other raw materials imports, through sanctions, and by sinking every merchant ship leaving a Chinese port. We would pick them up by satellite recon, track them until they were beyond the range of the Chinese Navy, and sink them, or take them and their cargoes as prizes of war. China's economy is export-driven. China's domestic demand cannot begin to absorb China's manufacturing capacity. Deprived of foreign markets, China's economy crashes. Of all of America's enemies, I worry about China the least.
1
apocain China is a nation whose economy is COMPLETELY dependent on maritime trade its navy cannot protect. Without Persian Gulf oil, both China's industrial and agricultural sectors would collapse. Without Persian Gulf oil, China would lack fuel to plant crops, feed stocks to make fertilizer and pesticides, fuel to harvest and distribute what it did manage to grow. Without food imports to make up the shortage, expect up to half a billion starved to death. In a war with China, not one American soldier would set foot on Chinese soil, except to accept China's surrender. Every ship leaving a Chinese port would be tracked by satellite until it was beyond the effective range of China's navy, at which point it would be seized or sunk. China's ports are among the busiest in the world because, as part of the globalist system, America's navy has protected the ships sailing there. If America withdraws that protection, or worse, preys upon Chinese shipping, China is finished. Wars are won and lost by logistics. And in a war with the US, China's logistics are in worse shape than China's demographics.
1
apocain While the Chinese Navy is fairly capable within the China Sea, it does not have enough ships with enough range to fight the Indian Navy AND the Indian Air Force in the Indian Ocean. China hasn't had a blue water navy or admiral since Zheng He. And the Trans-Siberian Railroad is not an answer to China's shipping needs. The TSR moves about 200,000 shipping containers per year. Divide by two to get the east to west traffic and you have 100,000. Russia probably can't afford to commit more than 20% of that to Chinese goods without neglecting its own domestic needs. 20,000 containers divided by 365 days is about 55 containers per day. About one short freight train per day. That doesn't begin to meet China's shipping needs. And shipping by rail is much more expensive than shipping by ocean. As for the Belt and Road land projects, trying to move goods through lawless areas such as NW Pakistan is hopeless. The Pakistani government doesn't control NW Pakistan, and if China thinks it can do what neither the US, the Brits, or the Pakistani government has ever managed to do, try it, and learn the hard way. And even if you could, you're still shipping by land, which is many times more expensive than ocean shipping. Of course, in the event of war with the US, China's shipping problems would be greatly simplified, because America and its allies would close their markets to Chinese exports. Exactly who are you counting on to make up that loss? Russia? I've already pointed out the shortcomings of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Europe? A half-dozen of our old Los Angeles class submarines operating off the coast of South Africa would take care of that.
1
apocain And how will China maintain that production capacity without fuel to run its farm machinery, without (oil) feed stocks to make fertilizer and pesticides, without fuel to distribute what it manages to harvest? Modern China is the country that globalization built. Cut it off from global markets, and industrial China withers and dies. Of course, China is in a demographic death spiral, thanks to One Child. Forty years of One Child have gutted China's under-40 demographics. 20-40 year-olds drive a country's domestic demand, as they buy houses, cars, and raise children. But China doesn't have enough 20-40 year-olds to absorb its industrial capacity, they're not having children, and China has whole cities with no one living in them. Chinese labor shortages have driven Chinese wages through the roof. China survives as an industrial power only because many companies have been unwilling to walk away from the factories they built in China. But that's changing. Even Apple, one of China's best friends in the west, is moving to India, due to high labor costs, and China's failed Covid policies. I think it unlikely that China will be anywhere near its current power in 2030.
1
First World problem.
1
@SolaceEasy And they will have mountains and oceans between them and India. Strong borders matter. Weak borders are what is driving Russia to try to reconquer the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact nations. Russia's borders are terrible. the Warsaw Pact's borders were pretty good. Putin wants them back. Hence, Ukraine.
1
@MrOkadaman28 Sub Saharan Africa has had numerous empires, but no industrial civilizations, and little civilization, period. The importance of good water transportation is difficult to overstate. There is simply no way of transporting bulk goods, whether it is wheat or iron ore, or processed iron and steel, that comes close to water, either in capacity or cost. And then, there's the fact that building roads in the tropics is difficult and expensive, at best. Tarmac softens and spreads out in the summer heat. Concrete doesn't set up properly in the high humidity. Brazil has similar problems with its roads. And without a unifying transport net to connect people and get them to look beyond their neighborhood, tribalism becomes the norm.
1