Jacob Shapiro: Hello listeners.
Welcome to another episode of Geopolitical Cousins.
Marco and I are back at it.
Uh, if you are looking for the geopolitical power draft, that is gonna
happen in the backend of the podcast.
We spend the first 40, 45 minutes or so talking about some things happening
in the world, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, uh,
and then in the latter half of the podcast we do a geopolitical draft.
We're picking the most powerful countries in the world over the next 30 years.
We need your input.
We didn't finish the draft.
We're probably gonna have, we'll complete the draft and have some, uh, some feedback
on it and argue about different placements and things like that in the next one.
So, um, if you have any questions, comments, concerns, you can email
me at jacob@jacobshapiro.com.
For now, we need to get a, an email address just for the podcast
itself, but in the meantime, if you send an email there, it will get
to both me and Marco, I promise.
Um, otherwise.
Uh, hope you are all staying well out there.
Enjoy cousins.
We'll see you soon.
Alright, cousin, before we start, um, I think we have to start with the travesty
that is geopolitical analysts being forced to fly commercial in this day and age.
I think when we look back 50, 70 years from now, it would be like NBA players,
you know, today they wouldn't fly commercial at all, but you know, they used
to have to go on buses and things like that, all of which is a wind up to say why
has the nation of gutter not provided an airplane for you and I to fly around the
world and give our geopolitical briefings?
I mean, like, I think we're just as important as President
Trump, don't you think?
Marko: I would, I would, I would say in many ways, perhaps we're more important.
I mean, first of all, we both, uh, pride ourselves in our objectivity.
I am a nihilist, bathed in aloof indifference and therefore if you want
me to say nice things about you, you should provide me with a plane as well.
Although I guess that would like.
Take away that aloof indifference.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
You see, I'm the opposite side of this.
Like I'm a, I'm like a true Socratic student here, which is I will
continue to say bad things about you.
And because I say these bad things about you, I deserve all of the things
that you're supposed to give me.
So you Cutter should give me this plane because I will be a truth teller and
tell you about how you're just a random,
Marko: what's just another plane.
Come on.
You know, like you have, by the way, uh, no country in the world has
more oversupply than Qatar, and I say that, uh, because they've built
too many stadiums, too many office buildings, too much of l and g supply.
There's literally too much of everything.
So just give us an office building and an airplane, and I think
that, you know, we'll, we'll bring the demand to the region.
There you go.
Yeah, exactly.
By the way, can I, can I go off for a second?
Can I go off?
Please
Jacob Shapiro: go.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So that's why we have a podcast.
Marko: That's right.
Yeah.
I'll link this whole hand wringing over, uh, the United States
of America accepting a gift.
Like, first and foremost, let's be very clear.
Is it a gift to President Trump?
I mean, no, it's not, it's not his personal plane.
It's a gift to America.
Well,
Jacob Shapiro: it, it will be in four years.
His personal plane.
Marko: Will it?
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
It, it reverts to the Trump Foundation after Trump leaves office.
Marko: Oh, okay.
Well, I was about to go off and now I have nothing to, okay.
Yeah.
And,
Jacob Shapiro: and prob probably the, probably the Trump Presidential Library
will be built in Doha for all I know.
It seems like a good place to put Zens.
No,
Marko: listen, uh, I mean, I agree.
I agree.
We are.
The hay rigging is appropriate.
Okay.
Jacob Shapiro: I don't know.
I, I I think it's still, uh, not inappropriate.
I mean, it, it's, um, yeah, I'm, I'm just double checking myself,
but what were you going to say?
Marko: Well, I mean, I was gonna say like, you know, countries do
accept gifts from other countries, and it's perfectly appropriate.
I mean, it can be a favor, it can be a diplomatic favor, it
can be a, a, a material gift.
It's, it's not inappropriate for a country to try to curry favor
with another one with a gift.
That's perfectly fine.
Uh, the United States of America has donated billions, hundreds of billions
of dollars worth of weapons to its allies around the world through either vendor
financing or simply through grants.
Um, you know, there was like a helicopter, uh, gift to the Philippines,
so they wouldn't buy, I think Russian ones like this does happen.
So, uh, but if it's gonna revert to a President Trump's
personal plane, then hmm.
More difficult to defend.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
So, so I, I, I'm glad I double check myself.
So, a, b, C News, this is the original report and, you know, a, b, c News,
who knows May, and they're, they're citing sources who have, uh, you
know, a window into the agreement.
But so the idea is that Trump, the Trump administration will accept the Boeing 7
47 jumbo jet, which can be used in media as Air Force One until shortly before he
leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the
Trump Presidential Library Foundation.
Sources familiar with the proposed arrangement, told a, b, c news.
Um, but I, I was gonna double down here.
Like I, I'm, um, 'cause even, like even my, uh, my evil nemes twin nemesis, Ben
Shapiro was out there being like, okay, president Trump, like this is not okay.
And I don't get the pearl clutching like, okay, so grab him by the pussy.
Didn't matter to you.
And January 6th didn't matter to you.
And all of the odious and gross and corrupt things
that happen in all politics.
I think Trump is just a little more open about it than most.
But like all the gross things that happen, this is the one.
This is the one where, oh my God, like this is absolutely unacceptable
that you're accepting this plane to be used for a couple of years.
Yeah, and Trump knows it.
Like he has the measure of his base because his base is gonna look
at this and be like, he's a boss.
He got the Middle Eastern guys to give him a fucking plane.
That's awesome.
I also wanna play, and that was my initial reaction too, while the Democrats are
like, aha, proof that he's truly evil, this will be the thing that convinces
the US electorate that he's really bad.
Like my God guys.
Come on.
Well,
Marko: you know, first of all, I think we just have to get you and Ben on
the show and call it the Shapiros.
That's it.
That's like, that's like, why are you here with me?
I'm, I'm, I'm a nobody.
You should be with Ben, first and foremost.
That would be amazing.
Second of all, I think what's interesting about this is that it reveals a level
of discrimination, and quite frankly, not like racism, but Islamophobia.
So it's basically okay if there's graft, but if it comes from Qatar,
which you know, like supposedly supports terrorism, which it really doesn't.
I mean, it's offered a forum for negotiations and for peace for a number
of different, uh, you know, parties.
It doesn't like, and by the way, who does the finance terrorism?
Come on.
Give him a break.
But when it's cut, they're giving you a plane.
Yeah, but
Jacob Shapiro: like the head, they have the headquarters of Hama.
I mean, you know, it's a little,
Marko: you know,
Jacob Shapiro: like, I, I get you, but on the spec, like it's a spectrum.
Okay.
It, it's a spectrum, but they're a little more, they're a little more on
the terrorism spectrum than others.
See, I, I just lost my plane privileges.
Marko: You, you definitely lost your plane, but please note Doha.
I still keep my plain privileges.
Look, here's the point though.
Like, I think what, what differentiates this from like, uh,
the crypto coins or everything else?
I think what differentiate is differentiates it is that in the mind
of many Indian American public, it comes from a Middle Eastern country.
Uh, that's on the spectrum of supporting or hosting.
Some odious actors and I think that that's kind of, uh, interesting to me that that
was what triggered the, uh, criticism from both the left and the right.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
I mean, you know, also CENTCOM is like based in gutter, so it's like, uh, like
the US military is also there, there too.
Everybody's there together.
Um, well we could go on for a long time here, but I think this is a good way
maybe to back in Marco jokes aside to some serious stuff to talk about before
we get into the main reason people are here, which is another geopolitical draft.
Um, and I think there's a couple ways to skin this cat, but you know, I
think we were prescient to talk about the Middle East and the last podcast
and there has been some development there, um, in the past couple of days.
Uh, prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel, basically saying that
Israel is willing to go alone to defend itself after the US Houthis deal.
Um.
Sources suggesting from the White House that President Trump is
frustrated with Netanyahu, like, insert Biden into that sentence.
And it could have been exactly the same.
Um, and there's also, I, I've been very struck by, you know, the Trump visit and
this huge visit to Saudi Arabia where you just were like, Sam Altman is there.
And, um, CEO of Nvidia is there.
The United States, um, just yesterday announced that it was getting
rid of some export controls on AI chips and imposing completely new
restrictions on Huawei's AI chips.
You've got people telling local media aha, while investors are gonna
have to choose between a Chinese led AI world and a US AI led world.
And I was also just struck, like I saw a picture of Trump standing with
all these world leaders and then all these Saudi shakes and all of these
like tech bros and things like that.
And I'm like.
There is such cognitive dissonance for me because like who in geopolitics could have
predicted in the year of our Lord 2025, that the most powerful people in the world
would gather in the middle of the Arabian desert and pay homage to the Saudi Arabian
King in order to make the decisions that will decide the future of technology and
AI and all these other different things.
Like it doesn't, like something does not compute there, seeing like the
CEO of Nvidia, like, and Sam Altman like trying to like ingratiate
themselves to Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Trump standing next to him.
Like all that was missing was Toby Keith, uh, may he rest in peace coming
back to like do a, a another con concert from the Dead for the audience.
So take that whatever direction you want.
But I, I have some dissonance this morning about all this.
Marko: So first of all, I just wanna say that that was a really
prescient, uh, podcast that you and I did together, right?
So like, first of all, I think you called the American Pope.
I think that was the same one right?
Jacob Shapiro: That was, that was the previous one.
So we're on a roll.
Oh, my roll.
We're like two, two.
Oh, my bad.
We're good.
Yeah.
Marko: Okay, cool.
So you called, uh, the Ameri, uh, the American Pope, which was awesome.
This is why you should be listening to this podcast.
I mean, like, who else would've done that?
And then the second thing is that in the other broadcast, uh, episode we talked
about like, Bibi is playing with fire.
Donald Trump is not pro-ISIS Israel.
And what's beautiful about that statement is that I made everybody mad right now.
Right?
If you're on the right, you're like, no, he is, you know, he
moved the capital to Jerusalem.
I'm like, eh, like nobody cares about that.
Guys.
Like, uh, people who care about that don't matter.
Lemme just put it that way on both sides.
Sorry.
And then the second thing is like, obviously if you're on the left and
liberal, you're like, of course he does.
He let Israel do whatever they want.
And the truth is that Donald Trump is pro Donald Trump.
I think if you support Donald Trump and you give him a lot of benefit of
the doubt he's pro-America, if you are a little bit more nihilist than
maybe objective, you're just saying like, look, he's pro Donald Trump.
And the problem with Benjamin Netanyahu is that his domestic constraints are forcing
him to be extremely aggressive against Palestinians, whether in GA and West Bank.
And Donald Trump wants peace and equilibrium.
And so, yeah, like this is what we talked about last podcast.
I really don't have anything to add to that.
Bibi is playing with fire if he thinks that, you know, uh, the Israel lobby
in the United States of America.
If he thinks that his relationship with Trump, if he thinks that some idiotic
notion of American long-term strategic interests in backing Israel are going to
save him and his relationship with the United States, he is absolutely wrong.
And this could go sideways, very badly for Israel over the next 12 months.
Uh, so that's the first thing I think.
I mean, you don't wanna, you wanna pick a fight with the US president, like
whoever you are, it's just, it's not something you want to do, but especially
if you're a country of 10 million, you know, like why would you do that?
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
I I, before we move on to the Saudi Arabia stuff, 'cause I really do want to get your
take on that, 'cause you've been there and, and you've been ahead of this on
me and have a different view than I do.
Um, I think you're right about, um, Netanyahu and I, I wanna make two points.
The first is that I think Netanyahu was guilty of what a lot of foreign leaders
are, and even some policy makers in the United States, which is thinking
of President Trump as a useful idiot.
And I think he's many things, but he's not gonna be your monkey.
You're not gonna pull the strings.
And I think it was in Trump's interest in the first term, and you also
had Kushner very deeply inside the administration to where, and you know,
Trump had made promises about Iran.
Israel was gonna be a partner there, like Israel was useful to
him and that was all useful to his base and he pushed it forward.
And I think I. My hunch is that Netanyahu thought, oh, I have
this good standing relationship.
I'm just gonna say nice things.
I'm gonna be the one that's in his corner.
You might remember Israel was like one of the first countries to say
zero tariffs, like, we're good.
Like please no tariffs.
And then the Israelis were shocked when they were on the penguin tariff
list because they thought that they had headed it off at the past.
Um, so to your point, like President Trump cares for better and for worse
about President Trump, and so he will do whatever is in his interest and
he's not a moron as much as people may want to think he's a moron.
Howard Lutnick, I think the discussion about whether he's a moron is
actually a much more pertinent one.
The second thing though, and I, and I want to tie this in before you take, take it.
Before we get to Saudi Arabia, says, I wonder if there's a little bit of a
metaphor here also on what's happened with India and Pakistan because
the last time we spoke, India and Pakistan were going back and forth.
Things were ratcheting up.
You and I were both getting questions on Twitter.
Thank you.
Or X or whatever.
Thank everyone for asking you.
What do you guys think about this as an investment perspective?
Is it World War II or things spiraling outta control and then we have a
ceasefire, but we have the United States and President Trump in particular
claiming credit for the ceasefire and not really taking a Proin Indian stance.
Like Narendra.
Modi's not happy about the way that the US has intervened here.
He didn't even say that the US had done anything as part of the ceasefire
in his official comments yesterday.
And it, it was a lot of, what about is like, Trump's quote was basically
like, stop trading bombs, trade the nice things that you make with each other.
Can't you guys get along?
Rather than being like, no, India has a right to defend itself against terrorism.
India is the rightful holder of Kashmir.
India is all the things that India wants to be.
So I wonder like, you know, we can talk about Israel until we're blue in the face.
It's honestly not that geopolitically important in the end.
But I think the same thing just happened with India, which is India and Ra.
Modi thought, Hey, Trump is in our corner, so if we have to go after Pakistan or
Kashmir these other things, they're gonna support us a hundred percent.
JD Vance was just here, probably told us something like that, and yet you get
this little breakout of war and Trump is like, please stop bombing each other.
I don't want any of this.
I'm not gonna support you.
I just want you guys to stop bombing each other and I wanna take
credit for it 'cause I'm building my resume for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Okay.
Sorry, you go.
Marko: I have nothing to add to what you said.
I think that, uh, this goes back to the argument we had, not argument, but the,
the point I made in the last, uh, episode where I said that, you know, you can,
you can compare American geopolitical benevolence influence, uh, to QE to
just want the liquidity in the markets, which creates distortions and libria.
And the United States of America is withdrawing that benevolence.
It's changing its outlook.
It's acting like the most powerful country in a world, in a multipolar world.
It's not acting as a provider of hegemonic stability.
Um, and President Trump said something yesterday that quite frankly is the
most profound statement by any American legislator legislature on foreign
policy, maybe this entire century, if not even since World War ii.
Um.
Hillary Clinton famously said, America doesn't recognize fears
of influence, which as I joke, is like a ridiculous statement.
It's like, okay, cool.
Um, what does that mean?
You know?
But what President Trump said is the diametrically opposite of that,
which is, and I'm gonna quote it, is, it is God's job to sit in judgment.
It is my job to defend America.
I will never hesitate to wield American power to defend the United States.
But the point is that it's actually a really like profound statement.
Uh, the US is not going to judge.
It's not going to be making moralistic, normative, moralistic,
or normative calls or claims.
It's not gonna pursue a moralistic or normative foreign policy.
It's going to focus on the American interests.
And I think that in a way that is far easier for the rest of the
world to deal with because it's cleaner, it's more objective, and it
doesn't change with who's in charge.
You know, presumably, unless of course somebody replaces President
Trump who says, no, no, no, actually we will sit in judgment.
Um, so I thought that was very important in dovetail with everything you're saying.
I mean, that is the change that's happened.
And so that's why President Trump is open to making deals and being
a peacemaker in an objective way.
In a way.
Um, so it's going to rankle.
It's going to rankle and it's going to frustrate a lot of countries that thoughts
that they were morally superior, that they were on the right side of history,
that they were, uh, fighting with America against evil and tyranny around the world.
You know, that's who's gonna rankle.
But I think from a just purely.
Objective perspective.
It's also going to make it easier for the US to actually act as a peacemaker
and create libria around the world.
Not a popular take, especially with a lot of our listeners who
lean more progressive and liberal.
But in a multipolar world, I think it's very dangerous for the United
States to pursue normative judgment calls because it doesn't have the
wanton power to effectively prosecute.
Moral judgment.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I, um, I, you, I wanna say that you're right about
the macro, but wrong about the micro here, but, so this was something else
I wanted to juxtapose the, the, the meetings in Saudi Arabia and all these
pictures that have been creating this dissonance for me at the same time
and much less covered, but covered.
I'm not, I don't wanna say that nobody is covering this.
Um, the, um, the Clac summit.
So the community of Latin American, Caribbean states is
happening in China right now.
And, um.
One of the things that Chinese President Xi Jinping said in his
opening address to the Clac Summit was China's and the countries of
Latin America and the Caribbean are important members of the global South.
Independence is our glorious tradition.
Development and revitalization, our natural right and fairness
and justice are common pursuit.
And as part of that, president Xi has opened up a new $66
billion Yuan credit line.
That's about $9 billion.
Has talked about all the different sources of funding that he wants to do there.
Uh, president Lula from Brazil had some very strong things to say
about President Trump, basically lashing out at everybody else on
planet Earth that China is the one.
That has been treated like an enemy, except it's the one that is quote,
behaving like an example of a country that is trying to do business with countries
which have been forgotten by others.
End quote.
So like more shots fired at the United States.
So while you have Trump and scent and the Nvidia CEO and all, and you know,
Mohammad bin Salman sitting there in, in Saudi Arabia and announcing
all these investments and plans and multipolarity and great deep things,
you ironically have Xi Jinping taking up the mantle of, I won't call it
liberalism, but using some of the vocabulary of lib liberalism, using China
to say, we will be the force for good.
We will be the force for development for a better future.
And by the way, all these countries that are in America's backyard that
America has ignored, they're off gallivanting around the Arabian desert.
Uh, you, Brazil, you Chile, you Columbia.
Come to China, take our yuan credit, swap lines, trade with us.
We're interested in closer relations.
The, the juxtaposition couldn't be sharper to me.
Marko: Yeah.
But I, I don't think that you're correct in that it's a moral normative play.
It's merely saying like, we will help you with your economic development.
So in other words, president Xi invited Latin American leaders to basically
make the same pitch as President Trump is making in the Middle East, which
is that look work with us and we will bring economic development to you.
We're not gonna bring normative, moralistic, you know, policies.
We're not going to give you a lecture.
We will give you a loan.
And I think that that's, so it kind of dovetails with what I'm saying.
I think it's, China's always done what you just described, I think over the
past 20 years at least, uh, with a belt and road initiative with, um, I.
Rebuilding supply chains around the world.
I think it's the US that's catching up to Chinese foreign policy.
In other words, both sides are kind of pursuing the same thing.
By the way, I apologize for my dog.
I dunno what's going on, but you know, hopefully he's not
gonna tear someone apart.
I'm,
Jacob Shapiro: I'm sure he's keeping you safe and I'm, I'm so glad
to have a real disagreement with you because I think you're wrong.
Um, I think that, um.
China is, is not saying what you're saying, which is, yes, it's about economic
development, but it's economic economic development that is driven by openness.
They are making a normative claim that the way to growth is no trade barriers.
The way to growth is China needs to be able to import commodities from Latin
America for as cheaply as possible.
And in return you get access to the Chinese market.
And if you raise protections against these commodities, if you raise tariffs
because the United States told you to do so, if you say bad things about
China, or if you embrace Taiwan, uh, you know, some of these countries, the
countries that are remaining in the world that still recognize Taiwan over the
United States, most of them in, uh, uh, Latin America, really Central America.
And those have been sort of falling by the wayside.
So Xi Jinping is, he's saying, no, we are the country of openness.
We want free trade.
We want everything to go together, and we have these needs.
And if you get these needs, like you'll get access to the Chinese market, you'll,
you'll get your things going forward.
And, and as for Trump, like, um.
I don't know, like you're saying, like, I, I hear you in, in, in trying to make
something out of that speech, and I, I saw, I saw that speech making the rounds
and about defending, um, the United States, but it's a particular view of
the United States, and it's about closing the United States off to some countries.
I mean, he's picking a battle with China in the long term.
There's something normative about picking China as this adversary, although of
course tariffs have gone away now.
So he's like sort of capitulated.
I don't know, but I, I, the, the only thing I'm trying to say is I think
there is something normative about China being the force for openness,
trade openness, and the United States saying, no, it's a protectionist world.
There are spheres of influence.
If you, if you, if we don't like you, you don't get our ships.
And if you're a company that does bad things, like we're gonna sanction you.
Whereas China doesn't want any of that.
But I think push back if you want.
Marko: No, I, I mean, I would just say I think we need to wait like six,
12 months to see where, uh, you know, the trade conflict settles, right?
Because if it settles with America, basically just getting some deals and
ultimately trade continuing, I think then.
We're at the same, you know, nothing really changed.
So I think we just need to see where it settles.
Uh, but yeah, no, it's, it's very interesting and I think that, uh, uh,
going back to your original point, you know about, you know, your shock,
that like Saudi Arabia is at the epicenter of a lot of these things.
What I would say is, so to, to take the other side of that, you know, I've been
going to Saudi Arabia for 10 years.
Uh, I grew up part of my life in the Middle East.
And so, um, been on the ground in Saudi Arabia since probably
2014, uh, once a year except for Covid and a subsequent couple of
years when nobody really traveled.
But, uh, no country has changed more on the planet than Saudi Arabia.
And I compare what's going on there to the Maji restoration.
Like that's how profound I think it is.
Uh, I think Saudi Arabia has been beset by a lot of, uh, existential risks
over the last five years, 10 years.
I. And, uh, I think that their pivot is 180 degree turn.
And the reason that they're able to do the 180 degree turn, and this is where I think
Western analysts and just commentators, I think what they don't realize is
how, uh, you know, how absolutely unnecessary, not, not unnecessary, but
how arbitrary the conservative tilt in Saudi Arabia was in 1979, Saudi
Arabia had very low state capacity.
What does state capacity mean?
It like ability to, like collect revenue, build an army, defend
itself, pursue a foreign policy.
In 1979, Saudi Arabia had really no state capacity.
Um, it had existed as a modern state for like 15 years at
that point, quite frankly.
And so in 19 79, 2 things happened that really threatened the
very existence of this country.
One was the Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran.
It brought a dramatic shift to the region.
And the other ones was the attack on the Grand Mosque in 1979 in Riyadh, um, which
Saudi Arabia couldn't resolve by itself.
It had to bring in French intelligence and French special
forces to liberate the Grand Mosque.
So these two things accelerated Saudi Arabia stern towards conservatism.
This idea that there's some sort of a wahabi link with the origin of Saudi
Arabia, that would be like saying Americans have a link with Puritanism.
You know what I mean?
Like relax, like the alliance between the wahabi in the bin South
family is freaking 300 years old.
What happened was in 1979, the leadership in Saudi Arabia had to
fight against like this global threat, which suddenly shows up in Mecca.
And so they make a decision, which ultimately was a wrong one, uh, to,
you know, effectively make a deal with, uh, religious conservative.
Part of society.
Um, and, uh, they spend the next 30 years building state capacity thanks
to massive oil wealth and material.
Wealth is the foundation of geopolitical power.
And nowhere can you really see that more than in Saudi Arabia.
They become more competent in defending their interests abroad and at home.
And I think that the turn in Saudi Arabia over the last five, uh,
five, 10 years is really a product of that buildup of state capacity.
Saudi Arabia does not have to have this alliance, uh, anymore with, uh,
social and religious conservatives.
And so it's discarded them massively.
And I think that nobody understands just how thorough this discarding is.
And also I think most people don't understand how arbitrary and non
culturally correct or religiously correct the alliance was in the first place.
Uh, so yeah, I will, I will say that Saudi Arabia by 2050.
Will be more or as liberal as Israel in 2050.
There's my profound and uh, controversial statement.
I think this is an inexorable move and I think that, um, it's the reason why Saudi
Arabia has become a factor of stability.
I mean, you've got Iranian and Israeli cruise Miss cells flying over
Saudi Arabia, and it hasn't impacted the country at all economically
from an investment perspective.
I mean, what's impacting the country more is price of oil as it always is, right?
So this isn't, this isn't some argument you should go and buy Saudi stocks.
That's not what I'm saying.
I. I'm just saying that you should probably get on a plane and go to Saudi
Arabia and see what I'm talking about.
But even when people do that, the problem is that if they don't have the frame of
reference or if they haven't been visiting Saudi Arabia, they don't have the data
points in which to actually understand just how profound, uh, the changes happen.
I.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, there's two different things in, in what you're saying.
And by the way, you might be right about that controversial take with Israel.
'cause Israel's rapidly moving in a reactionary direction.
So Saudi Arabia moves this way and Israel moves the opposite direction they
might meet in the middle of somewhere.
Such is life.
But, um, you know, there's the point on Saudi Arabia and then there's the
larger point that even if you're right, and I, I'm not sure, like I'll take the
opposite side of that, like the idea that they're gonna transform oil wealth
into a glittering liberal democracy in the heart of the Middle East, or
glittering liberal constitutional monarchy, whatever you wanna call it.
I don't know, like, okay, Dutch disease is no longer real then if they were able to
take the oil wealth and change centuries of entrenched interests and all these
other things, I, I would take the other side of it, but fine, leave that aside.
Um, it still doesn't make sense to me that the most powerful people in the
world, or some of the most powerful people in the world are going to, to
Saudi Arabia to make these decisions.
That this is the epicenter of where things are happening.
Because even if I grant everything that you just said.
How is the future of like AI and things like that being announced
in, in this country right now?
Like, why is President, president Trump?
Well, to be so drawn to it rather than some of the other places in the
world that are more geographically and geopolitically significant?
Marko: So actually, uh, the future of AI will definitely
not be decided by Saudi Arabia.
I mean, it's, I think, uh, the region is why they're all there, you know?
And look, capital is important.
Material wealth is the foundation of geopolitical power.
It's not demographics, it's not geography.
Oh my God, for god's sakes.
You know, the United Kingdom, what's its population?
Okay, what's its geography?
What's its climate?
What are their natural resources?
None.
None, none, none.
And yet it conquered the entire planet.
The empire ne the sun never sat on the British empire.
So the reason I say this is because there's a concentration of wealth and
capital, and there's a tabula rasa approach to innovation in these countries.
UAE, Oman, Qatar.
Uh, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the tabula rasa is very important.
This idea that you can have like basically a blank slate.
You have capital, let's do something with it.
Now Saudi Arabia is actually not taking the tech approach.
To be clear, you're not.
This is the first time that I've actually really seen like emphasis on
tech bros in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is doing, I think what's very intelligent.
They basically fired order McKinsey consultants 'cause they realized
that they're taking them for a ride.
Well done and they've start done and they're called
Jacob Shapiro: well done.
And now, and now please call the geopolitical cousins and
get us, get us the plane.
Marko: We could do it.
Yeah.
Uh, otherwise Qatar will, and you know how that goes, like
can you really be behind cut?
Like yeah, let's make a pin war.
Who's gonna give us a plane Watch when a plane gets delivered
on my street in Santa Monica.
Like that will be awkward.
You know?
Um, I. I'll get a ticket for sure.
But look, what I'm trying to say is that Saudi Arabia's actually
adopted industrialization.
They're focusing on actually kind of dirty, like, you know, they're
trying to employ 22 million Saudis.
So they're much different from the other countries.
They're actually a real country.
Mm-hmm.
With like social stratification.
Not every Saudi is a millionaire, you know?
Uh, and this is something a lot of people don't understand.
It's a country that needs a service sector, industrial
sector, and they're doing it very, very correctly, I would say.
But yes.
Are they gonna get de link from oil price?
No, it's gonna take time.
Or maybe never happen, but UAE.
However, Jacob, I would say think about that country as a country that does have
some advantages when it comes to ai.
Okay.
What are they, well, first of all, what's the biggest downside risk to ai?
It's job losses.
I mean, we all know this.
Well, guess who doesn't care at all?
Jacob Shapiro: I, I thought, wait.
I thought the biggest risk of AI was that it would decide we're all
stupid and take over and kill us.
Marko: I mean, fine, fine, but in the process it would lead
Jacob Shapiro: to job loss.
We would lose jobs in that scenario too.
Marko: Well, I mean, I think, I think, look, go it pretty clear,
the biggest risk to AI is that its deployment will be slowed down by
vent vested interests of unions.
You know, like people say, look, oh no man, all the truckers will lose their job.
Well, but will they, or will we say something like, trucks can be driverless,
but there has to be human supervision so that 3 million American men who work
in transportation don't lose their job.
See, that's something that Saudi Arabia doesn't have.
Uh, sorry, not Saudi Arabia.
UAE does not have a problem with.
One of the interesting advantages that United Arab Emirates has is that
their biggest sort of social problem, socioeconomic problem, national
security problem, is that they have to rely on expats for everything.
From accountants to doctors, to nurses, to hotel staff, to
Uber drivers to housekeepers.
And wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to do that?
And so what are the vested interests?
What vested interests exist in UAE that will prevent the deployment of ai?
And the answer is kind of fewer than exist in the rest of the world.
And so I would say that there is an interesting link there.
But overall all I would say is that I think that the Middle East
is moving in the right direction.
I think it's gonna become a financial capital for global south flows.
So south to south connectivity, I think what Abu Dhabi is doing with financial
like capital is really interesting.
And I think what Saudi Arabia is doing with its industrialization
is interesting too.
Too many Westerners over index on the line nail 'em.
Hero projects, you know, like Yeah, I think, I think that's
Jacob Shapiro: the dis the, the dismemberment of Khashoggi.
Marko: I mean, well, yeah, but that happened like how many years ago.
And also, let's not forget the United States of it happened,
Jacob Shapiro: it happened after 2014,
Marko: but the United States of America killed a Jazeera journalists in Iraq.
Okay,
Jacob Shapiro: sure.
I mean, I, I don't know that, but if you say that, sure.
That doesn't to defeat the point.
No, it's,
Marko: it's a fact.
United States of America shot a missile into Al Jazeera headquarters
in Baghdad or somewhere in Iraq.
Okay.
Jacob Shapiro: If you say so, fine.
The Saudi, the Saudis are still dismembering journalists, like in,
in, during this time p period, that they've embraced liberalization.
Marko: Well, the plural, the plural is, is awkward in that statement, right?
Yeah.
Number one, the plural is, is awkward.
And the second thing is, you know, uh, Moham bins actually accepted.
That that happens and that that was the fault of the state.
Think about that for a second.
When the United States of America killed several journalists for Al Jazeera during
the Iraqi counterinsurgency, it was like, oops, sorry, like raw building.
Like, oh, okay.
All, all, all I would say is that, you know, uh, if the worst that Saudi Arabia
has done is the death of one single journalist, I would say like, let's not
start comparing the ledger on crimes against journalism of other countries.
Yeah.
We
Jacob Shapiro: can also, we can also talk about the support, like the soft support
of Jihadist Group, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But yes, I, I'd say your point, but that
Marko: Okay.
But we should talk about that because I would say the transformation
of Saudi Arabia is based on that.
It is not the soft support, it's the hard support for SUNY Islamists mm-hmm.
That caused what you would call an intelligence a, uh.
Wait, I forgot the term backlash.
Hmm.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, that works.
I think, I think that's what you're trying to say.
Marko: Yeah, that's what, no, there's a, there's a different term though,
but anyways, by brain thought.
But yeah, that's exactly why they've transformed the country, because the
country has clearly realized that they were the ones that were gonna
actually hurt the most because of their support for Sunni Islamists.
And I think that the moment when that really came home to roost
to Saudi Arabia was when Baghdadi proclaimed the caliphate out of Mosul.
Yeah.
You know, because caliphate doesn't mean that you're gonna
go to Rome or Paris or New York.
It means you need Mecca.
And I think that was the moment when Saudi Arabia, it was precisely because
of its overt support for Sunni Islamism, that it has changed today so profound.
So, and yes, it's not gonna be a smooth sailing, it's not gonna be a straight
line, and you have all sorts of, you know, you are always gonna have empirical data
points to prove that it isn't working or that there's like illiberalism.
But I think that, again, you gotta go to Saudi Arabia physically,
I think, to see the changes.
Otherwise, you know, is just not gonna stick.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I, I'm reminded of, um, early House of Cards when
House of Cards was actually good, where Remy is running around lobbying
things like that, and Frank Underwood turns to the camera and is like,
Remy mistakes money with power.
Um, and I had that running through my head when you were
talking about material wealth.
And I also have the fact that due to low oil prices, Saudi Arabia's
already hit its budget deficit target for the year and we're on, we're
not even halfway through the year.
Well, that's fine, fine.
Now they have big coffers and all these other things.
Like I get that they have material wealth, but it can't go there.
But I think that, um, the, the points we were making about the UAE and the
power of city states relative to big states, it actually plays very well
into our power geopolitical draft.
But before I hand over the mc duties to you, I think we should
spend literally max two minutes, 30 seconds on what's going on.
A little update on Russia, Ukraine.
'cause there's supposed to be negotiations in Istanbul tomorrow.
Will they happen?
Won't they happen?
Is there a ceasefire?
Is there not a ceasefire?
So give me your 60 seconds and maybe I'll do 60 seconds and
then let's get to the fun part.
Marko: Uh, well, I think that we're getting to a point where, I mean, it's
pretty clear that just like Benjamin Netanyahu, uh, Vladimir Putin is
risking drawing the ire of Donald Trump.
You know, and again, this is where liberal critics of President Trump are gonna
have to eat a lot of crow because he was supposed to be pro-Russian, you know?
Well, mm. Doesn't look like it.
And if Putin makes a mistake here, like if I was Putin's advisor, I'd be
like, listen bro, you gotta cut your losses and proclaim victory ASAP.
Now I know what the problem for Putin is.
He hasn't conquered them yet, which is part of, right.
So he needs to bring all of Donbas home or else a lot of right wing
nationalist bloggers are gonna like, you know, go after him.
He just needs to cut his losses, sharpen the bone, saw since you're obsessed
with that point, and start putting some of those bloggers, uh, in jail.
Because the truth is you're gonna have to swallow a deal.
You're gonna have to swallow a deal, uh, that maybe some nationalist right
wing lunatics in Russia don't like.
But you know what, who cares about borders?
Don, I'll tell you who, who does not give a fuck?
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, that nihilist, Jay Trump does not kill that.
That.
Nihilist Colon is really wafting today.
The only thing I want to add to what you were saying is that I don't
know if it was intentional or not.
I don't have the receipts to prove it one way or another, but I did put myself
out there when the Zelensky Oval Office incident happened and said, I think
actually Zelensky got the better of that.
I think he actually understood the moment better than anybody else.
And I think that's true today because like what was the first things that
Zelensky said when the US was talking about peace negotiations and Istanbul?
He said, I'll be there as soon as Putin is there.
Like he has been Yes sir. Every step of the way.
And he's also gotten the Europeans squarely in his corner
because they're afraid of the big Donald in the White House.
'cause you've had Macron, Germany both come out and say, if Russia does not show
up to the summit, additional sanctions for Russia, we're gonna get tougher.
So I think Zelensky actually like pushed back against Trump a little bit.
Got the Europeans on board.
Looks like he's the one that's actually playing ball in the aftermath, whereas
Putin is now the one sitting there.
But he wasn't though, like not quite figuring it out.
Marko: I think.
I think you, you, yes, that's correct.
But he wasn't playing ball and he was obsessed with normative value statements.
Remember when Zelensky, I think, yeah,
Jacob Shapiro: I think, I think that was for the cameras.
I think that was all about, oh, if I position myself here correctly, if
I show myself pushing back against Trump, I get support at home.
I get support from the Europeans.
I don't really care.
I just wanna make sure that everybody's on my side.
And you remember when Trump, you were the one who brought this up, that Trump turns
to the TV and says, wasn't that good tv?
I think Zelensky knew that was good TV too.
And I think he used that net meeting to shore up some domestic support
home, get the Europeans freaked out so that they would support him more.
And now like he walked it back.
So when negotiations got a little further down the road, he's the one
that's meeting Trump in the back.
Well, that's important.
Yeah.
He's the one who's saying, I will show up in Istanbul immediately.
You tell me where, when, how high to jump, how many rare earth minerals Fine.
And it's Putin is now the one that looks recalcitrant.
I think he played it right.
Marko: I mean, I don't think Zelensky played five D chess.
I think I have a more of an Occam's raise view on this.
You know, and it's fine.
We, we disagree, but like, I think he walked in there intoxicated
with the normative moralistic bullshit of the Biden administration
that elevated him into a saint.
And he was shocked, shocked by denialism of the Trump administration
when Trump basically said, look, you're both the same to me.
You know?
And uh, but to his credit and where we do agree is that he is smart enough to know.
Oh.
Oh, okay.
So that's what you want.
You want me to show?
I'm willing to negotiate.
Alright.
Balls in Putin's court then.
And look, I mean, again, I think that the big risk for both Netanyahu
and Putin is to assume is to read New York Times, you know.
Don't read mainstream media and become intoxicated with this view
that Trump is somehow pro your side.
You better start dancing when he plays the tune or else you're gonna feel
the full wrath of the US And if us and Europe get on the same page and they
get those secondary sanctions on, on, on Russia, I think that's kind of game over.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Alright.
We have 45 minutes to do a geopolitical draft.
Take the mic away, my friend.
Marko: Alright, cool.
So, uh, this is gonna be on the title of the podcast.
So if you sort of, uh, expected this, uh, you know, you might have fast forwarded
through the first 45 minutes or not, but what Jacob and I are gonna do is
we're going to pick 10 countries each.
So it's from one to 20, and we're gonna try to make a case for,
you know, what are the 20 most powerful countries in the world.
And of course, since our Lord and Savior is Bill Simmons
of the, uh, bill Simmons podcast network.
And the ringer.
He has this thing for basketball, which is the, I think, trade value draft, right?
Jacob
Jacob Shapiro: trade value column.
Yeah, it's a trade value column, but yes.
Yeah.
Marko: Yeah.
So basically what what he does is, uh, he picks players not based of just their
skill or their abilities today, but it's their progression in the future
relative to how much they're paid.
Right?
So some rookie who looks like Victor Mbma, who is an absolute freak of
nature in the San Antonio Spurs, he's obviously top two, right?
Because he is seven foot 12 or whatever the hell he is.
He's incredible.
And he's on a rookie contract.
So what we wanna do is we wanna do the same thing.
We wanna think about the next, uh, I think 30 years.
Jacob.
Let's, let's look, look at, that's fine.
Yeah.
Like, so not a hundred year time horizon.
'cause that's insane.
We don't know what technologies are gonna be out there.
We wanna really focus on the next 30 year time horizon.
And we wanna think about countries that are, um, going to be, you know.
The most powerful country geopolitically.
Now, in terms of what, um, what sort of rubrics we're gonna use, what
sort of, um, variables, what sort of attributes one would use for this?
We're gonna probably have different views on this.
So, uh, there's something called a National Capability Index.
It was created by the Correlates of War Project in 1963.
Um, this is an extremely outdated way to measure geopolitical power.
It has things like military personnel, like how many men with weapons,
you have iron and steel production.
Um, it has, uh, although, you know, somebody like Donald Trump might
be overindexed on this since he's obsessed about iron and steel, but
it's a very Cold War era index.
You can go and you can take a look at it.
Um, the political scientist who created it back during the,
uh, cold War was David Singer.
He was the founder.
He's a political scientist, university of Michigan.
You can download it online.
China's actually number one on this, and I think that it's because it's outdated.
You know, it looks at demographics in a very one-to-one basis.
Uh, in my own research, I've created something, um, that I
call the Geopolitical Power Index.
And it, uh, looks at, uh, a little bit of different four
variables, uh, on population.
Uh, I adapt the original population, me measure by penalizing countries with
large dependency ratios, so old to youth.
Um, and so, uh, I make make the argument that it's not just the
size of your population, it's also the demographic, uh, pyramid.
Uh, the second is global economic relevance.
So the original index really failed to capture a relevance
for the global economy.
So there was no globalist future.
So what I look at is contribution to the global final demand.
The more an economy imports, I argue the greater its bargaining power in terms
of trade vis-a-vis geopolitical rivals.
So what matters to me is imports as percent of uh, GDP.
And then for the military, I don't really look at things
like, uh, maned wood weapons.
I look at whether you have technological cap capacity.
Uh, so I have this quantitative measure.
There's a couple of other things as well, r and d. Um, I look at that as well.
That's part of the index.
I'm not actually going to use this index.
I'm gonna deviate from it because we're thinking about the future.
But I'm just saying that there's a quantitative basis for some of my picks.
Did you wanna say anything before we start, Jacob?
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Yeah.
I do wanna say something about, uh, before we start, and by you and I,
we haven't talked about this when I was still at GPF with George, we, uh,
when we were trying to sell GPF for to institutions for subscriptions,
we created the GPI, the Geopolitical Power Index, which I have not gone back
to since I left, uh, George in 2019.
But we did a similar, uh, sort of exercise, so that's really funny.
Um, I was actually, I, I, I'm actually reminded of something that, um,
I, I don't know if Roger trained, trained you, Marco, but when I was
a, an intern at, at Stratford, Roger was the one who was like overseeing
Roger Baker development program.
He's still
Marko: a Stratford, I believe.
Roger.
Jacob Shapiro: Yep.
He is.
Uh, don't take this the wrong way, Roger, queen of the ashes, if you will.
Um.
So, uh, a little Game of Thrones, denars, storm born reference there.
So, but, um, he, I, I remember many of the things that Roger taught, and
Roger's been on my podcast too, so if you wanna know who Roger Baker is, he
doesn't have a big, um, he does not have a big following, I don't think.
'cause he never really wanted that.
But in some ways he like trained.
He was the one actually training a lot of us in the brass tacks,
but he always told me, geopolitics is not a science, it's an art.
Agreed.
It's more like agreed making pottery than it is about, you know, figuring out
statistics and quantitative measures.
And I've always remembered that.
It was always super helpful for me when going into really quantitative spaces
and having the confidence to be like, okay, like, great, you have statistics.
I also have statistics, like I have a very nice index here.
I can make the index say whatever I want.
I can find a chart or a piece of data that will support any viewpoint.
In the end, the more important thing is to qualitatively say, what do I think?
This is gonna happen.
And so when I think about power, for me it boils down to really one key question.
Can this country make you do something you don't wanna do?
And to the extent that a country can do that to you, I will add
checks in in the power basis.
So it's not like I'm just throwing darts at the wall here.
Then we have to think about things like, like you said, population.
I think nuclear weapons is a really tough one here.
And one I really struggled with, is it all the nuclear countries first
and then non-nuclear countries?
Below are are, if you're like a middling nuclear power, like in Israel or a
Pakistan, okay, you have nukes, but does that mean you're more powerful than in
Japan who doesn't technically have nukes but has all these other, like that was
one thing that I really struggled with.
But yeah, for me it's all about we can have all these indicators, we can
look at all these different things, but comes back to the question, can
this country make another country do something that it doesn't wanna
do more than other countries?
And that was my ultimate sort of rubric.
Marko: Uh, brilliant.
And I absolutely agree with you.
It's not a science at all.
So I wanna just start off by saying that yes, I have a quantitative index
and I'm gonna deviate from it quite significantly, just to be clear.
Um, yeah, that's it.
Um, I, I
Jacob Shapiro: do too, and I will, and I will deviate from it.
Everybody has a quantitative index and chat.
GPT probably has quantitative in disease better than any of ours.
But the thing that will keep us relevant for the next 30 years
is like, it's not that easy.
Like, that's what keeps us in business.
Marko: Well, yeah, and, and I think the point is like, let's, let's really
think about some non-linearity here.
Like, uh, given the technology and given where we're going, you know,
what are some of the countries that I think are going to be, uh, interesting
Now, nuclear power is interesting.
I think it's absolutely critical.
Um, I, I would answer that question to you, Jacob, by saying
that there are countries out there that are nuclear powers.
You know, like Japan, let's not joke here.
If Japan wants a nuclear weapon, it's, it has one.
Yeah.
The other one that, that I think is interesting is population.
Uh, I think that you will notice that I will, uh, completely and
utterly dismiss demographics.
I think that, I think that we are way too obsessed with it.
Um, probably because anyone can download data from the UN and then be an expert.
And the truth is that we're getting a ton of innovation in AI and automation
that literally makes humans irrelevant.
And so not irrelevant, but like I. Population size.
And I still hear this nonsense about Russia not being able to feel the
military 'cause his population is declining or China having a problem
'cause it has not enough men.
What are people talking about Jacob?
We're not fighting wars with millions of men.
Right?
Like
Jacob Shapiro: I'll, I'll be, I'll be less diplomatic than you are.
Peter Zhan is talking about things on his YouTube channel in
order to get clicks and listen.
And also if you wanna talk about demographics, you can go read the fourth
turning or whatever else, which I famously take shots at whenever I have the chance.
Marko: And, and for good reason.
I mean, look, India supposedly has great demographics.
Really.
I think I used this on this podcast before, like India, there was recently
a Indian railways like job application.
For like 900 a job openings, 2 million people applied.
Like it's more difficult to get a job in Indian railways than to get
into Harvard, uh, Northern Africa.
The countries of Northern Africa that started Arab Spring had gorgeous
population pyramids for God's sakes.
You know, just having a lot of young people doesn't mean
that you're gonna be fine.
In fact, in many ways you're not gonna be fine because you have too many
young people that you can't employ.
So anyways,
Jacob Shapiro: yeah, no, and thing I would just to make the point the
most in India's gdp, d per capita, you'll see that in my, is just
above that of the Republic of Congo.
So like, population can be a curse if you have too much and you're not wealthy
enough to spread the wealth around.
Yes.
Go on.
Sorry.
Marko: Yeah, yeah.
No, so I'm just saying like, you will see that in my, uh, deviation.
I, I think given technology and given that demographics is a, a double-edged sword.
Think of it as a double-edged sword.
Mm-hmm.
It can cut both ways.
Alright, so let's start, I'm gonna start this time around because, um, you
know, I've spent a lot of this, uh, uh, podcast relationship with you, Jacob,
uh, kind of bashing the idea of American, uh, unipolarity and hegemony and, uh,
you know, I've been talking about the multipolar world longer than Xi Jinping
and Vladimir Putin, for God's sakes.
You know, so I'm gonna start off by picking the United
States of America as number one.
Of course.
I think, you know, I think we all agree, um, and this is very important
for those who listen to this.
America is not a hegemon.
It does not have preponderance of power.
It cannot force you to do things with a phone call, as it did famously in
the Sue crisis is 19 56, 57, I believe.
Uh, but it's still the most powerful country in the world.
And I wanna, this is about the next 30 years, and I just think that,
um, I. Not to be glib, but in this particular case, I think it does
help that geography is what it is.
Uh, to give Peter Zion the point, you know, it is surrounded by two oceans.
That is absolutely correct, and it's really far from everywhere.
Um, technology is narrowing that geographical gap,
cybersecurity, other issues.
Obviously we all agree with that, but he has a lot of natural resources, and
most importantly, even at its darkest moments, it does rediscover itself.
That is kind of the beauty of the American Democratic experiment.
Uh, many people who are losing their mind about Donald Trump today should
just read more about 1971, honestly, and see how dark that period of time was.
Or just watch some movies that were made in that period.
I mean, they're all dark and rainy and depressed and everybody's sad and,
you know, like doesn't wear deodorant and like, you know, just lots of like.
Bad cars and dark, dark themes.
And so what I would say is that, yeah, I would pick United States of America.
I don't even think we'd really talk about it, but US is the most
powerful country in the world.
Uh, it's head and shoulders above everyone else.
And as I always say, that doesn't make you a hegemon.
To be a hegemon.
To be unipolar, you have to be head, shoulder, torso, hips.
That's not the case anymore.
Yeah.
But it may be in the future.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Yeah, I, I'm with you.
I, I, it's not just that the United States can't do things, uh, make people
do things with a phone call anymore.
I mean, we talked about the Houthis at the very beginning.
Apparently the Houthis shot down drones.
They got close to shooting down an F 35, if you believe some of the reporting.
So like part of the, the sea change in, in, you know, us, uh, posture
towards the Houthis was about not even being able to do what, you know, the
US did to the Houthis under, or excuse me, not to the Houthis, but to a, an
Iranian threat to Persian Gulf shipping in the late 19, I believe it was.
Was that Reagan or Bush?
I can't remember which one it was, but the late Reagan 1980s.
But to your point, operat, I als I also praying.
Yeah.
So sorry, praying Mantis.
Yeah.
But I also had the US number one, even, even though I say all the things that
you do, um, and I, my guess is that our first two picks will be the same
and then things might get interesting.
Um, but my second pick is gonna be, um, I'll, I'll take
China number two on the board.
Um, I think that's also pretty clear.
Um, and I think the greatest threat to our multipolar thesis, and I say
that all the time, is that it we're really headed towards another bipolar
world where it's the US on the one side and China on the other side.
Um, China has huge problems.
It has structural economic problems.
It has hundreds of millions of, you know, impoverished peasants that
need to enjoy enrichment that the coastal cities have enjoyed thus far.
Um, it has resource constraints, so it, for the first time in Chinese history,
it can't feed its own population.
It has to go out and import, you know, food and energy and capital and technology
and all these other different things.
So there's lots of different challenges that China has, but, uh, you know,
don't put me in the category of any of these people who have been, you
know, your Gordon Changs or your Peter Hans who have been predicting the
imminent collapse of China for decades.
Which is to your point, like, you know, if you, if you're worried about the
United States, go back, watch the 1970s, could say the same thing about China.
Go back to like the um.
The cultural revolution, or go back to the, the famines that Mao caused with
some of his, uh, disastrous policies.
Even go back to the demographic decline that people were predicting
for China in the 1980s, 1990s.
This is the country in the world that makes things.
It's the manufacturing heart of the world.
All of that expertise, all of that human capital.
Um, it's positioned geographically like it's going to be here for the long haul.
Uh, maybe it's not the Chinese Communist Party, like it could be a
soft sort of revolution and some, some other sort of regime gets ushered in.
Like, I'm not wedded to it being necessarily the current regime.
I think it will be the current regime, but I'm not currently wedded to that.
But I don't think we're gonna go back to like a warring states period where
the different regions of China will be fighting each other and different
regions around, or different countries around it will go take points.
Like I think China is very clearly the number two and probably, you know, 30
years from now, probably nipping on the heels of, of US power as, as being
the first in that multipolar world.
Marko: I think the technological innovation that's happening
in China is endogenous today.
It's not copied anymore.
I think that was the nineties.
That was the early two thousands.
They are now creating new innovative things.
And so, and you know, by the way, it's not just military dual use stuff.
It's like stuff like payment systems here in America.
I mean, I still write physical checks, you know, like, and, and I
remember, uh, uh, my good friend who worked with me, um, at my previous
job, he would always like joke.
He was like, he had to write a check 'cause he lived here in Santa Monica.
He was like, what is this?
You guys don't have like instant payment solutions.
Like, this is America, you know?
So, uh, I agree with you.
I think China is second.
This is the one of those where demographics is real problem.
You know, like, yes.
Chinese demographics are not great.
The problem is that it could stall their GDP per capita, but it could also actually
help maintain some upward trajectory.
If GDP continues to grow at even a three to 5% pace as the per capita part
narrows, your wealth could actually Yeah,
Jacob Shapiro: just to keep it And, and I'm glad you say that 'cause because I
have two rejoinder to the demographic, uh, argument on China if you think
the demographic argument is operative.
Okay, but then Japan is gonna collapse first and so is South Korea and
so are a bunch of European states.
So it doesn't make sense to say China's got the bad demographics, but
all these others are gonna be okay.
No.
Like these other countries are gonna hit the, the bug that are
gonna hit the windshield first.
The other thing is that China has hundreds of millions of people, I
already referenced them, who are impoverished living in the interior.
So most countries don't have hundreds of millions of people that they could
bring into the middle class to increase consumption and things like that.
So are you gonna get a baby boom in China over the next 10 years?
No.
But if you could redistribute income to those hundreds of millions of poor
people and have them buying made in China, air conditioners and everything
else, then you get the equivalent of that consumption boost as a result.
So if they handle the macro correctly, it's not like Japan has an interior where
it can go find 200 million poor people that it can get to consume things like
most countries don't have that relevance.
And the other thing I wanna say here is that demographics, you said
it's a double-edged sword, it's also a static present indicator.
Like, you know, we're fighting linearity.
You have, we have no clue what decisions Chinese families are gonna
make and how many babies they're gonna have 15 and 20 years from now.
If the Chinese government comes out and says, there is now a three child policy.
Maybe they'll have a huge demographic boom, 20 years from now, maybe
the Chinese people will get more optimistic and start having more kids
may, you know, there's a whole bunch of different opportunities there.
So I think we can point to demographics as saying this is a big issue and it requires
focusing on everything from robotics to internet of things, to enriching
the interior of China, et cetera.
But the idea that we're gonna project the decisions that a billion people
are gonna make about how many children they're gonna have, like, I don't
have the hubris to, to make that call.
And I think we've seen that, you know, there are ways around it and
more ways around it for China than there are for other countries.
Okay.
Sorry.
Marko: No, it's all good.
Okay, so, uh, I'm gonna do something now that's unfair.
I'm gonna take basically 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 countries off the board.
Jacob Shapiro: I was wondering.
Okay, go ahead.
Marko: I'm gonna take the EMU five.
So this is the top five countries in the European Monetary Union.
Uh, just let's call it Western Europe.
Uh, I don't wanna call it the EU 'cause it's not, uh, that will be also unfair.
So I'm gonna take Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands.
Off the board.
We are talking about the next 30 years.
I believe, I conviction view that Europe will become a
confederation, not a federation.
United States of Europe will never happen.
If that is your mark of success, then you will disagree with me.
But I do think there are alternatives to a federal union,
and one of them is Switzerland.
You know, it's, it's a confederation.
Um, the first iteration of the United States of America, the
articles of Confederation was going to be something similar.
Uh, obviously the United States at the time was a very weak, weak
country, afraid that the United Kingdom would come back, which it did.
And so it needed a federal entity.
Instead of a confederal.
I don't think Europe needs that.
Um, several things that are going for Europe.
First demographics again.
Everybody thinks Europe has terrible demographics.
This is false, and no, not because of Syria.
Asylum seekers, for God's sake, stop watching YouTube videos.
Europe is fine because it has one of the greatest.
Western Europe has one of the greatest heists in geopolitics.
It's called the EU labor market.
It allows somebody from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, to move to any
place in the EU and get a job, which means that Western Europe gets
educated, ready to work families to just show up and start working.
Now, the problem was that United Kingdom stole most of these immigrants
because Eastern Europeans speak English.
They don't speak French or German.
But now that the UK has decided to pull out a revolver and shoot itself
in the foot and depart the EU precisely because of this one advantage.
Um, it can have fun trying to find immigrants somewhere else.
Western Europe doesn't.
It has ready-made, educated, hardworking eastern Europeans to suck
like a vampire from Eastern Europe.
So if you wanna pick Poland, if you wanna pick an Eastern European country,
just beware that they are going to struggle to keep their demographics,
which are already bad, stable.
Uh, so that takes care of the usual reason people hate in
Europe, which is demographics.
The other one is technology.
Yes, China is obviously challenging, uh, European manufacturing, but one
of the things I would never discount is German ability to reinvent itself.
Germany reinvented itself numerous times.
It's not gonna de industrialize.
Uh, there's a lot of mythological technological innovation that
only Germany has and uh, so I'm gonna pick Western Europe.
I think that the reason the world will remain multipolar.
Is because what?
Because Donald Trump has bestowed upon Europe and also Vladimir Putin,
a reason to finally integrate.
As we talked before, you know Jacob, I don't think
countries are born out of love.
I think countries are born out of fear.
And finally, I think Europeans have sufficient fear to integrate further.
So I'm picking Western Europe.
Jacob Shapiro: I mean, you gotta have a little bit of both.
You gotta have love of one's own, and you do have to have, uh, fear of what
somebody else might do to your own.
In some sense, fear might actually be the secondary because you're
afraid of what somebody might do to the people that you truly do love.
So I think I would take the more romantic, uh, sense there.
I want you to know, uh, I was really struggling with what to do with
Europe and I, I disciplined myself by saying I can't pick a block.
I, I have to have a single country.
And if, um, I would've had France as my number three.
Oh, wow.
My number three choice was France, just by itself.
Marko: Wow.
Jacob Shapiro: Trade value.
So like,
Marko: this is one of those you're buying low.
Well done, well done.
Okay.
Well then well buying
Jacob Shapiro: low, they've got nukes, they've got the military, they've got
the, but you know, you, you've taken them.
But I just want listeners to know, like, even, even without the other four Wow.
Like I would've had France number three.
Wow.
Soft power and
Marko: wow.
I, I mean, I feel so much, listen, just to.
Yes, I kind of cheated, but this is about the next 30 years and
I have a high conviction view that I'm picking for the future.
They will integrate further.
And the other thing I would say is it makes it more fun.
'cause like you pick France, I pick Germany, then we pick
Spain in Italy at some point.
Come on.
Like me, you know, let's go.
No, and it's right.
Jacob Shapiro: No, and and cheating would've been taking
the EU 27, which you didn't do.
You took the EMU five and said, confederation.
Strong word.
It's this block that you're saying that it's, you're not like
extrapolating linearly from here.
So I think you're totally good.
But I just wanted to say that if, if we had kept going just country
basis, like I would've, France even by itself would've been my number
three, which I think would've been a little controversial with those.
Off the board though, this is where it starts to get really
interesting, like beyond these blocks.
Like, okay, what's next?
And I know, is it nukes versus this thing?
Marko: So you get the first pick of the non-obvious.
I, although, I don't know, I think it's pretty obvious.
And I, I know you Jacob, I think I know who you're gonna pick.
But go ahead.
Jacob Shapiro: You think you do?
Okay.
I, I'm taking Turkey.
Marko: Oh, boom.
Nevermind.
Jacob Shapiro: It's nevermind.
All right.
Harrison,
Marko: Nico Harrison.
Jacob Shapiro: I don't think it's the Nico Harrison move of the draft at all.
'cause precisely to your point, if Western Europe does unify a little bit
more like that, if Russian power recedes over the next 30 years as I expect it to,
if China and some of these other powers do have problems, Iran is gonna spend
the next 30 years trying to catch up.
Who is the country at the center of this Middle East that you're talking about?
Who is the one who's gonna have the Navy that actually controls access to the
Mediterranean and to the Persian Gulf?
Who is the one that is already stealing market share from the
Europeans on manufacturing?
Who is going to dominate the Black Sea Basin and your
Balkan homelands in the future?
This is Turkey.
This is not any other country.
This is the rise of the Neo Ottoman Empire over the next 30 years.
Probably the strongest military in NATO outside of the us.
Like maybe France has something to say because of nukes, but if you're
just thinking about military spending and capability and deployments and
things like that, I'll take the new Ottoman Empire at the heart of the
Mediterranean in this multipolar world.
'cause this Mediterranean powers do very well when they're controlling these
trading lanes at the center of the world.
Marko: Yeah, I think one of the things, uh, that's a knock on Turkey is, uh,
you know, complete and utter lack of, uh, endogenous energy production.
But I think technological innovation is important.
There's nuclear power, there's, uh, alternatives, there's
all sorts of other things.
Uh, it's also, uh, and
Jacob Shapiro: there's a lot and, and there's an awful lot of gas offshore, and
the Black Sea Basin is also open to them.
So,
Marko: and there's a awful lot of potential for Iraq to boost
its oil consumption if somebody bestows it with stability, which
is what you're getting at you.
No, no, no.
I, I think, but that's a knock.
You know, that's a knock on Turkey.
The other knock on Turkey was always like, domestic technological
innovation is kind of terrible and trash, quite frankly, but not anymore.
We know the turkeys, for example, world Leader in Drone Technology.
Uh, everybody talks about Iran.
No, no, it's Turkey.
Russia just has access to the Iranian drones, but those are trash.
Turkey has actually, um, you know, I follow military spending a lot
'cause I think it's a great indicator.
As I said, uh, it's, it's a sign of geopolitical power and Turkey, along
with South Korea, is one of the world's largest, uh, movers up the, the chain.
So I think this is a surprising pick, but it's about the next 30 years.
And I think that, uh, you know, I respect this, I respect this pick.
It's, it's got, I, I mean, how do I push back on it?
I mean, you know, I don't really want to push back on it
because I think it's, it's cool.
It's a great pick.
And by the way, we didn't get a chance to talk about PKK and the government.
Mm-hmm.
You know, uh, that's, that's a really positive development for Turkey from
a domestic stability perspective.
Yeah.
So, you know, it's
Jacob Shapiro: like, yeah, and, and, and, and Syria too.
Like it's the combo of the SDF basically agreeing to be part of the Syrian
state, the PKK laying down its arms, and you've got Syria at this Riyadh
summit or hanging out with Saudi Arabia like President Trump, basically
accepting the Syrian government saying you need better ties with Israel.
Like all of this is going a according to plan to Turkey.
The less they can worry about the Kurds in their backyard, the more they can project
power into the Black Sea, into North Africa, down the horn, into the Balkans.
Like, I like the way the map looks for them.
I think the biggest shot to the argument is, um, Erdogan's power base and what
happens when Erdogan is no longer there.
And does Turkish politics revert to this secular versus religious clash?
And like, does it get mired in this own domestic politics inflation
trap that hap that has happened to Turkey several times over the past 40
Marko: years.
But listen, listen, I think macroeconomics we're picking for the 30 years, you know,
like eventually, eventually, macroeconomic policy tends to move towards, uh, sanity.
Uh, it just does and part of the reason is that voters go, go ahead.
Sorry.
Jacob Shapiro: No, no, no, no.
Sorry.
You, you finish it up.
Marko: No, just voters.
Voters eventually learn what's stupid, you know?
So, um, but yeah, go ahead
Jacob Shapiro: and just to say, remember my ultimate indicator
was can this country make other countries do what it wants them to do?
And I think by that metric, Turkey can do lots of things, whether it's
with migrants, whether it's with closing different sea lanes around
it, whether controlling things in the Middle East, like I, I think that
Turkey has, has a lot going for there.
Okay.
Your pick.
Marko: Okay.
So, uh, I mean, I wanna pick someone else, but I think we can't ignore this country.
Um, I thought you were gonna pick this one because I always
think of you as a Indian no file.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
So I don't wanna let it slip beyond top five.
'cause first and foremost, we're gonna get so much hate mail.
There's a lot of people in India and I. You know, they're gonna, they're
gonna send us hate bail, and I just don't wanna deal with it, number one.
Number two, it is like the largest population in the world,
which is not like insignificant.
And also, even if there's some sort of an economic crisis because of its
demographics, which everybody just louds, is a positive, it is not a positive.
Um, I think that ultimately policy in India will strive towards
competence even if there's a crisis.
Uh, I worry about AI replacing its service sector.
I think AI is going to impact India extremely negatively.
Um, a lot of its service sector is geared towards, um, the kind of technological
services that AI could re replace.
Uh, but what we're starting to see is manufacturing start to
slowly, very slowly move to India.
And I do think that it, it will be a country that can't really be ignored.
Um, so I'm gonna take it as fifth.
Now.
Please note it has fallen to fifth.
I think most people would've clearly thought it's top three.
It's the best performing market over the last five years.
I'm picking it because I think it cannot be ignored over the next 30, 30 years.
I don't want us to be too controversial.
I think I'm playing the role of Reow here saying you can't
ignore size, you know, come on.
Like, I think this is a seven foot five giant that can, uh, potentially
develop a three point shot.
And I just think we have to give it, you know, that
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
But is it Victor Wema or is it Man Bowl?
Like It could, it could be either one.
There might be Rick.
There's a large Delta it,
Marko: listen, I think it might be Rick Smith, you know, and Rick
Smiths took the Indiana Pacers to the finals and he lost the six games
to one of the greatest teams ever.
But like, so, you know, like I just think that we would get too
fancy by dropping it below fifth.
I have somebody I like more.
Has a higher delta than India over the next five.
Mm. But because you didn't take it, I had to take it, you know, I thought
you would take it at four and I, and
Jacob Shapiro: I had no, I had it at five.
Like I was really hanging and hawing between India and, and Turkey.
And, and I really, it came down to that question of will this country make
other countries do what it wants to do?
And I think this is the thing that India doesn't have, and you've seen
this with this India, Pakistan war.
It can't even get people on its side with Kashmir.
Um, India has so many internal problems that it needs to flesh out.
And it might start, it might take 30 years to do so, and in 30 year, like if
this has been a 50 year time horizon, it might have been a different question.
But if we're just thinking about 30 and all the things India has to fix
that it hasn't fixed yet, and its ability to project power beyond the
subcontinent, like all plus there's other things with climate change and
wa like all that stuff sort of says to me, okay, like they're not gonna be
able to force people, um, to do things.
Um.
This, I hate, I hate having to make this next pick.
'cause you're sort of caught between the declining powers of
like your Russias and your UKs.
So they've got some of the fancy things that we would say are
good indicators for power today.
But will they really be there in 30 years?
Will they even exist in their current form in 30 years?
But then you've got like your Brazils, which okay, like Dugal said, or Dugal
has reported to have said, I don't think he actually said it, that Brazil is the
country of the future and always will be.
Yeah.
So I'll probably be picking Brazil 30 years from now for the exact same reasons.
Um, and I, I even want, you know, Japan also in that declining power maybe,
I don't know, is it sort of in there?
Um, just to say I really struggled.
And I think that ultimately if we go down to like forcing action, I,
I think I, I don't like this pick, but I think I'm picking Russia.
I think I have to have Russia there.
Wow.
Marko: I'm surprised by that.
Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I mean, I, I, I'm struggling, but I'm thinking
about they're the second biggest nuclear power in the world.
Um, they're gonna still be able to exert influence.
I, I don't feel great about the pick, so please, uh, tell me why.
I think that's more of a Nico pick than Turkey.
Marko: No, uh, uh, I would not have picked it.
I would've picked it in the top, uh, 10, maybe 15.
But, uh, this is where I agree with, uh, our former colleague in Fi, Peter Zion.
I think they have a lot of problems.
Demographics is not necessarily one of them.
Um, I think it's a very large country.
I think that it needs to consolidate much, much more.
I think that this is the one country where I do worry about, um, centrifugal forces.
Right.
Is that correct?
Like, you know Yep.
Kind of.
Mm-hmm.
Tearing the place apart.
Without strong leadership, I think you're gonna have, um, problems in the future.
I'm also, uh, concerned about technological innovation.
I. Um, a lot of things that Russians are very good at, like military
technology, other countries are starting to nip at their heels.
Um, I think they need to have a period of peace and security so they can
recenter on technological innovation, on education, things like that.
And that hasn't happened.
In fact, there's been a brain train outta Russia to places like Georgia
or Serbia or Armenia, and that's a really big problem for the country and
I don't like it for the next 30 years.
Um, so this isn't a pure demographic play at all.
Um, you know, we're willing to deviate from that, but yeah.
Uh, I've got, I've got concerns about Russia.
Um, so who am I gonna pick?
Um, so actually the country that comes next on my list, I'm gonna skip it.
This is the quantitative one.
Mm-hmm.
And I'm gonna pick South Korea.
Hmm.
So South Korea may have the
Jacob Shapiro: interesting,
Marko: yeah.
South Korea may have the worst demographics in the world.
Um.
Facts.
But what I like about South Korea is a couple of things.
First of all, technological innovation is clearly there.
Um, they are one of the world's leaders in things that matter,
like chips, like semiconductors.
Um, they also do have an endogenous military industry, and I've been noticing
more and more countries rely on South Korea, specifically in Southeast Asia.
Um, so that's something Japan doesn't really have, not to the same extent as
South Korea, mainly for political reasons.
Um, they're effectively a nuclear power.
If they wanted to, boom, it's done.
Like don't worry about it.
Um, and I like the fact that they are, uh, fit.
I think the problem, the difference between Japan and South Korea,
obviously Japan has doubled the population, larger economy and so on.
The thing is though, I think Japan's gotten a little bit lazy and I, I, I say
that because I think that South Korea has been in much more of a, uh, antagonistic.
I. National security environment, uh, and that's made them fitter.
They've been preparing for a war a lot longer than Japan has.
Um, I also find that it's, uh, you know, soft power is interesting.
It's not part of my rubric at all, but I like it.
I like when countries have the ability to make fun of themselves,
to create art that crosses cultures.
And no country has punched above South Korea's ability to do that.
I mean, South Korea has absolutely like crushed soft power.
So, um, on all of those, I, I really like South Korea.
I think that innovation in robotics, automation and AI are going to allow
them to overcome that demographic burden.
And so, yeah, I absolutely love South Korea.
I think that they're going to be, uh, one of the top 10 countries,
uh, in terms of geopolitics.
And so I actually picked them, uh, three spots above my quantitative, uh, number.
They're actually 10 already.
Jacob Shapiro: Amazing.
I think the other thing that they have on a 30 year time horizon is the potential
for reunification with the north.
Oh, I talked about China demographics and hundreds of
millions of people in the interior.
Wow.
Like, yeah.
South Korea as it is today, can't compete with Japan.
I'd take Japan today, but if you're thinking about, oh, you reunify with the
north and and south on South Korea terms, and South Korea gets to use that labor
base to do all these other sorts of, okay.
Like now I'm, I'm listening.
I think it's a speculative play.
I think it, it's a, it's either a hundred or, or maybe a zero.
Marko: Yeah.
I mean, you're talking 80 million people at that point, so that's,
that's a really good point.
All right.
Go ahead.
Number eight.
Jacob Shapiro: Alright.
Yeah.
'cause I have a hard stop in 11 minutes.
So May, should we do top 10, Marco and do another 10, or should we
blitz through, uh, this next?
I think we can blitz through
Marko: and then maybe we do, uh, take you think we can
Jacob Shapiro: blitz through?
Marko: I think so.
Jacob Shapiro: Okay.
Well, I'm not leaving Brazil off the board any longer, so I'll take Brazil here.
I will project that Brazil replaces the United States as a low cost producer
for a lot of the different agricultural exports that are out there in the world.
I think from a food security basis, people will be looking towards Brazil.
I think Brazil has, um, a lot of innovation.
I mean, they're very early on in this, but green shoots of innovation,
manufacturing capacity and also like the United States oceans away from
enemies, has a, has a nice little hemispheric and maybe dominate and push
back against the United States with, I'll, I'll take Brazil at this point.
Off the board.
Marko: Alright, so my, my controversial, uh, pick that I'll be accused of being a
homer, uh, is gonna be number nine Canada.
Oh, how nice.
Yeah.
I like Canada because it's uh, good
Jacob Shapiro: for Canada.
Marko: It's a hedge against the us quite frankly.
Um, any hiccup by the US will be a benefit for Canada.
From a brain, uh, drain perspective, innovation, technology, um, it has
the most favorable actually geography, especially as climate change becomes more
of an issue over the next th 30 years.
If you believe in climate change, then it's also a hedge
against that because its growing.
Seasons are going to expand.
Yes, forest fires will happen more, but you know, this is about big picture stuff.
Um, also I think that the population growth is shocking.
Immigration has been huge.
Uh, now there's been a backlash against it.
But, uh, as Canada builds out infrastructure, you know, it has
an ability to basically accept an endless amount of human beings.
This is a country with one of the largest freshwater basins.
It can grow food for the entire planet if it wanted to.
Um, and it has, you know, all the kind of governance issues, like, think of Canada
as almost like a superpower with, you just have, it's a turnkey superpower.
It has everything you need.
From sort of the Western developer perspective, um, you
just need to put humans into it.
And so I think that Canada is going to be a top, top 10
player over the next 10 years,
Jacob Shapiro: was not in my top 20.
So you can have them, uh, which says everything.
Sorry, sorry.
Canada.
Um.
Coming in at number 10, who I'll take off the board and
I'm gonna get shipped for this.
Uh, I will take Iran off the board now.
Wow.
Again, thinking on a 30 year time horizon, a country that basically already
has nuclear weapons, uh, strategic access to the Persian Gulf, lots of
different oil resources, uh, history of projecting power into Central Asia, into
these other Shiite parts of the world.
Um, like maybe not your typical power, but if we're thinking about a country
that can make other countries do things like Iran has already shown, it can
be a focal point of decision making even in its poultry state right now.
What happens 30 years from now when there's a leadership transition,
when Iran is welcomed into the family of nations once again,
like, again, 30 year time horizon.
I think I'll take Iran as a major player, um, in that part of the world.
Marko: Alright, well, I think that, uh, what I'm gonna do now,
that's a great pick by the way.
I've, I've, I've always been very, uh, drawn to it as well, especially
if it, uh, um, moves away from the current system of governance.
I think, uh, you know.
I think that's a fair point.
I think it's gonna have to unleash the innovation and
entrepreneurship of its people.
And that requires it to discard its current system of government.
And if that happens, honestly this is gonna be the best pick of the draft.
Mm-hmm.
So at 10 Iran, great pick.
Um, the next one for me, uh, there's a symbiotic gravitational pull, you
know, uh, and if you pick a Brazil, I think that I have to pick Argentina.
I think that Brazil and Argentina are going to advance.
I think what's happening in Argentina is a good example of your Iran analogy.
Argentina, you can think of it as having discarded its status system of garment.
Obviously I am projecting the current pace of Malay reforms
as continuing and benefiting.
And so I think that, uh, yeah, I think there will be innovation and
I think that there will be reform in Argentina, so I'm gonna pick them.
You'll love it.
Jacob Shapiro: Okay, uh, we've got seven minutes to do the last nine here.
I'm gonna get very controversial.
It's my first city state.
Um, I will take Singapore at number 12.
I'm thinking about the Strait of Malacca.
I'm thinking about material wealth.
I'm thinking about the ability to project power with advances
in AI and things like that.
And there is no place in the world that is better suited to deploy AI
and all these different fancy things at scale than a city state with the
relative stability, material, wealth, and strategic location as Singapore.
So if we're thinking about who can shape global trends and how
they can use that power, I think in multipolar eras we'll see the
return of very powerful city states.
And I think Singapore is the top one.
So I'm probably picking too high 'cause I wanted them, but I wanted them, I needed,
I needed the crown jewel at number 12.
Marko: Alright, so, uh, we'll definitely do a download of this in the next episode
'cause we're gonna do this very quickly.
Saudi Arabia is my 13 pick.
Now I am including in this, first of all, Saudi Arabia is doing what Iran
should have done just 10 years earlier.
The second thing is I think that when I see Saudi Arabia, I do
really mean the region as well.
So, um, no offense to anyone, uh, but I think Saudi Arabia is going
to harness the power of innovation, not just in Saudi Arabia, but also
in neighboring countries as well.
So I'm gonna pick that at 13.
Uh, and that includes some of the city states that are around Saudi Arabia.
Mm-hmm.
You know, so that like, it's like Saudi Arabia plus like three
Singapores, so I'm gonna take them 13.
Exactly.
Jacob Shapiro: It's probably a crime that we've left them to number 14.
'cause I don't think Japan is gonna collapse anytime soon.
So at this point I will bend the knee to Japan and say, sorry we left you off.
Yes, you have lots of demographic issues and all these other things,
but if there's any country that is gonna respond to the continued
growth of China, it's gonna be Japan.
And Japan is gonna be at the front lines of doing that.
And they technologically all different sorts of ways.
Like they know how to exist in this world.
So I'll take them.
Marko: Okay.
So I'm gonna take Ukraine 15.
Ooh, spicy.
Yeah, so I think the Ukraine is going to become a garrison state.
Garrison states do very well.
Western Germany, Taiwan, uh, South Korea, Japan in some sense,
Pakistan for a period of its time.
Um, so I think, yeah, Ukraine's gonna be a garrison state.
It's gonna be armed to the teeth.
Your point that Russia is still six.
Okay, cool.
Well, the west is gonna have to stalk Ukraine with a lot of good
governance, anti-corruption, money, innovation, and so on.
So I, I like Ukraine and, and I almost feel like I took it way too low here.
I think that it's a large country, it's in the West.
It's got a lot of natural resources, not energy, but it's
gonna have to work on that.
Um, so yeah.
Now look, we have four minutes and we have to do five.
So here's what I'm gonna say.
Let's do second part of this next week.
Next, yeah.
If you agree.
That sounds good.
Uh, we've got top 15, uh, we got five more and then maybe we can do some thoughts.
You know, for example, uh, Russia didn't fall as much as it did.
Japan seems to have fallen more than I think both of you and I. Like if I
took South Korea seventh, like, you know, should Japan really be 14th?
Like I think there's a lot of things here that, that maybe
we can talk about next time.
Um, but yeah, that, that can be part two of our trade value.
Jacob Shapiro: I think that sounds great.
And that also allows the listeners to send us feedback about the initial list.
Like let's, so tell listeners, tell us either via email or via social media
how you think the draft went so far to maybe some of your alternate picks.
And then to your point, Marco, we can pick the last five and then sort of go
through and whether this was actually a fruitful exercise or whether we
were just picking out of our butts.
Marko: Alright.
Cool.
Well thank you Jacob.
Uh, I guess we'll do another one soon.
Jacob Shapiro: We've got three minutes.
Uh, anything you want quick 60 seconds of NBA thoughts?
Uh, I don't think any expert out there had, uh, Knick's, Pacers as,
uh, as the Eastern Conference Finals.
I, my, my, uh, my Knick's, uh, Timberwolves, uh, uh, pick is starting
to look a little, a little good looking.
Okay.
Marko: No.
So, uh, my pick was timber rolls versus, uh,
Boston.
Yeah.
So I looked really stupid on the timber rolls, right?
Like, I mean, that, that didn't look like it was gonna happen,
but what I think would be cool was Timberwolves versus Nicks, you know?
And I just think that that's like such a great finals, um, because Kat versus
Randall, like who won the trade, yeah.
I guess it's one of the first trades that actually really did work out
for both teams, like massively.
So, no, I, I, I think it's gonna be interesting.
Uh, YOIC needs help last night's game where he just had a crazy stat line
that three pointer or like just, I mean.
It was just sad to see that.
Uh, but, uh, but yeah, um, all I would say is like, uh, don't write
off Denver yet, because it's gonna go back to game seven, I think in Okay.
C and then maybe, um, you know, we'll see the youth versus
experience that might work.
Uh, other than that, uh, you ended up being right about Tatum, but I
gotta say I don't feel good about it.
Jacob Shapiro: Oh, I, I, I don't want to be right if I'm right, if I'm right
this way, but I, I'm rooting for Yoic, but I think OKC, the, the smart money is
KC and that OKC has agree, has a measure of everyone and that, and that probably
going through the crucible of Denver has now made them ready for what they
need to get the rest of the way, like Denver needed to give them that test.
So,
Marko: by the way, speaking of picking Canada too high mm-hmm.
Nobody's mentioned this narrative, but that OKC nuggets, um, series
is really Canada on full display.
Like the two most important players on the Thunder are clearly obviously Canadian.
It's not Williams who's playing terrible, it's Dot and Shea.
And then of course, uh, Murray on Nuggets can be the difference maker.
So I thought that was really interesting.
Uh, but yeah.
Cool.
Alright.