I didnt say he was spreading misinformation, I said he was saying what his audience wanted to hear. Like his audience from 2005-15 wanted to hear that China was going to collapse in the next 5 years.
Did that happen? No. Does that make it misinformation? No. Why was he so confident though? Why did his audience believe it?
Because theres a whole lot of misinformation around. I think his basic pitch is that fossil fuels are amazing, America has lots so it will win and the rest of the world but especially China will collapse when it runs out.
Can you think of any hot topics of misinformation that might affect your reception of such an argument when China is the world leader in wind, solar, battery, EV, Rail, electrolizer, green hydrogen, HVDC, Hydro, Nuclear etc.
No - that's way too narrow of a view of his overall assessment which is basically that a couple of things matter to a country:
1. Access to key resources (food, energy, other products/services). That includes being able to manufacture
2. Demographics
His general position is that the current state of the global economy for #1 is due to risk free global trade due to American guarantees on shipping safety post-WWII. He thinks this is unlikely to continue forever, and he works through the scenarios for individual countries if supply chains have to become more regional/local.
He basically says some countries are in good positions (France, Norway, Sweden, US, most of Southeast Asia) because they have decent demographics, enough military (mostly naval) power, and enough access to critical resources. Other countries are in bad positions (China, Korea, a bunch of others I'm forgetting)
He's "pro-America" mainly because the US is energy independent, food independent, capable of manufacturing anything (and if they can't, they already have alliances with the rest of the Americas to do it), with decent demographics, geographic isolation from other countries that have issues, and a good military to protect shipping. He's "anti-China (and Korea)" because they have rapidly aging demographics, limited access to a bunch of supplies, and no naval power (and in Korea's case, they are stuck in the middle of a bunch of other potentially hostile powers).
I think the US audience is definitely more likely to accept his messages, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. He could be completely wrong, but it's at least a very interesting perspective (and I think the basis for some of Elon's recent comments).
Did that happen? No. Does that make it misinformation? No. Why was he so confident though? Why did his audience believe it?
Because theres a whole lot of misinformation around. I think his basic pitch is that fossil fuels are amazing, America has lots so it will win and the rest of the world but especially China will collapse when it runs out.
Can you think of any hot topics of misinformation that might affect your reception of such an argument when China is the world leader in wind, solar, battery, EV, Rail, electrolizer, green hydrogen, HVDC, Hydro, Nuclear etc.