Jacob Shapiro: Hello listeners, welcome to Geopolitical Cousins.

This is our postmortem of the Trade Value Leaders column piece, whatever you want to call it.

Uh, Marco and I said we were gonna do an hour and a half and we ended up doing two plus hours, so enjoy yourself.

Um, we, we saved the conversation for why Trump is not on either of our lists towards the end.

Uh, I'm sure that will cause lots of controversy, but whatever.

We love your hate mail and we love to hear from you.

Uh, jacob@jacobshari.com, marco@geopoliticalalpha.com.

You can send us feedback there.

Um, otherwise we're having fun.

We're hope you're having fun.

We're hoping that if you like this podcast, you will share it with your friends and your cousins and your neighbors and everybody else, and leave reviews on the podcast, if you will.

That is also super helpful.

So take care of the people that you love.

We'll see you out there.

Take us away, Marco.

Marko Papic: Alright, well, super.

Um, this is the part two of our top 30 leaders in the world, the trade value.

Uh, just as a little reminder for all those of you who missed the first one.

So what we're trying to do here is we're effectively trying to, uh, create a list of, um, policy makers, politicians in the world if you were able to trade them.

So the, the person that ends up being top on our list, uh, is technically untraded tradable.

Whereas somebody who ends up 30th on the list, you would trade for the 29 in front of them.

Um, now there are over 190 countries in the world.

So if you are the last on the list, it doesn't mean you're a terrible leader.

It just, it means you're better than all of those who we did not put on our, uh, list.

Also, uh, an important point here is that we're assuming that there are some qualities that are universal to leadership.

So, uh, just as a reminder, if you didn't follow our part one, uh, it means that we're basically saying that, uh, it know these are policy makers who overcome the constraints they face.

That's what we like.

We like those who make something out of nothing.

And unfortunately, yes, that's going to, uh, favor, you know, leaders of smaller countries.

So in the, in part one, Jacob and I both submitted our, uh, top 30.

Obviously there was a ton of overlap there, but there were 14 leaders, 14 across the two of us that were either on one or the other's list.

And so those were obviously penalized a lot.

So even if you were in Jacob's top 10, but you were not in my top 30, you effectively got ejected from the top 30 list, more or less.

It's, it's very difficult to, to be, uh, near the top at that level.

So, um, we ended up with 44.

So, uh, I'm, I'm gonna start off from the bottom.

Jacob, you just interrupt me at any point.

If you want, we can post the list somewhere as well.

Um, yeah, we'll, we will.

Yes, for sure.

So the 44th is Abby Ahmed from Ethiopia.

Uh, that was Jacob's pick.

Very, uh, you went deep in your back for that one.

That was a, that was a good pick.

Uh, 43rd was Donald Tusk from Poland, by, by me.

Lots of, uh, pro Polish propaganda out there.

You know, the Economist had Poland on the, on the cover.

Tusk managed to squirrel his way to our, uh, top 44.

Uh, one thing I will say about Donald Tusk, he may be a better EU commissioner, the leader of Poland, but let's leave that aside.

Um, Slovenia's Robert Goup was 42nd.

That was me going deep into my bag.

I felt like some Balkan representation from former Yugoslavia was needed.

Uh, it's more about what Goup has done in disrupting the politics of Slovenia, you know, coming out of nowhere.

And it's also just because I'm a huge Laker fan, and Luca Doche is my Jesus Christ Lord and Savior.

So, uh, 41st o Christen, uh, lots of hate mail from, uh, Scandinavia, by the way, for both the 40 41st and the 39th.

39th pick was met f Fredrickson.

So data leaders.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm surprised that one was controversial.

Maybe I, maybe I'm just off here, but I think she's great.

Anyway.

Marko Papic: Well, well, what I would say is like, one of the consistent things that came out of this exercise is that if you are in the west, if you're a, if you are listening to us from the western world, which most of our, uh, listeners are invariably you hate your leader.

I mean, that is what we have learned from doing this exercise because the amount of hate mail we got for doing this exercise where our listeners are like, man, I love the MBS aspect, like you nailed MBS, but let me tell you about my prime minister of my perfectly run country.

They are complete and utter morons.

So, uh, we got more hate mail for the 41st and the 39th pick than anyone else.

Also, um, there was some constructive, uh, uh, feedback about the Nordics, uh, which I thought was really good.

And I think my, maybe we did, uh, drop the ball.

President of Finland, uh, Stubb came up couple of times.

Hey, God bless you for that difficult place to run.

Uh, both because politics, uh, in Finland have been in a state of transition just like they have been in neighboring Sweden.

So lots of new parties coming up, the true fins rising, falling, uh, you know, transition away from a immature populist party towards a kind of a center right, you know, leadership party.

So that was interesting.

But also obviously the elephant in the room.

Largest, uh, land border of any NATO country with Russia now joining nato.

So maybe we did, um, ignore Finland here and, uh, well, I, I

Jacob Shapiro: just wanna say, I just wanna say I seriously considered Finland.

I just didn't include Finland because I'm still mourning the loss of Sauna Marin, who, I'm not saying she was a great geopolitical leader.

I'm sure we'll get more hate mail if I said that.

Just like, uh, this is politically incorrect.

Had a crush on her.

She's, she's awesome.

Like, I couldn't, couldn't make the transition.

Sorry.

Marko Papic: Jacob had a crush on the leader of Finland.

That's fair.

Uh, and that she left and UB just didn't do it for you, you know, so like, there you go.

Uh, but yeah, so, uh, I do feel like that was, that,

Jacob Shapiro: that, by that by the way, folks, that's the level of analysis that we're giving you here.

I just want you to understand.

Marko Papic: Sorry.

Well, I mean, you know, if Mario Draggy was still around, I would've picked him just because I have a man crush on him, as I said.

So yes, uh, that is, that is perfectly fine.

It's our list, Jacob.

We own it.

We do whatever we want with it.

Um, Egypt, Egypt's, uh, l ccc, uh, 40th, the Jacobs Pick.

Kind of jealous of that.

Well done.

Then Provo, Subianto, Indonesia 38th also.

Jacobs Pick, A lot of these are very individualistic.

The two of us did not necessarily agree on these.

Uh, but that's fine.

We didn't, I'm sorry.

I mean, we actually agree on most of these.

We just didn't, uh, have them on our combined list.

37th, Christopher Luxon from New Zealand.

Uh, 30, uh, sorry, that was 37, 30 sixth Anwar Ibrahim from Malaysia, New Zealand was your pick.

Malaysia was mine.

35th.

Okay.

So you got a lot of hate mail for this Jacob.

And I'm gonna let you take all this hate mail.

Uh, I'm not gonna share this with you.

You did pick Ki Starr.

Jacob Shapiro: I did, did

Marko Papic: I think it's defensible, but I didn't want to pick him.

And uh, yeah, there, there was a lot of, again, woe is me.

I live in an O-E-C-D-G 20, uh, you know, first world country.

And my leaders are terrible, but oh boy, do I look that love that Victor Orban.

So that's one of those where we got some hit mail.

Another, uh, I

Jacob Shapiro: I also just wanna say about Kiir, like remember that this list is like you would trade for the people in front of you.

So he was number 22 on my list.

So I'm saying that anybody below him would wanna trade for him.

So there's still 21 leaders out there that I'd, that I'm saying, um, are not better than Ki Starer.

And also just like, think of the incompetence that he inherited from Liz Trust and you and everything else.

And things are not like, completely broken.

Like, not to mention Brexit and everything else.

Like he's, he is uninspiring, he's relatively boring.

He's perfectly competent.

Like he, he's a boring, competent leader of a very fractious democracy.

Like that gets him, that gets him points in my book.

That's all.

It's, I'm not saying that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

He is not.

Marko Papic: And listen, I, I'm letting you take this hit meal.

I am, I'm not gonna share with you.

But I agree with you because he did inherit a terrible situation.

Um, he hasn't made it worse.

And quite frankly, I put Matt Frederickson almost exclusively because of her handling of effectively American, uh, aggression.

You know, like the United States of America is the threatening to seize Greenland from Denmark.

She handled that well.

I mean, Keith Star, uh, ki Starmer just purely for handling the trade negotiations with the US, I think should get some props.

I mean, he handled it, I think, better than most countries.

Obviously.

He got the trade deal first, and so he got out of that wave, uh, very, very quickly, which was very, you know, tricky for a labor prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Mm-hmm.

I mean, he is ideologically opposed, uh, like ideologically.

He and Donald Trump are obviously not on the same plane.

So I thought that was a a, you know, I think, I think it's not a crazy pick.

The next one.

I do think you were completely out to lunch.

Um, maybe you also have a crush on Lula the Silva, but, uh, you did pick him very high.

Um, I thought that was looking backwards.

Now forward he is 34th.

We got I think, a little bit, a little bit of hate mail.

I got some texts about it.

Um, one of my friends, uh, who's in finance basically said next to the dictionary definition of corruption is Lula's picture.

So, you know, 34th.

Um.

Jacob Shapiro: I think that, that, that's fine.

But literally, show me a leader on here who is not corrupt.

And I'll show you a chipmunk that speaks Swahili.

I mean, really, you, you're telling me that politicians and leaders are not corrupt to get to the top.

Like that's not a meaning.

I, I think the pushback that his best days are behind him, that he doesn't actually control congress.

That he's actually, he's using 2008 policies for a very different multiple environment and there's no successor.

Like there's lots of different ways I think you could go at the Lula pick.

I'll tell you though, one of the things that, I didn't mention this when we talked about it, um, I actually used to shit on Lula a lot more and hung out with a couple of Brazilians and, you know, you're, you're gonna know who the Brazilians are or what their ideology is based on whether they like Lula or not.

But, but, but was sort of slapped on the hand being like, uh, Lula, like change things in Brazil.

No matter what you think of him.

He's a formidable politician with an idea of Brazil's future.

And he got closer to realizing Brazil's potential than literally any Brazilian leader ever.

Arguably.

So like, I, I definitely was like, privileging some past performance, but even, even if you don't like him ideologically, like pre pre Brazil Lula and post Brazil Lula, like, I think he deserves, um, some of the credit there.

But I, I al Yeah.

Sorry, go ahead.

You meant

Marko Papic: Prej pre jail and post jail.

Jacob Shapiro: Yes.

Sorry.

Yes.

Oh

Marko Papic: no, sorry.

Yeah, yeah.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

I didn't mean to interrupt you, just

Jacob Shapiro: No, no.

Marko Papic: Um, well, what I, what I would also say about Lula is that, um.

You know, we, we are modeling this on Bill Simmons, uh, trade value for basketball players, which is awesome.

And one of the things that, um, you know, goes into establishing the trade value for a basketball player is not just this skill.

So when you think about Lula, he clearly is over the course of his career and incredibly adapt politician, he wrangled congress to pa pass pension reform.

I mean, this is like a Maoist like guerrilla leader for God's sakes, you know, passing pension reform that OECD gave a thumbs up to.

So, so he's an incredibly skilled player of this game.

But the two things that go in addition, um, in the Bill Simmons basketball analogy of this is like, how young are they?

How much future do they have?

So you don't want to necessarily trade a 23-year-old basketball player with a lot of upside for a 39-year-old, 40-year-old LeBron, even though LeBron is better right now.

So that's a knock on Lula as well.

Uh, I mean, to be fair, it is also a knock on my pick of Anwar Ibrahim who got six.

He's been around for 40 years.

Uh, the other issue also with Lula is the, the contract issue.

You know, so, um, on the Bill Simmons basketball analogy of what we're doing here is like you contract matters.

If you're a 23-year-old basketball player, young, you've got another 10, 15 years ahead of you and you're on a rookie deal, oh my god, that's so much better than being in, in your thirties.

Your knees are already hurt and you are, you know, 30, $40 million a year with Lula.

That's also like, you know, when politicians overstay their welcome.

And so I do think that the, the comp here between the real world in the basketball world, the rookie contract is sort of like the honeymoon phase, right?

Mm-hmm.

When you get elected for the first time, or you just seize power in a coup, God bless you.

You know, like we're, we're, we're neutral here, you know, but whatever kind of seizing of power you are involved in those first couple of years, you kind of, on your rookie contract, you're, you're cheap if you will, you know, you're, you have that fresh new car smell.

And so I think that, uh, with Lula, that's definitely not the case.

So what I would say about Lula is he's like Paul Pierce late in his career, you know, he's still got a chance to hit a game-winning jumper, but he's kind of overweight.

He's probably out in the clubs too long and he's about to launch a podcast with kg.

So I would say that Lula Lula is like about two to three years away from doing a podcast with like, um, I don't know, the parishioners, I don't know.

Like with somebody.

Well,

Jacob Shapiro: yeah, and I, I take your point.

I actually think the biggest argument against Lula, and I think he shares this quality with a couple other folks on our list that will be higher up.

I think he shares it with Narendra Modi, I think he shares this with, uh, Erdogan and Turkey for a little bit.

And I think Claudia Shane Baum, who we're gonna give a lot of, a lot of d to on this podcast, like also needs to be aware of this.

His legacy as a leader is, is not looking particularly good.

Who is one is the next Lula.

Like what is the future of the Brazilian left when there's no Lula?

He cannibalized the left.

What could have been a movement that brought Brazil and his image of Brazil forward for generations has sort of been subsumed, as you said, in this sort of corruption, charisma, personal leadership, uh, sort of figure.

And I think that's something that Modi is really struggling with.

Like who takes over when Modi's gone?

Is the BJP still gonna be the BJP when Modi's not on top of it?

If you're extrapolating today, maybe not Erdogan, he's casting about, is it his son-in-law?

Is it somebody else?

Like who's the successor that follows through?

And with Shane Baum too, like Shane Baum is the leader of a party that looks like it's gonna just be the pre, again, it looks like it's gonna try to be a single party.

Dictatorship in Mexico.

And even though I think she's very adept and pragmatic and all these other things, what happens when the next person is not and takes the mere and machine and does it for things that absolutely should terrify Mexicans and people who are thinking about the Mexican economy in general.

So for me, the biggest shot against Lula is not what he's done so far.

I think he's been very skilled and, you know, corruption aside, whatever, these people are all corrupt.

But I don't know, I don't know that his legacy will look particularly good because I think that he let these things get to his own head.

So if I'm arguing against myself, that's, that's I think my weak point.

Marko Papic: You know, first of all, to answer your question, who takes over from Modi?

I would, I would pay money to see Sue m Ja, Shankar, Ja Shankar, the Foreign Minister of India.

Listen, if you don't know what I'm talking about, that's perfectly cool.

This podcast is just for normal people.

Go on YouTube and Google.

S Ja Shankar, the foreign minister of India.

Um, the, I mean, this guy, uh, actually that's not how you say it.

It's a minister of external affairs.

Um, yeah, yeah.

But, uh, the guy, he's t guys, he's brilliant.

He's a g Maybe we should do this for ministers of Foreign Affairs.

That would be kind of cool.

The top 10.

We should like Avi, Avi Lav is like LeBron, but like we put that aside.

Uh, I think that Chen Carr is amazing.

He's only four years younger than Modi do, so I don't think he would be really a replacement.

But, but this is an interesting point.

We didn't actually think about this, this legacy question like who comes after you?

That is not something that you would, uh, really have in a basketball trade value.

Maybe we were over indexing to it, but Bill Simmons does talk about people who raise the quality of their teammates.

Right.

That is important.

And I do think that, you know, when you, when you think about that, who does come after, uh, Lula, who comes after Modi to, to give AMLO credit?

I mean, he did create Shiba.

Yes.

Did, I mean, you know, like, and he stepped aside and he's now, you know, uh, sort of like an, uh, like an old advisor, like a grandpa or like a Vito Corleone Right.

In, uh, in Godfather.

I mean, I think that's, that's amazing.

And to AM's credit, he's really, uh, he should be high on this list as well, if he was still, um.

Playing.

Jacob Shapiro: Well, I, I, I, I actually do think that, just to close it out on Lula, I, I do think there is a basketball metaphor here though, for the trade list because, and we had one listener write in and compare Lula to LeBron, and I'm jealous of the comparison because it's dead on because like the legacy thing comes in when you're LeBron and you're forcing the Lakers to, uh, get Russell Westbrook on the team because you think that's what's gonna happen.

You're gonna leave unless you get Russell Westbrook on the team.

That's what I'm talking about.

Yeah.

I see that.

Like, you're selling the future, you're forcing your organization to do what you want right now.

Yes.

And not setting them up for long term when you retire.

So I, I think there's an aspect of that.

Marko Papic: Yeah, that's true.

I, I see that point.

That's actually pretty good.

And I mean, you're, you're 40 years old and still putting up points, but, you know, are they empty calories?

Okay.

Uh, next one is also your pick.

So we got three picks of yours, 33.

Victor Orban, um, hated the pick at the beginning, but I don't hate it anymore.

Jacob Shapiro: Hmm.

Marko Papic: I'm surprised you made the pick, you know?

Oh, I felt,

Jacob Shapiro: I felt dirty.

I felt dirty making the pick, but this is my allegiance to objectivity here.

Marko Papic: No, that's excellent.

I mean, and, and I think, you know, at first, you know, I don't like leaders that are just effective at staying in power.

You know, like that's not what this list is about.

You know, this list is about are you actually good at getting your country to the NBA finals?

Basically, this is about winning.

This is about making the country better, making it great again.

And I gotta say, I mean, Victor Orban has defended, I think Hungarian interest very well.

Uh, and for the most part he has used his, um, annoying qualities in a really positive way in which he has extracted concessions from Europe just to kind of play along.

And I think that's been, um, quite admirable from an effectiveness policy point of view.

Now, whether he has brought, you know, soft authoritarianism back to Europe, you know, the kind of things that the foreign affairs are, God forbid the Economist would write about, I don't really give a shit about that stuff.

That's not what I'm looking at.

Maybe in the long term that will be a problem for Hungary.

I'm not sure, but I do think that was a good pick.

Jacob.

So he is 33 third.

I didn't have him on the list, so he slipped.

Jacob Shapiro: I think he's good.

I think he has a ceiling.

Like if your country is facing like other countries that are going after it, or if you're, if you're in a real problem neighborhood or something like that, like you'll want Victor Orban.

If you're swimming with the sharks, you want a shark of your own.

If you start the upper levels of my list, where you're starting to get into open democracies where elections are completely fair and open and things like that, Orban is not gonna work in that system.

His method of rule is not gonna work.

And that's why you probably trade some of those people in front of him.

Like even if they're not as adept as politicians, like you probably still wouldn't trade for them.

But if you're any kind of country that has like problems or you're thinking about defending your interest in a rough neighborhood, like that's why he earns the, this spot on the list.

'cause if you're in that sort of situation, you're gonna want this guy, like this guy is ruthless about pursuing national interests and tying his own future to the national interest.

I think that's, I don't think that's arguable

Marko Papic: correct.

I think he would've done a better job, for example, than me, him in Netanyahu in Israel.

So I would've traded him for, uh, Benjamin Nhu.

The other thing I would say about Orban is that I think you might be too harsh on him.

I mean, he, he did also, uh, he was electorally successful even when he was far more committed to liberal democracy, you know, so he's, he's got range.

Uh, what I would say about Victor Orban is if we were comparing him to a, like a basketball player, he's someone who has transformed himself and the way that he plays.

He was a down low banker in the post, and then he learned how to, you know, he's like Brooke Lopez.

That's a good to,

Jacob Shapiro: yeah.

Al Horford.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I got you.

Marko Papic: There you go.

Yes.

Just, you know, kind of annoying.

Uh.

Francis, uh, Vatican, Pope Francis 32nd.

I gotta say, this was kind of a joke pic.

He ends up being pretty high, but I think he's gonna be a really good pope.

So let's move on.

Alright, uh, 31st.

Benjamin Netanyahu.

Your pick.

Uh, here, uh, I do disagree.

Um, unlike Orban, I don't think he is, uh, like 10 years from now after Orban is gone, like 10 years after Orban.

I think the Hungary is better off than Orban, particularly because I think institutions of Hungary will swing back towards liberal democracy and only Westerners sitting in London and writing about, you know, other countries, uh, disagree with that, uh, because they look down on Eastern Europe.

So I don't actually have a problem with Orban and what he's doing.

Like it's gonna be fine.

Settle down, hung is not gonna go fascist.

Benjamin Netanyahu, eh, I don't know.

I think he's enabled, I think he's enabled the worst parts of, uh, Israeli politics to kind of bubble up to the surface to be normalized and purely for petty personal interests.

I really, really struggled to see much, uh, long-term strategy here.

But you did have a very, very high, and I think that's, you know, like if you look at him purely from a geopolitical perspective, I mean, he has kind of crushed it.

And I agree with that.

Iran is on the back foot, Hezbollah hesitating to check their text messages.

Uh, and, uh, you know, Hamas is obviously, um, yeah, basically destroyed.

So, uh, I do understand it from a, from an effectiveness perspective and a military perspective.

He has done really well.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.

I, nothing really to add there for me.

Just that like, he probably wouldn't have made it this high on my list even 12 months ago.

But the quick succession of decimating Hezbollah and then decimating Iran like this, like it's extremely, like, it's, it's not something I thought.

So maybe I'm over-indexing because I didn't think that he was capable of it or Israel was capable of it.

But I also think there's no arguing that like he understood this threat and he went after it to, to the point of understanding the United States, understanding that all he needed to do was back Trump into a corner and give him FOMO on foreign policy.

And he would help in the war rather than slap Israel in the wrist.

Like he, he read the room correctly.

He's got a hot hand right now.

Marko Papic: You know what I would say about Benjamin Thu, my comp for him.

I know I said Gilbert Arenas.

That's, that's not fair.

Gilbert Arenas, other than a few years in Washington, never really took his team deep in the playoffs.

I would say Benjamin Thu is Paul George three his playoff b hmm.

You know, like remember when the Indiana pastries with Paul George like took LeBron to like I do a couple like, yeah.

So, but, but he's terrible and he's terrible for your team and he whines and he's selfish and he's also, maybe he and Lula will do a podcast to together to complete the Paul Pearson Paul George analogy.

Alright, we go from the Vatican to Israel to Al-Qaeda, Ahed Al.

I mean obviously that's how we go.

30th on the list.

He was very, very high on mine.

I know you love this pick.

I know you're jealous of it.

That's fine.

Mm-hmm.

We can share it together.

The former Al-Qaeda leader of Syria, uh, this is, this is your 19-year-old seven foot six project from France.

This is the guy that you don't know if he's gonna stay healthy or in the real world.

The equivalent of that would be alive.

So you don't know any of those things.

You are confused, but just the range is amazing.

Great family with a lot of political, uh, roots in Syria.

This is not some dude that came out of a cave, picked up an AK 47 and decided to be a terrorist.

This is a university educated, frustrated dude, hated Assad.

The only way to fight Assad was to join Al-Qaeda.

And he did.

God bless him.

And then he was like, Hmm, Windsor changing.

Maybe I should put on a tie and trim my beard.

And then here he is on CNN speaking to Christiana Amur, which was one of the most fascinating 180 degree turns from a PR perspective.

I think, uh, this is one of the highest rated leaders here.

This guy's got something, he's got that something special.

Um, I'm really fascinated, uh, was quiet.

The only Arab leader that was quiet during the Israel Iran conflict, the only one that did not disparage Israel for attacking Iran, has been pretty unequivocally anti-Iran this entire time.

He's got Trump basically.

Uh, advocating for, uh, Syria to be brought back into the international community is gonna be very, very tough for him.

He's basically a draft project, young player, lots of potential rookie contract, honeymoon period.

But he did get drafted by an absolutely terrible team.

What is a comp for Syria in the NBA?

Probably the Washington Wizards.

So, you know, we'll see if he survives, but he's 30th and I think that's appropriate.

Um, I think that's so far what we've seen pretty extraordinary.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I, I don't have anything to add 'cause I was jealous of the pick, but I will say to our Nordic listeners who were sending in the hate mail, you know, I had met to Frederickson up at 12, so as a result of smooshing together, MAA Marco's List, Metta comes in at 39th on this list, and Ahmed Al Shara is at 30.

Would you trade Metta Frankon for Ahmed Al Shara?

Just throwing that out there to the Danish listeners.

Like, just, just, just cook with that question for a little bit and then come back to me.

If, if you would still make the trade and, and if you would, then, then fine, then I respect the take, but like, just, just slow down a little bit.

Unless you want, unless you want the Alqaeda guy in charge, you know,

Marko Papic: I mean, you know, like he's doing well.

I'm pretty sure he's gonna handle the intricacy of pension reform if he can handle the intricacy of ethnic conflict.

We'll see.

Uh, alright, next pick was kind of a deep, uh, deep reach by me.

I, I reached into my bag.

Eddie Rama from Albania, he has done really great job.

You then picked, uh, you went deep in your bag too.

This guy was very high on your list, wasn't on mine.

That's why he got penalized.

But I am jealous of this.

Shav got me from Uzbekistan who has transformed the country.

Jacob Shapiro: I was jealous of the Albania pick.

And I, I think these are both like really nice, like deep in the bag examples.

It'd be interesting to see if these guys could get called up to, uh, to the, to the pros.

But they're doing very well in their, in their spheres.

Marko Papic: Uh, you then went with Shakiro Yeshiva from Japan.

Um, I thought that was a great pick.

I didn't have him, but I think he's doing really, really well despite, um, relatively tap popularity in Japan.

The Japanese just does, don't like their leaders ever.

So, uh, God bless him.

He's doing great in the negotiations with, uh, Trump is, uh, you know, he's the one, the one leader that has decided to hold out for a better deal.

Kayak cull, uh, another person that was very high on your list, uh, is from Estonia, got, uh, penalized because I did not pick her.

I think that was a good pick.

Karen Keller Suiter from Switzerland.

I thought this was, uh, you know, it's, it's kind of like picking, I don't know, like Tony Parker outta the Spurs.

Is Tony Parker really good, or were the Spurs really a great team?

Jacob Shapiro: Oh, it's, it's not even that.

It's, it's more like Shane Batier.

It's like a really, really safe pick.

Marko Papic: It's a, it's a safe pick, but also it's like the system, you know, this is a great example of, of just the country.

So, well, I think I could run Switzerland.

Um, and then we get into, so now we're getting into like the, the picks where I, I, I mean, we're not there yet, but like Abdullah's, second of Jordan, very difficult situation.

Doing great.

Pedro Sanchez from Swain got a lot of hate mail.

Somebody compared him to Merkel because of energy policy.

Please look at the data first before you say that.

Spain is one of the few places in the world where it does make sense to go hard into alternative energy.

Uh, so disagree with you completely.

There's a boom in data centers in Spain because of their alternative energy policies, because their electricity prices go to zero for God's sakes.

Uh, Oman's, he binta Saltan, he binta of Oman.

22nd.

Xi Jinping 21st.

We'll get back to that.

Let's hold that thought.

Moham Mohamed's, sixth of Morocco.

So, uh, also for the extraordinary transformation of Morocco is 20th, top 20.

Kasim Jomar to Kazakhstan.

I went deep into my bag.

He was top five pick for me.

He did not make your list.

Because he was so highly ranked.

He sneaked into 19 and now Kuski, he was also top five for me.

Greek prime Minister, who has led to extraordinary reforms.

Olo Deir, Zelensky 17.

Hold that thought will come back to him.

Mm-hmm.

Yep.

Uh, and now we get into, uh, some leaders that we both had on the list, which is why they're so high.

These leaders are so high because we, there's consensus now top 15, basically Amal Amman, Macron at 16.

Uh, neither one of us picked him actually this high.

But where we aggregated our list, he went up because many of our higher picks, better picks, in our opinion, in, in one of our opinions, just got penalized.

'cause they were only on one list.

So by default, Macron won kind of how he won his second term.

Exactly.

You know, like both of us felt uncomfortable not putting Macron on the list.

He did transform French politics for the first time since Charlotte de Gold in a significant way.

So we're sitting there like, yeah, okay, fine.

You know, he's always in the mix, but most French people are probably lighting themselves in fire for us.

Having him, well, you know what guys?

You should do yourself with more gasoline.

'cause he kind of squirted his way up higher onto our list.

Ami Rwanda also.

We both picked him 15th on the list.

I 14th.

Hey, listen, bald, don't lie, right?

Mm-hmm.

Now Goba not in Armenia anymore, so he is high on this list.

Although obviously we should, we should caveat this.

How difficult is it to win a war?

Uh, a war when you are washed in commodity proceeds Friedrich me of Germany.

Number 13.

I mean, we're treating Merz here as if, I don't know.

He's Victor Van Bama or at least, uh, what's, what's the, the kid's name outta Duke.

My brain just stopped.

Jacob Shapiro: Cooper Flag

Marko Papic: Flag.

Cooper Flag.

I mean, Friedrich Mertz Cooper flag on this list just got picked number one in the NBA.

We're basically giving Mertz a lot of credit.

And to be, to be clear, he is, uh, summer workout.

YouTube videos are extraordinary.

So I, he, I do think he deserves it.

Um, Erdogan another guy who's courted his way up 'cause he was on both of our list.

He managed to get to 12.

I don't think either one of us really wanted him 12, but here he is.

Mm-hmm.

Lo wonk, Lawrence Wonk, I agree with, I had him much lower than you did, but I had him on the list contemplating putting him in top 10.

He's number 11.

I agree with that.

He's young.

He's, he just started as the prime Minister of Singapore a year ago, and so far what I've seen is, uh, pretty impressive stuff.

cyril OSA number 10, um, complicated alliance with the, uh, da.

He's, uh, he's the first leader of South Africa and has basically had to, uh, you know, uh, reach out to the opposition to create a pretty significant coalition.

And of course, his, uh, handling of Donald Trump, I think was very good.

Mm-hmm.

Now the most controversial, uh, part of this number nine, massive hate mail from Australia.

I mean, Australians are quitting, they're unsubscribing from geopolitical cousins in droves because they all hate the Anthony Albanese pig, you know?

And, uh, I I, I have to admit, I hesitated putting him as high as I did.

He was, where was he on my list?

He was really high on my list, I think.

Oh, no, he was 20, 20 20th on my list.

Jacob Shapiro: No, he was 10th on my list of br Bring the hate over here, Ozzie.

I'm ready for it.

So

Marko Papic: I, he was 20 of mine, 10 on yours.

He ends up nine on the combined list.

Uh, and I think that that's too harsh.

You know, like all the, all the hate mail.

Fine.

Maybe he's 10 spots too high.

Who cares?

I think he's, uh, done a pretty admirable job of geopolitical balancing.

I think most Aussies that hate de pick don't understand why he's saw Aloof of America.

And my answer is because he understands the world is not bipolar.

For the first Australian leader who gets the picking sides.

So clearly is probably a mistake.

So I give him credit for that.

What's your defense of albanese?

Jacob Shapiro: Well, it's sort of, first of all, it's sort of like kiir starer, like think about who else is on this list.

So if you're in Australia, are you gonna trade, uh, albanese for somebody who's lower on those list?

Like, would you rather have Benjamin Netanyahu running your country or, you know, uh, ab fatal Assisi or somebody like that?

Like, like so slow.

Your role a little bit there.

I think you're right about, um, look, Australia's defense relationship with the United States incredibly critical for Australian geopolitics, but your biggest trading relationship is with China.

You can't just give the middle finger to China in a world that is moving multipolar where the United States is less reliable in general.

And I guess also just with Albany, like what's the scandal?

Like, what has he effed up?

I haven't heard, almost, almost nothing from Australian politics has risen to the level of I need to work on this right now for clients in ever since he is been elected, because he's just handling shit.

Like, is it brilliant?

Is he the, is he the best Australian leader ever?

No, none of this necessarily.

But when you start comparing him to some of the other folks on this list, and by the way, doing this exercise makes you realize just how few leaders there are out there that you would even want to be in charge of your own country.

But, you know, we're, we're talking about would you rather have Xi Jinping as the leader of Australia?

Would you rather have, um, you know, Pedro Sanchez or somebody like that?

Like I, I think that if you're judging him relatively, and you're looking at his record, he's been competent.

Even if he's been uninspiring, he's correctly navigating geopolitical, very tough geopolitical Cs.

Like I, yeah, it's, it's not a full throat that he's the, the best thing ever.

But if you're thinking, if you're being faithful to the exercise, I have a hard time seeing why he should be penalized.

But I'm open to the Australians telling me, no, Jacob, you don't know all these other terrible things that he's done.

Please tell me the terrible, awful things that he's done to collapse the Australian economy.

Because here, sitting here in New Orleans, I don't see, it seems to me Australia's doing okay.

Marko Papic: Yeah, no, I, I think you, you did a great job there.

And I, I do think it was funny how much hate mail we got from Westerners hating their own leaders.

Uh, by the way, just to be clear, we love the hate mail.

Please keep it coming.

Jacob Shapiro: Yes, please.

Marko Papic: Absolutely No problem.

But we will expose you and make fun of you.

Like that is something that you have to take on that risk if you send us hate mail.

So, uh, lots of, lots of criticism of these leaders and, and again, nobody in Turkey sent us.

Uh, it's funny because, you know, a lot of these picks are very controversial in the countries.

They're picked, but only the westerners unequivocally hate their leaders.

Mm-hmm.

Now we're getting into idea or, or, or, or

Jacob Shapiro: feel safe about, uh, or feel safe, uh, izing their leaders Fair.

Marko Papic: Alright.

That's, that is fair.

Okay.

So let's, uh, let's get into, uh, number nine.

Sorry, number eight.

Number eight on our list is Javier Mil.

Uh, high on both of our lists.

Um, you know, I think that's, but,

Jacob Shapiro: but, but, but also a great example of what I was just talking about.

'cause he was 17 on my list and Albanese was number 10.

So I say again to the Australians, would you rather have the chainsaw wielding maniac as the leader of your country?

Because in my list, no, you wouldn't.

There's, like, if you're a certain level of like, messed up country, yeah, you might want the chainsaw to come out and try and do some reform, but like, that's not exactly what I would wanna trade for in general.

But because Melay was on both of our lists, and because he is do, he's really doing such an ambitious thing and trying to turn around Argentina, which for over a century has been a basket case.

Like he gets some dier, but that just to push back against the Australians one more time.

Marko Papic: Yeah.

I think, you know what, I, I think you're right and I think a lot of, uh, so, so I, I'll take two sides of this.

First of all, I, I think a lot of our listeners in the West, they have to understand that this is kind of like.

What moment in your life are you in?

Like when you're 23 years old?

And I'm gonna try to do this in a gender neutral way.

Okay, good for you.

When you're, yeah, when you're, when you're 23 years old, when you're 23 years old, you kind of want someone who's riding a bike and got tattoos.

Yeah.

When you're like 50 me, you might want someone who's in their mid thirties with a stable job and occasionally likes to ride motorcycles, right?

And so I think a lot of our listeners in the West, they're pretending they're 23, they want a zelensky, they wanted to cave hell, maybe they want to let their hair down and even go out with Xi Jinping.

But the truth is, you're like 57 year olds old man.

You know?

You don't need someone who's 23 on a motorbike with a tattoo.

You know?

Like, you don't need that.

That's not what you want.

And so I think a lot of our listeners look at someone like Alban or Starmer, and they're like boring, you know?

Like, we don't want these guys, they're there.

There's nothing interesting about them.

And uh, and I think that's a mistake.

Now that said, we're gonna get into some people right now who I think are as high as they are because they have vision.

Mm-hmm.

They have, they have vision.

And the problem is, if some of these leaders don't have vision, well this next mid thirties, non tattooed, non motorbike riding, uh, person.

Is is I think does have vision.

And that's Mark Carney.

He's number seven.

He was high on both of our lists.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, I think, you know, I think that's appropriate.

Top 10 leader, uh, incredible range.

Former central banker who can both talk to you about the Laffer Curve and all sorts of other advanced economo metric concepts, while also shaking your hand and talking about junior hockey.

'cause he's got it all.

He's got range.

He was the Central Bank governor of both Canada and the United Kingdom Bank of England that is, uh, and Bank of Canada.

He also comes from a small town in Canada and knows how to, uh, please both the crowds wearing the, uh, the white hats.

Uh, and also, uh, how to please the crowds, uh, at an investment fund.

So I think it's very interesting.

And again, he is somewhat, that's higher list because there's a lot of potential.

He's not particularly young, but he's early in his term.

And there's, uh, more to go.

Next one is Modi.

I do think that it's a little bit unfair to Lula, who's 34, Modi six.

I do think Modi is better at this point in his career, but I do think you can bring up the fact that he's at the end of his career, you are paying a lot.

Uh, for Modi, he's got another three years at $50 million a year.

That's kind of player He is.

So, mm-hmm.

Uh, you know, that's kind of a problem.

Alright.

Top five.

Universally loved number one on Jacob Shapiro's list.

And every single male listener between the ages of 25 and 40 absolutely loves this guy.

It is naive BU from El Salvador coming in at number five, the crypto king, the Bitcoin baller, the guy who has cleaned up el, by the way, I'm doing this off the top of my head, so you're welcome.

He has cleaned up El Salvador.

Uh, everybody swears by it.

Uh, I do think he has range.

I think that you would trade for him even if you were in Canada.

I actually think that he would be able to run even an OECD economy because he's got pr, he's got marketing, he's savvy.

He knows how to talk.

He's got charisma, he's got big ideas, big ideas, and that's useful in any country.

I love this guy.

I love this big.

He was number one on your list.

He was number 13 on my list, but I flirted with putting him in the top five.

Um, and I think, uh, I put him too low, quite frankly.

I think he should be top three.

Yeah.

Great pick.

Alright, next one.

Mohamed Bin Zaid, leader of, uh, the Emirates.

Uh, absolutely crushing it.

The Emirates are not just Dubai, they're not just about fake islands.

I.

Other fake things, by the way, just we're not gonna mention what, they're not just about Dubai anymore.

They're a financial capital.

They're uh, actually a manufacturing hub.

If you're flying in an airliner, you're flying in an airplane whose parts were partly manufactured in the Emirates.

Uh, the other Emirates are coming up.

It's not just Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

Sharjah is blowing up as well.

Abu Dhabi has become a financial center.

They're doing some incredible things.

Also, did I mention ai?

They're probably gonna be the earliest adopters of everything.

So, great job of the Emirates.

Uh, also geopolitics done well on that front as well.

Number three, neighboring Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman.

Uh, he's hired this list, not just because of effectiveness, not just because of dramatic socioeconomic change that has gone on in Saudi Arabia, that I would only compare it to the major restoration in mid 19th century Japan.

Not just that, but also because of vision.

Yes, some of this vision is too much.

Yes, some of these projects are not gonna happen, but if 30% of this vision is actually articulated, that will be extraordinary.

More than that, I also think Bin Salama should be number three, because the reforms that are happening in Saudi Arabia and the handling of geopolitics, particularly navigating the very tricky Israel Iran situation is not just good for Saudi Arabia.

It's good for the region.

Saudi Arabia has decided to become a responsible regional power to reduce its reliance on various militants and various extremists.

And that is, has just made the world a better place, quite frankly.

So that's number three.

Obviously everyone's gonna bring up Khashoggi and what happened, um, with the death of that journalist, I would just remind you that the United States of America, uh, bombed Al Jazeera's, uh, headquarters in Iraq during the war.

So like, don't talk to us about killing journalists, although I obviously think that's terrible, but that's not what this list is about.

And now, top two, oh, sorry.

Jacob Shapiro: Well, I, we, I can't believe I'm, I'm really, I, I'm, I'm really impressed with the moral equivalency between the United States bombing Al Jazeera and, uh, Jamal Khashoggi being literally dismembered in a consulate, uh, at MB s's uh, MB S'S request.

I think that was young mbs.

So hopefully he is a little bit older and he understands that, uh, taking off the arms and limbs of the people who disagree with you is not a good way to stay in power.

Better to lock them in the Ritz-Carlton and make sure that they give you billions of dollars in order to get out.

Um, but yeah, I, I can't let that one go without some comment.

Cousin.

Marko Papic: I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, Jacob.

But, uh, you know, like, you, you should hold countries with institutional norms and rules to higher standards, my friend, you know?

So that's, uh, that's, that's where I sit on that one.

So, yes.

Okay.

Jacob Shapiro: Mr.

Ma, you disagree with that?

Marko Papic: And he was number three on my list, by the way.

But do you hear me well?

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I got you.

You, you slowed down for a second, but you're good now 'cause

Marko Papic: it's kind of choppy.

Jacob Shapiro: Hmm.

You there?

It got choppy for a second, but yeah.

I'm good.

I'm here now.

Can you hear me

Marko Papic: okay?

Yeah, I, I hear you now.

Yes.

Jacob Shapiro: Okay, cool.

Marko Papic: Okay,

Jacob Shapiro: I got you.

Marko Papic: Alright.

Top two.

Oh man.

It's, it's choppy again.

Okay.

Hopefully it's good now.

Okay.

Top two.

We got Georgia Maloney from Italy at number two, and Claudia Shine Baum at number one.

So number one and two, both women, both relatively new leaders.

Um, Georgia Maloney, I think, uh, had a tougher time because she had to actually wrangle her own party and win from scratch.

Fratelli Talia were not in power before Claudia Shaba was kind of handed the presidency by amlo.

But she has done an admirable job in negotiations with, of course, the us.

Um, you haven't heard anything about Mexico over the last four months, and that is why she's number one.

She's number one because she's somehow managed to avoid President Trump.

Uh, very tough to be a leader of Mexico so far from God and so close to the United States of America.

And, uh, obviously, uh, I think that, uh, her handling of that situation has rocketed her to number one.

We'll see though how she, uh, you know.

How they both do, but for the most part, nobody really complained about that one, two punch.

Um, and, uh, I think that we did really well.

I'm on at least the top fight.

I'm surprised,

Jacob Shapiro: I'm surprised that we didn't get more Mexican pushback from Shane Baum, but that's sort of been true of her from the beginning.

Like, I've done a lot of work on Mexico this year, and every single person I've met doesn't like Shane Baum swears they didn't vote for Shane Baum says she's an awful communist populist who's gonna take their money and et cetera.

And yet you look at the approval rating, she's 80 plus percent.

Marina got a super majority in both houses.

Um, and she seems to be going from strength to strength.

And even the ones, like even some people who would tell you like, yeah, I didn't vote for this person.

I hate this person, blah, blah, blah.

And the next breath they'll say, yeah, but she's doing pretty good with the United States, or She hasn't been as bad as I expected, so I I have yet to meet a full throated Mirena supporter.

Uh, it, I'm almost, I almost think that they don't exist because everyone I sort of come across, uh, doesn't think that way.

But even the people who are against Shane Baum, I think are sane.

She's done a really good job so far.

Now that said, I think there, there are two things though, because if I was a Mexican and I was listening to this list and I was anti Shane Baum, there were, there were two things I would really push back on.

Number one is the cartels and the security situation.

And this didn't go very well for AMLO either.

And she's got like a significant problem there.

And it's, it's not just her problem.

Like Mexican leaders have had to deal with this and it's an almost impossible problem to deal with, but it's not like she has fixed that or made big moves in fixing that at any point sort of going forward.

So I think you can favorably criticize her for that.

I think also.

Though, I mean, there's Shane Baum herself who is a relatively pragmatic politician.

, and then there's Morena and what Morena is pushing for.

And she may be the beginning of a new single party dictatorship in Mexico.

And if you are a wealthy Mexican and thinking about your relationship with the Mexican state, you should be pretty concerned, be pretty concerned about the centralization of power.

And you can see Claudia Shane Baum as, as the totem of that centralization, you should view her as an enemy.

So I, I think it's actually ironic.

I think Shane Baum will probably be good in terms of moderating some of Marina's worst instincts and good for a large majority of the Mexican population.

But if you're that upper crust of Mexican society, like you should be a little bit afraid of the power that's being concentrated and in some of the things, um, that she has said.

So we, we didn't get the hate mail that I was expecting from Mexicans, but I know from talking to them like over the past year that like, there's plenty of it and she's not a perfect picker.

Nobody on this list is gonna be perfect.

So she was not number one on my list.

Like she is number one because of, you know, when you smush our list together, she's the one that comes up.

But even though she was top five for me, like she does have some words.

I just wanted to put that out there.

Marko Papic: Yeah, I think that's a great defense, uh, Jacob, and, and thank you for that.

I, I, I, I love it.

And, uh, I think it's a good pick.

I think what you reveal by focusing on those points is that she might be this high for us because we expected worse.

And so, you know, I certainly did.

I thought she would not do well with President Trump.

I thought that she would, uh, be far more normative and moralistic with him.

And when she, uh, countered his Gulf of America gimmick with a western Mexican, United States of America, whatever he, whatever she said, that was amazing.

And I bet you the Donald Trump loved it.

I think he was in his office sipping on a diet Coke, going like, wow, wow.

Like she gets it, you know?

She gets that this is trolling and she's trolling back.

And, uh, you know, I mean, it's a silly thing to point out, but that won't be over when she threw trolling back at Trump.

That takes confidence.

That takes, uh, taking yourself less seriously than some of these leaders take themselves.

That's the world we're in.

And, uh, I like that.

I think she, she won me over, but at the same time, that might mean that we are overrated her because we underrated her.

You know?

And so that's the fear Now with Maloney, I just wanna say a couple things in defense of Maloney, because Maloney was my, uh, number one pick.

Mm-hmm.

So you had, uh, shine Baum at number, I think four.

Five.

Five.

I five.

Jacob Shapiro: And I had Maloney at seven.

So

Marko Papic: yeah.

So you had, uh, I had Maloney as number one.

So she ends up being number one because she was number one.

My list.

Number seven, yours.

Lemme just explain why she's so high in mine for just an economic performance.

This is an extraordinary turnaround for, uh, for Italy.

Um, Italy is, uh.

Uh, debt to GDP has come down from 160, 170% of GDP to 130.

So huge decline.

Yes, it's still 130, but give her credit.

And the deficit, the deficit, uh, for Italy as percent of GDP was in the 12% range.

Even, uh, right after the, uh, pandemic, she's gotten it back to 3%.

I mean, that's an extraordinary correction in deficit that most Americans listening to this would've loved.

Um, so she's done a really good job.

By the way, Miata is, uh, out of Greece.

Uh, the Greek economy is actually, uh, outperforming the Euro area.

Uh, Malone is managed to get Italy to be on par with the Euro area, which is extraordinary 'cause Italy has a growth problem.

But Mitsa in Greece, just a little defense for him, he's managed to, uh, actually outperform.

And the debt to GDP of Greece has come down from 210% to 150%, and it now has a 5% almost, um, positive budget balance.

So that's extraordinary, uh, extraordinary performance, uh, by these two leaders.

Spain, by the way, massively outperforming the Euro area in terms of growth.

Uh, debt to GDP is down from 130 to a hundred percent.

Deficits are down as well to two point a 5%.

So all these leaders have managed to, you know, move their, the Mediterranean leadership has gotten really better in Europe, and I think that's why they're, they're high on her lists.

Okay.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I think so too.

I, I just wanna say about Maloney.

She's, she's a unicorn on this list, and she's a unicorn because she is this sort of social conservative leaning right wing, a little bit euroskeptic, but has, wants nothing to do with Vladimir Putin in Russia.

Like, there is a lot of weird Putin love in, when you think about Euroskeptic circles in the right wing in Europe.

But her, think about the lap.

Yeah.

Not her, but not her.

No.

Yeah, she, she's a one of one, like, I don't know anybody else who could replicate the sort of different ideological things she has put together and to dominate Italian politics the way that she has.

I mean, I think, I, I forget if, if it's Italy or some other country has had like the most leadership transition since World War ii, like Italy is either up there, number one bad and she's dominating.

Marko Papic: Yes.

She, no, listen, so

Jacob Shapiro: she's, she's sort of like pingus if, uh, he didn't get hurt all the time.

Marko Papic: Who bad?

She's Dirk Dubiski, I would say.

She's, she's like, oh,

Jacob Shapiro: okay.

Marko Papic: Yeah.

The first like tall white dude from Europe who shoots threes that America's ever seen.

That's who she is.

We're all shocked by her.

That's why she deserves to be in the top five.

I would definitely take her over Bhel.

Sorry.

No, no offense.

If you're a 25 to 40-year-old male.

I know you all love Bhel.

That's cool.

God bless you.

But I would take Maloney for president of any one, prime minister of anything.

I think she would crush it in Israel.

I think she would crush it in Ukraine.

I think she would crush it in Canada.

I think she would crush it in Syria.

I think she would crush it in the Congo.

I think Maloney is a badass.

And I'll tell you why.

She's authentic and she doesn't give a fuck.

You do you?

Okay.

Georgia, you do you Italy.

Amazing job.

Amazing job.

Slow clap.

Just nothing to say other than we've got two women on the top.

And quite frankly, I think both of them are bad asses and they will crush.

Crush in any situation.

Um, now that's, that's the summary.

That's the amalgamated, that's your list.

Let's talk about people now that are not on it.

Um, and then I wanna talk about some people that are on it.

Yeah.

So I wanna talk about two people that are not on the list.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

I wanna ask you why you don't have them on the list.

How dare you.

And then I wanna talk about two people that are on the list that are your pick.

So you can, you can ask me to defend mine.

I just think that you picked two gentlemen that I have to kind of defend for why they're not.

They were very high up on the list.

So Zelensky ends up being 17 and Xi Jinping ends up being 21.

They were very high on your, uh, your list.

You had, uh, lemme just see here, Zelensky in terms of your list was number two was.

Yeah.

And Xi Jinping was number six.

So if you want me to defend some, we can also do that in that segment.

But neither one of us had Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

And I think that, um, you know, it's funny because when I ask a lot of people, who would you have in the top?

A lot of them said Putin.

Um, and there's a lot of truth in that and we have to talk about that.

Um, but neither one had it on.

So let's start with Vladimir Putin.

Why is he not on your list of top now?

44.

44 leaders?

We would take, we would take Abbi Ahmed over Vladimir Putin.

Why you and I?

Like, what did we do on, what did

Jacob Shapiro: he do?

Yeah.

And I, and we need to spend some time on Xi Jinping.

'cause I think I probably ranked, uh, Zelensky too far too high for my own reasons.

But I, I think Xi Jinping is the one where we're gonna disagree the most.

But as, as for Mr.

Putin, um, look, he would've been towards the top of this list until he invaded Ukraine.

And that was such a big, big unforced error.

And also I think, showed that he was not in reality, um, like if you read some of the reports around him at that time, like he had sort of isolated himself.

He wasn't talking to anybody.

He was lecturing foreign dignitaries about like 18th century Russian history when they came to visit over the very, very long table.

Do we remember that with COVID?

Very long table.

I mean, he didn't even tell he was so nervous to maintain the element of surprise that he didn't give his generals enough information so that they could actually plan a military operation.

That should have been a layup for Russia.

This is also like, this is something that he said he had fixed, like part of the reason to invade Georgia in 2008 was to test out the Russian military.

Yes, they crushed Georgia, 'cause Georgia was puny, but the Russian military didn't do very well.

They had huge problems in coordinating air and land forces in 2008, and Putin was the one who said, we have fixed this, like we are gonna throw so many, so much money into fixing the Russian military and professionalizing it and modernizing it, and Russia is gonna be this modern country and all these other things.

And it turns out, no, it's just the same old Slavic corrupt Saudi Arabia with terrible demographics and is only a great power because they have nuclear weapons in the first place.

I think history will look back at Vladimir Putin.

They'll look back at that first roughly 20 years of his rule as some of the most inspired leadership in a difficult country that we've ever seen.

But everything that has happened since he invaded Ukraine, he looks like Czar Nicholas ii.

And, and maybe he'll drag on for another five years.

Maybe he'll drag on for another 10 years.

But he made an existential mistake, um, in invading Ukraine.

And also in not being able to do it, and in believing that he could do it and believing his own propaganda that the Ukrainians would welcome him and that he could do the Blitz Greek attack.

So I think just based on that, he's off the list entirely because I think he sacrificed any future of Russia as a great power in a multipolar world for this fool's errand in Kyiv that wasn't actually gonna get him anything.

All Russia will be now because of Mr.

Vladimir Putin is a Chinese gas station.

Congratulations on your foresight and leadership, Mr.

Putin.

Marko Papic: Yeah.

I mean, I think it's even worse than I second, quite frankly, I think, uh, his Nicholas, the first, who, uh, also had a disastrous war in Crimea and then, uh, died or, and or committed suicide because he was, uh, such a terrible leader.

Um, Alexander II came afterwards and was a badass.

So, what I mean, look, I I, I actually defended Vladimir Putin more than anyone in my circles, from 1999 to 2000, and let's say eight maybe.

Why?

Because to understand Vladimir Putin, you have to understand how bad Russia was in the nineties.

Mm-hmm.

It was terrible.

It was a complete and utter collapse of society.

And if Vladimir Putin shows up, he fixes it.

He fixes 80% of it.

He really does.

He fixed it.

He crushed it.

He stood up to the west.

But in a kind of a cool, like, Hey, I'm a partner, but like, yo, you gotta respect us.

We got our own interests.

That's all fine and dandy.

And then, uh, Ukraine.

There were several pro western kind of revolts starting 2004, 2005.

The Orange Revolution.

Putin handled that masterfully coolly like, like, like James Bond, you know, my name is Putin, Vladimir Putin.

Like, go ahead.

You want to be pro western, uh, you know, Chenko and Tim Chenko, you guys go right ahead.

And what happened?

They drowned in their own corruption, feebleness and uh, incompetency.

And so in 2010, the election Yanukovich wins Fair and square, you know, hashtag great job.

Paul Manafort, you know, so you've got Ukraine basically swing back towards Russia because Putin was cool, calm, and collected, and didn't overreact to this like kind of flirtation with the West.

He lets the pro western leaders of Ukraine do what they do best, which is be complete incompetent fools and just swooped in through a democratic process.

No problem.

Nothing bad happened.

And then in 2014 where there's more pro western protests, he loses his cool.

So I don't even think that it's 2022.

Hmm.

That's the problem.

You know, I actually think it goes back further.

In 2014, he lost his school because let's be very clear, if you annex and remove Donbas and Crimea.

Now, of course the Parisian and her, these, these regions of Ukraine that Russia has captured.

There's actually Russian ethnic people living there.

Not just Russian speaking Ukrainians, but actual ethnic Russians.

They're actually politically pro-Russian.

They're actually anti-Western, the human beings that live there.

That's your kind of fifth column inside of Ukraine.

That's your permanent like space inside of Ukraine.

They will always vote for pro-Russian like foreign policy and so on.

So by taking it out of Ukraine, you've created a far more anti-Russian Ukraine.

You've left the rest of Ukraine to be a far more sovereign and self identifiable country.

So in other words, not only was the military invasion a blunder, and by the way, I can spend a whole hour on this, maybe we should.

'cause there's a whole lot of folks in the West who think that Russia is doing great militarily.

They're not.

But not only was the military invasion a blunder, but the fact that you decide to carve up Ukraine is an old goal because now you've created Ukraine.

You know, one thing that I will agree with, uh, Putin and all of our Ukrainian listeners will light themselves on fire and or cancel us, which is fine.

God bless you.

The one thing that Vladimir Putin is right about Ukraine is that Ukraine kind of didn't exist.

Sorry.

And you know who agrees with me?

The Sociological Institute of Kiev.

In other words, there's been a poll that.

The University of Kyiv has been running from the nineties where they ask Ukrainians, what do you feel like?

And under 50% of them have felt Ukrainian.

So Vladimir Putin is right, right up until he created Ukraine and you created identity twice.

There's a huge jump in self-identification of Ukrainian people as Ukrainian after the 2014 invasion by Russia.

And then another huge jump in 2022.

So you know, if I'm a Ukrainian nationalist, hell, I'm building statues to Vladimir Putin all over Ukraine.

'cause he is probably single most responsible person for the creation of a sovereign free and pro western Ukraine.

And that you cannot abide.

And here's why.

Your point about demographics of Russia is very important.

Ukraine, 43 million people at its fullest.

43 million people who will buy stuffed in nobody else will.

You know what we buy from Russia oil, the rest of us.

But you know who will buy like a Russian insurance product or a share, or God forbid, a car.

Ukrainians.

This was your sphere of influence, Vladimir.

This is 43 million people, which is like a third of Russia.

Highly educated.

Pretty wealthy relative to the rest of Russia, you know, um, with similar cultural affinity, similar thoughts, similar dreams, similar tasting music and art and cinema.

And yes, also willing to buy your crappy Russia products outside of commodities did none of us would ever wanna buy.

'cause we don't find them cute at all.

That was Ukraine and you lost it.

And what you got instead is West Virginia of Europe.

No offense to the mountaineers, West Virginia is fucking awesome.

God bless you.

But let's be honest, Don Nets, it's like coal mines alright.

Like that's what you got.

And I think that's an incredible blogger.

Anyone who advocates for Vladimir Putin to be on this list is straight up, like just high.

Or five, if it's,

Jacob Shapiro: if it's pre 2014 or pre 2021, like, I think you can make the case that he should be in the top five.

But I agree with everything, everything you said.

He created Ukraine, he enlarged nato, he forced the best, he best and the brightest to flee Russia.

He like put like, you know, uh, he put Russia at the behest of China.

He has like, he just did all these other different things.

Marko Papic: He has handedly made me money and not because I've just, uh, done well playing him, but because my crappy real estate possessions in Belgrade, Serbia that I never thought I would give a shit about.

Have basically like quadrupled in price.

Thank you Vladimir.

Thank you for sending Serbia, a bunch of Russian IT experts who have to rent crappy Soviet departments at egregious prices.

So well done, well done.

Slow clap for you,

Jacob Shapiro: Marco.

That, that actually reminds me I, before I forget to ask, I wanted to ask you why, why Uch was not on your list to give the Serbian perspective.

'cause he's been around for a while and he's got some cred.

Why, why did you leave him off?

Marko Papic: You know, uh, I think I left him off because there's so much potential.

First of all, Serbia has one of the, uh, best performing economies in Europe.

Uh, the investment into Serbia is skyrocketing.

It's incredible.

Uh, and it's all thanks to him.

Like straight up, like he has created geopolitical stability in the country.

Um, and, uh, you know, basically good relationship.

He's one of the best balancing acts out there.

The problem is that domestically, I feel that, uh.

He had so much potential, and that hasn't revealed itself.

Hmm.

You know, it particularly because he's facing now these, uh, student protests, which are massive against his rule.

And no, it's not some sort of foreign interference.

It's the fact that basically he's a victim of his own success.

So let me explain what I mean.

Serbia is no longer concerned about security, basic material needs.

Um, you know, it's, it's a country that has economic growth, has investment.

That's all thanks to him, actually.

But the problem is, once you give people a taste of that success, you have to start delivering on other things, improving governance, improving institutions, and, uh, and he hasn't, uh, and he hasn't done that.

You know, the, the level of corruption, the level of, uh, uh, you know, and not all of that is on his back, but he's the leader and he should have cleaned that up.

So he's not in the top 30.

Uh, I mean, I don't think he's in the bottom 190.

You know, many, many other leaders are much worse than Ridge in the world.

But I do think that he's a victim of his own success.

And by the way, I, I defend OT with, with fellow Serbs because there's a lot of criticism of him.

And I always say like, yes, but you wouldn't be criticizing him for corruption and institutional incompetence if the country was still in sanctions or a pariah state and so on.

So he's clearly navigated global geopolitics, perhaps better than anyone else, other than, you know, big countries like India or Malaysia.

Like, well done.

Mm-hmm.

The problem is, once you've delivered that.

People's appetites and desires rise.

And so that's why he's not here.

But he's definitely, he hasn't done a huge blunder like Vladimir Putin.

Vladimir Putin is just, he's the, the, the largest fall out of anyone.

If we did this 10 years ago, Jacob, I agree with you.

He would've been easily in the top 10.

He's now not even, I think in the top a hundred, Vladimir Putin is an absolute failure over the past three years.

I would've defended him in the top five.

If we did this in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, a hundred percent, he would've been in my top five.

He's out of there.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.

And, and he really squandered.

I mean, he had everything going with Ukraine.

To your point, the way that he wanted.

He had everything going with the EU and NATO the way that he wanted.

He had everything with Russia going the way that he wanted, like cheap energy, the rise of ai.

Like, can you get people interested in Russia?

Like he just kind of squandered.

Um, it all, to your point about ish, it sounds like there's not a one-to-one player comparison, but he sounds like Tom Thibodaux, like he's good for getting you to a certain point, but he can't.

Yeah.

He can't get you above.

Yes.

That's a

Marko Papic: good one.

That's a good comp.

Uh, Tom Thito and Che are a good comp, by the way.

One other thing, but

Jacob Shapiro: Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Marko Papic: If, if I could just stick with Lair Putin, some of our listeners might say, yes, but the West forced him to invade Ukraine.

You know, let's say, oh, please, mayor

Jacob Shapiro: Shimer.

I hope you're listening,

Marko Papic: but listen, let's see.

That's, that's true.

Let's say that's true.

You know, my mother always used to say to me, if, if j if your friend Jacob told you to jump through a window, would you do it?

You know.

It's like, fine.

Let's say that America entrap Russia, God bless America.

That's what rivals are supposed to do.

America's not supposed to be nice to you, Russia for, for God's sakes.

Of course, the America's trying to get you to invade Ukraine.

You don't have to do it.

And they did it.

They did it, and they didn't do it in 2004 and 2005, they let Orange Revolution burns itself.

And you know what would've happened to Zelensky?

And we'll get to Zelensky.

Your your number two pick.

I'm gonna get after that.

But you know what would've happened if Zelensky didn't have a war?

He would've been the worst president of Ukraine probably ever.

He was unpopular.

He was incompetent.

He didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

And then.

Putin invades instead of letting Ukraine fall on its sword as it has in the past, again, there is nobody, not even zelensky, more responsible for the success that is Ukraine other than Vladimir Putin.

Well done, my friend.

Yeah, well done.

And

Jacob Shapiro: I, I think we should talk about Zelensky now too.

So I'm gonna give a brief defense.

Okay.

But I, but, but I do think I'm wrong.

So, and, and then you can take it after my brief defense and, and tell me why there's he, he doesn't belong on this list.

I will say two things for, for Mr.

Zelensky.

Number one is incredible courage and bravery.

What he did when the invasion started walking around the streets and like giving the Ukrainian people a symbol that was not afraid and unbounded and pushing forward.

That was like, most leaders would not do that.

That took a tremendous amount of courage.

And most leaders will never reach a moment in their career or never hope to reach a moment in their career where they have to show off that kind of courage.

And they either have it or they don't.

And he has it, like there is something inside of him that said, I will resist, I will push back.

And it's admirable, and it's probably why I let myself be blinded a little bit and put him at number two on my list.

The second thing I'll say, though, and again, this is a situation that most leaders don't want to be in, but when Putin invaded.

It wasn't just the bravery, it was, he understood the mistake that Putin made.

He called him on it.

He said, okay, fine, let's go.

You want to do this?

Like, we're gonna do this.

You just gave me the way out of my terrible presidency, and now I'm gonna put Ukraine on the map for the next hundred years.

And, you know, there have been fits and starts, and he's done some wrong things since the war started.

But just, you know, as a wartime president, you can't really ask for much of a better record considering the cards that he held.

Now, I'm sure you're about to take him to town for everything that happened before that.

And really, I, the reason I think we should talk about him is because he's a creation of Putin's incompetence.

He is not himself a leader who would've scaled the heights and done all these things on his own.

He needed somebody to make such a monumental error, um, like, you know, trading, uh, uh, of, or, you know, passing on Chris Paul in the draft so that we could get Marvin Williams with the hawks or trading the pick that became Luca Dridge to get Trey Young.

Like, you need that kind of mistake in order to get a Zelensky figure.

Oh my God.

So I know you're gonna take him down, but, oh, I'm, I'm, but those are my two things in his defense.

Go.

First of all,

Marko Papic: first of all, first of all, every Russia apologist sycophant of Vladimir Putin hates me right now.

And now every liberal westerner is gonna hate me too, and I love it.

The only thing, the only thing that gives my cold, nihilist heart any fucking passion, is your hatred.

So give it to me.

I couldn't care less.

So right now everybody who secretly has a poster of shirtless Putin and there are many of you out there.

I know you, you hate me, right?

But now you're gonna, everybody else who reads the Economist and thinks it's a great publication is gonna hate me too.

Do you know what my comp is for Zelensky?

No, but I can't wait.

Jacob.

Jacob, it's Mack McClung.

You picked Mack McClung as number two in your draft.

Yeah.

You're telling me he's a great wartime president.

That's like telling me he knows how to dunk.

By the way, if you don't know this, because you're, I'm sorry.

We keep using basketball, we just can't help it.

We're degenerates.

But Mac McClung, God bless him, he's like a five foot 10 white guy who's won three dunk contests because he's a five foot 10 white guy.

But he doesn't play in the NBA.

He plays in the development league 'cause he sucks.

And being an NBA player, okay, he's not, he's not actually capable of making one of the 30 15 men rosters in the NBA and that's who you pick for your number two.

This person is so specialized.

Yeah, he was a great wartime, first of all.

I would, I would argue against that.

I think he was great in the first 18 months.

We did this last time, so we're not gonna go over it.

I think he's made some disastrous moves over the last 18 months.

I think he's completely lost his space.

I think he's unrealistic and I think that, uh, his cost Ukraine lives.

I think he's caused Ukraine territory and more than that before the invasion.

There's a whole slew of things, including that he got suckered by the US into believing he could get a better deal than the mis minka courts that the Europeans negotiated for him.

Well, guess what?

Millions of lives later, 20% of territory later.

How do you like that?

How do you like them?

Apple?

So I think that Zelensky is going to go down in Ukrainian history as a great leader.

And he deserves that.

Just like Mack McClung is gonna go into history as one of the best NBA slam dunk champions.

And he also deserves that.

And I don't care 'cause it doesn't make him a great leader.

So he's not in my top 30.

Jacob Shapiro: I don't know that.

I don't know that Ukraine exists if he isn't there or somebody like him, isn't

Marko Papic: there?

So that's the, that's the other thing I kind of disagree.

I think a lot of people on their list, Jacob, have the temerity of Zelensky.

I think they do.

Not all of them, I agree.

But like sitting there and seeing that he's a great leader because of a personal equality that maybe 30% of humans have, you know, love of your country sacrifice.

You know, would, I don't know, like would Georgia Maloney stayed fight?

Yeah.

Fuck.

I think she would've, I think she would've looked Vladimir Putin straight in the eye and said comment, bring it.

But I think she would've also known when to quit.

I think she would've also known when to fault them.

When not to invade Russia with your best troops to get trapped and killed for no good reason.

And so, yeah, I do think that, um, the Western myth of Zelensky is like, oh my God, nobody would've done that.

That comes out of the Western elites that they, they truly would not have done it.

'cause their kids go to private schools in Bethesda County and you know, they are, they've never actually done anything dangerous in their lives because they don't come from a place where you have to make decisions like that every day.

I think there's a slew of leaders out there that do come from places like Ukraine.

I come from one of those places and yeah, absolutely.

I don't see that, what he did in that moment.

I think it's extraordinary.

So I don't wanna say it wasn't extraordinary, but I don't think that it was as unique or surprising as I think it is in a western world where we haven't had a serious conflict in 80 years.

Jacob Shapiro: I think this is great because you, uh, you, you sent me this email, what was it last week or this week, where you said that I was a humble elitist and that you're an arrogant man of the people and we're getting right to this point right here, because I don't think that many people would do what he did and risk their lives to do this.

And I think the, the Churchill comparison with Zelensky is overwrought.

I think we're constantly looking for the next Churchill because of the myth of Churchill and things like that.

But.

But there is an element here because if you read the Manchester biographies of Churchill, which are amazing, um, and you read the opening of the first book, he basically does this prologue that makes, like Churchill is the, is the, the antimatter to Hitler that he has many of the same characteristics.

He just uses them in favor of liberal democracy and is willing to do all the things and let people die and all of the, you know, narcissism and everything else that comes with it.

But that when you're in a war with somebody like of Vladimir Putin, like you need that kind of essential quality to push back.

And I think in that way, like Zelensky, like he had that thing.

And I don't think that most people have that thing.

Maybe Maloney, like maybe some of the top fives on our list have that thing.

But like, you know, as we're going down our list, does Anthony Albanese have that quality?

Does uh, you know, I, I'm sure Paul Kagame does, but like as you're going down the list, like, but,

Marko Papic: but, but this is, but Jacob, this is why I don't wanna rank him high.

'cause I come from the third world.

I come from Serbia.

I'm Serbian fully except for quarter German, which makes it even more likely that I will have this view.

Yeah.

Like when you come from that world, those situations are not that far off.

You, you meet them every time you walk to school as a sixth grader, you meet those situations.

And so that's why two Apol.

And, and it's funny you settled on Paul Kagame.

You were like, well, Paul Kagame has it.

You know what I, I also think Abi Ahmed has it.

Sure.

You know, I also think Ab Fat Sii has it, Provo Ibrahim.

There's a slew of people that come from the non-Western world where there is volatility, there is conflict, there's pain, there's death, and you're surrounded with it.

And so it isn't as surprising, but would it be surprising if, you know, uh, Liz Truss stayed in Kyiv and fought?

Yeah, it would've been, it would've been very surprising.

And that's why Western journalists obsess about Zelensky because it makes Westerners hearken to an era where like, men were men and women were women.

You know, it hearkens back to the idea, uh, to an era when, of that photograph of that, of that Navy, Navy guy kissing a girl in Times Square as the war ends.

And so we look at Zelensky, we're like, oh my God, we haven't had that in decades.

Yeah.

But the rest of the world does.

And so I'm not gonna put him in the top 30, you know, because he stayed and fought for his country, because that happens every day in a lot of places in the world.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm, I agree with you that he should not be in the top 10 and maybe not even in the top 30.

I think I overindexed based on that.

Um, but I, I don't think that we should, uh, I don't think that we should downplay like the extent to which he was successful.

I'll turn your point about Serbia around on you, your, your Serbian friends who are saying like, okay, you wouldn't have these issues if Vch VCI hadn't done some basic level of remediation here.

I don't think there's a Ukraine if there isn't somebody like a Zelensky in power and Kyiv.

And it's not just the courage and bravery, it's also like the assessment of, no, Putin can't do this.

Like, I can win this.

I will push the right buttons to push back.

And the Churchill comparison is also especially apt because Churchill was a fucking terrible prime minister as soon as the war was over, and they got rid of him as quickly as possible as soon as the gun stopped firing.

And I bet you the Ukrainians will get rid of him as soon as possible.

Like, they'll drive him to the airport and say, go, like, go like Dine Western capitals, go make your TV shows again.

You did your job, but you are not fit to be a non-war time leader.

But the problem, but the question that, the question I wanna ask you though is, and this is a really fun one, is, so I know that neither, uh, Putin or Zelensky are on your list, but on your list, who's higher?

Would you trade Putin for Zelensky?

Or would you trade Zelensky for Putin?

Marko Papic: Yeah, I would think Zelensky.

Okay, cool.

I mean, I would take Putin over Zelensky a hundred times at a hundred times pre 2014.

Um, of course,

Jacob Shapiro: but today, but today you would take Zelensky over Putin.

Marko Papic: Absolutely.

Yeah, absolutely.

Like no, there's no contents.

No contents.

Uh, Putin has a lot more to work with.

He has more resources.

He is, uh, he's the catalyst.

He has choice, he has agency and he's using incorrectly.

But one thing I will say that if you are going to compare landscape with Churchill, you know, one thing that I would say is that, first of all, Churchill was a terrible military strategist before World War ii.

I mean, he's, he's, he's the reason Gallipoli failed.

Jacob Shapiro: Uh, go, go, go check your history.

My cousin.

I, I, no, I think he gets a bad rap for that.

Okay.

And he's also responsible for lots of different advances and things like that.

So,

Marko Papic: okay.

Well, that's fine.

I mean, yes.

Technological advancements, yes.

The tank and so on.

But what I would say is that in World War ii, he was really good.

That's where I was headed.

I, I think that if you're going to defend Lansky's track record and say wartime president, you can't then ignore the, the blunders of his strategy as well.

Mm-hmm.

And I think that that's where I think, um, that's why I would probably have him top 30 if he had just kept making the right military moves.

But he hasn't, the offensive in 2023 was way too, way too, uh, aggressive, way too overbuild.

He didn't know what to start negotiating.

And then finally, I think the curse invasion was just unnecessary.

So I do think that there's a lot of things that he's also done.

That don't make sense on the military level.

So not just politic.

Yeah.

Alright.

Well, we go to,

Jacob Shapiro: he, he's, he's, he's a standup comic, not a general, like, Churchill spent his life reading about strategy and things like that, like Zelensky did not like.

And yeah, so

Marko Papic: that, that's a, that's a very good point too.

Yeah.

Uh, I think, I think, uh, he has maximized his potential, just like Mac McClung has thus great comp, great comp.

Um, by the way, your video is frozen for me, but I hope mine isn't for you.

So I don't know what's going on, but like

Jacob Shapiro: No, it's not.

I'm fine.

I, and I'm recording here locally, so we're good.

I'm sorry I'm frozen.

Marko Papic: No, no, no.

It's okay.

Alright, so we gotta talk about two, two big ones, right?

Two big ones, two guys that, uh, we're gonna keep Trump for the end, uh, but let's do Xi Jinping.

So, you know, like Xi Jinping.

And by the way, please, uh, bring up some other ones you wanna discuss.

But I wanted to talk about Xi Jinping.

You had him, uh, a very, uh, very high, you had it six.

I did not have him in top 30.

Uh, just like with Vladimir Putin, I am disappointed, uh, in some of his performance.

I think geopolitically, we don't have to discuss it.

I think I, you know, we can probably agree with a lot of geopolitical moves.

There's the wolf warrior diplomacy.

You brought up yourself in the first part of this series as, as an own goal.

Uh, I have two issues, which Xi Jinping, first and foremost, I think in 2012 when he ascended to power, he decided to wake up a sleeping giant, a giant that was stuck in the morass and the sands of the Middle East.

I think he overly aggressively pursued some of the national security interests of China.

There is absolutely nothing that China needs to do.

There's nothing inherently necessary in the South China Sea.

You don't have to start pushing into the South China Sea in 2012.

You can wait until 2030.

Uh, the United States of America is today 2025.

It's July 9th, 2025.

The United States of America is spending its tax dollars on ensuring the security of Chinese oil supply.

I mean, that's literally what's happening today.

The Fifth fleet in Bahrain is not securing my gasoline.

It's securing your gasoline Xi Jinping.

So you have actually not done anything to improve that situation.

And by waking up the United States of America to the assertiveness of China, I think that he accelerated the need to challenge, uh, the United States too soon.

So that's the first issue.

I think that was, uh, that was unnecessary.

You know, the 2020s could have been the decade where China wakes up America.

It didn't have to happen in 2010s.

Uh, the second thing I would say is that China wasn't the path towards a lot more entrepreneurship and innovation.

I mean, it has the wallops of it already.

So it's not like they're, you know, doing poorly.

I mean, obviously EVs, uh, there's a, there's a lot in the financial sector where the payment technology is much better than ours.

There's biotech.

Biotech.

Yes, biotech for sure.

Uh, so, but that could have been better.

Why tinker with the model?

Now?

Yes, there is income inequality.

I agree with that a hundred percent.

But do you improve income inequality by stifling innovation or do you improve income inequality by creating, you know, things that a communist party should care about, like a healthcare system, like a social security and pension system?

Those are the things that the state is failing to provide in China.

It's, it's not, it's not entrepreneurship and income inequality of the top.

That's the problem.

The problem is that the state provides very scant, uh, very scant social welfare network.

And that's, by the way, the root of many problems in China.

The reason that people buy so many condos is because they expect to sell them so that they can get dentures when they're older so that they can, you know, heal themselves when they're older.

That's, that's the imbalance to this economy.

And quite frankly, this guy's been in charge for 13 years and he has not addressed that social, uh, welfare state that's actually pretty poor Amer uh, America and China in many ways.

Similar.

I mean, one of them is that they don't rebalance income inequality and, um, and they don't have.

The level of government spending on social welfare state that I think an advanced economy would have.

So, um, I think that's another failure.

So those are my two problems with Xi Jinping.

I think he challenged the US unnecessarily early.

Seems like an ego play quite frankly.

He ascend to power.

So China must then at that moment, challenged the us.

I thought that was unnecessary.

And then the second thing is, uh, he and his government have talked about social welfare state.

They understand how important it is in reducing leverage to condos in real estate, but they haven't actually addressed it significantly.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.

Uh, you and I disagree on this and maybe I have rose tinted glasses when it comes to Xi Jinping.

This is the first thing I can think of as cousins that we like.

We truly are on opposite sides of this.

Um, I think you're reading.

His embrace of Chinese nationalism in 2012 and 2013.

Wrong.

And I think you're underestimating just how bad the situation was in China when he became leader.

Um, you had, you know, Deng Xiaoping eventually leaves the scene and then you have by consensus these rulers who are coming in every five years and China's becoming fabulously wealthy, but it's also becoming even more corrupt and it's becoming even more unequal.

And you get to the point where the factions can't agree on who the next consensus candidate is gonna be.

And they end up on the, the middling person that everybody can agree, okay, fine.

We'll do that because he doesn't give me everything that I want.

And they pick this guy Xi Jinping.

And I think when Xi Jinping comes into power, he thinks that something is fundamentally broken in China, and that if he does not fix things, this system and the Communist Party underneath it is going to come apart at the seams because the ideological legitimacy of the party is dead.

It was all gone.

It was all these corrupt parties with your bogie lies and Lamborghinis everywhere, and people hanging out in the coast having great parties and people in the interior are less than $2 a day.

So like the ideology of communism.

Was dead and he needed to buy some time to rebuild communism and rebuild that sense of, so social equality in the welfare state that you're talking about, uh, while not having people come at him with a knives.

So I think he started with this notion of Chinese nationalism and yes, starts playing around with the South China Sea and Taiwan because communism is nothing, it's bankrupt at this point.

And he needs to give the Chinese people something other than, Hey, like, you know, the preternatural growth you've had for the last 30 years, it's not gonna happen for the next 30.

We can't deliver that to you.

So I have to give you, the state has to give you something else rather than the growth that you've become accustomed to if you're gonna continue to believe in the system.

And by the way, I've got all these local governments and these military guys and these boje lies that are running around that have way too much money and way too much power.

And if I don't do something here, we're closer to warring states than you might think.

So I think he takes that first period of time.

Um.

To do that, to purge people, to get rid of people, to reassert the Chinese Communist Party and what it's supposed to stand for to get people accustomed to the idea that, okay, like the last 30 years, the growth you've seen, it's probably not gonna be like that for the next generation.

I need you to buy into the state.

I need social stability.

I need you to think as the state of the arbiter of equality.

And also I need you to have national pride in China as a national project because obviously, and ironically the, you know, communism with Chinese characteristics wasn't quite doing it.

If you go back to Xi Jinping's early speeches, and he still talks, talks like this.

He, he sounds like Ronald Reagan.

He talks about supply side reform and things that belong in like 1980s western deregulation narratives that are coming out of the president of China when he's sort of first in power.

Now.

I think you're absolutely right that he went off the rails.

He, he went too early around 20 18, 19 when he is doing wolf warrior stuff and he is got the first Trump presidency.

I think he overestimated how strong he was at that particular moment, and I think it's actually a good sign of a leader who recognizes a mistake and walks it back.

So that's the first thing I would say.

The second thing I would say is that.

For all your shade at, uh, thrown at the Economist, you sound like somebody who reads The Economist when you're fetching about China and its private markets.

Um, this is exactly the thing that Xi Jinping diagnosed.

He's been talking about it since 2015 and he's been trying to do it.

And doing it in a country like China with a billion people with a sclerotic authoritarian, Marxist communist system is really fucking hard.

So that's why he let the real estate bubble pop because he wants Chinese people to do what the Indians are doing.

He wants them to go put their money in the market.

He wants them to trust the market enough that they will do that rather than buying the third or fourth condo.

And he hasn't been able to pull it off quite yet.

He still doesn't have the average Chinese person trusting the market the way that they want.

But the flip side of this is that he knows, as Deng Xiaoping knows after Tianmen, if you give too much freedom, if you give too much openness, it will be a challenge to the Chinese Communist Party.

So yes, we need to stimulate innovation and growth and all these other things, but it also needs to be at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party.

So that's why in 20, I think it was 21 or was it late 2020, I forget.

He gets the leaders of the major China tech.

Companies like your 10 cents and Alibabas and says, okay, you guys need to make sure that X percent of your budget is going towards social.

We welfare in China and devoting money to things that actually make things better for Chinese people and companies like Tencent said, yes sir, Mr.

Emperor.

And people like Jack Ma said, no sir.

And look what happened to him and look at what happened to the ant IPO.

He had to make an example of them just as he made an example of Bo and he made an example of the real estate market so that a couple years later he could start to loosen the ties and say, okay, now you understand how serious I am.

You also understand that the United States is coming for us in the long run.

You need to align yourselves with the state.

So I think it's unrealistic to suggest that China's gonna replicate what worked in the West.

They have to have a version of openness and tech innovation that also allows that Communist party to maintain its power base.

And maybe it won't work.

Xi Jinping has not announced a successor.

He's getting old.

There's some weird stuff.

And then like he didn't come to the Brick Summit.

Like the biggest risk to him is like, what if he gets hit by a car tomorrow?

And there isn't a successor and he hasn't been able to work out some of these things in time.

But I just think in terms of degree of difficulty, in terms of vision, in terms of the scope and level of the challenges that he's gone after.

And he has every single rival he has.

He has either eliminated or eviscerated or put in a gulag somewhere, uh, and he is hanging on the global stage and people are thinking better of China, uh, than they are in some places of the United States.

Like all those things together, like I see a leader who has done a very, very good job and who was dealt a very, very bad hand, um, at the beginning.

So that's my defense of him.

Marko Papic: Yeah, I mean, my con here is that I think you can do anti-corruption drive, which I agree with.

I think that that was correct.

You know, that was genuine in the West.

A lot of people thought the Xi Jinping was just taking out rivals, but it was genuinely an anti-corruption drive.

It wasn't just about the dragons, it was about the flies as well.

Right.

That was the kind of focus of the government.

I think it can be successful without making the other own goals.

I think where we disagree is that you see everything as sort of centrally about the anti-corruption drive.

And so you're saying like, look, he needed to ramp up nationalism in order to also pursue something that was good for China.

So I think we disagree on that for partly that's just fine.

But I don't, I I, I agree with you that in 2012 going after corruption in China was, was, uh, extraordinarily difficult and he has for the most part really been successful.

The part where I disagree also is, uh, the supply side reforms.

You said he sounds like Reagan.

Um, I'm okay with him letting the real estate bubble pop.

I'm okay with some of his supply side reforms that focused on dirty industries and sort of antiquated industries that he's gone after.

My problem is that when he started interfering with private business in a very haphazard way, so you mentioned, uh, going after tech entrepreneurs fine, telling 10 cents to pay effect effectively a higher corporate tax rate is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about, you know, Jack Muds appearing.

Mm-hmm.

I'm talking about waking up, waking up on the wrong side of the bed and saying like, you know what?

Computer games are anti-revolutionary.

Or like waking up on the wrong side of the bed, ano a different day and saying that, you know, tuition programs, uh, are anti-revolutionary.

And so it's that kind of like ter skelter intervention in the private sector and in the tech space that's not very hands off Les Fairish.

And I think that, um, that's the one thing where again, he didn't really have to do that.

You can.

Like, it's just not necessary, you know, like No,

Jacob Shapiro: I, I think it, I think it is necessary if, if you're Xi Jinping and you've been dealt the cards that you have, it absolutely is necessary.

Yes.

The video games are counter-revolutionary, and yes, you don't want the students going to the universities to learn about the rest of the world.

That's absolutely counter-revolution.

I know.

But then China, China gets in trouble when the emperor doesn't have control when the hills are high.

But yeah.

And the emperor's far away.

He needed control, but also needed to let China still innovate and grow.

And that's the weirdest thing about China.

It's become more authoritarian and yet more creative and more innovative.

And in our Western language, that's not supposed to happen.

He's not supposed to be able to do the things that you're talking about that make us both uncomfortable.

And yet China goes from strength to strength when it comes to innovation and technological development.

But I'm not sure that's what's happening.

Marko Papic: But how do you know that it's going from strength to strength?

Like what are we comparing it to?

I mean, it's a counterfactual.

Jacob Shapiro: Look, look at their education system.

Look at the PhDs that they're minting.

Look at the patents that they're getting.

Look at their share of like biotech startups and all these other different things.

Okay, sure.

But they're, but they're already outclassing the United States on these things with what they're doing.

Marko Papic: I know, but like the economy is clearly sclerotic.

So like, uh, letting the real estate, uh, bubble pop has not been replicated by another source of growth.

Right.

And so that's, that pivot did not happen because he has stifled the private sector.

He has stifled consum consumption and letting the real estate bubble pop was then complimented with very antiquated ways of solving it.

So in other words, he didn't listen to Richard coup, he didn't offset that decline.

It's very painful, de-leveraging.

Um, and some of the ways that you're defending him suggest that it's like good for him, but it's not, I'm not sure that it's really good for China.

I'm not sure that China's better off in 2025 than it would've been with somebody who could both be anti-corruption and semi authoritarian.

Which, you know, like I kind of agree with you.

It is to an extent relevant for China at this point of development, but at the same time could have done other things better,

Jacob Shapiro: you know?

Yeah, well

Marko Papic: I, it's a semantic thing

Jacob Shapiro: and, but, but I wouldn't say that he stifled consumption.

I would say that the problem of multiple Chinese leaders, including Xi Jinping, is that the Chinese pension is not to consume for exactly the reasons you think about political mistrust.

And you're right that he has not been able to move them towards consumption.

I think part of the impulse around national pride is to buy Chinese.

Like, I want you guys to consume more.

I don't want you to just buy condos.

And he has not been able to do that.

But I don't think he's stifling something that was happening.

He has been trying to, to beat the dead horse to do the thing as have previous Chinese leaders.

And the Chinese people are just like, uh, we were, remember Mao, why would we do this?

We're gonna invest in things that make more sense rather than what you want us to invest in.

And this I think, also is a good, um.

It's a good comparison.

'cause let's think of our boy bouquet.

It's easier to put bouquet as number one on my list because the scale of what he's dealing with is so small.

Like El salvador's a That's a good point.

A really, really small country.

If you put now boule.

Yeah, yeah.

With one problem.

If you put bouquet in charge of China and he tried to do that, how, how many tens of millions would be dead and in gulags if you tried to do the same thing.

And Xi Jinping, and this is one of the things that I think is so interesting about him and history will tell if it's positive or not.

Remember his father was purged by Mao in the cultural revolution.

Like Xi Jinping's childhood was fucked up precisely because he experienced maoism at its height and he envisions himself as a Mao or Deng xiaoping level leader.

But one who has to give China that level of control without the chaos.

Because if he brings the Maoist chaos, he will, you know, self-defeat everything that he's going.

So I would be the first to admit to you that yes, he has errors and problems and unforced goals and all these other different things.

But again, I, I would just go back to the scale and the degree of difficulty on the problem and what he's been able to do in advance of that.

Like that to me, like gives me like, that's fair.

Some, like, if, if you put him in charge of the United States today, he'd be like, this is, this is so easy.

What do you mean?

I get, I get to do all this stuff and I don't have to worry about all these other things like piece of cake, let's go.

Like, that's how I see him,

Marko Papic: I think.

I think he does deserve a lot of credit.

For pivoting out of some problems he created himself, unlike Vladimir Putin who likes to triple down.

So, uh, you know, you mentioned that yes, he woke up the United States too early, but he didn't like triple down on that.

No, so that's a good point.

I think he's, uh, pivoted out of the anti-corruption campaign when needed pivoted out of zero COVID when needed.

He has the ability to calibrate, which is a huge, huge quality that, um, ironically a lot of leaders just don't, because they become overly ego driven.

You know, they can't, they can't change things.

Uh, so, uh, I think you've convinced me, I think he deserves a top 30 status.

You know, I, I will say that, and certainly, certainly, um, when I left him off my list, it wasn't because I saw him as negative as Vladimir Putin.

I mean, in my view, Vladimir Putin is in the bottom to 30%.

Uh, to me, v you know, Xi Jinping is somewhere in the top 60, 70, but you know, I think you've made a good case for why he should be in the top 30.

So that's, that's a very fa uh, fair defense.

He ends up, where is he again?

On our, the updated list?

He ends up, uh, he's at 21.

I think.

I'm, I'm comfortable with that.

I think, uh, well don't lie.

And our advanced AI mathematics has put him at 21st spot after you put him at six.

And I didn't have him, I think.

I think that's appropriate.

Jacob Shapiro: Um, well, and just, and just last thought on him before we move to the, the elephant in the room.

President Trump.

Um, like I, I think that Xi Jinping is also in Vladimir Putin territory.

Like this is a very, very dangerous period in his rule because it's his interesting third term.

There's no successor like he's facing, like the walls are closing in a bit.

He's facing a United States that is not just woken up, that is completely woken up and is going after China meaningfully.

It's one of the only bipartisan issues.

And Xi Jinping has not announced a successor.

Like there's, there's a very real sense, and he could make a strategic error tomorrow and he could drop down this list the way that Putin did.

Like if Xi Jinping ordered an invasion of Taiwan, he would fall to like 180 on this list.

If he dies tomorrow of a heart attack and he has not put in a system for picking the next ruler, and you get factional disagreements and maybe even internal fighting in China about what's comes next, then he gets like, put down this list as well.

So I think he's at a very dangerous moment where he's been leader for this long.

Maybe like the Kool-Aid is starting to go to his head.

Maybe he's just getting old.

Who knows?

Like it's a very precarious position for him.

But I do think, like based on what he's done so far, like he's, it's a high degree of difficulty and, and he is done a good job.

Marko Papic: The man is spring chicken, you know what I mean?

73 years old.

He is young.

72 man's.

72.

He just turned 72.

My God.

What a world we live in.

Alright, let's go to the elephant.

The elephant in the room is Donald Trump.

Uh, I was shocked by the surprising, uh, low number of.

Actually, nobody wrote in with a problem with that.

Uh, one, uh, one, uh, listener said they were surprised that I didn't have Donald Trump on the list because I've defended him on, uh, our podcast probably more than you have.

Um, and so I'll just, I'll just kick off why I did not put President Trump.

It's very, very difficult to gauge the performance of a US president.

And the reason I say that, I know to a lot of you, it's very easy because you just hate him.

And that's cool.

You know, have fun with that.

We have fun with that or love him.

Um, but the problem is that the United States of America is the most powerful country in the world.

Like when we ranked countries, it's number one, it is really difficult to gauge performance.

And the reason I say that is because President Trump, you know, he's very tough in negotiations and you get to do that when you are the most powerful country in the world.

So, um, that's why it's very tough for, for me, with any US president to really gauge whether or not they are doing a very good job.

Um, the other issue is that I think that President Trump quite often identifies issues like hinge issues that need to be fixed.

I think he's very, very good at that, and I would give him a lot of credit on that.

But the problem is that he then uses rhetoric.

That makes it more difficult to solve that problem in the domestic political context because he's not Xi Jinping.

He's not Vladimir Putin.

He doesn't run a country where he can just use executive orders to change the world.

He does need to go through Congress.

And so you are often sitting there and you're like, wow, you really identified an issue that needs to be solved.

Well done.

But why did you say it like that?

That's unnecessary.

So I think that his governance style often makes it more difficult for him to get things through Congress.

And by the way, he's got about 12 months left until we got the midterms and he loses the house, which he will.

And at that point, what happens?

I mean, everything is gonna grind to halt.

He's not gonna get anything done.

So for like, to me, immigration reform is a clear thing that needs to happen.

That is something that he needs to do.

I'm not sure if that's gonna happen given the way that he has gone about enforcing immigration policy right now.

So, uh, I think that his rhetorical, uh, style is not very conducive to compromise.

Um, and, and ultimately compromise is what's needed, even if his end goals are far more moderate than his critics actually accuse him of.

So those are my two problems.

I, I don't know how to gauge President of the United States of America who has awesome power before them.

They can wield incredible power.

It's difficult to gauge any US President, not just Donald Trump.

How, how would Barack Obama.

Deal with being a president of El Salvador, you know, how would Donald Trump deal with being the prime minister of Italy?

How would, how would that work?

I'm not sure.

It's difficult to say, and I'm not sure that his style would work in a mid power or another country.

So if I am, uh, you know, picking the next leader for Belgium, would I pick Donald Trump over Georgia Maloney?

The answer is just, no.

No, because I don't know if he can, if he has the range to be a leader of a smaller, less powerful country.

And then the second thing is, I think his, his heart, that his brain are often in the right place, actually, and this is where I disagree with most of his critics.

The problem is that his execution and the rhetoric leaves a lot of things, uh, desired.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.

So a a few things for me, if I'm being honest with myself, and if I'm looking at my list, um, I feel pretty comfortable with him not being on the list until I start getting down to like pro boho and Aliev and ce.

And there's a part of me that says, you know what, maybe he slots in there because everybody above that know I would trade Trump for in a heartbeat.

Uh, but you start getting to some of those lower names on my list, like Paul Kagame.

I think I'd rather have Donald Trump as president of the United States than Paul Kagame or Abbi Ahmad or some of these others.

Like, so, so maybe I need this to be a little nicer to Trump on the list.

Marko Papic: But those are, those are overflow candidates.

Let's just be very clear.

Those are 30 to 44, so, you know.

Yeah.

So it's, it's, it's.

Yeah, he's in Downage.

I agree.

Yeah.

Jacob Shapiro: But, um, I, I think there are four main points that I would make for why I, I didn't have him on my list when I did it.

The first is, and there might be some others on this list who are guilty of this, but he's guilty of it more than any of them.

The dude was born with money and influence, and that makes a big difference.

Like Xi Jinping, who we, he who we were just talking about, I mean, he had to reli rehabilitate himself in the context of Maoism to ascend political circles.

Donald Trump was born with billions in his mouth.

He was born with a silver spoon.

Uh, I could become, I think, a successful politician if I had billions of dollars in my back pocket, and I think most people could.

So, like, I think that that meaningfully like matters.

And if you're thinking about politician, like politics is a skill.

If you've already got the money, if you don't have to worry about it, like it, it makes it easier to do it.

The second is, and, and you sort of touched on this, Trump, um, he has incredible instincts for power.

Like he understands power instinctually, he understands where to put leverage.

You know, the Mr.

Dealmaker in chief, all these other things, like, he's very, very good at that.

He is just as bad at strategy as he is good at instinctual sense of power.

If the guy ever cracked open a book and learned anything, maybe he'd be one of the best statesmen of all time because he is got instincts, but he has no sense of strategy.

He does not think about the future at all.

Everything is, how does this feel?

Now?

What do I think about this now?

Why is this happening now?

I'm gonna tweet this.

I'm gonna think about this.

It's all raw instincts and it's a source of some strength for him, but he has shown zero capacity to think long term.

And I don't think you get on this list if you can't like, you know, open a strategy book, or if you can't sit through a briefing or if pop up pictures in the briefing, like, you know, yeah, go ahead.

Marko Papic: So I, I know you have two more.

That's perfectly fine.

I just wanna piggyback on this and say, but that's why I say I'm not sure he would be good with amid to your power, like Belgium or Malaysia.

My, my concern with him is that you get away with a lot of shit because you're the president of United States America.

If you wanna tweet at somebody, you know, if you, if you want to tell Iran and Israel, they don't know what the fuck they're doing, you get to do that because you're the president of the United States America.

So when you say like, he sometimes this instinctual gut feeling to act brashly works in his favor.

I hundred percent agree with you.

A lot of the Trump fans say that he is who he is and that's why he's effective.

I agree.

I don't disagree.

I just don't think it would work with any other country other than the United States.

Maybe, maybe Russia, maybe India, maybe China.

But like, you know, if I'm sitting here trying to like, pick, trade, my leader of South Korea, and by the way, do they need that?

You know, if I'm south, if I'm, if I'm the general manager of South Korea, I trying to pick my next leader.

Like, I just, I can't pick Trump, no way.

He's gonna say something stupid and then I don't have 11 aircraft carriers with which to say, what, what are you gonna do about it?

Yeah.

My leader called you fat.

You know, like, you can't, you just can't do that.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, I, I, I, I think the jury's still out on the, on the New South Korean leader.

We can talk about that later.

Um, but yeah, I agree with that and I'll sort of get to that in a second.

The third thing though, um, and I, I'm not saying, I hope, I'm not saying this pejoratively.

I think this is just objectively true.

I mean, we, we went, after Benjamin Nacho met, we went after Benjamin Netanyahu for this, Trump is all vanity and all narcissism, and he's using the office to enrich himself.

Look at all these crypto projects that he's announcing.

Like he fundamentally does not give a crap about anyone but himself and the Trump name.

Well, wait a minute.

Wait a minute.

No.

Wait a minute.

Shake.

Okay.

You wanna defend him?

Fine.

I think, I think it's fairly clear that that's, that, that's true.

Please.

I'll just,

Marko Papic: I will just throw back at you what you said to me when I accused Lola being corrupt.

Aren't they all corrupt?

Jacob?

Jacob Shapiro: Uh.

They are all corrupt.

But I didn't say that.

Yes, they're all corrupt.

But I didn't go at, I didn't go at him for being corrupt.

I went at him for being vain and narcissistic.

I think there is no part of him that actually cares about the nation.

I think it's all Trump.

Trump, Trump.

He would, he would change it to the United States of Trump if he possibly could.

Lula corrupt all these other different things.

Cares deeply about Brazil and the future of Brazil, and has hitched his wagon and his changes to Brazil rising up and being this Trump.

No way.

Like all this stuff with the crypto coins and the Trump tokens, and I'm having the dinners and I'm not gonna put my assets in a blind trust like every single other president before me.

It's all about enriching.

I wanna build Trump Tower and Gaza and Trump Tower and Serbia.

Like, come on.

But

Marko Papic: can't you, well, first of all, Trump Tower in Serbia will be amazing because I'm sure it's gonna be built on the burnt out, uh, husk of the defense ministry.

So that needs to happen.

Please, Jared, don't back out of that.

Please build it.

But look, what I would say to you is, uh, on that point, I don't know if it's exclusive, can you be narcissistic in vain and also think at least that what you're doing is in interest of the United States America?

Jacob Shapiro: You can, I don't think that's him.

I think that was, I think that was LBJ.

I don't think that's Trump, when I, what I'm saying is I really don't think he gives a shit about this country.

Marko Papic: Hmm.

Jacob Shapiro: I don't think he gives a shit about the community that he's in.

I think he gives a shit about himself.

Marko Papic: I think on some level.

Jacob Shapiro: That to me just like disqualifies him from the list because everybody on this list, even the Netanyahu's, have some sense of their country's national future.

And this goes back to the instinctual comment that I made.

I don't think he thinks long term.

I don't think he thinks strategically.

I think he thinks about what's good for me now.

And about using power in order to get those things.

And if he could put those tools in service of a higher strategy, like he would be incredibly potent and competent.

But he hasn't done that.

And that gets to the last point, which you already sort of said, but I'll just repeat it.

It's so easy to be the president of the United States compared to every other country that we've talked about.

The United States is the most geopolitically blessed country in the history of human civilization.

We've got the energy, we've got the people, we've got the geography.

We're separated from enemies.

We're not surrounded by anybody else.

Like, and he doesn't have to be there when the, when the wars are actually being fought.

He's sitting on a military that spends, you know, 10 times or, uh, the, you know, the next 10 countries combine their military budgets aligned with the military budget of the United States.

Right now it's super easy.

And in his first term, he had some huge missteps.

Like he basically had a Bay of Pigs light with Venezuela, uh, COVI.

And the lockdowns happened under this dude's watch.

Like, don't forget that Republicans, like he was the one controlling the levers at the time.

And he was the one who like, okay, yeah, he insulted Fauci a bunch.

Did he do anything about it?

Marko Papic: Well, I mean, uh, you know, I think COVID is both his best and worst.

I mean, operational war warp, warp speed.

Jacob Shapiro: Warp speed is his best.

But his response to COVID some of his worst, well, the way that he's bitching at the Federal Reserve, lower interest rates 300, like, I mean, you start going through the stuff like, it's just,

Marko Papic: well, here's what I would say.

Le let, let me, let me try to like encapsulate what you're actually saying.

You know, I think that in a way, his instincts, his brashness, his creativity, his bullying.

All of those things are why I think Trump's foreign policy is actually much better than people think.

Like the way he handled the Israel Iran thing was, was really good.

I mean, you know, Israel wagged the dog, the tail being America, so he had to kind of go along with it.

But he finished it, he finished it quickly.

Uh, and you've got the Iranian president on Tucker Carlson for 30 minutes, basically sucking up to Trump.

And I don't know if you watched it, please do.

Incredible, 30 minutes of television.

The president of Iran, after being just spanked by the United States of America, is basically like glowingly sucking up to the United States President.

So, so here's what I wanna say.

I've always said this, I think World War III is far less likely with Donald Trump as president than Kamala Harris.

That's just my objective.

You know, we can have a whole hour for why, but one of the reasons, you know, one of the reasons, and, and by the way, that's like important, right?

Like, like I think, you know, and, and, and one of the reasons is that, yeah, he's, uh, kind of an asshole in many ways, but, but in a way that limits further conflict.

He's a moral, and that really works well with geopolitics and foreign policy when you are the leader of the best country,

Jacob Shapiro: when you're the leader of the most powerful country.

Marko Papic: Exactly.

So you and I cannot give him credit for his instinct, his abilities.

Because he's the leader of America.

But we have to criticize his predecessors who did not do that, who were too immoral and preachy and didn't know how to pivot out of difficult corners like Israel, Iran tensions, which I think President Trump did not give anywhere near enough credit for how he handled that.

That was masterful fucking masterclass of game theory.

And so that's where we can't give him credit because like, well, he's the leader of the best country.

And it's like, yeah, but other leaders have done much worse.

But again, we can't put him on the list of top 30 because who cares if he's predecessors?

Were morons.

So that's the first thing.

Whereas, whereas where I dis where I disagree with you is when you say, being a president of the United States of America is very easy.

Yes.

And foreign, a policy side, all you need to do is not be a moron who wants to triple down on normative issues.

Like, stop it.

It's not 1993.

No, you president of the United States of America.

It's a multipolar world.

You kind of have to be a, uh, asshole.

So that's true on the foreign policy, but on the domestic side, it is actually difficult to be a president of the United States of America.

It's not maybe as difficult as you made Xi Jinping's job in 2012, great defense of Xi Jinping.

It's not as difficult perhaps as Brazilian politics, but it is really difficult.

And you have, you, you yourself, you've made a comparison that you and I came from independent sides and we've done the same thing to clients comparing Brazil and America.

It's complicated.

It's difficult.

Being a prime minister of Canada is far more easier.

Why?

Because Prime Minister of Canada is an elected king.

Prime minister of any parliamentary democracy is a king for four years.

You know, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

You've got parliamentary majority or a coalition you good in the United States of America.

It's very complicated.

And that is where his brashness and his, uh, you know, short-termism as you put it.

But I would say just like being led by his own gut and instinct, it, it kind of falls on its head because domestically it's not easy to be a president.

You need to be more nuanced.

You need to build coalitions.

And I think that quite often he sees a potential solution and then he doesn't get to it.

Because in the domestic arena, it's not as easy as just saying, Israel and Iran, dunno what the fuck they're doing.

You know, you can't just be the dad that shows up in the room, says, who started the fight?

I don't care.

You smack both kids and go back downstairs to reading your newspaper.

Like you cannot actually just do that on the domestic front.

So that's where I would say, you know, the qualities Trump have has, we can't give him credit for it on the geopolitical side, but on the domestic side, they don't actually work.

Jacob Shapiro: No, I don't think they work at all.

And I think his thin skin, he's his own worst enemy when it comes to these things because he'll have an idea that might be good, but then somebody tweets something at him and he completely does a 180 because he doesn't like being insulted or something like that.

Like the top the, the Trump always chickens out thing.

Like there's a real aspect to that.

I also, you know, you and I have talked about the one big beautiful bill a couple times now, you know, I'm slowly working my way through the thousand pages, but it looks like a massive own goal to me.

The, the federal Medicaid cuts as a percentage of total Medicaid spending are nearly double what Reagan did in 81 and 82.

You

Marko Papic: still think

Jacob Shapiro: it's

Marko Papic: stimulative?

Jacob Shapiro: I do still think it's stimulative.

We can get to that in a second, but I'm just saying like, how does it make political sense to cut Medicaid?

Like, like the percentage of Medicaid spending by almost 10%, almost double what Ronald, what Ronald Reagan did.

All you're gonna do is close down rural hospitals and lead the people who voted for you most passionately to die.

Like, I don't see any other sort of outcome of that.

Or look at like, you know, the cutting to, to snap and things like that.

Giving ice a budget equivalent to Italy's military while you're also cutting these Medicaid things.

Like what?

Well,

Marko Papic: that whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

That could be Georgia Maloney's fault.

You know what I mean?

Jacob Shapiro: Well, I'm I'm just saying it's, it's also roughly the budget that Israel has.

So Israel, Israel did pretty good.

Marko Papic: Look, the, the one big beautiful bill, let's just be very clear here.

If Kamala Harris had gotten elected as president, she would've paid, she would've had to pass something as well.

Sure.

There is absolutely, there's no, there's no way that we would've let 2017 tax cut expire.

That's just a fact.

And so, you know, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, they would've both had to put all sorts of bells and whistles to get it passed.

And it is what it is.

But, uh, but yeah, I mean, I, I, I don't disagree you on, but No, it's, it's,

Jacob Shapiro: it's, it's just, it's like the policy errors.

Like, so you're gonna cut.

And, and I don't mean this, like, I, I hope listeners are not thinking that I've been overtaken by Trump derangement system.

This is actually, like, literally, I don't understand what the political logic of this is.

I don't understand how it makes political sense to cut something like Medicaid, but then to do like Trump accounts, you're gonna give a thousand dollars to every kid that's born in 2025 and on and beyond.

I think you should retroactive that to 2022 when my first daughter was born.

Um, and, and you're gonna, you're gonna drive immigration down.

Like, I don't know if you've seen the migration numbers at the border.

Oh yeah, yeah.

They tanked their record lows, which on the one hand, good job dealing with the crisis.

On the other hand, we also need immigration in the country from a growth perspective.

So if immigration is going to zero 'cause you've cracked down too hard, like that's gonna show up in growth.

Well, this is where.

Marko Papic: This word, I just

Jacob Shapiro: like, I'm having trouble making all these things make sense.

And like if I'm trying to evaluate him as a domestic political leader Yeah.

I'm looking at it and I'm like, I don't, and maybe, maybe he's a genius.

Maybe in two years I'll be here being like, I'm sorry, I didn't see the genius, but I see it.

I'm like, this is messed up.

I don't understand like, politically, how this is good for you for the United States, for the Republicans.

I don't get it.

Marko Papic: You know?

Um, where I will defend him is that I think his gut usually leads him into the right decision in the long term because constraints move him into that move.

Mm-hmm.

But, you know, so for example, U-S-M-C-A is a great free trade deal.

Like he started off negotiations, braley with some idiotic ideas.

None of that got implemented.

The, the deal that got made was awesome.

Like Hillary Clinton would've loved to make a deal like that, right?

So Donald Trump got done something done that, if you remember, of the C ffr or if you're an economist at the IMF, you're like, wow, I, I like that.

That was awesome.

But he could have just gone to it maybe earlier had he just like, as you said, read a strategy piece, you know, or like, you know, listen to so-called experts, quote unquote, and I shit on experts all the time, especially American Learn elites, like, yeah, sure many of them are morons, but like, some of this stuff is pretty normal.

So it's pretty obvious.

Like, you don't, you don't need to be like.

Member of some elitist cabal to figure out how to get a deal with Mexico and Canada.

So what I would say to you is like, I, I think one of the problems is that, that, you know, his pension for kind of rediscovering sliced bread, right?

So, so like, so on one hand I think, I think people who criticize him, who do have Trump derangement syndrome just hate him.

And then when he does something, when he does something good, they attack it.

For example, I think it's absolutely insane that you've got a bunch of liberals who would not have wanted to attack Iran now saying, well, you didn't finish the job.

It's like, bro, what do you want?

You want him to go into a forever war and find more uranium to bomb?

Like what are you talking about?

You know, relax.

That was perfectly well executed attack on nuclear facilities and it's sufficient.

Shut up.

So on one hand there's that criticism that everything he does is wrong, but on the other hand, the criticism is really that the endpoint, the, the concluded negotiations, the U-S-M-C-A, the phase one, these trade deals we're gonna get.

Like, did it really require the whole entire like volatility of policy just so that you, Mr.

President can figure out that what was obvious on day one is obvious on day 300, right?

So that's where I would say that some of that volatility is just unnecessary.

And, and that's where the domestic politics gets really messy.

Uh, the other issue is immigration.

I mean, like we did a whole episode, Jacob on immigration.

And, and my conclusion of that was like, look, let's be very clear, Donald, like fans of Donald Trump, have to explain why was it that he s cuddled in immigration deal, the Republicans and the Joe Biden administration painstakingly produced.

He comes in and says, please don't pass this deal to his Republican friends so that he can use it as an election, you know, issue.

This happened in early 2024.

Look it up.

Donald Trump, right?

Says to senators, uh, Republican senators don't pass this bill.

And then now we've got the situation where he is the president.

He's got full control of Congress.

I, okay, fine.

You know what?

You wanted to win the election.

I, I can abide by that.

God bless you.

You know, you delayed immigration reform by 18 months.

Who cares?

You're all well done.

But now that you are a president, like you have control of Congress, why not pass your own immigration reform?

Why not do it?

You know what?

You can't find eight democratic senators.

Just, I don't know, pay them with some pork or basically give them some work visa programs for their state.

I don't know, but it seems really interest, like that's, that seems like an own goal.

Instead, there's this added pressure domestically, you know, like talking about, uh, arresting the mayor of a city because they're doing this or that, you know, there's street battles between ice and so on.

Like, although that's obviously overstated by the media, but that's a good example of that domestic policy that that is unnecessarily aggressive and, uh, as circumstantial.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah.

And, and just to say like, I don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Like I know I, I, I got a little hot there, but I, I am saying like, I do think he probably belongs at the bottom edge of my list.

So he probably belongs, like in the, in the low thirties or maybe he should have even cracked my list.

And he has done things like, I'm not one of these people who can't notice when he does things that are good.

Like operation warp speed was absolutely incredible.

I don't think he gets near enough credit for what he did with Operation

Marko Papic: Speed.

No, he gets no credit.

Jacob Shapiro: He gets no credit for it.

No credit in the one, in the one big beautiful bill.

This idea that you're gonna give a thousand dollars to every kid that is born between now and 2028 to have a nest egg so that they have, you know, that's provided by the federal government.

Sounds great.

We should have been doing this a long time ago.

That's something the Dems have been talking about for years, and he's the one that actually got it done.

Like, cool.

There's some stuff in this bill that I'm like right on.

But it's, yeah, but come on,

Marko Papic: come on.

We all know, we all know $800 of that thousand is going in like his crypto plays though, right?

So like, come on.

Well,

Jacob Shapiro: you know, that, that goes back to my other point, but I'm just saying like, he has these, he has these like things that make you, but then when you put together the sum total, I think you're exactly right.

Like, could you have gotten the U-S-M-C-A with all this nonsense?

Could you have gotten better trade deals without ruining the relationship with Japan and South Korea, which he's in the middle of doing.

Like one of, I think one of the only real foreign policy successes of the Biden administration was really strengthening the trilateral between Japan, South Korea, the United States that's gone now.

He's just like jettisoned them and turned Japan and South Korea along with the Europeans against the United States, but for generations to come because virus treating was that really necessary.

Like I.

Marko Papic: Look what I would say, what I would say about this is, uh, you know, it's what I feared the most is that there are about five things that President Trump has done that are maybe like top 20 things that any president has done in the last 150 years.

Like, that's how transformative he can be on occasion.

And foreign policy is, is one of them.

But I fear that because of the divisiveness and the rhetoric, the next president of the United States of America who's a Democrat, will abandon those, even if they're good for America, just purely out of Trump derangement syndrome.

And you saw that with the Biden administration as well.

They kept some things like, you know, the China focus, uh, but on the other fronts, they categorically abandoned many of the things that Trump did that were not completely insane or that were actually very good, just like Trump abandoned things that Obama did just 'cause they were Obamas, you know, and that's petty.

But that's what happens when you're divisive and when you, um, induce derangement syndrome in people.

And you can blame liberals for having Trump derangement syndrome if you're conservative, fine.

But it's also being induced by, uh, almost like this mean trolling.

And that's, you know, I think Trump defenders would say, well, you need to have a character like that to be truly revolutionary.

And I'm not sure that's the case.

I think there's leaders on our list who are revolutionary and they're not divisive.

Yeah.

And they're in the top five and they're in the top five of our list, by the way.

And that's why they're there.

Jacob Shapiro: It was Shelby Foote who said The Great American art is is compromised and there's none of that in him.

I guess the last thought I'll just say here, and, and this goes back to my questions about the one big beautiful bill and specifically the Medicaid cuts and things like that.

Like, I wonder when we're looking back if, um, you know, sometimes I, I compare Trump to, is he Huey Long?

Is he LBJ?

But recently I've been thinking maybe he's Coolidge or Hoover, like maybe he's just late stage in an economic cycle governing a country where inequality is increasing and he's sort of doing the things that the, the wealthy class wants and things like that.

But like when you start cutting Medicaid by this much and you start cutting these entitlement benefits by this much, even if people think that they want that, once they start experiencing that, they're probably gonna turn on the system and they're probably gonna say, okay, well the system is not working for me anymore.

And I think this, I think you see this in that Steve Bann and an A OC are basically both saying you need to raise taxes.

So the fringes of both parties are starting to say, Hey guys, the party is up.

Let's go.

You know, there's Elon Musk out there with the third party as well.

So, I mean, we talked about legacy for some of these leaders.

I think that's another problem for Trump.

Now, maybe I'm wrong about the impact of some of the things that he's pushing through, but some of the things that he's pushed through domestically to me seem like unforced errors and seems to me like they're gonna set up both the Republican party and his legacy.

For, for not, not having historians treat them so kindly, but, but maybe I'm wrong, but yeah, I don't know.

That's another,

Marko Papic: I mean, it would be, yeah, it would be very fitting if Donald Trump brought us a OC in 2028.

So there you go.

Uh,

Jacob Shapiro: alright, well I don't think he's gonna do that, but, uh,

Marko Papic: alright, well listen, uh, this is over two hours now.

I think that, uh, we should definitely put a stop, uh, on stop.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, alright, cool.

Well that's, that's, uh, the 2020.

Wait, wait, wait.

We,

Jacob Shapiro: we, we have to answer one more question, Marco.

'cause I said I, I think Trump probably belongs in my low thirties or maybe even top twenties.

Do you have him anywhere close?

Like where was he on your list before you close it out?

Marko Papic: Yeah, I think he stopped 50,

Jacob Shapiro: top 50.

Marko Papic: I mean, he's not, he's like, again, like anyone who complains about their favorite leader being 35th, remember there's like a hundred, 190 plus countries in the world.

So, yeah, I don't think he's in the, the second half of countries on the planet.

Um, so yeah, he belongs probably somewhere in the top 50.

last word I'm gonna say is we should do this every year.

We should publish this, um, as a joint list.

The, the top 44 leaders, well, we'll call it top 30 and we'll see how many make it, but uh, this is our 2025 edition.

So Mexico, you won.

Well done Italy, you came in second place.

Well done as well.

Uh, yeah, like 12 months from now we'll see where we are and we'll see whi which were our biggest misses.

So that I think, uh, I'm really looking forward to that.

Jacob Shapiro: Yeah, it's gonna be fun.

All right.

Cheers, dude.