I do not understand why you guys think that comedies will be the bases for conflict in the future when for the last hundred years it has been things like political/economic/religious/racial ideologies which have lead to the greatest lose of human life. I find you obsession with raw resources to be as interesting as it is misplaced.
I know that it seems at the moment that things like iron or cobalt or titanium are the factors that determine national wealth and will be the determining factor for nation’s advancement but this perception is only a temporary effect caused by the unexpected growth of China and the Seven Tigers. With the exception of oil which is heavily affected by a cabal after all, the prices of comedies have fallen steadily on the world market for the last fifty years. What seems to be a growing shortage that will start a scramble to secure supply is not true. There are more iron mines in the world that are now not operating solely because they cannot compete in price, than there are mines now producing iron. The minerals trade is legendary for their boom and bust cycles and the operators of minerals companies are very conservative in bring on new supplies because of the time lag (you bring on the new source and then see the prices fall) and the cost in capital to start up even old facilities. There are no shortages wit in the world as a hole. There are just uncertainties as long as the current free market system of world trade is preserved supply will catch up with demand.
If you guys do your homework you would know that the free world trade system and the movement that created it, was intended for this very reason, to remove the threat of access to natural resources as a cause for future conflict leading to war. But the Chinese are not very wise are they, as it was exhibited in their action of stopping the shipment of Rare Earths to Japan over their little dispute. Putting now in danger, the very system that they have so profited from so greatly. The Chinese leaders seem so intent in changing the world tobe more to their liking but if they succeed will it be to their benefit in the end? But if they do, it will not because there are real shortages.
Rip,
firstly, (and I am not trying to be a rude here),
I presume, when you typed "comedies" you are not meaning National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation,
you are actually meaning to type 'commodities'?
Actually, I understand a great deal about the mining industry, trade and development between countries. My father was involved in mining all his life. I am no expert in this area, but I can say this; company assets are valued, of course, but when they exist outside of the company's own country, they like to be sure they will keep control of, continue to profit from, and have unfettered access to their assets.
When control of those assets are threatened by the host country, or, if the company wants to ensure it outbids foreign competitors on something, then they turn to Gov. for help, which is a part of what spies are there for, industrial espionage. This, in itself, can lead to strained relations, laying another plank towards possible conflict.
Furthermore, your idealised version of why the 'free market' was developed seems a trifle naïve . The so-called 'free market' was not developed just as an assurance against conflict, or to help the developing nations, it was also promoted by powerful self serving interests to control other countries through investment, trade and development, and in concert with the IMF and World Bank loans, the big boardrooms in the world, of the transnational company variety, can now dictate/influence a country to alter its work place conditions to favour the foreign company, not the rights of the workers.
The IMF and the World Bank have been accused, by many small developing nations, of enslaving their countries in debt, because their commodity sales only pay the interest of the loan, nothing off the capital, which has the potential of creating a failed State, through loan defaulting. This, then, can lead towards conflict.
However, I did not bring up the minerals aspect of this discussion, the other fellow did. War has all sorts of origins, as you correctly generalised. But, one point of contention I must state is; we do not always learn the actual truth of why a war started, but are given an often sanitised version created by the victors, to paint themselves in a more positive light.
Even the losers, such as Japan after WW2, alter the truth of why a war began and what happened; I have been given first hand information on that specific subject, that Japan has instructed its children to never read Western accounts of the Second World War, because they are told we lie about Japan's role in the war and their despicable behaviour in SE Asia. The Japanese children of today are taught that Japan was the victim entirely, not the instigator, nor an aggressor.
But, to bring this back to your other point, I do not agree, wars can be planned and not for the reasons announced when it is made public, case in point; the USA; under the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al cartel and their false and fabricated reasons to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.
Govs. lie all the time, not just China's, USA's or even Oz's, they all do it for whatever reason they see as obtaining an advantage over a particular situation.
It is good to contemplate, at times, the causes and effects of war, and I agree, the economically smartest learn from history, by entering into commerce that benefits either directly from conflicts, or will still be viable within a circumstance of war, or know how to avoid those investments that do not benefit during war. These are also strong reasons why some companies support entering a conflict, albeit behind closed doors with government.
What we have to accept in Oz is, we are not the absolute master of our own destiny, we do need outside military support and backup, and that diplomacy is by far the best alternative. We need to be more humble outwardly, yet not kowtowing.
China, who knows? Maybe it will get a new leader who is a belligerent and storms into Taiwan and takes over direct rule? Maybe, it starts over the islands in dispute with Japan? I do not know, but, it is important that we uphold our own values and rights, over what China may (and has already) tried to dictate to us, without destroying our trade relationship.
Inevitably, the reasons for war are many. Foreign affairs is a complex and difficult area, it would give me a huge headache, Rudd is welcome to it!
Your conclusion, that it is a false premise, that commodities are in short supply globally, so are not a potential cause for war, does not take into account that some commodities are cheap because of their location, and when that supply route is cut off, as you point out the potential of, with Japan and China, then the country denied access gets very annoyed. Lee Kwan Yew once said, of Japan, never deny her access to resources, or she will go to war.
One other thought, some commodities are very rare, but hugely in demand, such as a rare mineral used in making mobile phones, found in one despotic African country, and Australia, in commercial quantities.
In closing; musing upon your comments, I think China is a lot wiser than you give her credit for. However, all it takes is two strong willed leaders of major powers to want the same geographical advantage/asset/commodity, and/or military strategic position, and voila! A recipe for war is prepared, all is left, are the necessary emotional ingredients in order to stir the public outrage cauldron! Think 911...
cheers and keep peaceful thoughts!
jay
P.S. Pondering on all this has given me an idea for a new thread...
