Thanks everybody for your responses and votes up to now. I have to admit I didn't expect so many to vote OTHER. BMW, your selection has been explained by you, but there are many who haven't. I'd really like to hear from the rest of you that voted OTHER what your reasons are for this particular selection.
Blueruby, I know we disagree about whether global warming is the cause or the effect of the CO2 levels in the air, which is alright, but it will lead us to the exact same conclusion. The northern states and Canada are likely to see improved agricultural returns as the world heats up. Additionally, it will open up a new land to farming, which is currently marginal. In Europe, things will probably be quite the opposite - as northern ice melts it interferes with the Gulf Stream that has a warming effect on Europe. As a result, ironically, global warming might indicate a colder Europe, with severe impacts on European agricultural returns and energy consumption tendencies.
, I thought you could disagree with me at some point on the way. Please put forward your reasons as to why you disagree.
, I believed how to make money out of this was apparent. To paraphrase Jim Rogers, Buy agriculture. You don't see many 29 year old ethanol farmers driving around in E85 Maseratis. Yet.
, yes the world is much more complied than that. I could go into far more detail on each topic I've listed here and I still wouldn't be anywhere close to a complete description of the world. I'd be a fool. Nonetheless, these are the fundamental dynamics of what I presume is going on and why.
Plutonite, I appreciate your mathematically accurate argument. There are a number of heavyweight events which could completely throw my opinion off. A number of them are:
1. A real chance is these source wars could turn nuclear.
2. Climate change could accelerate and have particularly devastating effects on the US breadbasket, ifying America's agricultural advantage.
3. An alternative to oil could take the world by storm and erase our oil addiction. With cheap, clean, plentiful energy all over, America would not feel the necessity to constrain world food supplies and everybody would live happily ever after in a hippy-like daze.
A number of other things which nobody has even thought of could come up and push the world off this route, no doubt, but I do believe this is the route we're on at this time, and such a heavyweight occasion would likely make this whole conversation completely inconsequential. Provided that we're on the path though, it is still applicable, and so worthy of conversation. You can not go through life only by looking a few feet ahead for fear of not having the ability to see anything outside that. Of course the further away something is the less apparent it is, but it does not make it a waste of time to appear.
Clockwork, as far as I know the Colorado oil is futile for now (it's in fact not oil). The amount of resources required to extract anything out of it far exceeds the benefits of the extracted product.
As far as corruption in China and Russia, yes it's rampant, but there are benefits to central planning. Centrally planned societies are far better able to produce abrupt changes when necessary, with no requirement for years of disagreement to get in the way. Unfortunately, in most cases, the central planners themselves are usually either corrupt or inept (or both). This is the point where the benefits of flames come from.
It isn't a matter of that we would rather have lead the world, the US, China, or Russia, it is about who will lead the world. If you're living everywhere, and sane, you'd probably want the US to become your dad over Russia. Fortunately, it appears the US will stay in control in the long run.
Yes, the Swedes are OK. Their asses are not as frigid as the Norwegians'.