Spiral, to address all factors involved in this matter would require extensive research and a very long and comprehensive paper. My brief contribution to this discussion is based upon generalities and current risk management practice.
Certainly, we can always argue non-conforming specific cases, and when we talk "dollar value" & "resource" definitions should ideally be given. In short, my comment is very easy to argue with and it would be an interesting exercise to engage in an ongoing debate and see just how long we could keep it going.
But I'm not going to do that. I've stated my concise opinion, and you and all others have stated, and will continue to state theirs.
The thing that I think most of us agree upon is that a total ban will accomplish nothing except the achievement of political objectives, and financial loss for those unable to find a way around the bans. One thing is for sure:- in its present form it will not protect elephants.
Supply & demand are certainly major factors in fixing the value of anything, as demonstrated very clearly by the example I provided of the rise in the price of ivory following the introduction of the early bans. As bans become wider and more intensive, it is probable that supply may decrease, which will of course raise price and desirability, but then what can we expect to happen? If history is any guide, supply will increase to fill the market gap.
Summary execution for possession of any ivory object might have some effect, most especially if such a punishment were to be introduced by China and some other developing countries. But that is not likely to happen.
Personally I think that the people who want to help the poor old jumbos would do well to have a close look at the way in which De Beers manages diamond supply.
|