Biz Discussion Thread/Current Affairs General

Hi Veeky Forums, in another thread I proposed that we hold weekly business discussions for those of us who prefer more... conventional business. The purpose of these threads will be to discuss current business and economic-related affairs.

I intend for the subject of these threads to be decided by majority vote, but since this is the first of its kind I will pick a topic I know a little about (so that at least some of us will learn something).

Let's talk about military aggression in the South China Sea. As you may know, China has been showing signs of aggression in the region. It's been laying claim to various pieces of land - one that is particularly noteworthy is its claim on Spratly Islands - a cluster of islands boasting rich oil reserves. This island is far away enough and is occupied by another sovereignty (Philippines).

bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-shangrila/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute

Obviously, this already spells good news for defence contractors, but something else that is noteworthy is that this area is home to really, really small Asian countries - none of which really have the military capacity to defend any sort of claim it exerts on the islands. Without the American military keeping peace in the region, China is free to use military might to suppress the Asian countries in the region.

We know how Trump has talked about withdrawing the American military from around the world (let's refrain from participating in political arguments here). Should he win, we can expect a rapid increase in business for military contractors - both in the USA and otherwise.

Your thoughts on this?

Other urls found in this thread:

thediplomat.com/2016/04/asias-military-spending-fueled-by-heightened-tensions-with-china/
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/asia-military-spending-rises-in-china-s-shadow-spurring-deals
chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-asia-military-94d18196-27e5-11e6-8329-6104954928d2-20160605-story.html
indiatoday.intoday.in/story/us-report-raises-concern-warns-of-china-troops-build-up-near-indian-border/1/668415.html
seekingalpha.com/article/59187-why-technical-analysis-is-nonsense
fscomeau.com/why-technical-analysis-is-bullshit/
followingthetrend.com/2014/05/why-technical-analysis-is-shunned-by-professionals/
fool.com/investing/value/2010/04/30/technical-analysis-is-stupid.aspx
forbes.com/sites/rickferri/.../technical-analysis-drags-down-performance/
reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/3k63ge/when_this_post_is_12_hours_old_i_will_begin_a_100/
reuters.com/article/southchinasea-shipping-idUSL8N14R17X20160114
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

As the post is the first of its kind, any sort of feedback is appreciated. Too specific a topic, etc.

I more or less agree with yout,but it's all dependent on Trump getting elected. Your topic is also too specific.

Too black and white.
The best outcome for both parties is a continuation of the current agreement. Trump just wants more compensation. Who would pay and who wouldn't? There would be plenty of opportunity to cough up the money before a single soldier was permanently moved.

TTIP?
i think it's an asshole thing and should be burned.
fuck murricans and their gmo pushing and stupid ass dcma and other bullshit lasw that they try to push on the rest of the world!
when will the murrican people realize that corporations are fucking in the ass them nonstop?

Well, true. But military contractors could profit from any kind of conflict, really - I brought up Trump removing the troops as an extreme example (if he does,the value of defence companies would go through the roof).

Consider the fact that China is not only tangled in one territorial conflict - there's also the conflict over Fishing Island and the Paracels Islands (involving Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam). If the Spratly Islands are taken into consideration, China is involved in territorial spats with 6 other countries, with at least two of these building up their military (Japan and S. Korea). These are recent updates - and they are the Asian countries most likely to buy from American defence companies (and the few that can afford it, as well).

I think that conflict is likely to happen - and even if it doesn't, the growing tensions should certainly reflect at least a noticeable bump in the value of some of the defence contractors. Tensions aren't yet bad enough that I'll buy big on the next trigger, but I'm keeping an eye out.

>I think that conflict is likely to happen
Maybe.
But maybe instead, there's some long, drawn out truce/business agreement that occupies countless news cycles.
Oh, and the US, along with token representation from the various small players in the area, will take the lead role.

Perhaps there will never be a war or even a scuffle, but there's still money to be made as long as the defence contractors are getting orders. And that's why we're here.

Topic is weird IMO. There are always tensions around the globe. Why is this one likely to cause increased defense spending?

You're an idiot. Even if the situation deteriorated (which it won't), military conflicts are fought with equipment that was purchased 5-20 years ago.