But in time of peace, the "control of raw materials" in the last analysis means that the owners of those materials can do only two things with them, use them or to sell them. This is perhaps most obvious in the case of such raw materials as are perishable, but it is true of all. Take such a product as copper, for example. Some countries have copper mines, others have none. But the ownership of a copper mine is of no possible advantage unless the copper produced from that mine is manufactured into something else or is sold. Of course temporarily a mine owner may leave his ore in the ground or may store a supply of copper above ground; but these are expedients to be resorted to only in some time of over-production and impossible of continuance. If the product of the mine is not either used or sold, its advantage is purely a theoretical possibility of the future. It has no more value in present reality than a bank note on a desert island. The really important factor, as to raw materials, is _access to the market_ on an _equal footing_. {42} In practice there are only two ways in which a State or its citizens can be discriminated against, in time of peace, so far as the State's access to supplies of raw materials is concerned. They are as follows: (1) By discriminatory export duties, or similar duties. In practice these are _not_ important. (2) By discrimination in respect of prices, or similar matters, by _monopolistic_ producers. To achieve this result it is necessary not merely that one _State_ should have a "monopoly" of the supply of some raw materials, but also that _within_ that State, the production and sales of the raw materials should be in the hands of monopoly. Further, the domestic monopolistic organization, must, in order that discrimination should be an outcome of the situation, find it _profitable_ (not merely "patriotic") to discriminate in favor of the domestic market. There is _no_ important instance of such discrimination. Such conjunction of circumstances is one which is exceedingly unlikely to occur. There is more chance that there will be discrimination _in favor of_ the foreign buyer. In short, the matter is not one of great practical importance, for (1) a raw material supplied only by one State and (2) controlled, _within_ the State, by a monopoly, which also (3) finds it profitable to discriminate against foreign buyers is something to be found only in imagination. I venture to say that there has never been a time in modern civilization when the people of any country have been prevented by the international situation from obtaining any raw material whatever for which they had the capacity to pay. The only possible exception to this statement has been in time of war[15]; and the only possible change in the situation in time of peace would, as I have suggested, amount to some form of compulsory international charity. {43}