The turbulent market movements this past two weeks underline the dynamic nature of the markets and the volatility with which funds flow between different investment instruments and between countries and currencies.
After a long spell of stability, the rand fell almost 10 percent against the United States dollar, showing that volatility is never far away and is almost unpredictable.
The fear of inflation and a possible interest rate hike in the United States was enough to bring rampant commodity prices to a grinding halt and put the skids under emerging market currencies as adventurous investment funds changed course and took flight back to the safety of the United States dollar.
It is unlikely that the long-term investment trend has been reversed, but it has been jolted and has given investors pause to reflect on the situation.
The commodity market should enter a weakening trend only when supply exceeds demand, and this is going to happen when the global economy slows dramatically, particularly in China and the Far East, or if vast new mining capacity is brought on stream to correct the imbalance between supply and demand.
Neither of these two events appears to be in place at present, so the current shake-up in the markets will probably turn out to be a blip on the long-term radar.
A far more important and immediate problem for commodity markets and prices at present is the sudden rekindling of the spectre of nationalisation.
Very little has been heard about nationalisation since the decolonisation of Africa a generation ago in an era that was dominated by the intrigues of the Cold War.
The ugly word has recently resurfaced, and it coincides with an unprecedented surge in commodity prices and the election of a wave of populist, left-leaning governments in Latin America, most notably in Bolivia and Venezuela.
The most extreme example of the disasterous consequences of nationalisation is probably that which took place in the Copper Belt of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) and Zambia in the 1960s and 1970s. Economic ruin and impoverishment followed for the people in those counties, but tinpot dictators amassed vast fortunes in Swiss bank accounts.
Now, almost 50 years later, these economies still have so much to do to eradicate poverty and then generate a respectable lifestyle for the bulk of their populations.
Latin America, too, is battling with a huge mountain of poverty and under-development.
It is easy to sympathise with impoverished, almost feudal, peasant communities that live in abject poverty in nations that have vast reserves of valuable resources - be they oil, gold, platinum, silver, steel or coal.
There is never any party willing to accept responsibility for the lack of development, and few governments or development agencies have the ability to address the fundamental issues and make a difference.
The one thing that seems fairly clear is that nationalised industries do not have as good a track record as do efficiently run businesses - not in the Soviet Union, Cuba or Africa. There is little to inspire confidence that it will be any different this time round - if we are, indeed, in for another spate of nationalisation.
The one lesson that should have been learned is that there are no quick fixes to poverty. Education, a sound infrastructure, medical care and high levels of employment are the only sustainable long-term options for the eradication of poverty.
The best and most sustainable option to fast track development is to have a tax regime that encourages development and foreign investment.
The companies that extract resources, making handsome profits for shareholders, must become partners in the economic development of the host nations, so that all benefit.
Post-apartheid South Africa has set a good example in this regard, although even here there are many who feel that not enough has been done.
The threat of nationalisation is certain to achieve one thing and that is to discourage foreign investment.
Nationalisation is also likely to lead to high commodity prices. It is almost certainly not going to achieve any sustainable benefits for any country.
It may achieve short-term popularity for political leaders who will be swept away into the annals of history before too long.
For South Africans, the events of the past two weeks should not lead to panic and they should not cause investors to change their investment decisions.
Profit-taking is not a bad thing, but it does have capital gains tax implications. Unless it becomes clear that there has been a fundamental shift in the investment universe, it is probably best to ride out the storm.
- David Sylvester is the chairman of the Shareholders' Association, telephone (021) 686 7567.