4 ms·

> Ehrlich could have won if the bet had been for a different ten-year period.[5][6][7] Ehrlich wrote that the five metals in question had increased in price bet

> Ehrlich could have won if the bet had been for a different ten-year period.[5][6][7] Ehrlich wrote that the five metals in question had increased in price between the years 1950 and 1975.[3] Asset manager Jeremy Grantham wrote that if the Simon–Ehrlich wager had been for a longer period (from 1980 to 2011), then Simon would have lost on four of the five metals. He also noted that if the wager had been expanded to "all of the most important commodities," instead of just five metals, over that longer period of 1980 to 2011, then Simon would have lost "by a lot."[7] Doesn't sound like a great bet to base anything on.

ggm 4y ago
The idea behind the bet is stronger than the statistics of year shopping: the price of critical ingredients is subject to many changes, what was at stake was their availability expressed as price: Ehrlich argued for scarcity because of a flawed belief in exhaustion and limits to growth. Simon argued for supply chain dynamics, and had a strong sense the relative abundance of primary inputs was not the limiting factor. Sure, the specific bet could be lost and won in different windows. But the actual underlying point remains: were not facing exhaustion of resources as a limit to economic growth and development as much as exhaustion of willingness to invest in exploration and development of sources. "Oh God, there isn't enough cobalt or lithium for all the EV to be sold in the next 5 years" or "there isn't enough lithium for every car to be converted to EV" which are both variants of counterfactuals to actual rate of deployment, replacement of cars in the real world, the replacement of battery technology, new forms of battery chemistry, you name it PLUS extraction of new sources and discovery of new ore beds.
- wnevets 4y ago
  > Sure, the specific bet could be lost and won in different windows. But the actual underlying point remains: You are free to argue that but that is not why this bet turned out the way it did according to the quotes from the linked wiki. It sounds way more like a coin toss than any rule of the market
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Your point would be stronger if the bet hadn't allowed Ehrlich to pick the commodities in question.
    - culi 4y ago
      The selection is a pretty generic selection of metals though. Pretty representative of metals overall
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Not the point. Ehlich was free to choose the metals, so the fact that this particular choice wasn't in his favor doesn't make him look good. These were presumably the best bet he thought he could make.
- culi 4y ago
  > The idea behind the bet is stronger than the statistics of year shopping But the fact that this bet could've easily been lost and Simon mostly got lucky is direct evidence against "the idea behind the bet"... In the past 2 decades for example, the inflation-adjusted price of all 5 of these metals have increased.
  - jcampbell1 4y ago
    Every prediction in “The Population Bomb” turned out to be wildly incorrect. Simon was consistently right that the human standard of living would increase even as population increased. The arguments Erlichman made were like: not everyone can have a telephone because there is not enough copper in the Earth’s crust.
    - specialist 4y ago
      Warning: Dangerous curve ahead. At your speed, you will lose control, jump the guard rail, fail down the chasm, impact, blow up, and ultimately die. Slows down. Safely navigates turn. Ergo, warning was wrong. Stupid warnings. -- There's a name for this phenomenon. Like how identifying ozone depletion beget policies to prevent said depletion. Doesn't mean the initial warning was wrong. Regardless, this is exactly how (we hope) policy making is supposed to work.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Or, the warnings were irrelevant to the avoidance of the problem. A fable: http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.html http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.htm...
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        You’re just completely wrong about whether we heeded the warnings in the Population Bomb. We are billions of people over the mark he set for total systemic collapse, and living standards are higher than ever. This isn’t like the ozone hole, where we identified a problem and fixed it. He was just wrong.
zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Obviously if they had made a different bet the result could have been different. That’s literally always true.
- wnevets 4y ago
  Not if the argument is the market will always lower the cost of goods like metals over time. If that bet went 20 years instead of the 10 the price would have been higher. Would that have proved the other guy correct?

ggm 4y ago

The idea behind the bet is stronger than the statistics of year shopping: the price of critical ingredients is subject to many changes, what was at stake was their availability expressed as price: Ehrlich argued for scarcity because of a flawed belief in exhaustion and limits to growth. Simon argued for supply chain dynamics, and had a strong sense the relative abundance of primary inputs was not the limiting factor. Sure, the specific bet could be lost and won in different windows. But the actual underlying point remains: were not facing exhaustion of resources as a limit to economic growth and development as much as exhaustion of willingness to invest in exploration and development of sources. "Oh God, there isn't enough cobalt or lithium for all the EV to be sold in the next 5 years" or "there isn't enough lithium for every car to be converted to EV" which are both variants of counterfactuals to actual rate of deployment, replacement of cars in the real world, the replacement of battery technology, new forms of battery chemistry, you name it PLUS extraction of new sources and discovery of new ore beds.

wnevets 4y ago
> Sure, the specific bet could be lost and won in different windows. But the actual underlying point remains: You are free to argue that but that is not why this bet turned out the way it did according to the quotes from the linked wiki. It sounds way more like a coin toss than any rule of the market
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Your point would be stronger if the bet hadn't allowed Ehrlich to pick the commodities in question.
  - culi 4y ago
    The selection is a pretty generic selection of metals though. Pretty representative of metals overall
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Not the point. Ehlich was free to choose the metals, so the fact that this particular choice wasn't in his favor doesn't make him look good. These were presumably the best bet he thought he could make.
culi 4y ago
> The idea behind the bet is stronger than the statistics of year shopping But the fact that this bet could've easily been lost and Simon mostly got lucky is direct evidence against "the idea behind the bet"... In the past 2 decades for example, the inflation-adjusted price of all 5 of these metals have increased.
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  Every prediction in “The Population Bomb” turned out to be wildly incorrect. Simon was consistently right that the human standard of living would increase even as population increased. The arguments Erlichman made were like: not everyone can have a telephone because there is not enough copper in the Earth’s crust.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Warning: Dangerous curve ahead. At your speed, you will lose control, jump the guard rail, fail down the chasm, impact, blow up, and ultimately die. Slows down. Safely navigates turn. Ergo, warning was wrong. Stupid warnings. -- There's a name for this phenomenon. Like how identifying ozone depletion beget policies to prevent said depletion. Doesn't mean the initial warning was wrong. Regardless, this is exactly how (we hope) policy making is supposed to work.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Or, the warnings were irrelevant to the avoidance of the problem. A fable: http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.html http://englishaesop.blogspot.com/2010/07/fly-and-chariot.htm...
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      You’re just completely wrong about whether we heeded the warnings in the Population Bomb. We are billions of people over the mark he set for total systemic collapse, and living standards are higher than ever. This isn’t like the ozone hole, where we identified a problem and fixed it. He was just wrong.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago

Obviously if they had made a different bet the result could have been different. That’s literally always true.

wnevets 4y ago
Not if the argument is the market will always lower the cost of goods like metals over time. If that bet went 20 years instead of the 10 the price would have been higher. Would that have proved the other guy correct?