Simon–Ehrlich wager

Julian L. Simon and Paul Ehrlich entered in a widely followed scientific wager in 1980, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. Simon had Ehrlich choose five commodity metals. Copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten were chosen and Simon bet that their prices would decrease, while Ehrlich bet they would increase.

The contest occurred in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000"—a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with—Simon countered with "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run."

Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.^[1] However, economists later showed that Ehrlich would have won in the majority of 10-year periods over the last century,^[2][3] and if the wager had included all important commodities instead of just five metals, or if it was extended by 30 years to 2011, Ehrlich would have won.^[3]

Background

In 1968, Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon was highly skeptical of such claims, so proposed a wager, telling Ehrlich to select any raw material he wanted and select "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.

Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price increases: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon.

Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.^[4]

As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.

Analysis

According to Paul Ehrlich's website:

In 1980, Julian Simon repeatedly challenged environmental scientists to bet against him on trends in prices of commodities, asserting that humanity would never run out of anything... Paul and the other scientists knew that the five metals in the proposed wager were not critical indicators and said so at the time... They emphasized that the depletion of so-called renewable resources — environmental resources such as soils, forests, species diversity, and groundwater — is much more indicative of the deteriorating state of society's life-support systems... Nonetheless, after consulting with many colleagues, Paul and Berkeley physicists John Harte and John Holdren accepted Simon's challenge in late 1980...^[5]

Julian Simon won because the price of three of the five metals went down in nominal terms and all five of the metals fell in price in inflation-adjusted terms,^[5][6] with both tin and tungsten falling by more than half. So per the terms of the wager, Ehrlich paid Simon the difference in price between the same quantity of metals in 1980 and 1990 (which was $576.07). The prices of all five metals increased between 1950 and 1975, but Ehrlich believes three of the five went down during the 1980s because of the price of oil doubling in 1979, and because of a world-wide recession in the early 1980s.

Simon offered to raise the wager to $20,000 and to use any resources at any time that Ehrlich preferred. Ehrlich countered with a challenge to bet that temperatures would increase in the future.^[5] The two were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of a second wager before Simon died.

Ehrlich would likely have won if the bet had been for a different ten-year period.^[2][7] 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." ^[3]

Aftermath

The price of raw and other natural commodities such as oil, gold, and uranium have risen substantially in recent years [citation needed], due to increased demand from China, India, and other industrializing countries. However, Simon has argued that this price increase is not necessarily contrary to his cornucopian theory.^[8] Ehrlich has dismissed the bet as a side issue and stated that the main worry is environmental problems like the ozone hole, acid rain, and global warming.^[9]

The proposed second wager

Understanding that Simon wanted to bet again, Ehrlich and climatologist Stephen Schneider counter-offered, challenging Simon to bet on 15 current trends, betting $1000 that each will get worse (as in the previous wager) over a ten-year future period.^[5]

The trends they bet would continue to worsen were:

• The three years 2002–2004 will on average be warmer than 1992–1994.
• There will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than in 1994.
• There will be more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than 1994.
• The concentration of ozone in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) will be greater than in 1994.
• Emissions of the air pollutant sulfur dioxide in Asia will be significantly greater in 2004 than in 1994.
• There will be less fertile cropland per person in 2004 than in 1994.
• There will be less agricultural soil per person in 2004 than 1994.
• There will be on average less rice and wheat grown per person in 2002–2004 than in 1992–1994.
• In developing nations there will be less firewood available per person in 2004 than in 1994.
• The remaining area of virgin tropical moist forests will be significantly smaller in 2004 than in 1994.
• The oceanic fishery harvest per person will continue its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994.
• There will be fewer plant and animal species still extant in 2004 than in 1994.
• More people will die of AIDS in 2004 than in 1994.
• Between 1994 and 2004, sperm cell counts of human males will continue to decline and reproductive disorders will continue to increase.
• The gap in wealth between the richest 10% of humanity and the poorest 10% will be greater in 2004 than in 1994.

Simon declined Ehrlich and Schneider's offer to bet, and used the following analogy to explain why he did so:^[10]

Let me characterize their offer as follows. I predict, and this is for real, that the average performances in the next Olympics will be better than those in the last Olympics. On average, the performances have gotten better, Olympics to Olympics, for a variety of reasons. What Ehrlich and others says is that they don't want to bet on athletic performances, they want to bet on the conditions of the track, or the weather, or the officials, or any other such indirect measure.

Other wagers

In 1996, Simon bet $1000 with David South, professor of the Auburn University School of Forestry, that the inflation-adjusted price of timber would decrease in the following five years. Simon paid out early on the bet in 1997 (before his death in 1998) based on his expectation that prices would remain above 1996 levels (which they did).^[11]

In 1999, when The Economist headlined an article entitled, "$5 a barrel oil soon?" and with oil trading in the $12/barrel range, David South offered $1000 to any economist who would bet with him that the price of oil would be greater than $12/barrel in 2010. No economist took him up on the offer. However, in October 2000, Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi, an economist with The University of the West Indies, bet $1000 with David South that the inflation-adjusted price of oil would decrease to an inflation-adjusted price of $25 by 2010 (down from what was then $30/barrel). Madjd-Sadjadi paid South an inflation-adjusted $1,242 in January 2010. The price of oil at the time was $81/barrel.^[12]

See also

• Long Bet Project
• Malthusian catastrophe
• Oil price increases since 2003
• Peak oil
• Richard Rainwater
• Simmons–Tierney bet

References

Further reading

• Sabin, Paul (2013), The Bet (Yale University Press).

External links

• Paul Ehrlich's webpage on the two Simon bets