Talk:Simon-Ehrlich wager
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] old comments
I think Paul Ehrlich was also a member of the 'Club of Rome', which wrote "Limits to Growth", also a famously wrong set of predictions.
The current revision of the article is written as an apology for Ehrlich. It needs to be made more balanced.
Done.
I want to know whether he would have won the bet which looked outside the normal boundaries of economics. Does anyone know where I could find that sort of statistical set?
His argument's analogy is flawed - life is not a sport, and there are factors outside raw economics which do matter, despite the views of economists - and I would definitely like to know if his style of economics and predictions is able to succeed outside its own proclaimed purveyance, as the 'invisible hand' would have us believe should happen.
- Simon would have very much agreed that much in life is driven by values rather than economic calculation. In fact, he worked to expose that, in many cases, what people presented as matters of fact, of which denial was forbidden, were in fact statements about their personal values which the rest of us are not compelled to adopt. Please sign posts. Cutler 11:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Done.
For the second wager, does anyone know which of the predictions turned out to be true? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Timing
Ehrlich possibly may have been ahead of his time in the prediction about scarcities and metal prices... What about the trend now, since China and India are coming strongly into the picture? Steel prices (the value-added product) have certainly gone up internationally. What about price tends with copper, tin, nickel? Are we sure this topic is handled in an up to date way in the wager article and in the Paul R. Ehrlich article? - M. Coral
- If someone wants to compile a list of current metal prices to match the wager it might be interesting, but we should avoid drawing any surmises from it on our own. -Will Beback 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Increased scarcity in the short-term is what drives Simon's theory. 'The aftermath' section was wrong, short-term price in increases in oil are not contrary to Simon's theory. Whoever wrote it misses the whole point, oil costs more so people invest in alternatives such as ethanol, so we use less oil. This is starting to happen now. - WGM
-
- The graph in the article implicitly draws conclusions. Many of these minerals are now at much higher prices than in 2002, having increased by hundreds of percents in some cases - the graph is no longer indicative of long term trends. Whether they'll be replaced with alternatives and the price will drop is still a matter of debate of course.... I think it should go. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- When I created the graph for Wikipedia (2006), it was current. It is apparent that it is becoming increasingly out-of-date, and I will be happy to revise it to include the latest data available. It may take several weeks to complete; please be patient. —Aetheling (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
- Also see peak oil and oil price increases since 2003 (from <$20/bbl to >$100/bbl in 2008). It may be worth mentioning that Richard Rainwater has profited handsomely by essentially betting against Simon in the futures market since the late 1990's. See: Richard Rainwater#Betting on peak oil. Peakniks such as Matthew Simmons predict oil at $300/bbl within five years after world oil production peaks, and the peak may have occurred in 2005 or 2006. Oil production has been approximately flat since then, despite a sharp run-up in price. This is the first time in history that world oil production was unable to increase in response to rising prices in the absence of any major supply disruptions. --Teratornis (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about trashing this page with my last edit. My computer rebooted in the middle of my editing session, and then I got distracted with a phone call. I'm not sure what happened. I've never seen something like that before, the blanking of everything outside the section I was editing. --Teratornis (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also see peak oil and oil price increases since 2003 (from <$20/bbl to >$100/bbl in 2008). It may be worth mentioning that Richard Rainwater has profited handsomely by essentially betting against Simon in the futures market since the late 1990's. See: Richard Rainwater#Betting on peak oil. Peakniks such as Matthew Simmons predict oil at $300/bbl within five years after world oil production peaks, and the peak may have occurred in 2005 or 2006. Oil production has been approximately flat since then, despite a sharp run-up in price. This is the first time in history that world oil production was unable to increase in response to rising prices in the absence of any major supply disruptions. --Teratornis (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Resources
Why doesn't anyone bet on worldwide kilocalories of food intake per human per day? Instead of only betting on sections of the eco-system that already rape 80% of the earth to enhance their 20%? Any fourth grader can tell you comparing an Olympian to an average human is like comparing an aircraft to a car. They take more resources to maintain, repair, and operate than an average person, and hence betting on the Olympics as opposed to betting on an average human, is the way Simon won on the first bet.
He took economies of scale and used it to argue that things were getting better. How about using average number of hours worked as a scale? In 1960 in America, one wage earner could support a family of 4. In the year 2000 2 wage earners were the norm.
--Lee Wells 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but their real income was much greater -- that is average household real income was greater, and hence per capita real income was also higher. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hydroponics
Everyone please forgive my ignorance concerning the talk page protocol if I'm doing this incorrectly...this is my first one! In the second to last paragraph it is implied that advances in energy generation and hydroponics may result in less of several listed items. The language may be a little confusing, how could an increase in hydroponic agriculture decrease the amount of fertile soil? Similarly, does rice consumption automatically decline due to the adoption of a western lifestyle? I think I see the point, but I think that if it stays with the article, and is considered by the author to be important, that the causality should be defined more clearly. Thoughts? --thanks-- Jasnorth 09:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the entire paragraph is an attempt at synthesis and is original research -- and a bit confused. Remove it and just let Simon's words speak for themselves. --Michael C. Price talk 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fashion
The article says that it became "fashionable" to argue .... Seems non encyclopedic/NPOV to attribute motive without documentation of that motive. Were people really going around saying, "I don't think this will happen, but it makes my butt look smaller."?
I'd also argue about the loaded "anti-industrial", but it's always possible to nut-pick someone like Ted Kaczynski and pretend that lone wackos are representative of a larger trend. Balance is a lost cause when people are willfully stupid. Mykej (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
