“A stupendously bad prophet”

In today’s Opinion Journal, Ronald Bailey details many false predictions of “reverse Cassandra” Paul Ehrlich. We’re gonna freeze, we’re gonna broil, we’re gonna starve, we’re gonna run out of everything – Ehrlich, the modern-day acolyte of Thomas Malthus, is always wrong but true believers still flock to his message of doom.

The article has a minor flaw: it leaves out one of my favorite stories about the errant environmentalist, a tale of complete refutation that should have embarrassed Ehrlich into silence (but didn’t). Twenty-four years ago, economist Julian Simon asked doomsayer Ehrlich to put up or shut up:

And after a decade of being attacked or ignored by Ehrlich, Simon resolved to show Ehrlich what a joke the doomsayers were. The two never debated (Ehrlich refused, calling Simon a "fringe character"), rather he put his money were his mouth was. In 1980, when Ehrlich was still predicting imminent scarcity, Simon set up a bet wherein he would sell Ehrlich $1,000 dollars worth of any five commodities that Ehrlich chose. Ehrlich would hold the commodities for ten years. If the prices rose -- meaning scarcity -- Simon would buy the commodities back from Ehrlich at the higher price. If the prices fell, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Professor Ehrlich jumped at the bet, noting that he wanted to "accept the offer before other greedy people jumped in."

In October of 1990, Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $570.07. As Simon predicted, free markets provided lower prices and more options. Simon would have won even if prices weren't adjusted for inflation.

I love that part where Simon allowed Ehrlich to choose the commodities (for the record, he picked copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten). That’s a mighty burn.

Extra: See also Reason v. Faith in Capitalism magazine for more on the Simon-Ehrlich wager.