Commodity prices in the (very) long run
Many scarce resources have in fact gotten more expensive over time
By R.A. | WASHINGTON
BACK in the late 1960s and early 1970s, rapid worldwide population growth and soaring commodity prices gave rise to fears that humans were outgrowing their planet's resource capacity. Some worried that crisis and Malthusian collapse was imminent. Among these pessimists was one Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who warned that population increase had gotten dangerously out of hand. Mr Ehrlich's writings generated scepticism in some quarters, however. Economist Julian Simon famously disagreed with Mr Ehrlich's view and argued instead that rising commodity prices would lead markets to respond, through efficiency, substitution, and supply increases. In 1980, he entered into a bet with Mr Ehrlich: that the price of a basket of five commodities (chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten) would be lower in a decade's time, in 1990. Mr Simon easily won his bet, striking a blow for the view that over the long run commodity prices effectively trigger market responses, thereby preventing Malthusian catastrophes.
A flight from the dollar could wreck America’s finances
The currency’s dominance enables very high debts and deficits, meaning a plunge might spell disaster
Investors realise Trump’s pause was not the salvation it appeared
As China strikes back, reality sets in
Can China fight America alone?
The world’s two biggest economies begin an almighty trade clash
The tariff madness of King Donald, explained
As his policy turns on a dime, pity those tasked with justifying his actions
China has a weapon that could hurt America: rare-earth exports
It has only just begun to use it
America’s financial system came close to the brink
Chaotic markets threatened to trigger a full-blown crisis