Talk:Julian Simon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

the Ultimate Resource

I planned to start a page for Simon's book, The Ultimate Resource, but I got redirected here. Why is that? It's a comprehensive (covers a lot of topics) enough and influential enough book to warrent it's own space. David Youngberg 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason you were redirected here is because some helpful soul created a Wikipedia entry for "The Ultimate Resource" and placed therein a redirection pointer to the page "Julian Lincoln Simon". This should not deter you from writing the article. Try naming it "The Ultimate Resource (book)", which conforms to Wikipedia custom for the naming of entries. If I might, I would also suggest that you (a) write the entry off-line first, as completely as you can, (b) adhere to the best standards of scholarship in your entry, with footnotes and a bibliography, and then (c) use the search feature to find all other articles that reference the book, and create links from those references to your new article. If you need any help, just ask me or any other Wikipedian. —Aetheling 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was me who created the redirect. The idea of a separate article on TUR sounds a good idea. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea to start in Word. I'll be getting on it soon; look for it. David Youngberg 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new article--The Ultimate Resource (book)--and I encourage everyone to contribute; it's a big book so there's lots to do. I got a good start on it, though. —David Youngberg 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Price Of Oil

I don't really like the following quote from the article. "With respect to oil, the (2008) price rose to $142, exceeding its previous record (inflation adjusted) in the late 1800s. It fell after the 1970s oil shortages to comparably low levels in the late 1980s and 1990s (though not all the way to the 1970 prices, to say nothing of the record lows of the 1930s)."

While it is undoubtedly true that the price of oil has increased greatly in the past few years, I don't really think this has any bearing on Dr. Simon or his theories. He has been quoted often as saying prices can go up at various times but in the long run, wage-adjusted, their price will come down. I don't think you can say this recent price spike proves him wrong, which is apparently what the author was trying to do. If the price stays high (too high), humans will figure out a way to avoid paying the high price of gas / oil. And the problem will have gone away. DannyJohansson (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats not completely true. Simon predicted, based on the historical price developement of metals, that peak prices should not exceed the historical, early peaks (compare Napoleons aluminium spoons or steel in the Middle ages). Oil prices in 2008 however went above the pre 1900 or 1970ies peaks in todays dollars. I am quite pro Simons market mechanism for raw materials, but this is a remarkeable exemption and has to be mentioned. BR --Polentario (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon's theories are not at all invalidated by the price of oil, and as noted above, help draw our attention to the situation. Just as oil violates on the upside, it will surely violate on the downside. Technology will make oil as a source of energy obsolete as cheap solar panels using efficient nanotechnolgy become common. When that day arrives, oil's sole use will be as a lubricant. Simon would recognize that oil's high price, in excess of previous peaks, expedites technological advancement which will, in the long-run, produce for oil a price close to zero. And that reality weighs heavily on all the oil-rich nations. 66.48.177.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if anyone has anything to say about oil now being "too" expensive. Light sweet crude futures for January delivery closed yesterday at $40.53, with predictions of going lower. Sounds like a long-run wage adjusted decrease to me. But the problem with looking at this problem at one point in time is you miss the whole point. The price of this resource has everything to do with 1) short run supply and demand curves and 2) who controls them. It takes a bit of time for suppliers to figure out how much oil is being demanded and by the time they respond appropriately, demand may have already shifted. So in the face of very high prices, suppliers try to pump more oil. In the meantime the world has gone into recession, demand disappears but now we have more supply and the price craters. The other factor is who is controlling supply, and in this case it is statist countries, where "people" are not generating income from additional oil volumes, the money either goes into country coffers or the kings wallet. These regimes do not allow the mechanisms of supply and demand to work properly. Who is going to try to explore for oil in Russia or Azerbaijan? There is a pretty good chance that once if you find it, the gov will take it.

Long and short, I do not believe that Simon would accept your analogy of aluminum spoons or other metals. Please review his bet with David South and understand that he would say the same thing has happened with oil, that the rules of the game are being manipulated by various gov'ts, and in the case of oil, the driver is even more direct. With lumber, there were ancillary reasons lumber supply was being manipulated. In this case Russia directly benefits by pumping oil and by not having any competition. Lastly, it is hard to miss the obvious circumstance of 2billion people (India and China) very quickly demanding more fossil fuels. This is likely to put a strain on our supply and demand functions in any scenario. DannyJohansson (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the 1970s oil crisis was entirely politically driven, for one instance. The current oil condition is a problem, but indicators point to a different production mix (e.g. tar sands becoming more important), as well as increasing reliance on electric power for vehicles. I guess it will be interesting to discuss this 20 years from now. Quasarstrider (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no direct connection between democracy and the degrees of freedom for decision making in each market sector, the German Empire 1871-1914 was the most liberated market for oil in Europe, while agriculture was highly regulated(Rainer Karlsch, Raymond G. Stokes: Faktor Öl. Die Mineralölwirtschaft in Deutschland 1859-1974. Verlag C. H. Beck, München 2003). Not to mention Chile during Pinochet!
Artificially Enhanced energy prices are benign but its not a question of Developing countries. A low amount of energy taxes and working public transport - as in the USA or Bangla Desh :) - makes changes in world market prices much more severe. Germany has heavy taxes on gasoline, more than 70 percent of the price of the gallon go to the state which subsidies public transport, the result is a much lower reliance on oil.

I agree with Simon (and as well John Kenneth Galbraith in On Mass Poverty) that the availability of administrative and management skills is much more important than economic ideology or geological resources.

A example partially supporting your point is the internal trade in the eastern block before 1989. Before 1989, they used world market prices based on a five year average for the cross boarder trade. This made the GDR in the 70ties very strong since they could buy cheap russian oil, converted it into chemical products, moved it toll free on the western german market and got world market prices in return. The reverse effect during the 80ies basically lead to bancrupcy, which was uphold by western german credits for while till the wall came down 1989. (Rainer Karlsch, Raymond G. Stokes). It was shift in the timeline but not an avoidance of global price developements
The metal price issue is based on Simons own research and as well the prediction that metal prices sink in the long run (in todays values). This was - for the first time - not the case with last years Oil curve. (e.g. in The State of Humanity, Julian Lincoln Simon Blackwell Publishing, 1995) Check on http://books.google.com/books?id=DrgN0AvFGL0C&hl=de --Polentario (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The chart of the price of oil probably should be updated. I'd do it myself but I'm a little unsure about the copyright issues of posting various charts I can find on the web. Here is an example of one that is more up to date. http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.jpg twfowler (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph detailing the ups and downs of oil prices in recent years because it doesn't have direct relevance to Simon's ideas and to include it is moving a bit into original research (without a reliable source linking the prices to Simon's ideas). There were no sources in the paragraph.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Transmutation is possible

First, please sign your posts. Second, I was going to forget it but seeing a section in the Talk page already, should we point out that Diamond is absolutely wrong when he said elements cannot, by definition, be made from other elements? I don't want mess with the NPOV of the section but that is totally and objectively incorrect. The sun disproves Diamond every day (it makes energy by turning hydrogen into helium) and virtually all elements in the universe were originally hydrogen. (Diamond is thinking of chemical reactions--those cannot turn elements into other elements--but nuclear reactions can and do.) David Youngberg 06:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a section header to separate your comments from the work-in-progess criticism text, which is unsigned since it is an attempt to be consensual. You are completely correct (of course) that Diamond is scientifically incorrect and I think it is worth mentioning. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the long discussion and tried to cut that long story short using the practical reason why copper isnt any "stratetic ore" anymore, very much in line with Simons assumptions. I assume the focus of this sections is about Simon and not about Diamond, as well the inspiration for Lomborgs work is the longer lasting heritage of Simon compared to the minor issue with Transmutation. Happy new year --Polentario (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Simon suggest that transmutation was necessary? I thought he suggested that replacements for materials formerly considered essential would be found. E.g., like aluminum replaces copper in long-distance electrical transmission. --71.162.85.27 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Simon said that we dont have to worry about copper running out, as we can make copper from other metals. he then said, in response to criticism, that we still dont need to worry, as when we do need to make copper from other metals, we will figure out a way to do so. We all know that if we can replace every single one of our relatively scarce useful elements with a common one, make everything from iron, aluminum, silicon, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and use only primary renewable energy sources like sunlight and geothermal, we will do better. but thats not what he said, thats what i am saying. and it still costs energy to mine and purify aluminum ore. TANSTAAFL Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words and POV-OR statements

I removed weasel words like "massive," and "inaccurately" and OR-POV statements like "makes no specific mention of the massive loss in the number and diversity of species as a result of human population growth," because they clearly are nothing more than the POV-OR opinions of some Wiki editor, which are unsupported by any valid WP:RS citations.

What, for instance, constitutes "massive loss in the number and diversity of species as a result of human population growth?" What percentage of the total species that have ever been on this planet, which were eliminated solely as a result of the growth of human population, constitutes a label like "massive?"

Try and find solid documentation of a wild statements like that and you are likely to find there has never been any valid documentation, especially since the total amount of species that exist on this planet are largely unknown today (last I read less than 25% of all species have been discovered and classified). Of the millions upon millions of species that have ever existed upon this planet, it is doubtful that more than a handful can be proved to have become extinct, SOLELY because of the growth of the population of Homo Sapiens. If any disagree, then show us the proof, and then show how whatever number of extinct species can be laid at the feet of Homo Sapiens ALONE, as justifying labels like "massive."

Please do not consider restoring weasel-word POV or OR statements like that, UNLESS that can be done with the required support of valid WP:RS cites. If anyone adds POV and/or OR statements to the article, without the required cites, I will remove them too. EditorASC (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms with no counterpart

I removed a separate section of external "criticism" links because I have never seen that done without an equal number of labeled pro links; I also removed a section with "Books Critical of Simon," which I have never seen done at all on Wikipedia and which also had no pro counterpart. While finding some sources for this article, I came across economists complimenting Simon, so it seems it shouldn't be that difficult to add more balance to these sections if they are included.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some criticism. No one is perfect. So where is the criticism entry? Its completely gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.133 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the criticism section. Jared Diamond is notable, as is his book Collapse, and he isn't even the only notable critic mentioned. The IP had removed the section by characterising the section as "just a polemic" (as if cornucopians never wrote polemics, ha ha) with the bare accusation of misquoting without showing how (which would be OR anyway, and remember that per WP:TRUTH, it's not for Wikipedians to decide who's right). It's a shame how spins to Wikipedia articles are tolerated and even encouraged through simple neglect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The JS article is quite one-sided and non-NPOV. There are a list of pro-Simon books. I would like to suggest the additions of the following section. Thank you.

Critiques:

4.246.218.92 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)