Editing Simon–Ehrlich wager (section)

==Analysis==
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, with both tin and tungsten falling by more than half.<ref name=ehrlich-1998/><ref>[http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070703014812/http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html|date=July 3, 2007}}</ref> In his book ''Betrayal of Science and Reason'', Ehrlich wrote that Simon asserted "that humanity would never run out of anything". Ehrlich added that he and fellow scientists viewed [[renewable resources]] as more important indicators of the state of planet Earth, but that he decided to go along with the bet anyway.<ref name=ehrlich-1998>{{cite book | last1=Ehrlich | first1=Paul | last2=Ehrlich | first2=Anne | author-link1=Paul Ehrlich | title=Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future | pages=100–104 | year=1998 | isbn=978-1610912501}}</ref> Afterward, 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.<ref name=ehrlich-1998/> The two were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of a second wager before Simon died.

Some observers have argued that Ehrlich could have won if the bet had been for a different period, or if the start date had been different.<ref name="Betting on the Apocalypse">{{cite news|last=Sabin|first=Paul|title=Betting on the Apocalypse|work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/betting-on-the-apocalypse.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130911052344/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/betting-on-the-apocalypse.html |archive-date=2013-09-11 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=24 October 2013|date=September 7, 2013}}</ref><ref name=worstall-2013>{{cite news|last=Worstall|first=Tim|title=But Why Did Julian Simon Win The Paul Ehrlich Bet?|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/13/but-why-did-julian-simon-win-the-paul-ehrlich-bet/|access-date=24 October 2013|newspaper=[[Forbes]]|date=2013-01-13}}</ref><ref name=Grantham>{{citation | last=Grantham | first=Jeremy | title=Resource Limitations 2: Separating the Dangerous from the Merely Serious | periodical=GMO Quarterly Letter | page=12 | date=July 2011 | url=http://davidruyet.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/jgletter_resourcelimitations2_2q11.pdf | publisher=GMO LLC | access-date=2013-06-05}}</ref> Ehrlich wrote that the five metals in question had increased in price between the years 1950 and 1975.<ref name=ehrlich-1998/> 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.<ref name=Grantham/> Economist Mark J. Perry noted that for an even longer period of time, from 1934 to 2013, the inflation-adjusted price of the [[Dow Jones-AIG Commodities Index]] showed "an overall significant downward trend" and concluded that Simon was "more right than lucky".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.aei.org/publication/julian-simon-still-more-right-than-lucky-in-2013/ | last=Perry | first=Mark J. | title=Julian Simon: Still more right than lucky in 2013 | work=AEI | publisher=[[American Enterprise Institute]] | date=January 12, 2013 | access-date=April 28, 2017}}</ref>