Julian Simon Was Right: Ingenuity Leads to Abundance
We live in a world of abundance (when politicians don’t screw it up).

If you're looking for further evidence that the world is recovering from the disruptions of pandemic policy, the Simon Abundance Index provides just that. After a brief retreat, the index once again portrays a world of cheaper commodities that contribute to human prosperity. Born from a famous 1980 bet between economist Julian Simon and doomsayer Paul Ehrlich, the index stands as testimony for Simon's belief that the greatest resource is human ingenuity—although government intervention is perfectly capable of screwing up a good thing.
"After a sharp downturn between 2021 and 2022, which was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, government lockdowns and accompanying monetary expansion, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the SAI is making a strong recovery," according to Marian L. Tupy of the Cato Institute. "Since 1980, resource abundance has been increasing at a much faster rate than population."
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
A Contrast to the Fears of Doomsayers
The index was born in the days of worries over population growth and the strain more people would place on the world's resources. The Limits to Growth, published by the Club of Rome in 1972, famously predicted that nonrenewable natural resources including copper and aluminum would start running out in a matter of years, hiking prices and curtailing availability. "Population growth and the law of increasing costs could rapidly drive the system to the point where all available resources were devoted to producing food," insisted the authors.
"In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now," warned Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb (1968).
Policymakers took the doomsayers' warnings seriously. China implemented a one-child policy that was coercively enforced and hobbles the country to this day, even after its repeal. Governments from India to Mexico imposed forced sterilization policies.
"'The Population Bomb' made dire predictions—and triggered a wave of repression around the world," Charles Mann noted in 2018 for Smithsonian magazine.
Innovation Is the Greatest Resource
Simon initially agreed with Ehrlich and friends that population was a problem. But he researched the issue and dramatically changed his mind on the relationship between people and prosperity.
"Humankind has evolved into creators and problem-solvers to an extent that people's constructive behavior has outweighed their destructive behavior, as evidenced by our increasing life expectancy and richness of consumption," Simon wrote in 1984 for Reason. "And in recent centuries and decades, this positive net balance has been increasing rather than decreasing."
That's because, he continued, "humankind has evolved culturally (and perhaps also genetically) in such a manner that our patterns of behavior—social rules and customs being a crucial part of these patterns—predispose us to deal successfully with resource scarcity. That is, over the centuries, these evolved patterns have given us greater rather than less command over resources."
Gambling on Abundance
The result of his changed views was a challenge issued to and accepted by Paul Ehrlich. In October 1980, they drew up a futures contract by which Simon agreed to sell Ehrlich, in 1990, the same quantities that could be purchased for $1,000 in 1980 of five metals: copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. If the combined value was above $1,000 at the end of the bet, Simon would pay the difference. If it was below $1,000, Ehrlich would make up the difference to Simon. In October 1990, Ehrlich mailed Simon a check; the price of the metals, which were selected by Ehrlich, had fallen by more than a third after inflation.
Of course, resource prices and innovation evolve naturally, not in straight lines. Different time periods might have produced different results for that bet. But Simon's main contention—that humans tend to innovate their way around resource constraints—continues to hold, as documented by the Simon Abundance Index, which tracks the availability and cost of many more commodities than the five included in the original 1980 bet.
"The Simon Abundance Index (SAI) quantifies and measures the relationship between resources and population," notes the 2024 edition of the index. "The SAI converts the relative abundance of 50 basic commodities and the global population into a single value. The index started in 1980 with a base value of 100. In 2023, the SAI stood at 609.4, indicating that resources have become 509.4 percent more abundant over the past 43 years. All 50 commodities were more abundant in 2023 than in 1980."
Policy-Driven Backsliding
Growth in abundance is occasionally interrupted. There was major backsliding (increased commodity costs) during the Great Recession, which was largely caused by federal efforts to encourage mortgage issuance no matter what, and in response to the economic disruptions of pandemic lockdowns. Tracked commodities are 509.4 percent more abundant now than in 1980, but they were 518.98 percent more abundant in 2019, before any of us had heard of COVID-19 or suffered a stay-at-home order.
As it turns out, even the blessings of human innovation can be kneecapped by the mandates and intrusions of government officials. It should come as no surprise that the brief retreat in resource abundance coincides with an interruption of the decades-long global march away from crushing poverty and towards prosperity. More people lived below the poverty line in 2022 (712 million) than in 2019 (689 million), even as "resource abundance fell by 3.55 percent in 2022."
But we appear to have turned the corner, with abundance once again increasing. "For the time required to earn the money to buy one unit of this commodity basket in 1980, you would get 3.38 units in 2023," according to index authors Tupy and Gale Pooley of Brigham Young University-Hawaii. And contrary to the doomsayers, that happened as the human population increased from 4.4 billion to more than 8 billion. That represents improved access to everything from food to energy, with lamb increasing in abundance by a whopping 675.1 percent since 1980 (the most in the basket of commodities), while coal became 30.7 percent more abundant (the least improvement over that time).
A world of greater abundance in resources means a world in which people are better nourished, better clothed, warmer in the winter, cooler in the summer, and more prosperous. It's a world in which human ingenuity is set free to make the human race happier, healthier, and wealthier.
Well, it's a world of abundance and prosperity unless politicians screw it up. Again.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And why does Government always screw it up?
Because the only thing that separates government from any other entity is legal 'Guns'.
And 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
Their only possible human asset is to ensure Liberty and Justice for all.
My Nephew is a big Peak Oil-er who insists that oil will become more scarce as the extrusion becomes more expensive.
He hasn’t yet explained how that will happen if the Iron and Coal to make Steel used to make the drills and rigs and the electronics for detecting the oil and controling the rigs, etc., etc. are all more abundant and less expensive. Ditto with the improvement of techniques for extruding and refining petroleum and techniques for improving fuel efficiency and for extending the life of petroleum products.
One thing I’ve noticed about Zero-Sum-ers such as Peak Oil-ers is that, like psychics and apologetics, they certainly do not have a shortage of words. So, of course, they will eventually say something that makes them sound right. Always pay attention to the actual metrics and the stuff being measured, though. That’s what matters.
One thing I’ve noticed about Zero-Sum-ers is they are actually correct by there own self-fulfilled belief in that ‘Gov-Guns’ make stuff crowd. THEFT is a zero-sum resources game.
...also Abiotic Oil is a likely hypothesis.
No no no. Everyone knows that what creates abundance are walls, tariffs, and protectionism.
Why do you think a 'government' even exists if it isn't there to protect the nation?
Government protects us by negating leftist concepts of economics like opportunity cost and comparative advantage.
Well said; but since it's doing such a piss-poor job at negating leftist concepts of economics the solution isn't to try and destroy domestic enterprise by tax it at 50%+ while picking ONLY imports to get 0%. The solution is cut UN-Constitutional spending.
I was being sarcastic. There are no “leftist concepts of economics”.
However there are a lot of chumps out there who believe politicians instead of economics, and as a result support economically destructive policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you could really benefit from reading some Bastiat.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/wswns
It is to protect individual liberty.
Why do you think the government should favor the collective 'nation' over the individual's liberty?
That's rich coming from you. Tell us again how the individuals in this country are responsible for the welfare of everyone else in the world.
When will you change your handle to Typical Collectivist and start arguing from an honest position?
Don't you hate it when people say things that are different from what is said about them?
“It is to protect individual liberty”…… OF IT’S CITIZENS.
Not every foreigner that can makeup it over the border.
This is funny.
"It is to protect individual liberty."
From what? That's right; Itself.
The whole Bill of Rights just PROHIBITS Gov.
Lets see how smart you are. So how does 'government' protect Individual Liberty when it's 'Guns' are exactly what destroys Liberty.
Government protects liberty when it is reactive, and it destroys liberty when it is proactive. As a general rule.
Close enough. Defensive versus Aggressive. The very reason the Union of States government was created in the first place ... National Defense. (i.e. National Protection).
Doesn't matter. Climate Change will kill us all by 2030, or maybe 2040, but sometime soon.
Dude, that already happened in 1997 according to 1974 Climate Change BS'ers.
""After a sharp downturn between 2021 and 2022, which was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, government lockdowns and accompanying monetary expansion, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the SAI is making a strong recovery,"
Greater abundance of resources doesn't seem to be enough to counter pandemics or war, two constant features of our history.
Sling that bullshit, trueman; it's all you got.
Ehrlich is merely one in a long line of thinkers who underestimated the effects of technology - Malthus and Marx are two obvious predecessors.
This doesn't mean that technology will always solve a problem in a way that's acceptable to all. For example, there must be peak oil at some point. But technology has solved the problem of finite supply and rising oil costs - through the use of alternative/renewable energy.
And it is a property of technology that each generation is cheaper and better than the previous.
Although true, that's not the point here. The point is that "thinkers" can NEVER accurately and repeatedly predict the future, no matter what method they use. Simon came as close as anyone ever can to predicting a future trend on a more probable than not basis, but as pointed out in the article if the time frame for the bet had been shorter term (but not longer term) the details could have made it a loser for Simon instead of Ehrlich. Even in the short term this was a safe bet for Simon because barring a worldwide catastrophe on the order of a huge collision with space junk, the trend is virtually unstoppable.
"...This doesn’t mean that technology will always solve a problem in a way that’s acceptable to all..."
And you claim an education?
No solution, ever, is 'acceptable to all'; trade-offs and compromise are both required and constant.
The "after inflation" correction is also telling. Only governments can cause inflation although our Fearless Leaders will never admit it.
Only governments can cause inflation
I'm not sure that's true. I can conceive of a deregulated banking system where inflation was caused by lack of reserve requirements coupled with loose standards for banks printing their own notes. Or an economy where thanks to monopolistic practices in industries with high moats or barriers to entry, there's inflation simply because companies keep raising prices owing to "compelled" (due to lack of competition) inelasticity of demand.
In both cases, government action could reduce inflation.
How is a 'Gun' (Gov-Guns) going to reduce inflation?
'Gun' up a labor camp?
Government controls the money supply. The supply of money relative to the supply of goods and services determines the value of money. So when the government increases the relative supply of money (sends everyone a COVID check with Trump’s signature on it), it is worth less. That causes inflation. If the government pulls money out of circulation, it would cause deflation.
Inflation is good for debtors while deflation is good for savers. The federal government is the biggest debtor in the history of debt, so it’s going to keep going the inflation route.
Maybe read some Hazlitt?
https://www.liberalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Economics-in-One-Lesson_2.pdf
Governments don't necessarily control the money supply. Hence your premise is wrong.
The US Government isn't suppose to. That's for sure.
Enter the Federal Reserve Act [D] of 1913.
"when the government increases the relative supply ... it is worth less."
Well Said. Again. +10000000
My question was rather ignorant of all the fiat-games.
I would give you an answer but between obvious deduction from my posting above and your monomaniacal stance on government, there would be no point.
Happen to be reading Sowell's "Wealth, Poverty and Politics"; probably goes without saying that it is highly recommended.
But regarding "natural resources", he makes several non-obvious observations (such as 'that stuff' only becomes a "natural resource" after we know what to do with it; petroleum, obviously).
But more to the point here, he makes the point that we have no idea what amount of *any* resource is actually available to us.
We do know we have many times the known quantity of petroleum reserves than we did when Hubbert made as much of an ass of himself as Mathus did long ago.
Julian Simon's books should be required reading for high schoolers. He is way underappreciated. Glad someone reminder me to go back and read "Hoodwinking the Nation".