Search results

A growing number of historians have turned their attention to the past behavior of industrialists toward their waste. Many have argued that the price system and competition typically fostered a short-term outlook that rewarded pollution rather than encouraging "loop-closing," a modern term that refers to the linkages between different industries in which the residual of one becomes the input of another. Others have identified precedents in this respect that are credited to Progressive Era reformers. Building on evidence that has, by and large, escaped the attention of the present generation of historical writers, this essay challenges both views by arguing that market institutions, which included both profit motive and property rights, actually resulted in the usage of industrial by-products. Although past industrial activities did create significant pollution problems, perhaps our ancestors should be given more credit than they generally are for the creativity and resourcefulness they displayed in profitably solving numerous environmental problems.

The purpose of this paper is to point out some shortcomings of traditional approaches to the study of "knowledge spillovers" and to suggest an alternative based on how knowledge is actually created and exchanged by individuals. Which regional setting is the best incubator of technological change and economic growth? Is this promoted by regional diversity or specialization of economi activity? This study will include economic analyses of geographically localized "dynamic knowledge externalities, Jacob's externalities, or adding new work to old, industrial classification and technology combination, human creativity, and technology combination through human action and imaginative use of resources. Employees add to, or switch their product line; individuals move from one type of production to another; individuals observe a product/process in another setting and incorporate it; individuals possessing different skills and working for different firms collaborate; and urban diversity and resource collaboration are utilized. It is concluded that problems are solved through the combination of previously unrelated things and that promoting regional specialization at the expense of spontaneously evolved local diversity might be a counter‐productive policy.

The patent system has many flaws. In its absence, there would probably be increased innovation if only because money spent on patents and lawsuits would be available for R&D. In any case, an inventor is to some extent protected by law provided he explains that an idea is his personal property. A patent adds nothing to the value of an impractical invention and little to one that might seem promising.

Historian Paul Sabin's The Bet aims to present the first full-fledged account of the 1980 wager about the future prices of five metals between biologist Paul Ehrlich and economist Julian Simon. Ehrlich predicted that a growing population would rapidly deplete the world's finite supply of valuable resources, causing their price to rise. Simon countered that, in a market economy, prices and technological change would result in more efficient use of resources, new deposits discovered and substitutes developed, making resources less scarce and prices lower. Unfortunately, Sabin's account of this bet is marred by a lack of historical perspective, an oversimplification of Simon's theoretical framework, and a quest to find a middle ground between mutually exclusive positions.

Intro -- Table of Contents -- 1. Silent Spring at 50 -- 2. The Lady Who Started All This -- 3. The Intellectual Groundwaters of Silent Spring -- 4. Silent Spring as Secular Religion -- 5. The Selective Silence of Silent Spring -- 6. Rachel Carson's Health Scare -- 7. The Balance of Nature and "The Other Road" -- 8. Did Rachel Carson Understand the Importance of DDT? -- 9. Agricultural Revolutions and Agency Wars -- 10. The False Promise of Federalization -- 11. The Precautionary Principle: Silent Spring's Toxic Legacy -- 12. Risk Over-Simplified -- Notes -- Index -- Contributors -- About the Cato Institute

ObjectiveThis paper provides the first comprehensive assessment of the outcome of Paul Ehrlich's and Stephen Schneider's counteroffer (1995) to economist Julian Simon following Ehrlich's loss in the famous Ehrlich‐Simon wager on economic growth and the price of natural resources (1980‐1990). Our main conclusion in a previous article is that, for indicators that can be measured satisfactorily or can be inferred from proxies, the outcome favors Ehrlich‐Schneider in the first decade following their offer. This second article extends the timeline towards the present time period to examine the long‐term trends of each indicator and proxy, and assesses the reasons invoked by Simon to refuse the bet.MethodsLiterature review, data gathering, and critical assessment of the indicators and proxies suggested or implied by Ehrlich and Schneider. Critical assessment of Simon's reasons for rejecting the bet. Data gathering for his alternative indicators.ResultsFor indicators that can be measured directly, the balance of the outcomes favors the Ehrlich‐Schneider claims for the initial ten‐year period. Extending the timeline and accounting for the measurement limitations or dubious relevance of many of their indicators, however, shifts the balance of the evidence towards Simon's perspective.ConclusionThe fact that Ehrlich and Schneider's own choice of indicators yielded mixed results in the long run, coupled with the fact that Simon's preferred indicators of direct human welfare yielded largely favorable outcomes is, in our opinion, sufficient to claim that Simon's optimistic perspective was largely validated.