paul ehrlich had written this book that painted this dystopian future that things were going to crash and england would not exist and we were going to starve. and economists picked up the book and read it. they said initially, this looks like it makes sense. but maybe i should look at what the data says about resources. how abundant the resources are. as economists, we look at the price of resources. you know, if something is money now it should be getting more expensive. what julian simon found is that the price of these things was not going up. they were going down. so how can you have something becoming more scarce that was becoming cheaper? so, he begins to research other things. he starts looking at nonrenewable metals like copper. then he extended it to these other resources. what he observed is this population increase. these prices, these resources they went down. he published his findings. this created this huge contention between the two. science magazine published his article. so, they had this disagreement. finally julian says, why don't we just bet? paul, you pick five me

superabundance, it really occurred to us when we were looking at this original gap between julian simon and paul ehrlich. every milbank in the 1980s you had paul or liquid written a population book and it was his book that painted this dystopian future that things were going to crash in england wouldn't exist and we're going to starve. there were some economists that picked up the book, read it, initially thought that they become a model sounds like a make sense but me i should go back and look at the data and see what the data say about resources, how abundant resources are. as economists we look at the price of resources. if something is running out it should be getting more expensive. what julian simon found is that the price of these things wasn't going up. they were going down. so how can you something that could becoming more scarce that was becoming cheaper? so he begins to research other things turkey starts looking at these nonrenewable metals like copper and chromium and then he extend this to lumber and all these other resources and would observe is population increase, prices of these resour

and that was followed by people like paul ehrlich, who wrote the population bomb in 1968, i believe. and it was again, a bestselling book. many people were going to run out of the earth's resources. it was malthusian. this idea got co-opted when john holdren, who is obama's science, joined with together with erlich and they began moving it in a climate direction. holder was, a scientist. they decided if could demonize something about the climate, get an existential we're all going to die unless we do, we're all going to die. if there's too many people. then the idea was that they demonize carbon dioxide and say it's going to cause changes in the climate. since hydrocarbon fuels carbon dioxide. you get rid of hydrocarbon fuels and that would destroy capitalism. so suddenly the movement became neo-marxist movement, and it still retained the deep aspect to it. now, when you get range here and you see green new deal, it's become fully neo-marxist and goal to eliminate capitalism and to take on the entire woke agenda has become part of the climate movement. now the second part of my book