CFR Presents

Energy, Security, and Climate

CFR experts examine the science and foreign policy surrounding climate change, energy, and nuclear security.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Bad News for Pessimists Everywhere: Malthus Was Wrong

by Blake Clayton
March 22, 2013

There is a tempting intuition to the idea that the real prices of non-renewable goods like coal, iron ore, or oil should rise, more or less, forever. It’s an easy argument to make, and it sounds right: The world’s population is getting bigger and bigger, so more and more goods like metals and hydrocarbons are being consumed. Every year, the sum total of what we’ve taken out of the ground mounts, never to be replaced. Supply of the stuff is limited—once it’s gone, it’s gone. So, this argument goes, as we exhaust our resources, we’ll have to mine, drill, or otherwise get our hands on it somehow but it will get more and more expensive to do so, because we’ll have exhausted the best stuff. Left to exploit ever-greater quantities of ever-more-marginal deposits, prices will rise indefinitely into the future.

Thus, in this line of reasoning, unless we start consume less of a given non-renewable material, it will forever and ever get more expensive.

The logic appears unimpeachable at first glance. But it’s wrong. The prices of raw materials have not traveled the path this story would predict for any traded commodity once inflation is factored in, over long stretches of time. One of the most powerfully counter-intuitive and empirically conclusive findings in economic history is that the real prices of nearly all major resources have actually trended lower over very long periods of time, even if they’re produced at higher and higher rates. (Oil, once OPEC got involved, is the glaring exception. But even oil prices since OPEC came about haven’t simply climbed higher and higher as global consumption has grown.) Though non-renewable commodity prices can rise steeply over years or even decades when supply and demand conditions warrant, over the centuries they’ve tended to decline after adjusted for inflation.

The Economist industrial commodities index, first published in 1864, is widely considered to be the world’s oldest public, regularly updated price index. Though the nominal index stretches back to 1845, data before 1857 are incomplete and data between 1857 and 1861 reflect January prices only. Only figures from 1862 onwards,which represent averages of the underlying monthly figures, are used here. They are deflated using U.S. consumer price index data since 1871, which is used in the Case-Shiller historical home price index. (The message in the data is the same regardless of whether they are deflated by the U.S. consumer price index or the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) deflator, as some prefer.)

The industrial commodity index is a better reflection of long-term trends in non-renewable resource prices than the all-commodity index, which also includes food prices, so this analysis focuses on the former index. The commodities included in the industrials index, as well as their relative weightings, have changed over time, with the current weightings reflecting the value of world imports from 2004-2006.

Figure 1. Economist Industrial-Commodity Price Index in Real and Nominal Terms (1871-2010)

The trend is clear: Raw materials prices show a secular deterioration relative to manufactured goods over long stretches of time. Since 1871, the Economist industrial commodity-price index has sunk to roughly half its value in real terms, seeing average annual compound growth of -0.5% per year over the ensuing 140 years. Even after the boom years of the 2000s—in 2008, for instance, as commodity indexes soared, the Economist index never climbed more than halfway above where it stood 163 years earlier, in real terms.

So, pessimists, rejoice: The future may be bleak, but it’s been bleaker.

Post a Comment 10 Comments

  • Posted by Peter Griffith

    The problem is not that we’re going to run out of fossil fuels. The problem is that we’ve run out of atmosphere to dump their waste product into. There are far more identified reserves of oil, coal, and gas than our climate can bear, if they’re dug up and burned.

  • Posted by Stuart Staniford

    Could you please provide the raw data for the figure, or links to data allowing me to reproduce it? Thanks, Stuart.

  • Posted by jimmy

    Try explaining this to gold bugs. They’re still looking for $2500/oz gold bcz of the old canard, “inflation hasn’t been fully factored into the price yet!!” what a hoot!

  • Posted by Ron Collings

    You have a point but I don’t think of 140 years as a long stretch of time.

  • Posted by Jay

    The logic of your analysis is unworkable on so many levels that I don’t know where to start. And your mix of variables has been cherry-picked to present a cogent argument, albeit an invalid one. Your underlying assumptions — part straw man, part red herring, and part truth — lack enough empirical justification to support any conclusion, much less those you pose here.

    And as for Malthus — a convenient whipping boy of those plucky optimists from your garden variety neoclassical school of economics — you’ve got him wrong, too.

    Please leave these serious subjects to observers and scholars with a more nuanced approach.

  • Posted by Otto

    Nice! You might have seen this similar post by The Mighty Heaton…http://www.mightyheaton.com/2013/03/20/malthus-was-wrong/

  • Posted by Chris Lang

    The problem is not a shortages of resources; in particular, we do not and never will have a true shortage of energy. The problem is the tremendous damage we are doing to the environment. Major fisheries have collapsed, entire ecosystems are being destroyed, and many species such as rhinos are close to extinction.

  • Posted by Efraim Carlsen

    Malthus wasn’t that focussed on resource availability. His “thing” was what he believed to be a population juggernaut. Perhaps Jay and others should check out William Stanley Jevons (The Coal Question) who argued that non-renewable resources such as coal would run out. By the way he was a so-called Neo-Classical economist (his heyday was the last third of the nineteenth century). There seems to be convergent evidence that we are NOT running out of fossil fuels, thanks to advances in technology — dare I say the evil word FRACKING? As to climate change as a result of puny mankind — the evidence is far from convergent, no matter what your point of view is. And finally a note to Jay: the article was a serious one, reasonably nuanced in my opinion, and hardly deserving of the haughty disregard you showed in your comment.

  • Posted by Craigers61

    Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, Indur Goklany, Matt Ridley, Peter Diamandis et al have all stated this since the 1970′s. Simon won a bet agaisnt Paul Ehrlich and still the neo-left adheres to the dire chicken little nonsense that Marx himself denounced.

  • Posted by David Schatsky

    Could the rebalancing of the commodity-price index influence the apparent trend? After all, if prices for a particular commodity rose to a level where its use became less economical, buyers would be motivated to substitute lower-priced alternatives.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks