@Spartacus

« La France Malthusienne qui n’a rien appris du paris de Simon et Elrich.  »

Et pour cause, car si Simon a gagné son pari sur la période courte, objet de l’enjeu, sur une période plus longue il l’a perdu et c’est éminemment plus significatif. 

Propagande éhontée ou superficialité intellectuelle ?

Une source simple à trouver pourtant : 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager

Ehrlich could have won if the bet had been for a different ten-year period.[5][6][7] Ehrlich wrote that the five metals in question had increased in price between the years 1950 to 1975.[3] 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. He also noted that if the wager had been expanded to « all of the most important commodities, » instead of just five metals, over that longer period of 1980 to 2011, then Simon would have lost « by a lot. » [7] 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 ».[8] Economist Tim Worstall wrote that « The end result of all of this is that yes, it is true that Ehrlich could have, would have, won the bet depending upon the starting date. ... But the long term trend for metals at least is downwards. »[6]