Comments on: Bogus statistical claims watch

By: Craigers

Craigers — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:28:35 +0000

the realization that Ruwanda (sic) is roughly as densely populated as Belgium

Rwanda, however, is a great deal more crowded from a practical sense, since (1) a very large part of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture, with consequently much greater land requirements; and (2) a good part of the country is covered in volcanoes and other mountains, a problem that Belgium (to say the least :) does not have.

From the point of view of the ability to absorb population increase, Rwanda is one of the world’s most crowded countries if not the most crowded. (If you ignore the city-states)

By: dr ngo

dr ngo — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:02:51 +0000

you’re still left with Bangladesh, Taiwan, South Korea and the Netherlands ahead of England.

Ah, but Taiwan isn’t a proper “country,” as anyone who has lived under the shadow of China for a while (I spent 18 years in Hongkong) will tell you. (And, BTW, the status of Taiwan and HK explain why NIC’s – Newly Industrializing Countries – had to become NIE’s – Newly Industrializing Economies – in the jargon.) So let’s hear it from England now: “We’re Number Four! We’re Number Four!”

BTW, was anyone else who linked to the chart provided dumbfounded by the realization that Ruwanda (!) is roughly as densely populated as Belgium? I still can’t wrap my mind around that, although possibly everyone else knew already.

By: novakant

novakant — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:42:25 +0000

this is fun, little did I know that the population density in Kensington and Chelsea is, wait for it:

15,177/km²

last time I went there, they seemed to be doing just fine; that said, London is a tad crowded

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:11:44 +0000

Yeah. After reading this O’Reilly – McCain transcript, maybe it is mostly racist, after all.

By: bi

bi — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:53:12 +0000

As Alex points out, crowdedness is about having too many non-whites.

By: roy belmont

roy belmont — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:46:35 +0000

The great apes are leaving, being thrown overboard. Mangrove swamps, key elements of much essential life-source, are being replaced by shrimp farms, oceans replacing fish with plastic trash, and ethanol/grain production as alternative to burning fossil fuel, which is pushing weather cycles out of balance, threatens all of the above and more.
Immigration is really about population numbers, not race or even economics though they color it and give it names – it’s about numerical increase by “other”. And that’s the last taboo before the big throwdown.
All these problems will be resolved by a big reduction in human population numbers, but no one competent wants the responsibility for it.
Crowdedness, lack of resources, etc. are about too many people, pretending it’s about too many people coming to where you are is weak. Too many people here – for the way we live not where. No one wants to change the way they live if they’re comfortable, and no one wants to take responsibility for reducing the population. So we get snivelling and bickering and whining and statistical misdirection.

By: Michael Mouse

Michael Mouse — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:04:11 +0000

the UK (243 /km²) comes in behind rather a lot of places

… as does England at 388 /km². It’s hard to see how you can come up with “fourth” on that data. Even if you extend “ignoring city-states” and “ignoring other non-sovereign states” by adding “ignoring countries with less than ten million residents” – on no basis I can reasonably imagine – you’re still left with Bangladesh, Taiwan, South Korea and the Netherlands ahead of England.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:10:52 +0000

Ah, okay. I understand stuff.

By: bi

bi — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:54:58 +0000

Alex: to put it simply, I agree with you.

By: Aidan Kehoe

Aidan Kehoe — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:55:02 +0000

And yet it is curious how often political attacks on immigration go hand in hand with political attacks on welfare.

Depends where you are. IIRC some of the less laughable opposition to immigration in the Republic of Ireland in the last decade or so came from the trade unions, who tended to be concurrently for benefits.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:43 +0000

Bi: Not trying to be rude here, but I’m really having trouble understanding your last post. Could you explain it?

By: ejh

ejh — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:40:24 +0000

that it threatens the welfare state by making it seem unfair to the poor whose promised benefits go to other people

And yet it is curious how often political attacks on immigration go hand in hand with political attacks on welfare.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:34:54 +0000

Chris, I think you underestimate the strength of the Frank Field arguments against immigration

I may or may not underestimate the strength of Frank Field’s arguments, but I’m not sure how you can tell, since I don’t address them here.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:33:09 +0000

The implication is that you think it is racist to worry about immigration.

No, I don’t dissent from the proposition that it is not racist to worry about immigration, so there is no such implication. However articles entitled “It’s not racist to worry about immigration” in right-wing newspapers are typically attempts to legimize pub rants about how “they” are “swamping” us (and similar).

By: bi

bi — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:28:39 +0000

H.:

“ultimately that’s nit-picking”

Not if that’s the main thrust of the argument.

Wait a minute, is it reverse racism to point out errors in logic? Maybe we just “played into the hands” of those anti-immigrants? The error in logic is just there as a trap to ensnare all of us? (Instead of, like, an actual argument that actually makes sense.)

= = =

Alex:

“I’m fairly incredulous when people say ‘it’s not racism, it’s just common sense’ because I still don’t think they’re including white immigrants.”

D’oh.