Comments on: Hans Rosling: Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you’ve ever seen

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:23:49 +0000

I too was mesmerized by Hans Rosling’s presentation for TED, but I decided to dig deeper. Sadly, a couple minutes of research disillusioned me completely. Though Rosling never mentions it in his presentation, he plots income (per capita GDP) on a log scale. A rich country could be growing twice as fast in income as a poor country, but on a logarithmic plot the “gap” between the two could actually appear to be shrinking. A number of other commenters have already caught and mentioned this. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is a trivial point. It is absolutely vital! Rosling’s graphs are very misleading! MHP, Stanford U

By: Dr. LB

Dr. LB — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:14:31 +0000

Adam - that's exactly what BMW wants you to say... Congratulations, you just got advertised to!

(editors note: Dr. Long Balls drives a Mercedes. But he did not allow himself to be advertised to)

By: Dr. LB

Dr. LB — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:11:44 +0000

Mickey Lui, the $100 computer is actually turning into more like the $178 dollar computer.

It has yet to be implemented and its met many road blocks (hardware pricing issues, govt contracts). It is no longer the $100 dream they all wanted it to be. That being said, it's a noble idea--a hand cranked laptop that is build rugged and only really computes the necessary programs that developing country populations need, initially, to start acclimating them to the world (wide web).

We'll see what happens.

By: Dr. LB

Dr. LB — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:05:39 +0000

He seemed to stay pretty clear of what the personal incomes were for the "growing economies" as the presentation went on. Instead, he focussed on GDP. Which doesn't really accurately discuss the wealth gap that occurs as third-world economies grow into the industrial megaforce that the end up becoming. No mention of India and China and the conditions of the lowest class labor force. No discussion of the decline of rural Chinese farmer class and their movement into industrialized cities where they face meager wages and are treated like beasts of burden. And as long as the "Western world" demands cheap goods and as long as a steady supply of cheap labor is around in developing countries, the rich will get richer and poor will get stomped.

We'll see what happens with the one-child rule of China in about 30 years. No mention of that either.

No mention of the ever-widening wealth gap that has grown exponentially over the last 50 years.

Oops. I liked the graphics though!

By: hardboiledjuice

hardboiledjuice — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:46:22 +0000

There are 2 fundamental problems with his entire analysis, and they concern using nation-states as the unit of analysis for understanding historical change:

1. The ‘bubbles’ obscure inequalities within each nation-state, i.e. that inequality can, and usually does, grow at the same time as wealth accumulation happens. So a country that seems to be doing well as a totality may very well contain within extreme gaps between prosperity and poverty. This happens even at a city-level (why is the richest congressional district in the US a few subways stops away from the poorest — i.e. the Upper East Side and South Bronx?)
2. Treating nation-states as isolated units obscures the history of a global economy that made the wealth of some nations predicated on the exploitation of others. This has not gone away at all under so-called globalization.

This whole presentation and conference seems to be about a bunch of privileged people patting themselves on the back for being complacent about the state of the world. The whole “the poor will pull themselves up by the bootstraps” discourse is hardly new and reeks of self-satisfaction. The final point about the “importance of culture” and that “seemingly impossible is possible” is the same kind of hooey in that Oprah-club book The Secret, where if you just wish positive things, they will come true. Bah.

By: Mickey Lui

Mickey Lui — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:43:54 +0000

can someone tell me more about the 100$ Computer????

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:16:43 +0000

I am amazed at the naysayers with no information to base their opinions on. The guy obviously spent a lot of time on this and only had 20 minutes. To parse this the way some of the writers have may be unfair. He only had 20 minutes to present. He could not have the time to explainhow these numbers were arrived at. Dead babies are dead babies More money this year is more money, stupid. Inflation is different in every country. I see a lot of jealousy here, shame on you. Go to work.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:45:28 +0000

The gap between 1 and 100 is 10 times the gap between 1 and 10. BUT, on a log scale, the gap between 1 and 100 APPEARS to be only TWICE the gap between 1 and 10. Using a log scale to support the claim that there’s not a huge gap or that it’s not increasing is blatant manipulation of the masses who are not accustomed to thinking in log-scales and it’s totally inappropriate in this context. Furthermore, the points that Frank Smith made are right on. Charisma and entertaining graphics aside, this is a shamefully misleading representation of data, accompanied by some conspicuous gaps (inflation and distribution of wealth within countries).

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:35:27 +0000

I must say I respect BMW more for getting involved in projects like this; especially since they waited till the end of the presentation to put out their ad.

By: Sarah Apples

Sarah Apples — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:20:35 +0000

I only wish more people had access to gifted thinkers like him…. not access even, just the knowledge that they are out there. Fabulous.