The FT had already published one letter pointing out a glaring error in an article of last week; that letter itself contained a glaring error, as covered previously. They published a further letter from a fellow pedant today, pointing out another daft mistake in the original article:
Sir, Professor John Taylor writes in his fascinating analysis (“Exploding debt threatens America”, May 26) that “100 per cent inflation would, of course, mean a 100 per cent depreciation of the dollar. Americans would have to pay $2.80 for a euro”.
That seems wrong arithmetic [sic]. If the dollar depreciated by 100 per cent, it would be worthless. Would a correct statement not rather say: "100 per cent inflation would, of course, mean a 50 per cent depreciation of the dollar"? Then Americans would have to pay $2.80 for a euro.
Josef Bucher, Helsinki, Finland.
Monday 1 June 2009
More fun with numbers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Some people should not be let loose with numbers. Most journalists and most politicians included.
Could be an assumption that if it loses that much credibility it will go all the way.
Teacher to farmer's son "If you have 3 sheep in a field & you lead one out how many will be left"
"None"
"So thats bad arithemtic you will have 2 left"
"Miss if you lead 1 sheep out the others will follow."
Post a Comment