Big ol' typo/error in The Economist's "The World in 2008" special edition!!

[bicentennial_baby]

Page 110, United States entry:

Population: 104.8 million

Contrast that with the CIA World Factbook:

Population: 301,139,947

I cross-checked their entries for Canada and Mexico, which are on the same page, they got those correct. :wtf:

[jgraz]

1. Actually, that part was written by Howard Wolfson

He's not counting any of the caucus states. :evilgrin:

[bicentennial_baby]

3. !

:spray:

:rofl:

[cui bono]

4. -----

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Gore1FL]

18. That was awesome!

[LeftCoast]

2. Yeah, that's a pretty major typo

I don't think we've had that low a population since the early 70's or so.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. And us Econ people are supposed to be all about stats!

:rofl:

:hi:

[LeftCoast]

14. :)

:hi:

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. Hell, the 1920s! n/m

[bicentennial_baby]

17. At least they got your country correct!

:hi:

[AlCzervik]

6. can't wait to see the "Sir" letters in next issue.

:D

[SquatDog]

8. that's projected

that's how many of us will still have jobs next year

[bicentennial_baby]

9. Indeed! I love it! I'm emailing all my Econ major buddies right now

:rofl:

[AlCzervik]

13. Dorks unite! I figure my subscription to the Economist cancels out the one to Glamour.

:o

[bicentennial_baby]

16. !

:spray:

I need to subscribe one of these days...I used to get it for free at my former skool.

[The Straight Story]

7. Maybe they were just counting people out of work

thanks to bush.

[bicentennial_baby]

11. Er, no

[quadriga]

10. Aghhhhhh! New World Order coming to prophecy

Depopulation is their goal, ya know? ;-)

[bicentennial_baby]

12. Ha! Well played!

:rofl:

[malaise]

19. What a boo boo

:rofl:

[bicentennial_baby]

20. And I just checked their GDP/GDP per capita figures...

Those are correct and match up for the actual population. Makes the error even more glaring to anyone actually looking at the numbers who might not know the actual US population off the top of their head. If you took their numbers at face value, our per capita income would be...$13,740,458

:rofl:

[malaise]

21. An average proof reader

should have picked up that error. I haven't read The Economist in nearly two decades.

[I work for workers]

22. LOL. They must have caught it eventually, b/ it's right on their website.

But your right, they messed up the print edition. I thought it might be some confusing "times by this number" kind of deal, but its just a one where a three should be.

[bicentennial_baby]

24. Ha!

I'm glad they caught it....eventually. :rofl:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

23. WOW!!!

Makes a person go, "HMMMMMMM". :crazy: