(Untitled)

[gunslnger]

Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?

This means that the U.S. may be recompensing at least 86,000 African-American farmers for past racial discrimination. But how could that possibly be true if there are only 39,697 African-American farmers in existence nationwide? And if only some subset of them ever applied for loans in

Comments

[gunslnger]

Uh, yeah, that was in my link, as a blockquote. I'm not surprised you didn't see it.

[gunslnger]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand the question?

[gunslnger]

It was asked where the other 70K farmers came from. It's pretty obvious; they came from the applications that had not been considered.

Uh, no, that's logically incorrect. The farmers did not come from the applications. Your answer would be accurate if the question was where did the 70K applications come from. The article pretty obviously knows where the number 70K comes from, that there were 70K applications. The question is who put in those applications, as they obviously aren't all black farmers according to the numbers, as there wasn't more than ~20K black farmers in existence at the time in question.

Sgiffy's answer is a possibility, but that still means that there is fraud of some kind going on, as a duplicate filing would be an act of fraud. The point of the article is to highlight the disparity to show that someone should be asking the question rather than just blindly accept the additional 70K applications as if they were just peachy.

[gunslnger]

The article only accounts for one year at a time. First it looks at the number of farmers in 2007. Then it looks at the number of farmers in 1992. That's an inaccurate way of looking at it.

No it doesn't. I guess you didn't read it all, or didn't read it carefully.

Unless you happen to believe that a whole passel of judges are just going to rubber-stamp with kangaroo courts?

It's not unlikely.

[gunslnger]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Update II has the actual census numbers for the 10 year period that the lawsuit covers, and shows that there was no significant change in numbers of farmers over that time span. And states clearly: Even if there was a 100% turnover, and every single farmer went out of business every five years and was replaced by a new farmer (extremely unlikely), there still wouldn’t be enough black farmers throughout the entire period combined to account for the number of claimants.

It also doesn't even consider the reason to be fraud. It is only asking questions. I'm saying that fraud is the most likely, although sgiffy's possibilities are good too, if his assumptions are correct. You just appear to not even want to ask questions and think no one else should either.

[gunslnger]

You're just being a moron. There isn't census data for 1983, only for 1982, which makes it not relevant. And if you can show that there were somehow 70K black farmers in 1982, then you might have a point, but I think that's very unlikely. But you'd certainly have a good explanation for the numbers then.

No, there aren't 70K applications for individual claims, there are 70K farmers applying for money.

Authorities say they are not certain how many farmers might apply this time, but analysts say the number could be higher than 70,000.

[dwer]

Located in the Wikipedia article. I'm rather surprised that the site you link didn't look at it.

That would render the point of the post moot, and wreck the narrative.