More or Less: Behind the Stats

Episode: Defence Spending, Rare Earths and Trunk Truths
Host: Tim Harford (BBC Radio 4)
Date: March 5, 2025

Overview

In this episode, Tim Harford and the More or Less team dive into three distinct but timely topics centered around the world of statistics and fact-checking:

• The truth behind the figures of Western military aid to Ukraine, and how much the US and Europe actually contribute.
• The recent UK government announcements about raising defence spending—and the historical and economic context of those numbers.
• The surprising statistical debate: How many muscles are really in an elephant’s trunk?
• Plus, a fact-check on US demands for Ukrainian rare earth minerals and whether the $500 billion figure adds up.

The show maintains its signature tone, mixing rigorous statistical curiosity with dry wit and accessible explanations.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Fact-Checking US Aid to Ukraine ($350 Billion Claim)

[01:44–06:58]

• Donald Trump’s Claim: Trump asserts the US has given Ukraine $350 billion in aid, repeatedly comparing it to lower European support.

  • Notable Quote: "The United States has given $350 billion, and as you know, we're in for probably $350 billion. Europe is in for $100 billion, and that's a big difference." – Donald Trump [03:46]

• Truth Behind the Claim:

  • Tim Harford interviews Taro Nishikawa (Kiel Institute for the World Economy)
    • The real US aid figure: $122 billion (delivered or specified for delivery)
    • Europe’s contribution: Over $142 billion—actually more than the US.
    • Aid Categories: Three main types—financial, humanitarian, military. Europe has higher humanitarian/financial, the US only narrowly leads in military.
    • Loan vs. Grant: 33% of Europe’s aid is loans (with very long terms), and 16% of US aid also in loans. No guarantee of repayment, given Ukraine’s circumstances.
  • Notable Quote: “Based on our data, the $350 billion figure mentioned by President Trump does not align with the number we track.” – Taro Nishikawa [04:40]

• Conclusion: The $350 billion figure is an exaggeration; European aid is understated and is, in fact, higher than US aid in some respects.

2. The Real Length of Lent

[06:58–10:48]

• The 40 Days Myth: Lent is commonly said to last 40 days, but counting from Ash Wednesday (this year, 5 March) to Holy Saturday (19 April) totals 46 days.

  • Excluding Sundays (sometimes, as "mini Easters") brings it closer, but the actual number still varies. The number “40” is symbolic in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions—meaning “many”, or “umpteen” (with humorous examples).

• Insight: The number attached to Lent (“40 days”) is more about tradition and scriptural precedent than strict arithmetic.

3. UK Defence Spending: The End of the Peace Dividend?

[10:48–16:47]

• Context: Prime Minister Keir Starmer announces plans to raise UK defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament—funded by aid cuts, but possibly requiring tax increases or other spending cuts.

• Expert Interview: Ben Zaranko (Institute for Fiscal Studies)

  • The “Peace Dividend”: After WWII, defence spending declined steadily, freeing public funds for health, social security, and other welfare priorities.

    • In 1955, the UK spent 7.5% of GDP on defence (~1 in 5 government pounds).
    • By the 2000s, defence was down to around 2% of GDP—allowing health and social security to vastly outpace it.

  • Notable Quotes:

    • “In the 1950s, spending on defence was about the same as the combined spend on health and Social Security.” – Ben Zaranko [12:54]
    • “Now, nine times as much is spent on the welfare state as on defence.” – Ben Zaranko [13:21]

  • Cost of Raising Defence Spending to 3%:

    • Could mean 8% cuts (over 4 years) to "everything else" in government (police, education, local government) if no extra tax or NHS cuts.
    • Tax alternatives: 2p on income tax or 3p on national insurance would cover the increase (~£17–20 billion/year).
      • “If we undid three quarters of Jeremy Hunt’s national insurance cut, we could pay for extra defence spending.” – Ben Zaranko [15:34]

  • Going to 4% of GDP: Would require revisiting tax/spending expectations, reminiscent of Thatcher-era defence budgets.

4. Elephant Trunk Muscles: Clearing Up the Numbers

[18:27–22:44]

• Listener’s Question: Estimates for the number of muscles in an elephant’s trunk vary from 17,000 to 100,000.

  • Notable Listener Question: “An elephant’s trunk has over 100,000 muscles. Funny, previously I’d been told 40,000… which is right?” – Beatrice Dixon [18:44]

• Expert Interview: Andrew Schultz (Max Planck Institute)

  • Breakdown:
    • ~90,000 muscle fascicles
    • ~40,000 individual muscles
    • 9–17 muscle groups (clusters, like bags of popcorn)
  • The disparities in numbers arise from what is being counted: fascicles (strands), muscles, or large grouped muscles.
    • “Talking about that an elephant has nine to 17 muscles would be incorrect, because you have these 90,000 fascicles that are likely making up somewhere on the magnitude of 40,000 muscles that are broken up into nine to 17 different muscle groups.” – Andrew Schultz [22:04]

• Why It Matters: Understanding this complex structure is key for robotics—trying to mimic the versatility and flexibility of an elephant’s trunk.

  • “This really could change the fabric of human understanding—at least in how we approach robotics.” – Tim Harford [23:05]

5. $500 Billion for Ukraine’s Rare Earths?

[23:16–30:15]

• Headline Claim: US “demanded” $500 billion worth of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals.

• Expert Interview: Ellie Sakhlatvala (Argus Media)

  • Notable rare earth facts: Rare earth elements are not actually rare in Earth’s crust—they’re just hard to extract and process, especially outside China.

    • “‘Rare earths’ are famously not rare… They become rare when we actually think about access to them.” – Ellie Sakhlatvala [24:45]

  • On the $500 Billion Claim:

    • No realistic foundation: most mapping of Ukraine’s mineral resources comes from the Soviet era (1970s–80s), lacking modern detail.
    • The entire global rare earths market in 2024 was ~$12.4 billion.
    • Suggesting $500 billion in value from Ukraine alone is “pie in the sky.”

  • Likely Explanation: “Rare earths” is being used loosely to refer to all valuable minerals/metals, not just the 17 rare earth elements.

    • “To imagine we’re going to get $500 billion worth out of Ukraine, all of a sudden, to me, that is just pie in the sky.” – Ellie Sakhlatvala [28:34]
    • “If we're talking about true rare earth elements… it would be the value of the entire global market for decades.” – Tim Harford [29:41]

Notable Quotes Summary

• On US Aid to Ukraine:
  “Based on our data, the $350 billion figure mentioned by President Trump does not align with the number we track.”
  — Taro Nishikawa [04:40]

• On the peace dividend and historical trends:
  “Now, nine times as much is spent on the welfare state as on defence.”
  — Ben Zaranko [13:21]

• On elephant trunk muscles:
  “You have these 90,000 fascicles that are likely making up somewhere on the magnitude of 40,000 muscles that are broken up into nine to 17 different muscle groups.”
  — Andrew Schultz [22:04]

• On rare earths supply:
  “They are famously not rare… They become rare when we actually think about access to them.”
  — Ellie Sakhlatvala [24:45]

• On the $500B rare earths claim:
  “To imagine we’re going to get $500 billion worth out of Ukraine, all of a sudden, to me, that is just pie in the sky.”
  — Ellie Sakhlatvala [28:34]

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Segment | Start Time | End Time | |-------------------------------------------|------------|------------| | US & Europe Aid to Ukraine | 01:44 | 06:58 | | The Myth of 40 Days in Lent | 06:58 | 10:48 | | UK Defence Spending, Past and Future | 10:48 | 16:47 | | Elephant Trunk Muscle Count | 18:27 | 22:44 | | Are Rare Earths Rare? ($500B in Ukraine) | 23:16 | 30:15 |

Final Thoughts

This episode of More or Less unravels big, headline-grabbing numbers and myths, expertly placing them within their true statistical context. Through interviews with subject-matter specialists and the team’s trademark clarity (and sense of humour), listeners come away with a clearer—and more realistic—picture of military aid realities, government spending choices, natural science curiosities, and the geopolitics of minerals. It’s a masterclass in behind-the-headlines numeracy and skepticism, delivered with charm and wit.