On top of that, the pervasive use of macros in lisp tend to lead to a kind of code-reuse that languages without macros lack.

Not to say that Haskell can't be concise also, just not to the same degree. And I've seen very long lines in Scala that were due to pleasing the compiler's typing.

Elm and Clojurescript offer a good contrast. Elm is written in Haskell and is not too unlike Haskell syntax and general language use. I've written in both Elm and Clojurescript and there is nearly a 2X difference in code size of Elm over Clojurescript for accomplishing similar non-trivial tasks.

Code size isn't everything, but it is important.

If you still find it that hard to believe, just try Clojure for awhile, and I think it will be clear. It's a tradeoff. When you don't have to satisfy a type checker for everything, you do write less code, that's just a matter of fact most of the time.

The question is whether the increased code size of a statically-type language over a lisp makes up for the extra developer resources and potential for bloat-related bugs. But that is of course the core of the typing debate.