Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article candidate This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.


Contents

[edit] EU restored

An anonymous user removed the EU from the lists. I restored it on the premise that the sources we use list the EU. It is also not ranked as a country (like the world) so there should be no contention on that issue. Rominik (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's funny to see people complaining about the inclusion of EU on this list. I have a few questions to these people. What USA stands for ? Is it a country ? What is the country name then ? As far as I know United and States are nouns and America is a Continent that starts in Argentina and ends in Canada. Are these states united then ? So I believe the citizens have the same rights and don't need a visa to move from one state to another (Just like EU). EU has it's own currency so it's an economy and that's why it's here.

When the "States that are United in North America" start to treat Canadian and Mexican citizens as their own citizens and adopt a single currency with them perhaps the NAFTA could be included as well. What do you reckon ? Any chance ? Guileman (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia=

Russia jumped from the 10th place to the 7th one after the last edit. That is totally and completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.82.58 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP per capita estimates are very doutfull.

I can't believe that GDP per capita in most countries are so huge.For example take Canada. According to List GDP per capita in Canada is 35.000 $ per year! Due to glossary "per capita means "per habitant".It means every habitant including children and old people.In that case average SALARY in Canada should be over 130.000 $!!! This is because non-workers exist for money of workers.By non-workers I mean children,students,unemployed,disabled,and pension receivers who constitute over half of population in developed countries.They can exist only for money or taxes of those who work.So GDP per capita in Canada can't be greater than 8.000 per year.The same thing concerning to all other countries.

What you say is very strange - I think you don't know what you're talking about. 86.215.233.225 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


I find it very strange that 1+1 equals 2 although when using fuzzy logic istead of aristotelic algebra it should be 1+1 equals [1,3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.185.232 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It should add ASEAN +3 or +6

It should add ASEAN +3 (Japan, China, Korea) or +6(India, Australia, New Zealand), Mercosur, NAFTA if you add EU to a list.


Not at all... ASEAN is only an FTA, like NAFTA. The EU can however be regarded as one single economy. Both NAFTA and ASEAN cannot.

[edit] GET RID OF EU

The EU does not belong on this list. This whole article is pathetic! You are counting all of the European nations twice raising the GDp of the world to 60 trillion when it should be in the 40 trillions. Either get rid of the European countries, or get rid of the EU. There is nothing accurate to this article whatsoever. IF you include the EU you must include NAFTA since it is the same thing. So to make a long story short, GET RID OF THE EU ON THIS LIST! updating it wouldn't be so bad either since these statistics are from early 2006. US GDP is almost at 14 trillion and will hit that mark before 2008.

You are RIGHT. The European Union shouldn´t be included (and I am from an EU nation: Spain) What should be included is the EUROZONE as it is an economic zone with a Central Bank and soon a common representation in the International Monetary Fund (IMF)..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.211.67 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not our decision as to what is included in the lists. These lists are official documents, compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the CIA World Factbook. We are just copying and pasting the information they have given. Mad onion 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

NAFTA is something completely different than the European Union. In terms of economics, the United States and the European Union can be seen as the same kind of area.

I agree. This article is completely screwed up, especially because the estimates for these countries come from different years!! I also agree that the EU should not be included. If it is, EU countries should be excluded or vice versa. In my opinion though, GET RID OF THE EU!! Only countries should be included. If someone wants to add the EU and other international organizations, it should be a part of another list. I also agree that if the EU can be counted as one unit, then NAFTA could be as well. People say that they are different but what makes them the same? THEY ARE NOT COUNTRIES!! So, if Nafta shouldn't be included, the EU shouldn't be either. This article needs to be fixed!!/ DOUG JOHNSON


1. Stop trolling.2 Stop having a tantrum.3 Stop seeing the fact the EU is on the list as some sort of attack to undermine the US GDP.3 learn to sign your comments. (Butters x (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC))


The EU uses the same currency in the vast majority of its member states, they SHARE A CENTRAL BANK and therefore they share a common economic policy. But not only do they share an economic policy but many more things such as some laws. It also has a Parliament, so it should be included, if you know nothing about economy, read a book, and then talk. PD: (hahah we are number one!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of GDP (PPP)?

Chinese GDP(PPP) goes in U.S.A. after four years. Will you be true? If I continue an anual rate of 10% growth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.146.220.31 (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


Yes it will.

Negative. according to new data, China's economy has been inflated by 40% which means that its economy is actually 40% smaller than was thought. Therefore it is acknowledged that China's economy won't come close to overtaking the US by 2012. Experts now say that is current trends continue, it could catch up to and possibly overtake the US around 2038. ts pretty unrealistic though to assume that this level of growth will continue for 30 years. So in other words, no. It doesn't look likely. Besides The PRC will collapse before then./ DOUG JOHNSON


Yes. More recent studies have shown that the Chinese economy will overtake the US in 2020 and not in 2038 with a GDP growth of 11% for 2 years, 7% for 3 years and 5% for 2 years starting 2010. What is more disturbing is that in 2050, China will have a bigger economy than the USA and Japan combined

[edit] POV

Why is the CIA factbook in here? It can hardly be viewed as unbiased. It doesn't make any difference that two other sources are cited, because facts remain. The CIA factbook isn't an independent organisation. It's under US control and thus has no credibility whatsoever.

Take that logic to the List of countries by GDP (nominal) too, then, because the only reason the EU is included there is because the CIA World Factbook includes it. If this is an EU ego issue for you because one cites the USA as being ahead, removing the CIAWF would remove the EU anyway, and the USA would still be on top.
The European Union needs to stay in since it can be seen as one economic area (and is something completely different than NAFTA for example). The EU is the largest economy in the world, as proven by all statistics except for the ones of the CIA.
I also found it rather strange that the CIA Factbook was included, but I also agree that it shouldn't be removed from this article. However (yes, I'm an EU-citizen), it still is a fact that the CIA factbook is hardly objective. Furthermore, the other two organisations are specialized in this area (the financial world), the CIA is not. So in my opinion the other two lists should get the most attention. Would it be a good/ bad idea to mention it in the article?
Or perhaps one could change the article so that the lists of the IMF and World Bank are above the list of the CIA? Furthermore, the EU should remain in all the lists. It is a fact that the EU as we speak is an major economic player in the world. No other union, federation, or something of that kind, in the world, with all independent countries/ states, has an economy that is so harmonic, for during the years, the EU-states have adapted their economies to the EU as a whole. --84.104.123.100 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I also think it's strange to include the CIA Factbook. I'm French, and what seems weird to me is that Mayotte or Saint-Pierre et Miquelon (for instance) are simply part of the French Republic ! So why do their GDP figure on the list ? Should they be added to the French GDP or are they part of it, like for France and the EU. ??? this is very bizarre, and I see it's the same for Falkland Islands and the UK. -??-
86.215.233.225 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Data, and sources

Is their really a trillion dollar discrepency for Poland between the various organizations?


The IMF list blatantly says 2006. I understand that the list was compiled in September 2005. Country articles say for example "2006 estimate" which is what the list is. If that's the case, every country article should not have the word "estimate" in there.

Even if 2005 onwards are projections, they are listed in the articles as such (2006 estimates). Also, Regardless, this list is more up to date than a 2004 list, which by your argument would have been compiled in 2003 anyway. -Doug Johnson

Could someone please explain the controversy or opposition to updating the IMF GDP list of in accordance with 2006 estimates. I knew that it would only be a matter of time before it was reverted back to the old list. Anyway, I very carefully followed the IMF numbers to the decimal. I have a source, the IMF website itself. But the following link will take you directly to the page where I got the information, which is once again: [1] -Doug Johnson

This is Doug Johnson. I just updated the entire IMF list for 2006 based on PPP. I made sure it was PPP. The following website will take you straight to the page: [2] -Doug Johnson

The figures for 2005 onwards are projections as the table was compiled in Sept 05. josh (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop updating the figures and read the talk page first. People change to the 2005/6 figures every few month and we explain each time why the 2004 figures are used. This article is about presenting facts about whats happened and not what is predicted to happen. New figures are released by the IMF bi-yearly (the next ones are this month when we will update to 2005). The current sept 05 figures can only guess what the 2005 figure is because it had not finished when the figures were compiled. The 2004 list was compiled in 2005. josh (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Data 2

Ok, just spent nearly a hour fixing this mess you guys created. First of all, World Bank doesn't provide date on the European Union, only on the EU Monetary Union. Second, the IMF figures are off. Sources included below.

World Bank - Sources;

Prospects for the Global Economy - [3] Country Profiles - [4] World - [5]

United States - [6]

IMF - Sources;

Outlook [7] World - [8]

International Monetary Fund - Country Profiles United States - [9] European Union - [10]

Not to mention, that US GDP growth is nearly double of that compared to the sluggish European economies.

I reverted your edits on this article because of the following reasons :-
  • The IMF data your using are estimates for 2005 not actual figures. You also used the nominal figures for USA. This article is for PPP
  • I'm not sure if the USA figure from the World Bank is for PPP either
  • If you update the data you need to update the entire articles
I'm going to have to revert it again. josh 22:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, we need to fix the European Union date under World Bank, because it's not listed. There is a extreme gap of 400 billion, which would be entirely inconsistent.

Also for 2005, the US GDP under IMF is listed to be 12,438, compared to that of European Union 12,329,110, I'm sure after the offical numbers are released it will be more clearer. So I will wait until the 2005 numbers are released to change the data. -- (unsigned)

I think they come out next April but theres plenty of people on this one. I think your still getting confused between this and nominal GDP which is listed seperately. josh 01:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source Consensus

We need to come to some kind of source consensus to ensure consistency on this article. As it is regulary used and is subject to yearly, perhaps even quarterly change, consistency is highly important. Personally I find the IMF World Database to be the most user friendly and accurate source (GDP to 3 d.p.), it is also much more up-to-date publishing also forecasted rates. Finally the IMF is a non-country organisation, unlike the CIA. The CIA also use their 'own' method of calculating GDP and are slow to update.

Perhaps a vote? The sooner the better. --JDnCoke 19:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old data

Let me get this right? We've deleted the data from 2004 and replaced it with data from 2003? Why? to make the US look better? (EU is not mentioned now) --JFM 19:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder this too.. /magnus 2004-12-14.
who would agree to the data being reset to the previous 2004 data, but using the updated descriptions?--JFM 19:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
right i worked out the GDP for all 25 countries. this is only a rough number, since the 25 were not part of the EU in 2003, but we can call this pretty accurate until such a time as we get 2004 data (the number matches the one later in this thread)--JFM 18:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here? Why was the old information deleted in favor of the World Bank listing? This list is much more incomplete and omits certain countries. Please explain this. --Jiang 07:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(from Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)) That data was not accurate. The information came from various unespecified sources and the values were not set to a base year price. Without a base year price, it makes no sense to have such a list spanning so many years. And if we ever have such a list here, it would defeat the purpose of this page, as the prices would not be current and as a consequence, not useful for the regular user coming here. —Cantus…☎ 09:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

The ranking is misleading due to some major ommissions. I believe the old data came from the CIA. Maybe provide two data tables? --Jiang 10:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we can fill in the blanks using CIA values and indicate so with a foot note? —Cantus…☎ 13:12, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan--Jiang 01:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Right Place?

Is this the right place for this page or should it be at List of countries by GDP? -- Graham :) 21:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I originally made it at "... by gdp", but spelled lower case. I couldnt change this (on moving: error: this page exists). Compared to lower case I preferred "... by gross domestic product". The original page still exists as a redirect.--RScheiber 16:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One problem: there is already a list of the top 25 countries by gdp at Gross domestic product. I'm tempted to say keep this one but list all countries by gdp according to a recent list, what do you say? -- Graham :) 20:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This list is based on exchange rates. That other list is based on purchasing power parity, which gives different results. Newer data than from 2001 would be appreciated, but is not fully available. Even for 2001 I didn't get precise data for some countries, mostly arabic ones. --RScheiber 16:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revamping of article

Regarding duplicate entries: I lifted this info verbatim from the CIA World Factbook site. They had those countries listed three times as well, as you can see here. I do not know if there is a reason for this, or a glitch in their software. See this page as well, which has multiple GDPs for the same country. --Cantus 01:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason not to treat it as a glitch. It's common sense. --Jiang 01:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion regarding exchange rates vs. ppp. But I doubt that it is necessary to remove the exchange-rate numbers. There is already an other page with a list of countries by ppp (Gross_domestic_product), even if this list is incomlete (25 countries). I prefer 2 lists: one with ppp, and one with exchange rates. Either in one page, or in two different. I think ppp would be more important, but exchange rates are of interest also. The two list solution would also be a good companion of the new discussion about ppp vs. exchange rates. --RScheiber 15:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am interested to know why the CIA World Factbook data was chosen over the World Bank data? The figures are fairly similar but the World Bank ones appear to be more accurate (ie. less rounding). There is also a footnote clarifying the Indian and Chinese figures which would answer most peoples first question when seeing the table. Any opinions on which data set to use? --Sekizaru 21:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Update and Expand

[edit] GDP

The IMF database put the EU PPP GDP at 10.953 trillion for 2003, PPP. That would put it behind the US for that year. - Jerryseinfeld 18:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted clarification

I tried to clarify the explanation from:

Source: World Development Indicators database, World Bank, September 2004.

.. Not available. PPP is purchasing power parity; an international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as a U.S. dollar has in the United States.
Note: Rankings include only those economies with confirmed PPP GDP estimates. Figures in italics are for 2002 or 2001.
a. Estimate is based on a bilateral comparison between China and the United States (Ruoen and Kai, 1995).
b. Estimate is based on regression; other PPP figures are extrapolated from the latest International Comparison Programme benchmark estimates.
c. Data refer to mainland Tanzania only.

to

Source: World Development Indicators database, World Bank, September 2004.

.. Not available. PPP is purchasing power parity; the PPP of a U.S. dollar is the same as a "nominal" U.S. dollar, i.e. the PPP exchange rate of a U.D. dollar to a U.S. dollar is 1.0.
Note: Rankings include only those economies that count their GDP, and that have a confirmed PPP exchange rate of their currency to the U.S. dollar. Figures in italics are for 2002 or 2001.
a. Estimate is based on a bilateral comparison between China and the United States (Ruoen and Kai, 1995).
b. Estimate is based on regression; other PPP figures are extrapolated from the latest International Comparison Programme benchmark estimates.
c. Data refer to mainland Tanzania only.

but it was reverted. Now it'll be here for anyone to see. First of all there is no "international dollar", and it's not the "purchasing power over GDP as a U.S. dollar has in the United States", it's the PPP of a dollar anywhere in the world. And secondly, "only those economies with confirmed PPP GDP estimates", if no one counts the GDP, there wont be any GDP number, it doesn't fall from the sky, and the PPP of the local currency has nothing to do with GDP, it's the purchasing power of the currency to buy largely unprocessed commodities priced in the local currency. - Jerryseinfeld 19:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] EU?

On the page about the European Union, it is stated that the EU is the 1st by GDP, and the link leads here, but here the EU isn't mentioned in the table. The same for the List of countries by population. It looks odd that those links lead to pages where the EU is not even mentioned. We should either include the EU in the lists, like in the List of countries by area (where the EU, being the 7th largest, is listed after the 6th largest but is not numbered as 7th, so it doesn't mess up the order of actual countries), or we should delete the links leading here from the EU article, since the EU isn't included in the country lists either by population or GDP. I think the first idea is better, since Wiki should include as much info as it's possible. Opinions? Please answer at Talk:List of countries by population to keep the discussion in one place. Alensha 15:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this page has the EU data again - it was removed by someone (bias?) - if the EU were a country it would have the highest GDP, so the other pages are right- this is just a stupid edit war damaging the other articles --JFM 15:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the info again. I hope it won't get lost in the edit war... Alensha 13:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The EU should be in its place, even CIA now recognizes. Only ppl that dont know it exclude it from the list. -Pedro 21:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The EU should be in the table, but not given a rank. If it is given a rank, then probably member countries should be listed since they are counted in EU. Anyway, I think having EU listed, but not having a rank # like "World" is fine solution. --Berkut 06:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The EU should be in the table, and be ranked. The CIA World factbook does it. The question is if "World" should be there at all. It's an interesting fact, but should hardly be in an indexed ranked table. Having a sorted table with some elements indexed and others not is plain stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.100.38.95 (talk • contribs) .

Is the EU a country? I thought it was "by country" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.64.6 (talk • contribs) .

You can only compare ranks between equals. If the EU is ranked then all the memberstates cannot. Agathoclea 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It isnt our (or Wikipedia's)decsion as to whether they should be on the list nobody from wikipedia compiled the lists. They are from an external source which just needs to be copied not discussed in any way as though it is wrong (which it well could be). It isnt up to us to decide what is on the list it is up to the source to decide what are countries and what it is good to include for comparitive purposes. Mad_onion 21:00 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we, for example, put in the African Union as well? Skinnyweed 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The EU is different to the African Union and other trade blocks. Such orgainisations simply create internal trade aggreements and continue to trade with the rest of the world as individual countries. The EU acts as a single unit when it comes to trade and becoming increasingly merged when it comes to other political matters as well. josh (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah its very annoying that you didnt actually read the comment which you were replying to Skinnyweed, if you had read my comment you would have understood that this simply isnt up to us to decide. the source should be copied directly and not changed in anyway, that means no discussion is required.
I think the inclusion of the EU is appropriate in the list as long as it doesn't interfere with the numerically rankings (as is the current method, as of 23rd May, 2006). The source data is not being modified (as no ranking numbers are being changed) and its appearance allows for arguably better comparison with other global entities. I agree that the official rankings should be as they appear in the source, but this does not mean additional useful information should not be displayed at all. Personally, if the EU figure were not presented I (and probably many others) would be immediatly trying to approximate what the EU rank is and so I think to have the value displayed is of definate benefit to readers. Just like the "World" value it is a useful to the reader and both values are from the source data anyway.
On a lighter note: it's funny how both World Bank and IMF methods place the EU at the top but the CIA places the EU just the tiniest amount behind the USA. Sounds a bit like Jealousy to me. Only kidding :-) Canderra 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just fess up and admit the true intention of including European Union. A transparent attempt to put down USA by showing that it comes in second behind a mythical United States of Europe. I say leave it in, since it helps insecure Europeans feel better about themselves.

Jealous, much? –– MichaelJBuck 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
To the person above the above: It is not our decision as to what is included in the lists. These lists are official documents, compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the CIA World Factbook. We are just copying and pasting the information they have given. Yahadreas 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Josh; the EU is something totally different than, for instance, the African Union (AU). It is a fact that the EU as we speak is an major economic player in the world. No other union, federation, or something of that kind, in the world, with all independent countries/ states, has an economy that is so harmonic, for during the years, the EU-states have adapted and changed their economies into the EU as a whole. --84.104.123.100 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

THE EU IS A SHAM

nobody cares about the EU not even Japan or China, they deal with the individual countries not the EU body for trade unlike the US where they trade with THE US GOVERNMENT not individual states. You are WRONG: they deal on Trade with the EU, not with individual states as there is a common Trade commissioner in the European Union and common Trade rules. But I think only the EUROZONE (a 320 million people zone inside the European Union with a common currency and Central Bank should be cited to compare)

maybe if EU becomes the Republic or Europe and vaporizes all the countries into one you can include them in the list.

honestly, in an economic and political pov, no country is influenced by the EU outside the EU. China does not care about the EU, Japan does not care about the EU the US does not care about it but they care for the individual states

The EU is both from an economic and government point of view the most important player in the world. This is not to start at "Europe against America" discussion, it's just a fact. Lots of countries (like China), have started to change their money reserves from US dollars to Euros. Furthermore, the EU is the largest exporter in the world, the most important economic trade partner for China and almost all (non American) countries in the world, and so on. From a government point of view, the EU gives most financial, logistic, .. help to countries, most of the time after they have been attacked by the United States. So please stop this stupid jealousy and live with it.

99% of the anti-EU comments in hear come from jealous Americans I bet... on An economic scale the EU is asmuch 1 nation as the USA, PRC or Japan. On the political scale they are internally devided but little more then individual US states and on the outside they seem to have more influence these days then any other organisation or nation even the USA (who nobody trusts anymore). China does care about the EU, as a matter of fact they contact the EU quite often ditto for Japan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.169.238 (talk) 14:06:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

  • Do not buy Eurobonds Ninja337 (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan/ROC

160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Instantnood 16:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed? — Instantnood 12:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest no, because then you lose the ability to directly compare to other countries. —Cantus…☎ 18:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Equatorial Guinea

The GDP (PPP) for Equatorial Guniea is listed as $25,439 Million. The estimate in the CIA World Factbook and anywhere else seems to be closer from $900 to $1,400 Million. Someone should consider readjusting the positions on the table. A good figure is $1,200 Million. I don't know if this is common to find errors in the data, I was doing research and found one tremendous irregularity in GDP and GDP per Capita. I ran the data for all the countries and the GDP per Capita of Equatorial Guinea was close to $44,700, which as many of you know, impossible. Just keep your heads up for deviations from the norm.

Are you saying it is impossible because most of Africa is impoverished? You should do some research, buddy. Ecuatorial Guinea has a good economy for a country that has a small population. So it IS possible. stfu&&kthxbye!
Yes, the 25bn figure is certainly very suspect! However, the 1.2bn figure is also probably out of date, as it appears to come from 2002 or so. For an economy which is currently growing at 20% to 30% per annum (!) this matters, and we could do with a more up to date figure. Can anyone find any more up to date estimates? Enchanter 21:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes by anon user

Hi, 203.79.66.204, what is your source for the changes you just made to the GDP of Brazil, etc.? The data from the IMF is here: [11]. Pfalstad 02:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, someone reverted it.. Any changes made to the data should give a source. Pfalstad

[edit] Israel/West Bank/Gaza?

Are the GDPs of the West Bank and Gaza included as part of the Israel figure? I'm guessing they are, since the Israeli "customs envelope" includes them both. Either way, it should be noted here. --Jfruh 02:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Updated GDP ( Was old )

I updated the current GDP numbers. ( 2004 was about 8 months ago ) The US is currently growing around 3.2% in Q2 compared with the EU 0.3 %. As of September 2005 the United States had the largest GDP. Source included.

No it doesn't, EU GDP, 2004 and estimated 2005 the EU is still ahead... --JDnCoke 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
False.

US GDP 2005 - 12438.873 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2002&ED=2006&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=111&S=NGDP&CMP=0&x=49&y=14

EU GDP (Your Source) - 12329.110

2005 figures should replace the old out of date 2004 figures. IMF puts the US at top. Not to mention that the US is growing twice as much as the EU. Which makes sense with the change.

[edit] Old Date vs. More precise figures

Currently we use the 2004 report by the world bank that is now out of date. The CIA figures are up to date, however, they round to the hundredth. Which should be used? Jimbobsween 20:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of tables

I will merge both tables into one, as in List of countries by GDP (nominal). This is the best compromise I can think of. —Cantus…☎ 03:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

By merging them, rankings by the World Bank were lost. Your merge is still blanking a large chunk of information. We need to reach a compromise first. --Vizcarra 18:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not see there being a huge problem in displaying two tables: they allow for comparison of movements up and down ... albeit of different years and from two different sources (i.e., comparing apples with oranges, not apples). Ideally, two tables – one each for the current and previous year (2005 and 2004), from either of the World Bank or IMF (not both) – should be exhibited; in this instance, information should be merged into one table. If from dissimilar sources, two tables are more valid.
I imagine that related users are debating this due to the varying pre-eminence of the U.S. and EU in both lists, et al. (If it helps any: I'm an ... 'eclectic' Canuck, so I hope Mars and Venus will agree. :)) Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 18:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Table alignment

Greetings! I do not see why the side-by-side table alignment for this, et al. has been reverted in favour of (what would seem) a (personally) preferential alignment. Besides: for monitors of lower resolution, the side-by-side tables can be configured to automatically appear one under the other anyway, can't they?

Unless there's a severe objection or rationalisation otherwise, the side-by-side arrangement should be adopted. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 04:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to interrupt your revert war, but the tables look fine even at 640x480 in Opera, Firefox, and IE. I don't think this is a resolution problem. Tbjablin
Alright, I admit I was sarcastic. I actually did want to interrupt your revert war. Now, can we take this to the talk page? Tbjablin 16:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey ... didn't I say that? ;) E Pluribus Anthony 22:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Eurozone does not belong on the list

Somebody added the Eurozone as a seperate entity to the list today. I see no reason why the Eurozone should be listed here. Unlike the EU, which is already listed, the Eurozone in no way constitutes a distinct political entity or trading bloc. Eurozone is merely a "designation" used to describe the group of EU states using the Euro as currency and does not constitute a unique organization or alliance. I removed the Eurozone reference but if anyone disagrees please discuss it. --Nikostar 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree; EU should remain in the list (as it is, with or without ranking number, I don't care), but the Eurozone is something totally different. --84.104.123.100 19:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shall be posted the GDP according to 2005 values?

The FMI has already released information about 2005 GDP values for every country and country group....We already passed 2005 and 2004 informations are not quite updated ..... --User:Remrex , 02 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The IMF (I assume that's what you mean) figures were released in September, before the end of 2005. Therefore they are still projections. josh (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

If we include things like World and EU, why not things like North America, SE Asia, California and large companies as entities?

[edit] world factbook

so are we not going to use the world factbook for any of the economic content? since the US is the major shareholder in the bank wouldnt the cia figues be reasonably acurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmpenguin (talk • contribs) .

You obviously have already used it by now. Please note that the ranking in the World Fact Book is strictly numerical starting with "the World" at number 1. That throws all comparsions between countries. If used as basis please unnumber all non-country entities, like they are in the other lists. See my message on your talkpage re your changing of various country articles and their ranking based on this list Agathoclea 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ive noticed the canadian statistics are a little off also, canada is in the trillion class (nominal), if someone could checkup on that itd be great.

86.132.92.94 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)== EU? == --The title of this article is "List of countries by GDP (PPP)"; then why is the EU even mentioned? It is not a country, it is many countries. Maybe the article should be re-named? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.39.176.40 (talk • contribs) .

It isnt our (or Wkipedia's)decsion as to whether they should be on the list nobody from wikipedia compiled the lists. They are from an external source which just needs to be copied not discussed in any way. It isnt up to us to decide what is on the list it is up to the source to decide what are countries and what it is good to include for comparitive purposes. --81.158.207.221 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What a copout that was, EU still isn't a country. Sorry.--Tomtom9041 01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The world isn't a country either. Get over your pitiful American bias and see that the EU is unique enough to be considered a reference state. –– MichaelJBuck 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

EU couldn't even get its constitution passed. The glorified ideal of a single EU state is only population among left leaning intellectuals. I doubt I'll live to see the day when the EU truly becomes a single state. Good luck anyhow 67.180.147.127 07:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not our decision as to what is included in the lists. These lists are official documents, compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the CIA World Factbook. We are just copying and pasting the information they have given. Mad onion 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The EU should remain in all the lists. It is a fact that the EU as we speak is an major economic player in the world. No other union, federation, or something of that kind, in the world, with all independent countries/ states, has an economy that is so harmonic, for during the years, the EU-states have adapted their economies to the EU as a whole. Furthermore, note that the EU is NOT ranked, the lists only shows what would happen IF the EU would be ranked. So I hardly can't see the point of this discussion. Besides, if the EU would fall apart, than I am sure that many people on Wikipedia would remove the EU then (as it should). If the EU indeed becomes one 'state' (c.q. federation), than the EU would be ranked. --84.104.123.100 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It's funny to see people complaining about the inclusion of EU on this list. I have a few questions to these people. What USA stands for ? Is it a country ? What is the country name then ? As far as I know United and States are nouns and America is a Continent that starts in Argentina and ends in Canada. Are these states united then ? So I believe the citizens have the same rights and don't need a visa to move from one state to another (Just like EU).

EU has it's own currency so it's an economy and that's why it's here.

When the "States that are United in North America" start to treat Canadian and Mexican citizens as their own citizens and adopt a single currency with them perhaps the NAFTA could be included as well. What do you reckon ? Any chance ?Guileman (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romania PPP GDP is 254 Billion EURO in 2006

For Romania you'll have to combine all 3 references http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 ; http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm ; http://www.infoeuropa.ro/ieweb/imgupload/RR_RO_2004_EN_00001.pdf (page 155) --GDP 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Data?

So, if this is calculated by 'millions', then everything in this chart, and on the specific pages for the countries is wrong. According to the July 2005 estimate for Chile on the CIA World Factbook [12], they had a GDP (PPP) of $187.1 Billion(<--click here), more then the World has on this chart.

Am I reading it wrong, or is every single number on this chart too small? Bones 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the figures. Chile for example has a quoted CIA figure of "185,100", which multiplied by one million (as the quotes are in millions) is $185.1 billion (with the SI standard method of 1 billion = 1000 million is used). Not sure where the $2 billion difference comes from though, I persume the one quoted on this page is a couple of years older than the 2005 one. Canderra 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Ah, I see it now. I was reading the numbers as, for example, 185.1 million and thinking 185 100 000. Bones 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poland

Shouldn't Poland be light blue? Two sources say it's PPP is over 500.000, while one source say Poland's PPP is 495.000 It would be more correct to make it light blue

Like it says, the map is based on the IMF list (most often used in wiki history). That’s the 495,000 one, in that sense it could be considered correct (besides, the 500,000 color border is just an arbitrary rounded figure, that doesn’t make it a goal to reach) --Van helsing 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abnormal American GDP

A thing with much GDP per thing of an American is not what I can be proud of. A thing from each other G7 countries with many 5,000 dollars - 10,000 dollars is abnormal, too. An American of low wage includes it, too, and a number swells because I waste it borrowing money.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.145.14.86 (talk • contribs)

[edit] ***CIA data needs to be updated***

the info. from the world factbook has been updated. here's the link:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

i'd update the info myself, but i'm sick.


NO, you should refer to the updated one. Here's the url: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

user:Semitic87

[edit] What happened to Spain?

Why has Spain dropped in two of the lists? Spain is, by any measures, either the ninth, tenth or eleventh economy of the world. Somebody changed the classification. It needs to be restored

[edit] ***Romania and Bulgaria have joined the European Union***

I have updated the CIA World Factbook rankings using the CIA World Factbook website to include in this ranking list the GDP (PPP) for Romania and Bulgaria.

[edit] India

Data shown here is old. India is third largest economy when measured by PPP. [13] Someone needs to modify the list.

[edit] UK is the wrong colour

UK should be the darker blue because its above 2 bill can some change it because i dont know how to.

[edit] Wrong picture

Why an article on GDP(PPP) uses world map for GDP(nominal)? DVoit 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done here, rational... unknown. --Van helsing 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages

I've noticed the Canadian one has been ever so changing; on Canada's page, Canada, it shows a much different number than on all 3 of the lists. For Brazil, all 3 of the numbers are higher than on Brazil's page; Brazil. Most of them are like this, I recommend either he lists are readjusted to match the countries respective pages, or vice versa.

[edit] Standart

Which list is the Standart in Wikipedia? I mean, when you are going to rank a country in an X country page, which list do you use??

The one that is most flattering for it? ;). I really don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case cause I believe there is no standard list to use. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU again

Anyone who reads this discussion page can see that the inclusion of the EU atop two of the lists has been an issue of contention. Because it is 'by country' it should follow that the lists contain names of countries, not names of countries AND names of unions of countries. The only credible argument which seems to support EU inclusion is that these lists are copied and pasted from other sources, in which case their content isn't open to editorial discussion. While the CIA reference does, in fact, list the EU, the International Monetary Fund references provided are merely categorized searches that someone has prepared and provided links to. It cant be said that that the IMF list is merely copied and pasted with the EU on top. If the IMF has produced such a list it should be referenced or the EU should be removed from that list; the list at present is more like original research, which, as we all know, should be avoided.70.127.190.152 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China's GDP 40% smaller than thought?

This recent editorial note in the New York Times may be of interest: China Shrinks, by Eduardo Porter, New York Times, Dec 9, 2007. -- Avenue (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the same thing in the Economist. However, it said that the report haven't been finalized or released to the public. I think this information should wait until that happened first, then we will add it. 24.89.245.62 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't update the list yet. I wonder if it might still be worth noting as an example of the uncertainties surrounding these numbers. -- Avenue (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that I should display it with "about 6 trillion dollars".[FT]],2007/11/23.[14]

--219.98.208.148 (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add this preliminary result to the list against consensus. They say the final results are due late this year, so we shouldn't have long to wait for something more robust. Here is the original press release from the Asian Development Bank; it gives a link to more details. -- Avenue (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)



Alright, it got finalized. The Economist ran another article with the headline "a Shrinking Dragon". It's now official, proceed with the changes. 24.89.245.62 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what the next section is all about; sorry if that wasn't clear. So the relevant changes have already been made. -- Avenue (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please update using the world bank's new data

Report can be found at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/ICP-report-prelim.pdf Sinolonghai (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is worth doing, despite the figures being preliminary, somewhat outdated (2005), and available for fewer countries, because the PPPs have changed so much for some large countries (e.g. China and India). I've made a start. The report (p.20) says updated figures are due to be released in February 2008. -- Avenue (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Avenue (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
These updates were reverted by Balthazarduju (talk). They gave what appear to be mistaken justifications in their edit summaries (as I have explained on their talk page), so I have reverted back to the new World Bank figures. I'd welcome more discussion if anyone has concerns about them. -- Avenue (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I reverted the statistics because I intially couldn't locate the referred data on the linked electronic source (I thought the data did not match the reference). I also thought since the sourced link was from 2005, and the older version was from late-2007, the other version would be a better match.

As for the need to change information, I've read on The Economist reporting about the World Bank's overestimation for China and India's GDP (both are by 40%), but shouldn't we wait for the official result to be published to update it? Just my two cents.

Oh and the flag icon, either update them all or remove it. Just update the first ten looks awkward.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added page numbers to the reference to make it clearer where the numbers come from. I agree that it would be better to show accurate data for 2006 if we could, but given the large changes in the figures for China and India, the new figures for 2005 (even though preliminary) are clearly better than the old figures for 2006 (published Sep 2007). Hopefully more up to date figures will be released in February, covering more countries.
I agree with you abut the flag icons; they should be all or nothing. I don't really care which. I was just putting them back the way I found them in my previous edit. -- Avenue (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add EU to World Bank list for alignment purposes?

Should the EU be added to the World Bank list to make the number 1 slot (United States) line up across all three lists? It's difficult now to scan across and see how a country like Germany compares on the three lists because the EU throws off the World Bank list by one slot. Since the World Bank does not provide a PPP amount for the EU, the table could simply state "N/A".Tinderfire (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data on historical economies

Anon 75.144.232.238 just added some data on historical economies. This doesn't seem to belong here, and has been reverted. Perhaps it might be useful somewhere like List_of_largest_empires#Largest_empires_by_economy instead. -- Avenue (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing flags?

Why are there only flags for the top 10 countries? Bsrboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed above. There seemed to be consensus that there should be flags on every line, or none, but noone has done anything since. I'll delete them. -- Avenue (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The article should be updated

The IMF data are taken from April 2007 report. However, the IMF has updated the data in October 2007 report. Ostiferia (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan, no Chinese Province!

Taiwan is Independent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.205.80 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro?

How is it possible that Montenegro has a GDP (PPP) of $26.38 billion? Divided by the latest population estimate of 684,736, this would give an astronomical - for the western Balkans - per capita figure of $38,526, when the real figure is in fact ten times lower. It's obvious that this is just a case of a misplaced decimal point on the CIA's part, but would correcting it constitute original research? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus

The reason the data for northern Cyprus are attached to the Cypriot flag is because that is how the territory is treated by the CIA, i.e. as the Turkish-held part of the Republic of Cyprus, hence the single Cypriot entry with two sets of data. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Is Wikipedia a political organisation or is it social? Taiwan is Taiwan and TRNC is TRNC. It is not Cyprus (Turkish controlled) because it is an independent country de facto. Turkey doesn't manage the country, so it cannot be implied as "Turkish controlled". Wikipedia should decide its political identity if there is. We can say "Karabagh (Armenian controlled Azerbaijani territory)" because it is. TRNC is an independent country, but only one country recognizes it. We can note this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protothyas (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thousand or million?

Does the "m" in the column header stand for "million" or "milli" (aka "thousand")? It appears to be "million," making the USA GDP $13 trillion. However, "m" is commonly thousand, not million. "mm," on the other hand, refers to "milli milli" aka "thousand thousand" aka million. I will be bold and change the "m"s to reflect this. ask123 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent April 2008 update needed

Significant specifications within the IMF calculations must have changed [15]. The new figures are very different now, especially for China and India. This requires a complete new update. Lear 21 (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)