Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Spain ahead of canada and soon ahead of italy

You just have to take a look at updated info. Besides spain is growing at a faster rate than italy (aproximately 4 times faster) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.247.21 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

About the notice saying the article needs to be updated

I don't know who put it there (I guess I could figure that out) but I assume it's because there is updated data available from the IMF. I don't have time, but someone should update the data from here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weoselgr.aspx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.72.27 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the African Union not included

If something pointless such as the EU is to be included under "COUNTRIES by GDP", not unions, then the AU and all other similar Unions need to be included. I can really not think of one logical reason as to why the EU is included on this list, not one. This is a specifically of countries. Can someone please give me one valid reason as to why its included?

Because the sources who made the lists list the EU. Not really any other reason. BTW, the EU is a far tighter body than the AU.72.147.217.63 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A fret and jealousy of an American and a European person

In the place that there is as well as a list in EU, I feel a fret of a European person. The world center became Asia again. Population of ASEAN will increase a lot from EU to 770,000,000 with 570,000,000 people in the future now and will exceed far EU. U.S.A. and Europe will become the world country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.144.7.130 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Qui? Matchrthom 08:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there only 1 list here - where is the Comparative List?

What happened to the World Bank & CIA lists? Where have they gone? How can we be sure the information provided here is completely accurate if the relevant and accurate information of similar World Recognised Organisations is being ignored? Shouldn't all relevant statistics of nominal GDP information by respected and World recognised organisations be included rather than certain users deciding that we will only use the figures from one particular organisation over another? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia with relevant information from respected sources - not a place to choose and prefer one version of reality over another.jkm 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And after the first list of only the IMF now we have the IMF and the World bank. Either there was a coincidence that the CIA factbook wasn't added back or there was a reason, probably because the CIA factbook lists the USA as having the highest economy in the world, methinks a european or just another bland anti-american has been editing this... 207.6.113.119 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should carry out both theory writing together of PPP and the nominal

Only GDP (PPP) appears in the basic data of each country. However,the argument is divided about the credibility of PPP. Should not GDP (nominal) be written together, either?

India's GDP

What sources did you guys base on to rank India as having the second largest GDP, even outdoing Japan, Germany and the PRC?

Republic Of Ireland?

Where in the blue hell is the Republic Of Ireland? I have numerous sources of it being in the Top 20 richest countries and it aint even in the list! Pog Ma Thoin!

how do you looking at the table? it's on 30 place. Elk Salmon 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh lol. My bad.

India's GDP (nominal)

It was actually reported in July 2005 that India had become the 10th largest economy (nominal GDP) in the world, although I have to find an actual source for this. This page still lists India as 12th?? If there is no objection I will edit this page along with a credible source.

Nitnaga 25 April 2006

The list was updated according to the IMF report of April 2006.

mainbody

India at current Exchange rate of Rs 40 to USD will be a $ 1.67 Trillion Dollar Economy

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. I have posted this also in the GDP PPP section as well and I have updated several EU countries GDP information to IMF 2004 figures.

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

The correct list

The list from the IMF is just a prediction!!! the list from the World Bank is what already has happened!

I dont know why so many trolls are cheating this article, since the numbers from the IMF wont be confirmed until the middle of the next year.

By the way the list released this june with data from 2004 is the most updated list.

User:kardrak

---

Sorry about not logging on, but my browser locks up whenever I try to. Do you think that we should keep old figures of GDP here, or move them to a separate page, either way I think we can keep them somewhere, so in the future we will be able to see the history of the GDP growth of various countries. It is hard to find that stuff elsewhere on the Internet. 67.20.46.9 01:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

Some users doubt the data given in this article. I think the data given by the WorldBank is correct (as good as it can be). You always have to remember that the GDP is calculated into US$. So if the exchangerate of the US$ to another currency changes during a year, the GDP given in US$ changes the same way, because the original GDP is of course calculated in the currency of the country.

Our job as Wikis should be, to get the data from a reliable source, copy the data correctly and say which source we use. And in my opinion the Worldbank is a reliable source and it is probably the only reliable source for worldwide GDP figures.

And we should try, to use the same source for the different years, to make the numbers comparable. Guru 21:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As there are no complaints, i'll check the numbers, correct them if wrong and remove the accuracy alert. Guru 20:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why isnt China included in here

Nominal vs. PPP

• In terms of a country's economic size/capacity, nominal GDP is a much more accurate look at the economic power of a country. Seriously just the thought of China having a GDP 3/4 the size of the US economy in terms of PPP is just preposterous! Look at the Fortune global 2000 list of the largest most powerful companies in the world. The US has almost 700(!!!) of the Fortune's 2000 companies (which are 20 times the size of the Chinese counterparts) while China has all but 50! Please can someone just admit that nominal is much more realistic in terms of economic size/capacity. I'm gonna be fair and say that PPP is more of a standard of living indicator and mostly theoretical... Last I thought Bangladesh wasn't larger than Switzerland in economic size. Through PPP it's saying that a poor country with low enough "local" prices equals a much larger GDP? I think in the future economists will perfect or at least come close to more accurately portraying the size of a country's economy. I remember just a few years back nominal was the default statistic and now recently PPP has come a lot more into favor. Can I please get follow up, thanks. -Nick

• PPP makes sense on a per capita basis for determining relative standards of living. On a national level I don't think it works because it's essentially saying that if the goods and services purchased within a given economy cost more, then the economy would be subsequently larger. But that makes no sense, as higher costs wouldn't work within that given economy because the money wouldn't be there to pay those higher costs. If goods and services making up the Chinese economy suddenly cost the same as those within the U.S., the extra 6 trillion dollars to make up the cost difference wouldn't suddenly materialize. It's the same the other way too. Even though the costs within the Japanese economy are higher than that of the U.S. or whatever the baseline is, that doesn't change the fact that a specific amount of equivalent currency is being spent within that economy. It's impossible to figure what a given economy would bear given different circumstances; more money might get added or subtracted to a specific economy because of trade situations, and the money available to internal consumers may or may not be affected.

"PPP makes sense on a per capita basis for determining relative standards of living" - not really, look how Taiwan's PPP GDP per capita is almost as large as the UK's, but its nominal GDP per capita is half that of the UK, anyone who is familiar with both those (!) countries will recognise that the nominal figures are a far better representation of the relative standards of living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

EU is a country? / Is it any relevant?

No it is not a country. That is why it has not ranking, but a dash, in the list. In case it was a country it would be in the number 1. However it is not only an economic cooperation zone. It has strong political tokens, such as parliament, flag, and others. It is good to have it there in the list.

I'm sorry, but last time I checked, the EU is an economic cooperation zone, not a country. Yes, it has a parliament, a flag, an a currency (soon for most of it), but it's not a country. Should we put NAFTA on this page as well? How about ASEAN? CARICOM? Is it just an ego boost for the Europeans?

No, the EU isn't a country, yes, NAFTA should be here, and ASEAN, and so on. James F. (talk) 03:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please include NAFTA as it seems we are including continental trade organizationsRobertoMiguel (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please put EU and the others back in the article? Thanks Alensha 22:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the last time you checked must have been a long time ago. It is generally accepted that the EU is sui generis, unique in the world and quite incomparable to the mere free trade areas of NAFTA and ASEAN. In matters of economics and trade it makes more sense to regard the EU as whole, rather than to study it's individual states. On other matters, the states are still prime. Walshicus 16:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The person that compared the EU to ASEAN and NAFTA most be not European and doesnt know what is the EU and the integration process in Europe. (he mentioned that in the EU there is a President, but I fixed it) Do you vote for a NAFTA parliament? Does the ASEAN has power over national companies that doesnt permit them to merge? Do you have a single currency? Do you have a flag? NAFTA surely has borders and very secure ones with Mexico, that doesnt exist in most EU countries. There is even a status for European citizen. Most EU countries have less independence that most states in the USA. Be real! The UE should be placed in its place, it is not Ego, its the reality. And i'm afraid that this article is POV, by the opposite reason, the EU is not placed, it is simply mensioned. Even the CIA now puts the EU in its place. The only ego and ignorance ("Economic cooperation zone?!?!?!?! ) I see in here, is from the original author of this section. -Pedro 20:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The EU is not included in the IMF predictions so should not be included, thats it... Neither NAFTA or the EU so respect the criteria.

CIA World factbook includes the EU as an economic unit of its own. It is a common market that goes far beyond NAFTA et al. So it should be ranked. As for the political status, the EU is somewhere between a confederation and a federation. About 50% of the laws in the member states are Union laws. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html

To the person starting this discussion: You are right, the European Union is not a country, but the list does not only include fully souvereign countries (thats why Hongkong is included). The European Union is a country on some areas, most obviously on economics, but not on military for example. Because this list is about economics and the EU is an economic union (no borders, free trade, single currency, a european monopolies commission and a european economic comission it is fair to include it here. I would agree not to include it in a list of military strength for example.

It's quite frankly absurd to include the EU in this list - for one, it results in EU member nations being counted twice, in addition, the original source document includes no special numbers for the EU, the EU does not have a single currency (and, no, the Euro doesn't count; the UK, Sweden, Denmark, and the new 10 are not part of the Eurozone), and as the final nail in the coffin, the EU is not a nation and as such it's foolish to include (and rank) it in a list of countries. Clearly, someone felt the need for the EU to "beat out" the US, so they compiled a figure and inserted it into the rankings. If the EU is to be included, it should be unranked and denoted with a note that it is not a "country".

This isnt just about one person deciding that it should be on the list, its on the Official IMF list so it should be included on the Wikipedia list as all Wikipedia is doing is putting the info up on this site so it can be easily accessed. We cant just go around chainging it because we dont like what it says, just like the CIA list we shouldnt add the EU to the list because it wasnt on it originally. It really is very simple to comprehend i dont really understand what the discussion is about.

NAFTA, ASEAN, CARICOM are all economic partnerships directly equivilant to the EEA (i.e. The European Economic Area trading community which includes the EU countries + Norway, Iceland etc.). The EU however goes far beyond these economic partnerships/trading blocks, with some (but not nearly all) of the aspects being mentioned above. Canderra 01:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the EU should be in the article, it is a hugely powerful political body verging on a federal state. Shall we vote on it? I also think that the figures should be in Euros rather than in U.S. Dollars - mastodon 14:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep EU - mastodon 14:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep EU. It's on the IMF and CIA lists, also pretty much all global economists talk about the EU on a relative scale to other countries: China, Japan, USA. So of course it should be here. - Canderra 01:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep While the EU is "something more" than NAFTA and those, it does not qualify under the title of this article, which is "List of countries..." Because the EU is not a country, it should not be listed in the main section (this is very simple logic). However, I have a proposal: why not make a separate list of EU-like organizations below the main list of countries? That way, you can keep the EU, include other organizations, and not violate the sanctity of the article.UberCryxic 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The EU is the only one among the like to be frequently compared with other economies as a single entity. It is also the only one to have international organisation membership. If it is to be removed, it still have to presented in a more or less similar way Australia is mentioned through footnotes on lists of islands. — Instantnood 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This to me is a no-brainer.

The EU clearly is not a nation, but it exists as a federation like no comparable economic or political group now or ever before.

It seems to me that some Americans are getting a their noses out of joint by seeing America falling behind the EU on some of these lists, but in my view it is not only relevant to see the EU as a distinct and quasi-national body, it is entirely appropriate. It is now starting to throw its economic weight around, in many ways challenging American dominance. NAFTA or Asean simply do not operate in any similar fashion. Politically and militarily, the EU is far less cohesive than America is, so America's leadership there is not dismissed, but if the EU in the future matches its economic strength with its political and military, then it will be dominant world power.

As for the remark that the euro has no single currency, it has the euro, which is the official currency for 300 million people in the EU so far, the 13th EU country to adopt it will be Slovenia in January, three or four more a year later and by 2016 or so likely the entire Union save for Britain will have the Euro as its official currency.

To pretend this is some sort of European "ego boost" is laughable.

The slow accumulation of economic and political power in the EU suggests it could some day be the leading world power, especially if the euro replaces the dollar as the world's reserve currency of choice.

As for what constitutes a "nation," if we really want to be picky, what about the United Kingdom? England and Scotland are often considered to be distinct nations, should we also list them separately?

--Johnny Canuck 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

One flag, one parliament, one economic policy, one currency (moving forward). Ok, it is not a country, and that is why it is not ranked as number 1, but it is good to have it there. Many Europeans we feel more Europeans than from an X country.

If we are going to maintain that the European Union should have its own entry in this article and List of countries by GDP (PPP), it should also have its information added to List of countries by population, List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, List of countries by external debt, List of countries by imports, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per hour, etc. I will dare not mention the implications for List of countries. This all seems very absurd. The fact that the European Union is closer to a country than any other non-country does not make it a country, nor does it mean that it should be catagorized along with countries. AlexeiSeptimus 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the criteria to include the EU is/should be:

• It’s considered useful info (for the reader) and it’s sourced

Not:

• The title says countries
• It’s done here so it should be done elsewhere
• Fragile patriotic feelings

--Van helsing 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

EUROPEAN UNION

Reasons why the EU should not be included in any economic data which pertains to "countries"

1. It is not a country
2. An organization with a flag, government, currency does not make it as a country
3. It confuses everything (EU is present in many lists here in wikipedia, WHY???)
4. Most countries in the EU dont even agree on many economic issues i.e. EU currency
5. It doesnt have a military on its own
6. EU is just a lousy excuse to say that Europe still has any influence on the Global economy.

Bottom line is the eu should not be on any list that refers to countries. The European Union doesnt make any sense. They hardly agree on anything, they hardly have any political global infulence so why are they here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.115.66 (talk • contribs)

1. It is not a country
2. An organization with a flag, government, currency does not make it as a country
3. It confuses everything (EU is present in many lists here in wikipedia, WHY???)
4. Most countries in the EU dont even agree on many economic issues i.e. EU currency
5. It doesnt have a military on its own
6. EU is just a lousy excuse to say that Europe still has any influence on the Global economy.

1)It doesnt have borders, has a flag a parliament, a budget, currency. I believe this makes it a country. 2)Yes it does 3)Because all international organizations(including CIA, the UN, G8 summits) consider it a country. 4)Yes they do actually. Parliament set goals country-members try to achieve.(Imagine mexico actually taking part in USA's economy planning through NAFTA lol). And basically all members have timescheadules for the currency. 5)Neither does bulgaria, iceland, luxembourg, Monaco, liechtenstein whats your point? 6)Actually it does dont be naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.85.160 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and say this as simply as possible; the placement of the EU in the list is not our decision. The IMF has the EU in their list, and it is our job to place that list in this article. The World Bank does not have it in their list, hence its absense in the list according to the World Bank. Is this so hard to understand? We are presenting the data reported by others; we are not presenting modified data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.173.6.66 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

The EU has many features that make it a collection of 'united states' and a country in all but name - and I'm not talking about flags: It is more than just a trade agreement. Members sign up to abide by a unified codes that include law, the environment, and migration.

European law supercedes all laws of the member countries. Where there is conflict between EU law and the laws of a particular member, EU law takes presidence. The EU has its own constitution, which supercedes any constitution of its member states. The EU has its own court system, which is the highest court of appeal for any of the menber states. Member states all make monetary contributions to the EU (taxes), which it then redistributes dependant on agreed spending. The EU has its own parliament with law-making powers, which have authority on all member states. All member states participate in elections, whereby members of the general voting public elect parliamentary members (MEPs). The EU has its own currency. It can be argued that not all members have switched to the new currency, however this does not detract from the fact that the currency exists. It should also be remembered that many 'countries' do not have unified currencies. In the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland both have their own currencies (the Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank, and Royal Bank of Scotland all print their own notes). The EU has its own military police force. The EU parliament elects a president every 2-3 years. There is free movement of population within European member countries (although some restrictions apply for new members). Health provision of the member state is honoured for all members visiting another member's country. Educational standards of all member states are given equal standing (e.g. a doctorate gained in any given member country must be treated with equal status by all member states). Members constituents have the right to vote in the local elections of whichever country in which they reside (e.g. A German living in Britain has the right to vote in British local elections). No EU member constituent can be treated differently purely on the grounds on belonging to a different member state (e.g. I cannot be forced to carry an ID card because I am not a native of that country if natives do not, I should not have to go through any formal registration process to gain entitlement to governmental provisions - such as the right to vote in local elections - if no such registration process exists for natives, I cannot be surcharged, denied service, or asked to produce additonal documentation by a company because I am not a native of the country (surcharges on ATMs are also included)). Each member consituent has the same basic consumer rights. These can be added to by individual states, but not removed. All member states agree to a minimum standard for environmental health, safety, and working conditions.

Most Americans should feel familiar with this legal and governmental setup because it is exactly the same as those operated by the United States of America.

For many political reasons, the EU does not refer to itself as a country. However, I cannot think of any definition of what a country is that the EU does not meet. As such a large economic and political force in the world, it cannot be ignored and I feel, therefore, it needs to be included in any discussion of world economics. Whether you call it a country or not is immaterial. It is clear that there is a huge gap between what the EU represents and what amount to mostly commercial agreements such as NAFTA and ASEAN.

This whole argument is so dumb, what you people don't seem to understand is that its not up to Wikipedia users to decide what should appear on this list. The list that contains the EU entry is compiled by the IMF thus the information should copied directly without changing it or removing parts based on the opinion of Wikipedia users. I think we are all smart enough to realise that we shouldnt be messing with sources even if you dont agree with them. Mad onion 19:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your basic premise that it is not up to Wikipedians to change the contents of the list. However, if you check the cited September 2006 IMF reference in the article, you will find that the EU is not in the list. Therefore, it shouldn't be in the list in this article. To resolve this, I propose that a mini-list be added after the IMF and World Bank lists titled "Significant trading regions" and include in there the European Union, NAFTA, ASEAN and any other significant areas. That will provide meaningful information in this article while removing a non-country from a list of countries. What does the community think? Truthanado 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On a side note, it IS up to the Wikipedia to decide which content to duplicate. The content of the article always matches the title. If I were to make a list of U.S. Presidents, would I throw in a few senators or vice presidents because "they were pretty much as influential as presidents"? Think about it. Thomasmallen 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

THE EU IS A GLOBAL ECONOMIC POWER? cmon, most people in the east even in JAPAN AND CHINA, no body cares about the EU. This is just a desperate attempt by europe to claim the influence they had in the 1700s. Seriously, ask any cosmopolitan Japanese, there is a big probability that they have NEVER HEARD OR BOTHERED TO CARE ABOUT THE EU.

I think you are a troll, please, stop vandalizing wikipedia. --giandrea 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see there is much discussion about the inclusion of the EU in this list. I guess the mere fact that people argue its relevance is maybe because its not relevant at all. I vote to remove the EU on the list.

That's totally senseless... and sign your comments please. And the inclusion or exclusion is not decided by vote, but by consensus. --giandrea 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're so offended by the EU being included on this list please seek therapy. It's pathetic, are some of you really that brainwashed?

It is pointless to include the EU on that list, if you are going to include one random union like that you might as well include all other unions from around the world, such as the AU.

The question is, does EU count as a single economic entity. It's about as much possible embargo a single EU country as it's possible to embargo Utah and EU sets trade barriers as a single entity, which isn't true for any other trade area (ASEAN, AU etc). As long as they can do that, I think it's important to measure and publish their economic weight. -Xargy

omg people! Of course UE must be included cause its an ECONOMIC UNION. As aforementioned it has its own constitution, flag, anthem blablabla that makes it a lot like a country than NAFTA or ASEAN. If someone doesn't want it cause it gets #1 and US follows thats another reason Soathana 09:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why the EU should be present here. This is a list of COUNTRIES and should be that way. All the discussions regarding the EU is complete rubbish. Nobody cares if its more than a trade union. ITS NOT A COUNTRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.81.218 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED

There is no arguement that could possibly justify why the EU should be counted here. This should be a list of countries and not pseudo-countries. Having a flag and a currency does not make it one. Please be educated about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.145.244 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU is moronic they could not even agree among themselves if KOSOVO will be recognized. European Union the largest economy? Blah, even Japan is almost as big as the two top european countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.241 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the EU is included, its member nations should be removed from the list, or marked as "Part of the EU". Are the districts within the UK or the states within the US represented? The title of the article is "list of countries by GDP". The EU is not formally a "country". Therefore, including it at all is questionable. Certainly not as a country, and probably not actually in the list, but as a footnote. For the record, I think it's one thing to consider yourself a European, or a North American, or a West Hemispherean, but, like the European Union, no country by any of those names currently exists in reality, and none of them should be included in a list of countries by GDP. I think it's fine to list it elsewhere, in GDP articles which don't limit themselves to countries. For the record, NAFTA has a flag (and committees!). Michael.meseke (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The question on my mind is why the hell does it matter? Why do you care if the EU is listed and why would anyone be so strongly opposed to it? Personally I think it's informative and useful information, regardless of whether or not it's a real country. The world isn't a country either, but we still list it at the top of the lists. Listing the EU doesn't take away from anything, it doesn't detract from the usefulness of the article, set any bias or otherwise compromise the credibility of the article in any way. what's the problem? Also, regarding the CIA list, they even list the EU on their own site, so you have no right to detract from their list based on your own political agenda.Sbw01f (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost data

Someone just removed data going back 6 years [1]. - Jerryseinfeld 18:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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…☎ 08:53, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

There is no need to inflation adjust the old GDP numbers to todays currency for each passing year. They should just be there for anyone to see what the "nominal" GDP was in US dollars for a few years back. And perhaps as a comparison between countries for years back. - Jerryseinfeld 18:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By not adjusting the values, the information becomes useless, and the visitor will be left wondering what the numbers mean. —Cantus…☎ 09:47, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the back data to a separate page because I don't think the data is completely useless when not adjusted for inflation. It lets you see how the relative GDP of countries has changed, among other things. It is also nice to have it grouped together because it is all from the same source. Jeff8765 19:22, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

SINCE WHEN DID THE EU BECOME A COUNTRY??? YOU ARE COUNTING EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TWICE WITH THE EU THERE.

The only reason the CIA mentions the EU is because the US needs this data if it decides to attack Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.104.95 (talk • contribs) !21:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are insane. --giandrea 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets just put the EU in a list where it belongs..... under "TRADE UNIONS" The BBC even referred to it as one ( trade union ).

France's oversea possessions

I do not really see why we need a footnote to say that the data includes the oversea departments (otherwise, why not include a footnote for the US saying that this includes Hawaii etc.), unless the data includes the oversea departments but not the other oversea possessions. But if this is the meaning, we should state it correctly. David.Monniaux 18:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the French departments, I suspect it may be because in recent years other territories (non-French) have been getting added to these lists. Such as Puerto Rico(us) at #49(2005), Aruba(Neth) at #142(2005) etc. Puerto Rico wasn't just lumped in with the United States, nor Aruba with the Netherlands. Just a hunch I have.

CaribDigita 02:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

European Union

Germany	2,730,109
United Kingdom	2,227,551
France	2,054,880
Italy	1,709,668
Spain	1,019,024
Netherlands	581,318
Belgium	350,326
Sweden	348,137
Austria	293,407
Poland	246,213
Denmark	243,398
Greece	209,712
Republic of Ireland	188,367
Finland	184,231
Portugal	170,297
Czech Republic	109,411
Hungary	106,351
Slovakia	43,068
Slovenia	35,213
Luxembourg	31,763
Lithuania	23,504
Cyprus	15,400
Latvia	14,426
Estonia	12,194
Malta	5,193
EU	12,953,161

The total GDP for the European Union according to the data in this page is 12,953,161. Parmaestro (also editing as anonymous) keeps changing this figure to 12,955,370 and I would like to know why. —Cantus…☎ 22:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one that originally had posted the 12,953,161 GDP figure for the EU. I used that figure because I manually constructed a table similar to the one you posted on the talk page. When I checked with the source for all the data on the page; International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, September 2004. [1] (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs); I found that the IMF had come with a total gdp of 12,955,370 for the European Union. At the point I changed the calculated figure that I had posted with the more accurate figure. Parmaestro 09:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the list u compiled but after just briefly overviewing it I immediately noticed that Swiitzerland was not present on the list. Switzerland alone has over a 300 billion $ GDP. Im sure that if I concisevely looked over the list, it would not come as a surprize to find further errors.

Well, that's because Switzerland is not part of the European Union... Walshicus 21:57, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

GDP of Peru

As it is possible that Peru with an annual growth rate of 7.5%, 8% and 9% (one of the largest in the world) in its GDP, which for 2006 GDP (93,045) to 2007 (101,504) rises only 8,459 , and that for approximately 2008 (108,599) climb 7,095, this may not be possible, I hope to correct these data, as recorded high growth that comes annually since 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.91.5 (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan/ROC

160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Instantnood 16:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Frodowilson"Changed Taiwan back to Republic of China"Economically speaking shouldn't it be referred to as The Republic of China since that is what in fact it is. If you search Taiwan is Wikipedia is brings you to a page on the Geography of Taiwan much the same as the British Isles describe the islands that compose the entirety of the United Kingdom. I think that calling if the Republic of China is best in this case since GDP deals with economic measurement. If you wish to add Taiwan in parentheses that would be understandable. -User:Frodowilson 7:37 June 18, 2006

Afghanistan?

There's definitely a problem with some of these figures - Afghanistan in the top 30? I think not. The link to the IMF that is given in the article seem to be missing Afghanistan, and a few other countries. sjorford →•← 22:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The IMF is taking into account the opium market on that figure. Non-drug GDP is about $5.4 billion, which is the figure you will find on most places. (Look here.) Maybe we should place a note. Oh and the link for the IMF site has been fixed. —Cantus…☎ 22:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sjorford. The number must be in error. Even taking into account the size of the opium trade. The price of opium has been on a steady decline the last few years. Hitting a peak of about 700 dollars per kilo under the taliban and dropping to under 300 dollars per kilo since 2003. Opium production is now in the range of 3,600 tonnes per year and consequently the value of the harvest is in the range of one billion dollars. Supporting industries add another approximately 100% to this figure bringing the total to approximately 2 billion dollars. So at best the opium trade adds 50% to the GDP. It is nowhere near the 295 billion figure. We should change it back to either 5 or 7 billion until we have another source. Parmaestro 23:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you: there are jokes or something. Additionally, why Colombia is ranked 43? Cocaine is more expensive, should be ranked at least 15th or something... What's about Russian Mafia? Maybe we have to add their billion dollars? Somalia would have better rank if we added their slave market.

Sorry, maybe i can't read, where is written 295,206? I see only 5,392. I don't understand why we can't take that ACCEPTABLE value. Per capita more than 10 000? average of UE is 20000. Why GDP by PPP is only 63,857?? Opium in USA is cheaper than in Afghanistan???? If we can't use real data, just unrank afghanistan.

We should probably demand an explanation from the IMF first. —Cantus…☎ 23:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. On closer examination, it doesn't appear to be a simple mistake. The data are consistent over several years. It would appear that the IMF is including something in addition to the opium trade in its figure that is driving up its valuation of the GDP. Perhaps this is something related to the US invasion and the costs associated with therewith. Parmaestro 23:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's just an ordinary mistake. Just think: not anything is written is true

• The Afghanistan thing is some sort of a joke? LOL. Somethimes wikipedia is better than a comedy channel. Every country has its side economy and its figures are not counted officially. In Portugal is about 20% of the market (i guess). I can't imagine this in Italy! Italy has a big side market. I think this is only because the USA controls Afghanistan and IMF. Its like the war on Iraq: it just bar a blind's eyes. -Pedro 14:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Afghanistan is definitely not as high as what its been placed as, I mean come on! Since when has Afghanistan had a trillion dollar economy, heroin or otherwise. The value of 269 billion from the source was in Afghanis, not in dollars. Can someone change the ranks to return Afghanistan back to what it was before?

i've done it. I hope that any stupid idiot won't make Afghanistan rich as Norway.--Krzysztof.cichos 17:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide proofs for your claims before reverting. And just so you know, personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. —Cantus…☎ 03:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ouh, TSI is dicovered ;) What proof? Do You want Proof that earth is not flat? Firstly - give me a proof that Afghanistan has 269 billion dollars drug-market. http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2005/pn0509.htm - THERE IS WRITTEN WITH SIMPLY WORDS : 269 BILLION AFGHANI. Don't be pathetic - You ridicule Wikipedia.Krzysztof.cichos 12:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

why does it seems more realistical?

why does this article seems more realistical in the power of countries than the PPP. People usually say the PPP is more realistical. But looking at the rankings, this one seems much more real. -Pedro 22:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that PPP is more realistical in economical sense, but in human development sense the nominal GDP is much more realistical. 'Cause PPP ignore quality of products.

>To answer your question Pedro, nominal GDP seems to be displayed in more of a realistic sense because you interpret the total dollar value of goods/services throughout ones country. The U.S. is the one of the greatest superpowers to see the light of day, so U.S. ranks up very high on the list. China on the otherhand has a very large population (1.3 billion), but very low per capita GDP, therefore it ranks a bit lower on the list, although it is still in the top 10. If you look at China in terms of PPP (purchasing power parity) it actually ranks over 8 trillion dollars. The reason for the jump in terms of the two GDPs is that the PPP index reflects how much you can buy in terms of the country's official currency. Some also say that PPP is more realistic because it better reflects the standard of living, and what one can afford. My preference in terms of GDP is nominal because that is the true dollar on dollar comparison between different countries. The International Monetary Fund also tends to see GDP in the conventional nominal sense.

See Penn effect and Balassa-Samuelson effect. —Cantus…☎ 06:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It also depends upon the purpose of your economic analysis. If you are looking at the capacity of a country to buy from another country (like say boeing airplanes) then you need to look at nominal GDP. If you are looking at how able they are to do something with local resources (people and land) then PPP makes more sense. I think PPP can be more situation dependent. However, much say China or the USA spends on defence, what is the military PPP of what they are getting? How do 50 china built russian Mig-29 knockoffs compare to 10 F-22's in military value ? The military PPP ratio is probably not be the same as equivalent to land PPP China land versus US land. It seems that PPP and nominal tend to get more in synch for countries at the same level of development. If you look historically at Japan. They caught up on a per capita basis for GDP over 50 years with the US. The japanese currency increased in value relative to the USD by over 4 times.

Vandalism

It seems that someone has vandalised this page by changing the values. Can someone please correct the data.

World Bank and International Monetary Fund

I have included the list from World Bank (produced in July 2005), so now we have information from two international financial entities. At the moment the World Bank information is a calculation for the past year and the IMF list is an estimate for the current year. Both are still included. Cheers, --Vizcarra 16:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding this table. Let's stick with IMF values. I've already done a lot of work with the other GDP lists that only include IMF values. Let's keep some consistency please. —Cantus…☎ 06:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting information. If you want other to appreciate your efforts for your hard work, don't delete the hard work of others. Some reasons to keep the World Bank table:

• The IMF table is still there, it always has been.
• The IMF values are

1) Estimates and

2) Values for the future for the future (end of 2005).

• Four wikipedians have reverted your deletions.
• You (including two sockpuppets) are the only ones deleting (calling the addition vandalism, see above).

Let's spend more time writing articles than fighting edit wars. --Vizcarra 07:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I will continue to delete it as it is not consistent with other articles. —Cantus…☎ 08:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is consistent, the IMF table is still there, the World Bank table provides extra information. --Vizcarra 21:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Projections

The International Monetary Fund itself uses the word "projections" to describe its numbers. Both tables are "estimates". One based on what has happened. One based on what is projected to happen. One useful for being based on hard data with less uncertainty. One useful for being timely and current with a little more uncertainty. 4.250.33.49 12:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

External Link

If people want to have edit wars in this article, that's their problem. I am staying out. I did not touch the main body of the article. But I added an external link to the CIA Factbook on this subject. This is a legitimate, credible source and directly relevant. My link was removed and called "vandalism". It was no such thing. I just added it back. If anyone removes it and called it vandalism again, I will file a request for mediation. Carax 16:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the best idea so far. Thanks, --Vizcarra 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I know the CIA Factbook is considered a credible source, but have you looked at their numbers? They are simply WRONG. The reason is probably that they use the PPP-numbers, not official exchange rates, although it doesn't say so anywhere on their webpage. (Just look at how high China is.) This might be why others have deleted the link. How about moving the link to the CIA Factbook to "List of countries by GDP (PPP)"?

Canadian GDP (IMF source)

Checking the IMF website i see the Canadian GDP at 1.098.446, so it would be placed under PRC and Spain in the article list, but sometimes the article sets the Canadian GDP at 1.298.407. I dont know if im wrong, so please can someone could explain me that change?, thank you!

IMF site with Canada's data[2]

Canadian statistics from Statistics Canada http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/dsbbcan.htm For Q4 2005, they listed 1,411,652 at the current exchange rate of 88cents. then Canada GDP in USD is 1.24 trillion.

The only number that seems to match the IMF one is calculating GDP by production using 1997 dollars. Ignoring 9 years of inflation.

For 2004, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/gdps02a.htm Canada was stating 1,318,608 in canadian dollars

The IMF site also has different values that seem to match the Statistics canada numbers when the IMF database is queried.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2003&ED=2007&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=156-924-184-111&S=NGDP_RPCH-NGDP_R-NGDP-NGDPPC-PPPWGT-PPPSH-PPPEX-PPPPC&CMP=0&x=63&y=11

All countries can be queried http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbginim.cfm

For the financial surveys it appears that they are indeed using 1997 as the base year for Canada and 2000 for Spain. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/co.htm If you compare say 2004 to 2004 then Canada's economy is clearly bigger than Spain's economy.

fyi: The above paragraphs that were just added in the last hour were by me before I created my account. Could a list with GDP numbers based on the actual IMF database numbers be created? I created that page for projected GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Countries_by_GDP_%28Projected_nominal_2005-2007%29

It seems to more closely reflect the economic amounts in current years as reported by countries. It would also allow for more frequent updates, which would be more current information. The database has GDP, PPP, and per capita by various current and constant currency.

World Bank or IMF?

Think it is better if we include both IMF and World Bank list in the article. On doing a google search, I was not able to find any list (for GDP-nominal) released by IMF for the year 2004. Also, the World Bank list seems to be more updated and accurate. --{{IncMan|talk}} 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

We need to use one for one certain thing and one for another, they may use different systems for calculating such and such so it needs to be consistent for yearly comparison. I don't mind using the World Bank for nominal and the IMF for PPP. Just as long as we stick to international organisations and not national bureaus. --JDnCoke 18:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

World Bank and IMF are equally credible organisations, so including IMF's list and ignoring World banks's doesnt make sense. --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this, but the IMF doesn't publish nominal GDP? I think only the world bank does, so maybe we should use one source for one (IMF for PPP) and one for another (World Bank for Nominal)? Whatever is decided it needs to be quick, individual country listing and "Economies of ..." need to be updated, I've put 2004 IMF figures for PPP on every EU country page, but I'm only one man! --JDnCoke 15:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if IMF doesn't publish nominal GDP then whats the source for the present list mentioned in the article?! Ok, I'll remove the present table and replace it by one published by the World Bank. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 16:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What about the CIA fact book? It's a lot more credible than this joke of a website. The only reason it isn't added is because it lists the USA as having the highest economy in the world, which doesn't sit well with the European and anti-american "edit-warerists" on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.113.119 (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Is Italian economy growing faster than China?

I noticed this year's figures for the Italian and Chinese economy according to nominal GDP are: 1,672,302 for Italy, and 1,649,329 for China. Next year's projection is 1,680,112 for Italy, and 1,653,686 for China. In other words Italy's GDP is projected to expand by 0.5%, while China's GDP is expected to expand by 0.3%. Yet media reports claim that China's economy is actually expanding at 9.5%, while Italy's is expanding at less than 1%. Are the media reports wrong?

I agree, the 2005 numbers seem wrong. I checked the link to the IMF website containing the April 2005 projections, and China (for example) is listed at 1,843,117, not 1,653,686. Other numbers are wrong too. Where did these numbers come from? There was a correct list of IMF projections here earlier, it would be nice to have it back.

Merging compromise

I'm attempting a compromise by merging both tables into one. I would advise Vizcarra to stop reverting, without discussing first. —Cantus…☎ 04:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I would liked you to follow your own advice. I did discuss it, it is very obvious that the merging was, in fact, a partial blanking since the rankings of the World Bank were lost in the process. I would suggest a discussion before any attempt to merge the two tables. --Vizcarra 13:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Vizcarra. What problem do you have in keeping both the tables? Im sure there is a more productive solution to it. --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If both tables showed similar figures, for example if the IMF showed same figures than the World Bank plus 1,2,3 billion, merging would be OK. However, the figures are so different that World Rankings are different in both tables. In spite of the differences it can't be said that any of the figures is incorrect because both entities are as reputable. The best solution is to keep them both and preserve both rankings. Rankings are as important (if not more) than the figures in millions. Countries (and companies) need to compare to each other to see if they're growing at the same pace as the world economy (or the industry) or not, to determine if they are taking advantage of opportunities or they need to modify economic policies. --Vizcarra 18:06, 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 US 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)

Cantus, if you are requesting people discuss before reverts, I suggest you start doing the same. I vist a number of pages where you revert with regularity to almost completely different edits from the current ones, with no explanations or excuses. If you would explain yourself, it would be a lot less frustrating. Malnova 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Cantus' new edits

Cantus you expressed a desire to take your latest edits up on the talk page. Your edit removes a bunch of countries from both lists, and I'm not sure what the justification is. Would you care to elaborate?

aaaargh....no list of countries by real GDP?

I mean, why isn't there a list of countries by real GDP, per capita? I find this antagonising. -- Natalinasmpf 04:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the See Also section 212.102.225.147 09:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there's nothing there! What's your point? Where's the list by Real GDP? jkm 15:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

China's economy

BBC just broadcast that China has passed Britain as world's 4th largest economy.

China has revised the 2004 figure from $1,982,487.2 million to $2,267,687.2 million according to a Chinadaily article [3] with an exchange rate of 0.124 dollar per yuan. Problem is that the article also says that China’s GDP is 6th in the world (past Italy, before Britain and France). Our list says currently 4th, and the 2005 figures from IMF are still estimates. - 212.102.225.147 09:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. China only revised its 2004 GDP figure to about US$1.95 trillion. The US$2.25 trillion you quoted is for 2005, and this list is ONLY FOR 2004. Furthermore, it doesn't matter by how much China revised its 2004 GDP by. Because this is a list compiled from IMF and the World Bank, not from the Chinese statistics. So, although the figure from IMF and the World Bank is underestimated now, still, we must take it as it is because once again I repeat, this is a list whose data is based on IMF and the World Bank only (please read the title). Thus, China remains the "seventh largest economy in 2004" with about "US$1.6 trillion" in GDP. Again, I know it's false now (after the upward revision), but please leave it as it is for reasons already mentioned. Thank you. Heilme 04:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hongkong listed separately?

Hongkong SAR has been part of China since 1997, the Chinese central government have full control of the city of Hongkong. I don't see why would Hongkong be listed as a separate "country" while Puerto Rico, which is officially not a US state or city, not being listed as a country. The CIA World Factbook correctly lists Puerto Rico as a separate country, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rq.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.82.62 (talk • contribs) 18:24, February 4, 2006 (UTC).

Yes, true that Hong Kong is not a country (it's a SAR of PRC), but, it is usually more common to define and separate Hong Kong's much more developed economy from the economy of the Chinese mainland, thus HK is listed separately. Not because of its status as a country, rather, due to economic independence from the PRC. Heilme 05:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Unless in circumstances that country is taken as a synomym of sovereign state, or else these places that are not sovereign states are normally classified as countries, together with other sovereign states. It is not merely because of its economic independence from the rest of the PRC, but also its political status. — Instantnood 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(response to 207.172.82.62's comment at 18:24, February 4) The Central People's Government of the PRC does not directly have full control, since most power and duties are with Hong Kong as according to the Basic Law. Hong Kong has no city status, nor is it a city as according to PRC's terminologies for administrative divisions. — Instantnood 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits/reversions

I recently reverted to a prior version of the article/list. I am all for including updated figures (i.e., 2005 IMF estimates) and believe they are good-faith edits (I even added a proviso earlier); however upon perusal, some of the values are incomplete and I restored a prior list where confidence in the figures is higher. Please test here or in the sandbox beforehand.

I'd also like to remind editors – and you know who you are – of reverting and referring to good-faith edits as vandalism. Moreover, continued attempts to insinuate a top-bottom table arrangement without renewed discussion, despite consensus support for a side-by-side arrangement to the contrary, will be dealt with appropriately. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! 2005 estimates where straight from IMF link [4] which had the same omissions. I wasn’t to sure about the value of adding the 2005 estimates column, guess I have my answer now :-). - 212.102.225.147 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

China's (mainland) GDP in 2004

Whoever tried to edit China's GDP for 2004, please refrain from doing so. I know that in December 2005, China has revised upwards its GDP figure from 1993-2004 by about 16.8%. However, it must be understood that the GDP list here is based ONLY from IMF and World Bank, which have yet to update its 2004 GDP figure for China. Although the true correct GDP figure for China in 2004 is approximately US$1.95 trillion, this is not based on any information from World Bank and IMF. So, please leave it as it is at approximate US$1.6 trillion. This is false and outdated, I agree and I repeat, but I want to be consistent with whatever IMF and World Bank figures provide, no matter how inaccurate their data is. Heilme 05:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. In due course, in their leaden way, the WB and IMF will alter their data. But, I added in a note on the 16.8% revision in March 2006, without altering the actual figures, & someone then removed it. That represents a destruction of information = vandalism.

Now wait a minute... I made it a footnote with the exact same wording you used. Is that destruction of information=vandalism? Was that wrong? --212.102.225.147 12:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think if it's in footnote, it should be OK. But don't change the number US$1.6 trillion in the list for now. I like the current format, with the footnote. Heilme 08:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A similar situation is going on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita for an updated Canada figure (a 2005 figure in a 2004 column). Maybe you could have a look there to. --212.102.225.147 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

China is now number 4 largest in nominal terms

This article is outdated..... Naus 23:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was my new page with a projected nominal GDP table wiped ?

I only added a pointer to that new page from this page. It seems that it is useful information to add as a separate page. Cantus, you made the mod..could you explain the reason to not add the information on a separate location? Thanks 165.140.4.22 00:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) blwang

It seems that the page that I was adding was following the wiki rules. It was verifiable and from a reliable source. The IMF database.

As noted in my notes in the Canada section 15 of this discussion. The IMF projections more closely match other reliable sources like statistics canada for the canada entry and other countries current statistical reports.

I saw that someone else had created the estimated PPP for 2006 and there was a link for an uncreated page for estimated GDP nominal 2006. So I created that page and a matching on for 2007.

Mercosur trade bloc

It would be interesting if, in addition to NAFTA and the European Union, the Mercosur trade bloc were included in GDP Nominal terms. Maybe someone could figure that out. Vivaldi4Stagioni 23:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• List of countries by GDP estimates for 2006 (nominal)
• List of countries by GDP estimates for 2007 (nominal)

Zionsville?

Someone (not me) needs to fix that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.128.57.84 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Note 3?

'Note 3: Sum of United States, Canada and Mexico. '

I assume this was pointing to NAFTA which seems to be gone, so the note can presumably be removed? --86.128.252.182 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to move on to 2006?

We are well into 2007, and the data is still only for 2005. Can we update to 2006 data? For IMF this would mean relying on "IMF staff estimates" in more cases than now, but that's the best data available so I don't think that would be so bad. The World Bank doesn't have 2006 data though, as far as I can tell, so that would make it problematic to keep both datasets. What do you guys think?

Luxenburg is not number 64 on the list!

Please do not "update" the figures as IMF has this notorious habit of publishing revaluations of GDP every six months. So, the data for 2005 itself is not quite accurate, as of May 2007, today. Anwar 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blank page

Am I the only one that doesn't see anything on the article page? CoolGuy 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

tables

I find it frustrating that the tables aren't aligned to each other -- that is, that the first list of GDP has two items before the first numbered item, and the other only has one. Is there a way to change the tables so that the numbers are side-by-side and can be more easily compared? Sten for the win 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Country name :China (instead of the longer People's Republic of China)

I don't understand why not just use the name "China". If full name is what people want to go for, France should be called "French Republic", Russia should be called "Russian Federation", United States should be called "United States of America". (For your information, I got these full names from the UN). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.180.36 (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I think the current name is fine consider it would be quite confusing otherwise with Taiwan and Hong Kong, which are parts of "China" depending on who you ask. 24.89.245.62 07:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two Chinas around the world. People's Republic of China and Republic of China. With two countries having one main word it's usually full name is being used. As of Russia, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 1, Point 2 of Constitution of Russia says The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" are equal. Elk Salmon 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar saadat's irrelevant picture.

Anwar saadat, please stop adding this irrelevant picture. It's poorly designed and does not based on IMF nor WB data. Elk Salmon 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the article. This map is a replacement based on IMF (not CIA) source. Next time, you will be reported.Anwar 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider WP:VAN and WP:NPA before making such accusations. We have WP:SB for any test. If you want to test yourself on making maps - post them there.

On the topic. Map should be informative and without any political preferences. If you want to stress on how big is USA economy comparing to other countries - it's not a right place. You can post you picture in the Economy of the United States article. There is going to be relevant. But here we have an international list and pictures to it should be made without any political preferences. And all countries that have data for them should be drawn on the map. Elk Salmon 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WAI. This is not a America-centric map. Colour-coded maps are fit for per capita statistics only (not for aggregate stats). Anwar 11:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anwar saadat. Made by you does mean automatically better. The previous map is well designed and fully complete. Elk Salmon 12:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The old map is much better in my opinion than Anwar's. It is more complete. --giandrea 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The "bubble map" is simply a lousy idea for conveying country information. The thumbnail leaves me wondering why New York City has its own GDP, and I have to go to the full-size version of the standalone image to read the legend. Accessibility is nice (although assumptions that people don't have color monitors is carrying it way too far), but not at the expense of good content. — Lomn 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any wider discussion on the merits of these bubble maps? I'd seen one a while ago, and then saw the one on Sesame#Cultivation, and am not convinced it's a very good style of graphic.

Certainly it all depends on the type of data being represented, and a map of GDP by country, or a map of a binary quality by state, of course, would best be served by a map that shows a single boundaried region as a single color. (A map like Image:Gdp nominal and ppp 2005 world map single colour.png addresses the color coding issues just fine, by the way.)

But a map of income by location would be much more informative (showing how poor regions in the US compare to other countries, for instance), and would be better served by a continuous contour map, like Image:Global_Cooling_Map.png. I'm not sure what type of information the bubble map is best suited for, if any. — Omegatron 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a list of GDPs by country in their own currency

, from their own national statistical agencies and bureaus.

China at the end of 2006, 20.9407 trillion yuan http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-01/25/content_792311.htm Conversion at 7.66 yuan or whatever is current

Canada C$1,494,976,000,000 Q1 2007 http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/gdps02a.htm US$1.42 trillion at 0.95 exchange rate.

then someone could just take the figure supplied by each countries statistical source and multiply the actual current currency conversion to get an up to date nominal GDP.

I wanted to vet this here so that I or someone else does not go to a lot of work making this only to see it deleted by those who feel they control the GDP nominal and GDP PPP tables.

I know that I had made some GDP PPP tables on a new page a year or two ago and saw that page deleted and replaced with the current GDP 2006, 2007, 2008 page.

Jonnyboy5: Given Wikipedia's international perspective, this is even more important. It should be possible to include some calculation - Euros, for example, are used for comparison much more within Europe, and let's face it - it's a bit annoying to read about your own country's GDP expressed in US dollars! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyboy5 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Europe and EU are _not_ Countries

Either the title needs to change or EU needs to be removed from the list: either way, there's an inherent inconsistency in the title and subsequent rankings. Even the IMF denotes a blank for country ranking. EU is the largest economic amalgamation. The USA is still the largest country in terms of GDP.

I'm assuming the only reason why the EU is mentioned here as "country" is because it has a larger GDP than the USA. Wiki is loaded with europhile anti-Americans. It's really a disgrace, and unfortunately leads to fabrications, misleading information and outright lies. Wiki is a joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.205.130 (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

EU in lists

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Colombia's GDP

Because of the re-evaluation of the dollar, Colombia's Nominal GDP is $173 billion.

that is of no relevance, the dollar is currently in permanent fall, so the changes apply to all countries worldwide. This article just reflects a momentum, not the current status--194.203.215.254 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's China (PRC)?

It's not even listed!71.222.201.184 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

IS THIS TRUE???

NA IT'S SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.95.164 (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Update now!

This article is need to update immediately the data especially to 2006 List by the International Monetary Fund because the data is now outdated and needed to update and the Spanish version of this article is updated and latest. Thank you.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No，i don't think so because the data of 2007 list by the International Monetary Fund are IMF staff estimates, and not the real informations. Thank you. --User:Yxy191(talk) 09:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WB entries being updated

I have updated till entry # 79 of the WB list based on the new ICP listings, more to come.Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire list on the left is 2005 data, with a 2006 sum, thats why it doesn't match the one on the right. 71.117.93.116 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

UK and EU

Is United Kingdom included in the EU GDP statistics? I don't believe it should be as as the UK is not part of the monetary union. That goes for all countries that do not officially use the EURO.