Talk:BRIC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Growth Environment Score

Does anyone know if this score is estimated on a regular basis. I found this score only for 2005. Are scores for 2006 and 2007 available? Does Goldman Sachs continue estimating this score? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.30.149.109 (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction in the GDP forecast?

The statement:

These countries are forecast to encompass over forty percent of the world's population and hold a combined GDP [PPP] of 14.951 trillion dollars

contradicts the "Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050" thesis, where we can see by the graphs (page 4) that their combined GDP reach over 85 trillion dollars. Or am I wrong?

>> Well, that depends on timeframe: it does not say there that the 14 tri will also be in 2050. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.38.13 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Real Sources

Does anybody have more information about BRIC? i.e. links or primary sources? How do we know that it was proposed by Putin? Are the other countries going along with his plans? Episcopo

---

Recently? What year? --sparkit 17:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- According to the Japanese edition: its use has started with "Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050" by Goldman Sachs in an investors' report October 2003. Soredewa 08:11, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

---

BRIC is not a formal coalition like the United States or the EU, so Putin couldn't have proposed it. The whole article seems to talk as if there is some formal link between these countries, there isn't, they trade with each other but they also trade with other nations so the notion of "proposing" BRIC is meaningless. The BRIC thesis merely states that these four countries will be dominant economies in the future (by 2050). The BRIC thesis was proposed by Jim O'Neil, the chief global economist at Goldman Sachs. The first sentence in the article is ungrammatical. The final sentence states that the BRIC's "do not want territory". Both China and India are involved in territorial disputes. India is in disupte with Pakistan over parts of Kashmir. China "wants" Taiwan and has other disuptes with Vietnam and Japan so this last sentence, aside from being totally subjective and sentimental, is also simply wrong.

---

When people say BRIC do not want territory, it really means they do not want to fight around and conquer colonies like the UK and other european countries did in the last few centuries. Dispute over land is not the same as conquering a colony. Almost every single country has some sort of dispute over land with some other country. That does not make them "want territory".

South Africa

is includeded at the Japanese wiki page.--Jondel 08:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I cannot read Japanese, but I can imagine why. In the BRICs (or BRICS) report (which is fully and freely available on the internet) the author of the report includes a section on South Africa, not as a part of the BRIC group itself, but for comparison in terms of standard of living over the same extrapolated time-period and because the author noted that Africa was notably absent from the current or foreseen (i.e. BRIC) major economic powers. I believe that South Africa's overall contribution/proportion to the global according to the BRIC report prediction didn't exceed 10% or so...Would be nice to model the page after the BRIC report though

One can argue that South Africa is also a big expanding economy. Nevertheless it shouldn't be mentione here because this article is about the BRIC thesis. Period Simple. --Pinnecco 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

China -> PRC

Would it be better to link China to the entry for the PRC? Hong Qi Gong 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The subject matter is clearly mainland China. We may perhaps, otherwise, link it to China (disambiguation) if deliberate ambiguity does exist. The subject is definitely not China. — Instantnood 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian demography

I think it's a forgotten factor. Russian population et growing old, and natality is so low that population is shrinking by 700 000 people a year (almost half a percent!). Russia can't reemerge as a major power with a falling population. The overall population may fall by 50% between now and 2050! [1].

You can't confuse the BRIC economic theory with criticisms of it. Many people have reservations about the hypothesis that those emerging markets will either collectively or predominantly become the major players in the world within a generation; but the fact that some very clever people at Goldman Sachs have said that they think it will happen has unquestionably had an effect on commercial strategic thinking in developed nations. Legis 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Russia's future isn't looking good and it lost alot of key industrial bases of USSR. I don't see Russia dropping of the map anytime soon, it still has many political cards to play. Dependency on weapon by India and China together with a gas monopoly of central asia would be enough to keep it strong for a couple of decade more. also technology like space program is advance, the US space shuttle is using russian manufacturing technique to build it's upgraded engines, nexgen chinese boosters will use russian turbopumps. the IP wealth it has cannot be ignore, it doesn't last forever, but it may last just long enough for Russia to play a part until the middle of the century. Akinkhoo 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Russia just went through 15 years of political and economic collapse. It's population will make a turn-around and start to grow again. The 700,000 people a year loss is already decreasing. Anyway projections always end up being stupidly inaccurate either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.118.110 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Asian CHIKS

Quote: "the term Asian CHIKS ( China, Hong Kong, India, Korea and Singapore) is gradually gaining recognition, particularly in Asia"???? Is someone taking the mickey here? Since I see no reference to support this term anywhere I have deleted it. (unsigned comment)

It is mentioned in the reference article external link " A pile of BRICs or Asian CHIKS?" S Sepp 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also refrenced here Value Stock Blog

BRIC article : factual errors?

This article has some pretty serious errors and needs to be checked against the original Goldman Sachs paper. The author states "Goldman Sachs predicts China and India, respectively, to be the dominant global suppliers of manufactured goods and services while Brazil and Russia would become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials."

This thesis appears nowhere in the Goldman Sachs paper; neither the words "raw", "materials", or "resources" appear in the paper at all. The thesis is a pure invention of the author of the Wikipedia article. In fact Brazil, and even much more so Russia, are significant manufacturing nations, and the importance of manufacturing and services in these countries will continue to increase faster than than their significance as raw materials suppliers. So the Wikipedia thesis is both (a) false; and (b) does not apear in the Goldman Sachs paper. The article should be corrected, and checked more generally against the Goldman Sachs paper.

The Wikipedia article perpetuates a false stereotype, in particular, about the Russian economy. Of all the BRIC economies, the Russian economy is the most advanced, with 60% of GDP produced as services, largest of all the BRIC economies, and with significant high technology manufacturing, particularly in the area of military goods, where after a great revival after 1998 Russia vies with the U.S. as the largest producer in the world. Correspondingly, the Russian population is the most urbanized of the BRIC countries', and has the smallest agricultural sector (4.9% of GDP, compared to 12.5% in China, 18.6% in India, and 20% in Brazil -- all from Wikipedia sources). So to describe Russia as primarily a "supplier of raw materials" is really severely misleading.

212.44.151.30 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)CSawyer

Truthfully I am not sure that this is all correct (Russia's economy is almost entirely based upon exporting raw materials, rather than on services; nor would I imagine that Russia's manufacturing is considered high tech compared to, say, China), but it is really not relevant. This article is about the highly influential BRIC thesis, not a critique or otherwise of the Russian (or other emerging) economy. Legis (talk - contributions) 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Brazil has 81% of its population living in urban areas (2000). Whats the date for Russia and the other BRIC countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.145.2 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Not only that, but it amuses me that the brazilian population growth rate is considered as "HIGH" in the article, since its only 1.04%, slightly higher than that of the United States (0.91%). Brazil and US occupies respectively positions 126 and 132 in the list of countries by their growth rate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:201.40.145.2 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 February 2007.Additionally, the article claims that China has a shrinking population, which simply is not true. It has about a +0.6 - +0.7% growth rate at the momentTmaximus47 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wikipedia data the agricultural sector in Brazil represents only 5.1% of the GDP. I think people overestimate the agricultural sector in Brazil because it is the most closely linked to the global economies as a very powerful exporter sector in this country.YgorCoelho (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

BRIMC as popular as BRIC?

The article says "... due to the popularity of the Goldman Sachs thesis "BRIC" and "BRIMC" (M for Mexico) ..." I googled "BRIMC Mexico" and only got 269 results, which are actually only 34 since the rest are only repetitions, while googling "BRIC Brazil" you get 481,000 results.

Unless you know of other results, it seems to me that BRIMC is not exactly a popular term as the article purports.--Diegou 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, BRICM (Mexico), BRICET (Eastern Europe and Turkey) and BRICS (South Africa) neither seem to be in common usage, nor do they seem to be supported by any of the GS papers on Brics. BRIC + Mexico + Korea could be argued but frankly the ountires of EE, Turkey and South Africa are simply too small to be given serious consideration. I would remove these references.

Agreed. In reality, BRIC is rarely used to refer to those four countries and is more used as a euphamism for emerging markets generally - I don't think it will be too long before we simply hear of people referring to Mexico, Chile and Malaysia as "BRIC" economies. Legis (talk - contributions) 09:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Democracies? "Quasi-democracy?"

Calling Russia a "quasi-democracy" (while Brazil and India are "real" democracies), and China a "communist state" is strongly POV. What is the established standard by which one measures the quantity of democracy? If Russia is a "quasi-democracy", why is Brazil, with millions of people living in the slums in deplorable conditions, completely shut out of the country's political system, considered a democracy? Why is India considered a democracy despite still having a caste system, no independent judiciary, corruption, bureaucracy, and a 60% literacy rate (with which "free" elections are a joke)? China is no more "communist" than the U.S., since Communism implies an economic system with an equal distribution of wealth. China is not exactly that. You could say perhaps it's a one-party state, which is only marginally better than the U.S. two-party state. By the way, I haven't seen references to the U.S. as a "quasi-democracy" anywhere in Wikipedia, despite having no direct voting system, running whole countries as colonies (its citizens have no rights in U.S. decision-making), and maintaining the world's most famous illegal prison.

Please delete this elementary school-level passage. Starz

The terms were actually lifted by me directly from an article in the Financial Times that made the same point; I think that all they are trying to illustrate is the lack of similarity between tbe BRICs in various regards, including the political structure by which their leadership is chosen. If you would prefer to rephrase it, please do so. That is the beauty of an anyone-can-edit encyclopedia. --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

neither china nor russia has given the clear direction on their plans of the future, they are more troubling and interesting than say brazil or india because these 2 countries are more powerful. and media likes to play this up. while the statement are inaccurate, discussion on what government and freedom they have should be on another topic. Akinkhoo 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

The correct link for the 2004 Report quoted at footnote number 8 is actually: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ceoconfidential/CEO-2004-09.pdf

See page 2 for the quote:

"The report states that in BRIC nations, the number of people with an annual income over a threshold of $3,000, will double in number within three years and reach 800 million people within a decade." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.29.18 (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Table corrections

I've corrected all the 2050 GDP Projection figures from the newest Goldman Sachs report in 2007. Please do not change any of the figures or countries unless there is updated comprehensive report from GS. Thanks! Nirvana888 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest this page be merged with BRIMC. There is no reason why BRIMC should be seperate, rather it should be a sub-section of BRIC. With only six sources, some of which appear to violate WP:NOR/WP:SYN and only two or three short paragraphs, a few of which are repetive, I can't see BRIMC has it's own page. This is not an attempt to cover up BRIMC. It should be mentioned frequently in the BRIC article, aswell as having it's own sub-section. The issue is that BRIMC is hardly ever used, and is simply a variant of BRIC. BRIMC does not even have it's own thesis from Goldman-Sachs, rather it was invented by others to represent that Mexico is similar to the BRICs.Saru (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:Other merger proposal made in the past have failed because both BRIMC and BRIC are used in different spheres of economics. And in Wikipedia we have found certain users trying to "vanish" the term and sustitute it for BRIC that excludes Mexico. So I oppose a merger. Also the last Goldman-Sachs paper reports that Mexico has surpassed Brazil as the 4th economy in 2050. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment This isn't an attempt to get rid of Mexico, simply an attempt to create a more organized wikipedia article. Saru (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Support: Per Saru. Unless more reliable sources are referenced and the term is more notable then what a Google search of the term reveals. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsure/Oppose: I don't have a strong opinion about it but I think that BRIMC has its own tesis therefore it shouldn't be "hidden" under the BRIC article, if they were to be mixed we could rename the article "BRIC / BRIMC" or "BRI(M)C", Cheers. Supaman89 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is not an attempt to "hide" BRIMC. By the way, BRIMC doesn't have it's own thesis, it an extension of BRIC not created by Goldman-Sachs. Saru (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: BRIC is different from BRIMC in many key aspects, and the BRIC nations are already in the process of forming a political consensus on objectives not only pertaining to greater economic potential.. Cosmos416 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also Oppose the merger, because i dont believe BRIMC has the same degree of cohesiveness as BRIC does. In terms of internal organization self awawreness that is to say. BRIMC to my mind gets us on a slippery slope, see the whole "Next Eleven" group as well. In my mind we might as well add them all in too if we are going to make BRIC into BRIMC. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think you have it the wrong way around - the proposal is that BRIMC should be reduced to a subsection in the BRIC article (in which case the fact that you "dont believe BRIMC has the same degree of cohesiveness as BRIC does" should probably militate in favour?). I wouldn't mind sticking the Next Eleven in as a subset, but that is probably a step too far at this time. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: If Goldman Sachs has issued a second report where Mexico is included and the acronym acknowledged/amended as BRIMC then it should be reflected in this entry and included as a link to the BRIMC article. The amendment to the term must be clearly stated in the first paragraph. Rolando.rodriguez-leal (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)rolando.rodriguez-leal

Support: Clearly interconnected terms. No one would have come up with "BRIMC" without the BRIC thesis - it is clearly a sub-strand, and there is not really enough to say about BRIMC to justify its own article. We should also fold in BRICS and BRICET whilst we are at it for the same reason - minor variations on the major theme. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: BRIMC is a clear derivate of BRIC, which means it should be listed in this article as an update to BRIC. Heck, this can be tagged within emerging markets. Lihaas (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: One mexico is part of the next eleven, but putting that aside. BRIC and the Next Eleven were all reports that were created by Goldman Sachs, while BRIMC wasn't. Plus, we should just add a subsection BRIMC, discussing why the person put Mexico in the group, but mention that it wasn't created by Goldman Sachs like BRIC or the Next Eleven was. Deavenger (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since there the majority supports the merge, I'll try doing it. Deavenger (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

India a more "manufacturing economy" than Brazil? - and other facts

I can't imagine how the following statement can be true: "Two are manufacturing based economies and big importers (China and India), but two are huge exporters of natural resources (Brazil and Russia). Two have growing populations (Brazil and India), and two have shrinking populations (China and Russia)". I mean, the Indian and Chinese population are still majoritarily agrarian, while in Brazil or Russia the urban population exceeds 80%. Besides, the rural economy is far more significant in percentage in India than in Brazil, which, despite being more linked with the global economy as an exporter of commodities, is in fact an economy in which the secondary and tertiary are dominant since the 60's. Another issue that should be mentioned in the article is that Brazil has reduced poverty in a very fast pace since 1994. I only have the following Portuguese-language text, but it's a reliable reference from the Brazilian government's press agency: http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2007/09/18/materia.2007-09-18.0821657301/view. Reduction of poverty in Brazil from 1993 to 2006 reached 45%, and only in the year of 2006 there was a reduction of 15%. In percentage of the population, there was a decrease from 35% to 19% of the population living in or under the national standard of poverty. Another interesting feature is that, in 2006, the the average income per capita by family grew by 9.16%, what's unusual considering that the GDP per capita grew only by 2.3% (since the beginning of the 21th century social unequality has decreased slowly in Brazil).YgorCoelho (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

BRIC´s rulers of the future World

Mexico and South Africa invy the BRIC(fact)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.174.61 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Term 'BRIC' coined in 2001?

Are we really sure about that, I seem to remember learning the term in Geography classes around 1995 in England. Jinniuop (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just checked, I searched google news for "BRIC countries" and set it to search 1990 to 2000. I wasn't able to view many of them (pay per view), but some had dates such as 1991. This one I was able to view from 2000 though.

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=12C191F4-AD2B-4699-8198-C73EFBCFBEE1

Can someone with access to better tools try and find some reliable source of older usage, just to be sure? Jinniuop (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Spain

It is ridiculous that according to Goldman, SPAIN, which had a GDP of over $1,6 Tr. in 2008....40 years later is behind BanglaDesh, which Goldman forecasts will have a GDP of $1,4 Tr. by the year 2050. So Goldman thinks that during the next 40 years Spain´s GDP is going to decrease, while the rest of the World (including Italy and Nigeria) increases? Come on. Goldman´s boys were a little drunk that day.--79.146.211.0 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Forecasters supposed in 1994 that South Korea would surpass Spain´s GDP by the year 2000...and now, 15 years later, Spain still has a nominal GDP twice larger than the Korean ($1,683 bn. Spain and 857 bn. South Korea, according to the CIA Factbook)--79.146.211.0 (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First BRIC Summit

The first official summit of BRIC states will take place in Yekaterinburg, in Russia, on June 16th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water Stirs (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Source about conflicting interests of members

Here is an article from a private intelligence organization: http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20090616_geopolitical_diary_birth_bric, you may have to type it in to a search engine to read the whole article, though.

It says that they have many differences, besides geography:

"China’s fundamental focus is on maintaining centralized control over territory that uneasily unites rural and urban populations split among disparate regions. China’s overriding concern is to keep employment and job creation high as a way of heading off domestic dissatisfaction. Economic growth has become the Chinese government’s primary means of securing legitimacy, and rapid development requires access to strategic commodities. Thus, any partnerships China pursues will fit in with its economic needs. In the context of the BRIC nations, this means that whatever trade relationships China does strike up — such as the growing relationship with Brazil, or investments in Russia’s energy sector — will largely be based on commodities and not any deeper economic integration. Most states (include China’s BRIC partners) simply lack the consumer market China requires access to."

"India is similarly unable to and uninterested in solidifying relations with the other BRIC nations. Serious economic linkages and partnership building are difficult for India due to its inefficient bureaucracy and protectionist tendencies. Furthermore, India’s geopolitical position as the predominant power in the Indian Ocean means that India is able to maintain an independent foreign policy, and inherently unwilling to tie itself to any foreign power."

They think that this is all just a show, not a real alliance. Contralya (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Data

I won't discuss the predictions for the future, since they cannot be refuted with the real values yet. In contrast, the ranking for the Gross Domestic Product (nominal) per capita in 2007 is just wrong. I'll give you an example: in 2008 Spain occupied the 9th place whereas according the the Gross Product per capita list, in 2007 Spain's Gross Domestic Product per capita should have ranked even lower than Bangladesh. Spain population is roughly 45 million people while Bangladesh population is several hundred million. The 2007 Gross Product per capita ranking doesn't represent the real ranking in the World, but rather those few countries arbitrarily selected in the same list, therefore is pointless. You could have obtained the same information just reading the list in order. Heathmoor (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong skyline?

Isn't the "China" referred to in the "BRIC" not the autonomous region of Hong Kong so much (it has been doing well for some time) but the People's Republic of China proper? I'm thinking the Shanghai skyline might be much more suiting for the page in this sense. 4.242.192.69 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a part of China how you want to look at it, so I think it's fine. 129.173.22.31 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

POV?

Since BRIC is an invention of Goldman Sachs for its own descriptive purposes, is it possible to explore and explain the term with a neutral POV? Has anyone else noticed the exclusion of Muslim-majority countries: Indonesia (larger population than both Brazil and Russia) and Pakistan (larger population than Russia)? If pronunciation of the acronym was a major issue, something like CRIBI could have been concocted to include resource-rich Indonesia.

I think there are a lot of assumptions (not to mention factual errors pointed out elsewhere on this talk page), so I'd like to see the article made less one-sided. For example, more analysis of present and recent past, less prediction and less impression that Goldman Sachs "owns" the acronym. Martindo (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Indonesia did not participated in the 1st BRIC summit, a formal and official group by now. The invention become real. Felipe Menegaz 01:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciability factor of an Acronym is important too

I am not joking. One of the (many) reason, acronym BRIC is popular is that it is easy to remember and pronounciable. Imagine an acronym like WCTGB or something strange like that. It helps to have India added to the acronym because then you can add and an "I", (a vowel) to the acronym BRIC making it more pronounciable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.6.246 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I agree with you there, but do you have a reliable sources saying that one of the reasons why BRIC became so popular was because it was easy to pronounce? Deavenger (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know human kind is doomed when we base our future global growth strategy on the pronouncibility of countries' acronym. 24.224.178.197 (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's depressingly true unfortunately. 129.173.22.31 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs

As an economist, Goldman Sachs' forecast for 2050 is totally nuts. I would take it out of the article. - Onur Mustak Cobanli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.8.95 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fastest growing developing economies

Is it really fair to describe the Russian Economy (still one of the largest in the world and arguably the next superpower) a 'developing economy', this term generally gets pinned to the third world. It's doing Russia (the world's resorce giant) a bit of a disservice to lump it in with Congo and Afghanistan in this way. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Emerging powers" ? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Felipe Menegaz 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well... I have never read about Russia as a "developed country". It can't be compared to Congo, but can't be compared to Norway either. I guess 'developing economy' is indeed the right way of calling it. 189.78.9.3 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

BRIC GDP

The article claims that by 2050, BRIC will have a combined GDP of $14.951 trillion. It also suggests that, if they are treated as one unit, their combined GDP will eclipse that of all other entities. Both statements cannot be true. The US GDP is about $11 trillion. If it takes 20 years for the US to get to $14.95 trillion, that would imply a growth rate of only 1.5%, a rather large drop. If the 2050 US GDP was $14.95 trillion, that would imply a growth rate below 0.7% -- which would imply either that the US would have some catastrophic GDP drop in the next few decades, or be more or less consistently in recession for several decades. Either is possible, of course, but if we include such events into our model, predicting 40 years into the future becomes absurd.

I think there might be a distinction between GDP dollar equivalent and "actual" GDP, as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). The latter tends be much higher, usually, so BRIC's GDP might well exceed others. Not to mention the fact that the $14.951 trillion figure is subject to the dollar exchange rate, which is highly uncertain even now, and inflation.

The data presented in this section is not consistent with the main Wikipedia entries about GDP and GDP per capita. It would be useful too to include the EU in the list, as it is similar in size (land, population...) to the BRIC countries, making this a much more relevant comparison than with any of the EU individual countries.Bouvierjr (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Glaringly inaccurate Per Capita GDP statistics

The Wikipedia page for per capita GDP at 2008 is more accurate and needs to be reflected in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.205.29 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Indeed both the nominal GDP and per capita GDP entries are more accurate than the current data in this article. Furthermore, more recent data (at least 2008) is available from the IMF and the CIA, which reflects current GDP rankings. The current (2009) crisis is also affecting GDP rankings especially for the most volatile economies (UK, Ireland, Greece, Spain). Bouvierjr (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Well, I fixed it, hooray for me. I'm getting the notion that some over-patriotic Brit is vandalizing the article to put the UK on top of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.35.241 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Spain in 2050

Nobody can believe that being Spain in the 9th place in 2008 with a GDP of $1.6 Trillion (twice South Korea´s)....by 2050 it doesn´t appear in the chart even if the last country in the chart(Bangla Desh) has a GDP of just $1.4 Trillion (by 2050), so 200 billion less than Spain 40 years before. Given the fact that projections are based on present GDP growth, Spain should be placed ahead of Italy by 2050, as it is growing twice more than Italy.--88.18.148.70 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) That error should be addressed.

I was thinking the same thing, the only thing I can tell you is that all the projectons are based on the paper provided by Goldman review of emerging economies... the only info. I found regarding future GDP for Spain is from IMF, but that only up to 2014 where is may stand at $1.55 trillion. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=184&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=&pr1.x=34&pr1.y=10 Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated Estimates

Updated figures are estimates by Jim O'Neill and cited. Old sources are outdated (source is still up but new source only includes BRIC and the G7 economies). Please provide newer projections if you have a global economics paper. Please don't remove relevant cited material. Cosmos416 19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you basing these values off the chart? If so, you are making a very rough estimation. I do not see a table reflecting these values. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

These are pretty accurate as I used a ruler (mathematical scale). If you want to tinker with it, go ahead. but these are vaulable source from the man who started this, about 15 months worth of updates including the economic turmoil.Cosmos416 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against drawing estimates from a chart yourself. If you like you could attach a figure of the graph in the article with a caption. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to even do that sort of thing, lol but I have provided both sources, I measured to scale with a ruler (mathematical scale) and I would like to get consenues on the interpretations of numbers and if you don't agree you could measure and come with your own projections?? We could go one by one Cosmos416 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys don't know how to use a ruler??? All the statistics and information are in the Chart, and these 1 user editing simultaneously with 2 accounts.

Cosmos416, it is up to you to obtain consensus with the editors here before you make a bold change like that. Your accusations of "editing with simultaneous accounts" are baseless and does not show good faith. Like I said, measuring with a ruler and estimating yourself is inaccurate and ill-advised. The figures cited in the chart currently represent what is provided in the GS paper and should stay until you have a table of updated figures. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excerpt From NASA site: "Problem 154: Pan's Highway and Saturn's Rings - Students use an image from the Cassini spacecraft to determine how large the satellite Pan is, and the scale of Saturn's rings using a millimeter ruler."

See how people use rulers???Cosmos416 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The NASA website is not a precedent for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own set of policies like obtaining consensus when disputes arise.Nirvana888 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called an example of HOW academics use tools for measurement..you guys were never good at math right??...and if you want to push out of date, inaccurate data from 2 years ago instead of using the mathematically scaled chart results (updated) then you guys are truly backwards.Cosmos416 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Chart

Can someone add the Chart besides the updated results eventually??? http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/5401/gs2050world.jpg Cosmos416 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Russia

Right now Russia is the second most important member of BRIC from a variety of reasons: highest per capita income (among BRIC members), second largest nominal GDP, largest exporter of weapons, largest producer of oil and gas...all that compensates the decreasing population of 142 million people.

But if Russia continues losing population weight compared to the other members of the club, it could lose its BRIC status. A Russia of 135 million people would be too far away from a Brasil of 230 million people.

By then, perhaps, Russia would be surpassed by México, which has an income per head similar to Russia and a population of 110 million people increasing 1.3% every year. Just if the Spanish speaking Central American states reunify with México, the result would be a country of 155 million people with an increasing population which would reach 200 million people in 20 years...--88.18.150.118 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)