Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Archive 4

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 136.200.53.114 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is definitely a member of the EU, they just don't use the currency. Regardless though, the EU numbers are calculated by the respective organizations that make these lists, so if they include Britain then so be it.Sbw01f (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China or Taiwan Province of China

I think "Taiwan Province of China" is better than "Republic of China" because the article must adhere to its sources, none of which refers to "Republic of China". "Taiwan Province of China" is used on its sources. Please check the Source: [Gross domestic product From IMF]. Thank you! --Yxy (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between sticking to what the sources say, and sticking to what the sources mean. In the context, "Taiwan Province of China" is referring to the "Republic of China". This is a political name, chosen by China, because of the political situation. This name is not a neutral term in consideration of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. There is no problem with using our naming conventions when that is consistent with what the source means. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What Schmucky said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA list update

I updated the CIA list from usual location. This resulted in updated figures for a few countries; the addition of the following countries (that were missing from the list for some reason): American Samoa, Anguilla, Aruba, British Virgin Islands, Burma, Cook Islands, Cuba, Faroe Islands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guam, Guernsey, Iraq, Isle of Man, Jersey, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, New Caledonia, Niue, North Korea, Northern Mariana Islands, San Marino, Somalia, Taiwan, The Bahamas, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu; and a few minor ranking changes. --Kaicarver (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical numbers?

It would be great to have pages for earlier years with GDP rankings from those years. Anyone know if this would be possible/feasible/desirable?

Slowmind (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Alert

Anonymous IPs (some from Turkey) have been increasing Turkey's GDP and/or reducing Greece's. Since this is really hard to spot, I bring it to everyone's attention. Causantin (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dies würde den Gesamtabschreibungsbedarf auf 50 Mrd. Franken hochschrauben"

http://www.ftd.de/unternehmen/finanzdienstleister/348427.html?eid=237639 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

170.000.000.000.00 Eurocent

http://www.manager-magazin.de/geld/marktberichte/0,2828,ticker-27813005,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"David Blanchflower Bank of England"

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,550699,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table sorting by rank is broken

The tables need leading 0s in the rank column or something of the sort so that when the table is sorted by rank it doesn't go 1->10->100->101->etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.110.230 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figures wrong?

How come Germany has a GDP of 3,322,147 (Int Mon Fund) and the EU has only 1,830,100? Should not EU's GDP be the summation of all its national states' GDP? See also EU, infobox says there it's $16.830 trillion. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there's someone who keeps changing the figures for EU. I changed it back. CezeI (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]