Talk:Gross world product/Archive 1

GDP vs. GNP
These are different. Why should GWP be both the sum total of all GDP's as well as the sum total of all GNP's? Any econ people out there?- Trick 19:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Try GNP, GNP is GDP + net income receipts. - Jerryseinfeld 19:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * But what then, precisely, is GWP? The sum total of GNPs or GDPs? - Trick 19:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Consumption + investment from GDP. The world net exports/imports is 0. The world net income receipts is 0. - Jerryseinfeld 01:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * got it. - Trick 01:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Global growth
I suppressed an inadequate ref into a cmt, and added two maint tags. This is a seriously neglected section. --Jerzy•t 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah I agree. 62.49.4.186 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The ref is to the first pg of a self-described 6-page document, and AFAICS the first is not the one that comes closest to documenting the table. Someone with better econ chops can do better than i, hopefully.
 * 2) In any case, material has been added to the table since the ref was, and also appears to cover a different period, so a common source is unlikely.
 * 3) The discussion of "purchasing power parity" is vague in saying "is" bcz many of us don't know its relation to constant dollars is. Is the implication that purchasing power parity is being used here, so that the #s are bigger than a different version? Or that PPP is not being used, and the #s would be bigger if it were?
 * 4) The superscript letters "f" on several entries probably should simply be removed, but without the sources, we can't know if they are at least warning careful readers that the #s probably don't mean what they otherwise would.

So what is it?
The article states the per capita value of the latest (2008) GDP figure, and one of the tables lists the GDP for AD 2000, but nowhere in the article is the actual dollar amount for the latest GDP figure stated. That seems to be a rather glaring omission, based on the title of the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Original Editing
Suggestion to change mentions of BCE to BC (and CE/AD) as the original author of the given source uses. While both are essentially the same academically, there is no reason to alter from the source material. --DMBradbury (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What?
I can't follow these, is it trying to say that the gross domestic product of the world at 1,000,000 years ago was the equivilant of $10M USD in 1990? What the hell is BCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.6.73 (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a link to Common Era to explain BCE. -- Beland (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I reformatted the table
It was really hard to see anything on it. (also see "I don't get it" question above). Now it should be really clear. Taw (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Which dollars?
DeLong's article uses the term international dollar, and I have provided a WL for it. While Geary-Khamis define the term, DeLong does not. Since DeLong used the term in his table, I think the best, non-US-centric, usage is to stick with the ID terminology. The clarification needed tag is added because we have DeLong's data with the ID term and then the CIA data is presented, using US dollar figures. Yes, I know -- the dollars are interchangable. (At least that is how I read it.) But a clarification in the Notes section will be helpful. I would add such a note, but I think an editor with more knowledge should do so.--S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "International dollar" apparently also connotates purchasing power conversion to other local currencies, rather than nominal. -- Beland (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Per-country stack chart
A stack chart along the lines of the GWP chart in the lower right of but showing top countries would be an interesting addition or alternative to the numerical table. -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Table title should be real GWP
I noticed that the table title says Nominal GWP but it is stated that the numbers are estimated in 1990 dollars. This would then make them real GWP numbers and not nominal GWP numbers. When you look at the source you will notice that the numbers provided in this table are listed under "Total World Real GDP". This is an important distinction as "nominal GWP" is by definition not in constant prices (like 1990 dollars).

Also, the estimates provided by DeLong are in Billions of 1990 International dollars. The more recent deflated numbers seem to have been deflated with 1990 US dollars. This leaves the numbers incomparable to the previous series.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Also I do not have any Wikipedia contribution experience, so I apologize if there's something wrong about the way i posted this in terms of general rules of doing so... - RemoBe 08:19, 19 Feb 2014 (UTC)