Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)/Archive 1

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

Lost data
Someone just removed data going back 6 years. - 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&hellip;  &#9742;   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&hellip; &#9742;   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)

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
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&hellip; &#9742;   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)

Taiwan/ROC
160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". &mdash; 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 &rarr;&bull;&larr; 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&hellip; &#9742;   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&hellip; &#9742;   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&hellip; &#9742;   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&hellip; &#9742;   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&hellip; &#9742;   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&hellip; &#9742;   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

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. --User:Deepak gupta 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. --User:Deepak gupta 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 --User:Deepak gupta 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).


 * They all list the U.S. as having the highest total for any single country. Perhaps small paragraphs or links explaining the differences in how the IMF and WB arrive at their respective figures would be helpful? Also, are either institution's figures used by economists more often than the others? Historian932 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (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&hellip; &#9742;   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. --User:Deepak gupta 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)