Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Archives

2004-2005

2006

2007

2008

"Is the EU a country?"

World Bank figures are inaccurate

We must delete the world bank list because it is inaccurate in every way. There is no way the EU is smaller than the US so we must delete it. I know a lot will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.57 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

                                                 The World Bank figures show the Eurozone not the EU which is much larger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.47.54 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 
                             
              

"Is the EU a country?"

Discussion moved to archives. Mediation case now closed. Conclusion statement left here for editors to agree finer details. Any problems or questions please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

• The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).

• The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.

• No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.

• Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.

• Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries (or whose classification as a country is ambiguous or in dispute) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."

• The List retains the current name.

• A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

TO Siktork It appears that most of the things you have concluded above was not reached in a very logical manner. NO AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION will make the word COUNTRIES include the EU. You people just justified on making the word COUNTRIES include the EU with endless quoting and blabbering. Cmon you people are more educated than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.205 (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If this conclusion is agreed I will close the Mediation and leave it up to you guys to carry out the agreed actions. SilkTork *^YES! 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• One minor comment. I would rephrase the explanation slightly as "not normally considered" leaves the possibility that they may in fact sometimes be considered countries. Therefore I would leave out the word normally and make it "not considered". For the rest, thanks a lot for your support and suggestion SilkTork. Arnoutf (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I've never seen a better executed systematic refusal to inject accuracy into an article. What changed? Nothing! Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I phrased the line as "not normally considered countries" not in reference to the EU (which is never considered to be a country) but to some of the entities like Hong Kong (which some even here argue can be considered a country), the West Bank/Gaza, Kosovo. Perhaps since even that might raise nationalist hackles, might even be better to say "not considered a country or whose classification as a country is ambiguous or in dispute."

As for Founder's comment, while if we followed his suggestions and omitted the EU from the main list, it may indeed accurately reflect the definition of "country," the likely reason for its inclusion by the sources is that the figures are seen to be relevant. And I hasten to point out that while Founder may find this definition of country reason enough to exclude the EU, the sources do not. If wikipedia is to remain relevant, we must accurately reflect the decisions of the sources when disputes like this arise. Canada Jack (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should in deed include normally for the reason that Jack explained.

I think the rest has been discussed fairly enough and Founder wouldn't agree to the concluded argumentation, if it was explained a hundred times more. I am left wondering whether "Intellectual dishonesty" or intellectual scarcity is the reason for this. Excuse my tone, but I am really irritated by these repeatedly ventilated accusations. I, at least, was not lying during this discussion and generally, nobody should say this about anyone. Tomeasy_talk 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the word "considered" already allows for a subjective interpretation as that does not rule out that a country may not be reported. Adding normally sounds like a consensus qualifier, which is vulnerable to the question - Which is the majority of institutes that do make this "normal". Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a feeling from some that the real underlying motivation here is to ensure that a favoured country/bloc remains at top and that the rules and definitions be altered to ensure that prominence is ensured. I appreciate that sentiment but it cuts both ways. While one can't be too slippery with definitions so as to allow anyone in, one must also recognize that there is ambiguity on the subject and the sources themselves reflect that ambiguity. The sources themselves explicitly state that ambiguity and implicitly acknowledge in so doing that excluding the information would make the lists less relevant and less useful. The function of these lists, after all, is to make meaningful comparisons, not to score points for your favoured country/bloc. To me, that is being intellectually honest. To pretend otherwise, to pretend that there is a set, firm way of doing this and that to do otherwise renders wikipedia little more than a cheering section for one point of view, is to me being intellectually dishonest. Canada Jack (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I made the offer to leave it listed on the page, but in a second table with other country groups. It was ignored or rejected by the other side. Tomeasy, you can keep your insults to yourself, you compromised NOTHING. I made the attempt. The article is about a list of countries, and the EU is not a country. How much plainer would you like it? Canada Jack's assessment is partially correct, but the EU zealots didn't want to even go for a compromise. Please send the smugness elsewhere, it isn't appreciated here. Going for a listing on the same page looked like a defeat, right? Shameful --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The compromise is that the EU is not ranked. The article is about a list of countries, and the EU is not a country. How much plainer would you like it? The sources, despite calling the lists in some cases "countries" explicitly say that non-countries are on the lists. How much plainer can you get? Your quaint objection seems only calculated to ensure America remains #1, even though by some measures it no longer has that rank. If no one made the measurement, your objection would stand. However, they do, and that is the point. And since the CIA chooses to measure the EU in its "country" list, your comment about "EU zealots" misses the mark. Canada Jack (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

YES.Don't be offensive!I'm a EU citizen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.194.112 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

request for semi-protection

I find it very disturbing that—while having mediation on whether or not to include the EU—some IPs are blatantly vandalizing the article. That is, either simply removing the disputed object (the EU), as is doing 202.128.34.205 here and on GDP per PPP; or putting fantasy numbers for the EU, as is doing 202.128.34.47. The suspicion that the IPs are operated by the same person seems not too far fetched I would say. Perhaps, one might even have a check on their specifics. Anyway, these IPs do not get tired repeating their destructive behavior just as often as they are told to await the result of the mediation. I find this state so discouraging that I hope others will agree with me that semi-protection, as to excluded non-registered user, hould be imposed. Tomeasy_talk 22:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, all right but I am just wondering when will the results of the mediation be known?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a semi protection of this article, let's see what are the results. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection done, and IP most likely blocked because of the 3RR, I hope it was not a poppet. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation varies depending on the circumstances and the people involved, so it is not possible to predict how long it will take. I would hope that any decision made here related to this issue will stand for years to come, and given that this dispute goes back to 2004 - not long after the article was originally formulated - a few days to settle the matter properly will be small enough. Be prepared for at least a week, and likely longer. Best bring sandwiches and some Vaseline. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you meant when you mentioned Vaseline on this page? Thank you--Geographyfanatic (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vaseline prevents blisters during long walks or marathons. I'm suggesting we may be in for a long haul. This is a long standing dispute. The solution is not one to be rail-roaded by impatience, loud voices, or majority vote. While some people have brought a solution to the table already bought and packaged, others have brought the opposite solution. Nobody is budging, because at the moment everyone sees their own solution bright and clear. What needs to happen is for the article to be deconstructed and reassembled. That is not a physical deconstruction, but an intellectual one. What is the purpose of the List? How can we best achieve the purpose of the List? Why would anyone want a list of countries by GDP? What is that telling us? Does having the EU help or hinder that purpose? Would having other monetary unions in the list be helpful? Is it possible to have a larger List of GDP units which is then broken down into areas such as countries and monetary unions? We may consider a number of areas and end up back where we started. But at least we'll have a record that we explored all the serious options rather than carried on repeating the same mantra. Having evidently gone through a rigorous and intellectual process will reassure future readers that the structure and format of the List is as secure and as justified as we could make it. A simple majority vote, or an authoritative decision by a chairman or mediator will not cut much ice in a year's time. What we need is the clear consensus of those taking part in this discussion that the decision we reach makes sense to all parties. That is not to say that everyone will be happy with the decision, but that everyone will understand the decision and the reasons for it. SilkTork *^YES! 22:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for the comment on the semi protection, the same sentence was given to me by another administrator. If needed more protection will be asked as long as it makes sense.

I am planning to bring to the table the top 10 uses of GDP data, that may clarify why we including the European Union makes sense. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an article on the uses would serve better. But it is irrelevant to the article in question. Change the title to GDP of world economies, and I'll have no problem. As it is, the EU should remain unlisted. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you just focusing on the EU? A number of non-independent territores are also listed. Do you want those removed to? Given your fixation on the EU (which is not listed as a country), and having read your profile, I belive your objection might be more to do with nationalistic chauvinism than anything else. While it is true the EU is not a nation, it has many of the aspects of a nation, espically when it comes to economics and trade. The presidence for the EU has been set a 1000 times over in a wide range of different articles...which I suggest you go and read. The EU exists, it has a GDP exceeding that of the USA, deal with it. 143.167.184.174 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC) MattUK

TAGS

Yesterday evening 2 tags were added to the article.

A tag stated that the article was not neutral in its point of view. As the mediation on that issue is ongoing and that opinion does not seem to be a majority view, I do not think this tag will benefit the article in any way.

The second tag asked for more sources. But as the inline information clearly links to the used sources from which the lists are derived, and these lists are about 95% of the content, I truly cannot see what these sources should be about.

Therefore I removed both tags. (obviously I left the temporarily blocked for anon's tag) Arnoutf (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Excuse me if I interpose myself in this page but Liechtenstein's GDP data from the CIA list is off by an order of magnitude. This is compared to GDP data from the country page as well as common sense. Should the data be corrected to reflect the actual GDP, or is it better to maintain the incorrect number to remain consistent with the dataset? 69.40.57.232 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.57.232 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It maybe a typo, either here or on the Liechternstein article, so we need to check the actual CIA website to confirm; and make sure that number is reflected in both articles.

Nope it is not! 36,330 Million is the number reported by the CIA, that fits with this list! Arnoutf (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The number is quite obviously a mistake and had already been identified as such. The above is a footnote on Lichtenstein quoted from List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita.

The value from the original source has been changed. The CIA World Factbook reports a value for Liechtenstein of $1,060,823. This seems extraordinarily high and is probably the result of GDP data erroneously reported as $36.33 billion instead of $3.633 billion. To give credence to this hypothesis the Landesverwaltung Liechtenstein reports that the provisional GDP for 2004 was CHF4.279 billion and the GDP per capita for the same year was CHF162,000. Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion and GDP per capita of US$130,277. Had the CIA GDP value been reported as $3.633 billion, this would have resulted in a GDP per capita of $106,082. To give further credence to this, the United States Department of State reports a GDP of $3.52 billion (CHF4.28 billion) for Liechtenstein on its country profile article dated October 2007.

Remains the question what to do when our sources introduce a typo. I argue for reporting the intended value. Tomeasy_talk 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Add a footnote notifying readers of the unlikely number? Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the one that I've cited does the trick in an appropriate way. Tomeasy_talk 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote, and therefore the new number, sounds to me like original research. While the basis for believing there is an error here may be sound, it is merely the opinion of some wikipedians what the error here is and what the "real" figure is. I'd say we note the original number with a footnote indicating that the number seems out of line with other reported data, and list that reported data while omitting the speculation as to what the error was and what the true figure actually is. "This seems extraordinarily high and is probably the result of GDP data entered as 36.33 instead of 3.63..." Sure, but maybe "6" was punched in in error and the true figure is 3.33 billion, for example. The figure on the page here, IOW, is merely speculation as to the error.

From the data supplied from other sources, it will be pretty clear that something around 1/10th the figure is the likely correct ballpark figure. Canada Jack (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides my objection as stated above in terms of original research, it seems there is an error in the footnote: Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion and GDP per capita of US$130,277. Had the CIA GDP value been reported as $3.633 billion, this would have resulted in a GDP per capita of $106,082.

But why does the higher GDP figure (3.633 billion) result in a substantially lower per capita GDP (106k)? Surely Lichenstein's population hasn't risen the substantial portion it would need to by 2006/07 to lower per capita GDP by something like 20 per cent! This doesn't sound correct. Canada Jack (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... right. Exchange rates... Is that it? Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom Easy and I exchanged a few e-mails on this and to us it makes sense to insert a nominal figure - say 3.500 billion - and put it in italics to flag the fact that the figure is problematic. He and I both agree that we lack a basis to "correct" the figure to 3.633 when we have no basis to know that that was the intended figure. Clearly, the figure is wrong by an order of magnitude or so, but instead of guessing what the correct figure should be, we thought inserting the nominal figure, italicized with a footnote would be the best course of action, though the footnote should be rephrased.

So, we suggest 1) Liechtenstein's GDP be listed as 3,500 instead of 3,633 (with the advantage here that the overall rank would remain the same); 2) the rank, country name and GDP figure be italicized so as to flag the fact there is a problem with the entry; 3) the footnote read something like: This is an approximate figure inserted for the sake of comparison with other economies. Given large discrepancies between the CIA stated figure of $36.33 billion and other data assumed to be accurate, the CIA figure is presumed to be erroneous by an about an order of magnitude. The Landesverwaltung Liechtenstein reports that the provisional GDP for 2004 was CHF4.279 billion. Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion. In October 2007, the United States Department of State reported a GDP of $3.52 billion (CHF4.28 billion) for Liechtenstein on its country profile article.

I would like to add some explanation with respect to our motivation of changing the value in the wiki list from 3.633 to 3.500. The former insinuated that there was a credible reasoning to state a precise number, while we can only report the order of magnitude in a credible way. Moving one decimal of the CIA figure was nothing more than guessing. By purposely stating a figure with less significant digits, we are honest about not knowing the precise value. However, we have a strong basis for giving an approximate value and therefore we employ exactly this and nothing more. Tomeasy_talk 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Eurozone GDP figures added

As per our discussions here earlier, I saw fit, now that the World Bank tabulates the figure, to include the Eurozone figures in place of the blank European Union figure (the World Bank does not include a separate tabulation). As I have argued before, if the sources see fit to tabulate the figure, we should include it. So as these tables are updated as the sources update their figures, we should not be surprised to see European Union and/or Eurozone figures. Added bonus for those who saw this as a "plot" to push America's GDP into second place - the Eurozone figure is smaller than America's! Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephan altered the Eurozone entry to exclude the EU flag which accompanied it. I put it back as I reasoned that as a subset of the European Union, using the EU flag for the EZ was justified. Indeed, they do this on the Eurozone page. So, while the EZ per se has no flag, it is a constituent part of the EU. Also, Stephan reverted a change someone made to the archive page, which is fine. But it was from someone chortling that despite the EU having "twice" the population of the USA, it has a smaller economy according to the World Bank. This is, simply put, wrong, as it is the Eurozone, comprising 15 of 27 European Union countries, which has the smaller economy, and roughly the same population. (320m EZ, 304 USA). The EU by all nominal measures of the GDP, is clearly bigger than the USA. (Population EU 497m, USA 304m) But even this may not tell the story, as it was reported in March that the Eurozone had a bigger economy as the value of the Euro reached an all-time high of 1.56 to the US dollar. It is not clear what exchange factors the World Bank used, but those reports do not reflect what the World Bank now says. (The euro is still around 1.56/1.57 to the US dollar) Canada Jack (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now an image of the 1 euro coin has been inserted. But I still feel we need a flag, not a coin. So, if the EU flag doesn't pass muster, I have two other suggestions. There is a flag for the European Central Bank (go there, a bot zapped my placement of it here) which is the monetary governing body for the Eurozone. Or, there is the € symbol on a blue background which might make more sense. Canada Jack (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a euro coin as icon for the eurozone. I think this is the most appropriate, for a zone with inclusion selected by the currency. The eurozone should not be confused by the European Union. You can see at the eurozone article, that there are European Union countries that do not use the euro, while there are countries outside the European Union that do. It are mostly the new countries that do not (yet) use the Euro, but the group also includes Great Brittain and Denmark. Using the euro coin as icon will also prevent confusion with the European Union to the left and right of it.

I hope Canada Jack and Stephan Schulz agree that this is the best option. And to prevent that my edit is being looked to as editwarrish, want to note I came up with the idea about half an hour before Canada Jack reverted the removal of the EU flag by Stephan Schulz. =Species8473= ^(talk) 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposed European Central Bank icon too, as an accurate icon for the zone. That does not cause direct confusion with the European Union. =Species8473= ^(talk) 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Species, take another look at the eurozone page. Next to the "eurozone" figures in the "members" chart is the European Union flag. So, on the eurozone page the same question was asked and they opted for the EU flag. Canada Jack (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy, the ECB "flag" as pictured above may in fact be a logo, an icon as Species says, and not a "flag." Canada Jack (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly flexible about what symbol is used - a simple Euro symbol on any background would do. The EU flag is not acceptable, as the Eurozone is very different from the EU (as other have pointed out). It is confusing, especially if the same symbol is used with a different meaning in the other two tables. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I found is that in the worldbank GDP list the word Euro area is used. Shouldn't we use the same as the source? And does this area include the countries outside the EU that use the euro, or just members? Also at note a in our article, a July 1 2008 list of eurozone countries is given. Are those even the same countries of the euro area that the worldbank used in its 2007 list? Because I think that is what matters, not what countries are currently or were most recently part of the eurozone. Also if countries outside the EU are not included in the worldbank euro area that would strike out usage of the euro coin icon. While if those countries are included the European Central Bank icon would not be appropriate. =Species8473= ^(talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say use "eurozone" as that is what we use here. Besides, there are name variations on the WB list, such as "Russian Federation" which we don't apply here. In general, when we hear "euro area" or "eurozone," that refers to the 15 EU countries which use the euro and their economies, not to the others who also use the euro such as Kosovo, etc. As for your point whether these are the same countries as 2007, that is why I made note of the countries within the EU which were using the euro on 1 July 2008, the date of the posted data. We don't know if they are posting in fact 2007 data which might exclude Malta and Cyprus, but we are limited by what the source tells us. If the source said "as of Dec 31 2007" or "2007" then we'd note the 13 then-members of the eurozone, and after Jan 1, 2009 data as 16 members once Slovakia accedes. I suppose one could make a similar point about the EU itself, though its only expanded twice in the past dozen years, while the eurozone started with 11 in 1999 and has expanded three times since, will expand again in six months and again in 2010 and/or 2011 in all likelihood. Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are alredy old.Taking official estimates of 2007 GDP, the Eurozone is the largest economy in the world. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.47.224 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that we after long discussion only include already calculated figures for the European Union or eurozone. It is not our place to add country GDPs to arrive at a EU figure, for example, if that figure wasn't already supplied by the source. Also, as others above noted, the WB figure for the eurozone was for 2007, not for July 1 2008 as I had mistakenly indicated in a footnote. Hence, the eurozone was 13, not 15 countries for the tabulation. And, as the person above noted, (and I noted near the top of the thread), reports in March indicated that the eurozone had exceeded American GDP. Next year when the WB updates their figures that change will be presumably reflected. But there is no need for some footnote or othernote as we are simply reflecting the source tabulations, not "correcting" the ranks. Canada Jack (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some doofus keeps treating this like a EU/USA competition suggesting pro-EU types want to figure out a way to remove the WB list as it lists the EU after the USA. Again, the full EU figures are substantially larger on all lists than the USA figures. The only way they are smaller is if you only look at the eurozone figures, which were for 13 of 27 EU countries as of the end of 2007. And that is reflected in the WB list. Unfortunately for Mr. Pro-America, the eurozone has since the WB figures (end 2007) expanded to 15 countries (16 in January 2009) and media reports this March indicated that dollar depreciation means even the eurozone is now bigger than the USA, with comparable populations. So, if it means a lot to you to see America #1, then enjoy the chart as it currently stands, as this is in all likelihood the last time we'll ever see America on the top of any of the lists. There is long-term solace for the patriotic American, however. If we just look at entities which are nations, China will likely eventually surpass the United States, but probably not for 20 years or so. Canada Jack (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note: the guy is actually from the Philippines; his/her POV is probably more anti-EU than pro-US and is trying to insert that under various dynamic Philippinion IPs since quite some time now. [2][3][4][5][6] --Van helsing (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WHY WAS AL REMOVED

i hate it when i put alot of work into something, and then check a page later on and find that my efforts have ben removed without an explanation....urgh...

i have included the statistics for the Arab League in the three tables, and have been removed, ofcourse i couldnt tell when and where... since the "contributor" decided not to explain why he finds the Arab League an unecessary piece of Information, althought the EU is included as well as the UN... so the concept of including a Major organization is their... right?? --Arab League User (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I could neither find your original edit nor the removal. But my guess is that the Arab League was removed because it is not in the sources. And I suspect it is not in the sources because it is not an economically unified organization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

World Bank figures are inaccurate

We must delete the world bank list because it is inaccurate in every way. There is no way the EU is smaller than the US so we must delete it. I know a lot will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.57 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The world bank does not include EU data, but Eurozone data. We label it accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain and the G8

Spain has as of now a larger economy than Canada while it has also overtaken Italy in per capita income. How can be explained that Spain is not in the group and Canada, with a smaller economy is?. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Canada doesn't have a smaller economy. a couple billion dollars difference in a 1.45 trillion dollar gdp could be due to error.

Canada and Spain have the same nominal gdp and Spain has 13-15 million more people so Canada has a higher gdp per capita (Canada's gdp per capita is higher than every g8 country except the US). Canada exports almost 2 times more than Spain. Canada is 9th largest world trading nation Spain is not in top 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.250.83 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.55.4 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is quite simple. Canada was added to the G6 in 1976 when its economy was larger than Spain's, and when Canada was a democratic society while Spain was emerging from the Franco years. Since then, countries have not been added save for Russia's arguably political inclusion in 1997, as this is not a group of the seven or eight or so wealthiest industrialized countries per se. If it was, China seems to me to be a clear candidate, despite its lack of democratic institutions. Seems to me that the proper place to make this an issue is not on wikipedia but to the respective governments in question. In the end, adding Spain to the G8 is more a political issue than an economic one. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

CIA figures should be updated according to last CIA report

Eliko (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cia figures should be cancelled!It's a shame!This is a free world encyclopedia or an american encyclopedia?Cia is only a national agency and not trustable for all the world like IMF or WB!

THANKS!

Gl Campi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.237 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Make link to older GDP tables if exists

Would it be possible that (if any exists) there would be some link to older GDP charts? If there are non would it be possible that in the next year this chart wouldn't be ereased and replaced by the new data, but chart wfom this article would be renamed and linked to the next article?212.75.100.130 (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's for your own personal interest, I think I can help you. Use the history button all the way up on the article. With this you can brows to the oldest versions we had here on Wikipedia and all future versions will be available the same way. If you are advocating to create new articles every year like List of countries by GDP (nominal) in 200x, I guess it won't happen. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan and World Bank List

Why is Taiwan not on the World Bank list? Is this ommission an oversight or should here be an explanatory note somewhere? --Paulalexdij (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The three rankings list different items, because the respective sources do so. Just compare the differing lengths to see that Taiwan is by far not the only country to receive a variable treatment. These anomalies are addressed in the second paragraph of the lead. Let me know if you think that's sufficient or whether the explanation there should be refined. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cia lists not credible

Cia list is not credible because it's only a national agency and not a world foundation.A huge difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.194.112 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

China stronger

I thought China was past Germany and Japan... When is it predicted that they will pass them?