Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

The data of China

Why has the GDP per capita of China dropped drastically from $7700 in 2006 to $5300 in 2007 according to the CIA world fact book? Is this a mistake?203.218.204.9 (talk)

List of cities/conurbations/metropolitan areas by GDP

Is there any list on the GDP per capita of cities, conurbations or metropolitan areas? — Insta ntnood 09:32 Mar 7 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to feature the number of developing countries (and their population) by continent? I have not been able to find this information anywhere else. Thank you.

Taiwan/ROC

160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Insta ntnood 16:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Umm... and what's the problem with that? Enchanter 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Republic of China" to "Taiwan(R.O.C)", because "Republic of China" may confuse many people with "People Republic of China," namely China. --Nicolehayashi 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one way to solve that problem is to make sure there is a Wiki-link. And the (R.O.C.) might also confuse peopel. the way things are now are the way they should be: the official name of the country is given first (perhaps abbreviated if it's quite long, as is the case for Venezuela and Macedonia), and then the unofficial name in parentheses if such is useful: Republic of China (Taiwan), Republic of Korea (South Korea), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). etc. Interlingua ^{talk email} 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and also: Republic of Congo (Zair). HOOTmag (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea

There is an apparent mistake: Equatorial Guinea can't be 31st with about 23k. They are now 7th or 8th. Some prankster messing around I feel. Please Change

That "prankster" is known as IMF. Blame it on them. —Cantus…☎ 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another prankster moved Ecuatorial Guinea to 129th despite the IMF sayying that their GDP PPP per capita is $33,994 and should be in 7th in the list. Please revert changes. Check here

Now someone should ask themselves: Is an African nation with 30% unemployment among the 10 wealthiest nations in the world? Or could the IMF contain an error? Which is more likely? Also consider that the CIA Factbook gives the figure $2700 per capita.

Please revert to the reverted changes. Check here: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html

Cantus is claiming that $60 oil has caused per capita gdp to skyrocket. Looking at this, it seems they are producing 350,000 barrels a day, which at $60 a barrel comes to $21 million per day, or nearly $8 billion a year. The population of the country is tiny, 535,000 people. So the additional $8 billion divided by the tiny population gives an additional $14,000 or so in per capita gdp. Adjust for purchasing power parity, and you could get something like $34,000 a year. So maybe E.G. does properly belong in the top 10 after all. Good for them. TimShell 07:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense: Cantus has not documented his claim (the IMF link only links to Wikipedia's article on this institution, without any direct reference to Equatorial Guinea at all) and, according to the data contained,in the article on Equatorial Guinea, sourced in the CIA factbook, this republic has a GDP (PPP) per capita of just $2,229, making it the 138th in the list, between Sudan and Mauritania.

I have the feeling that Cantus is making some sort of undocumented vandalization of this list. What makes me quite angry, specially because he is a registered user with apparent dedication. Yet he has insistently reverted EG to the 6th post without any documentation to back it. --Sugaar 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Cantus may be correct. The CIA factbook now reports $50,200 (2005 data) up from $2,700 in their previous survey. My apologies Cantus, it seems you were right all along. Very strange but it appears true. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html Jan 25, 2006

Yet another example of why PPP is a really bad way of measuring a country's GDP, nominal figures give a much better view of the relative standards of living. PPP relies on complicated calculations of the cost of living for which there may be little in the way of accurate data - last year's sudden slashing of China's PPP GDP by 40% because of a change in the data used to calculate the cost of living was the final straw for me as far as this is concerned. 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

updates

I've recalculated data down to "Russia" on the list of countries by total GDP, someone else needs to complete this.

Tunisia

what about Tunisia?

Just Curious

I have to ask: how can the GDP per capita for any country be reported for the year 2005 as of August 1, 2005?

Another question: Luxembourg always comes in number 1 by way of some nebulous "accounting anomaly". Does anyone know exactly what this anomaly consists of?

On the Luxembourg question, commuting is likely to be a large part of it. GDP measures the value of output produced within a country's borders. This means that if, say, a Frenchman lives in France and commutes to work each day in a French owned factory sited in Luxembourg, the value of his output is all counted as part of Luxembourg's GDP (even though it is the French that are getting all the benefit). A large number of commuters commute into Luxembourg (I think it's something like a quarter of the workforce), so Luxembourg's GDP includes their output, even though they are not in Luxembourg's population figures. So it's likely that this has inflated Luxembourg's per capita GDP figure. Enchanter 18:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

As well as the vast amount of income that Luxembourg makes from being host to many EU institutions 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

Taiwan is under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China and should be labelled as such. This list ignored various overlapping claims made by various governments and presents the de facto situation. Please do not label it as being part of the PRC. That is POV. --Ji ang 09:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC has never exercised sovereignty over Taiwan. They want to promote the idea that there is exactly One China, and that the geographic region of Taiwan is part of that notion of China. Howver, they are deliberately vague about who, if anyone, represents that One China. In order for both sides to agree on this issue (as attempted for example in 1992), the PRC cannot claim that China equals the PRC, as the ROC would never agree to that. Part of our duty is to report all relevant sides of an issue, and since this issue is complex, it requires one or more whole articles; political status of Taiwan is a good place to start. However, we also have a duty to report what is real and factual. In this case, we cannot hope to reduce a complex issue to a simple short description, but we clearly need simple short descriptions, and in such a situation it's best to pick descriptions that are grounded in reality. --MarkSweep ✍ 10:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the most appropriate label is just "Taiwan". There is absolutely no disagreement or controversy about where the borders of Taiwan are - it's the name of an island. The political controversy over whether that island ought to belong to the PRC or the ROC or be independent is completely irrelevant to this article, which is just giving the GDP per capita of people living on that island. Enchanter 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China governs not only the island of Taiwan, but also the islands of Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. (Stefan2 06:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The vast majority of countries, including US, officially declare Taiwan as part of China. Is there a reason on this wiki to separate out? Should we also separate out New York City from USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.2.60 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason, that reason is that Taiwan has never been part of the same political entity as the PRC, standards of living in Taiwan are much higher than in mainland China as a result. 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced about the interest on this HDI but I want to suggest another index: the Economist's worldwide quality-of-life index (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf). When the main article will be unprotected I suggest to at least add this and the HDI to the external links for fast retrieval. --79.24.146.76 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I've found that most subjective things that come from that organization are extremely biased, and I don't think that has any place in this article. I'm fine with HDI, but a "quality of life" chart by an organization such as The Economist, I strongly oppose. Sbw01f (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can agree that The Economist is biased, I'm not sure that that index includes subjective values as you suppose. I will read how it's done, then I'll continue this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.24.146.76 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percent of Average

Recently, I have added the column for how many percent about the average a country is. However, the way I calculated the average was simplistic, taking the plain average of the values of the first column of the table. That average does not take into account the populations of the countries or the economic power of the countries. Coming up with a better way of calculating the average would be helpful. Given we are interested in the figures per capita, taking the populations of the countries as the weight for building a weighted average rather than plain average would probably be the best way to do it.

American abnormal GDP

A thing with much GDP per thing of an American is not what I can be proud of. A thing from each other G7 countries with many 5,000 dollars - 10,000 dollars is abnormal, too. An American of low wage includes it, too, and a number swells because I waste it borrowing money.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.145.14.86 (talk • contribs)

Equitoreal Guinea

GDP only 16,000, cia factbook says it is third with a gdp of 50,000, just type in cia factbook in google

Map is Incorrectly Labeled

The map indicates that the data is "US $". In fact, the IMF's PPP data is given in International $s. --Pandyora

Israel 30,000?

Since when has israel had a GDP per cap greater than 30,000? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.176.243 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I also was surprised, last time I checked it was around 24-25,000. I know that Israel has a strong economic growth these last years, but I can't understand how can the GDP per capita jump 20% in one or two years. But I checked the IMF data and that is the correct figure. Maybe the former data was incorrect. 85.65.242.45 13:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMF regularly updates its PPP index estimates (i.e., price index based on which the nominal per capita income becomes PPP). In the case of Israel IMF recently made a major correction (simply put, comparative price levels were determined to be lower than estimated before, thus PPP jumped higher). The same happened with Cyprus and, later, Greece (where we also have the GDP revision, still not finalized) Skartsis 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of why it is better to use the nominal GDP figures instead of PPP 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informations

Are bad. Poland has too low per capita, than in reality. Sad, people thinking misuse.

Yes, that's right. Poland has too low GDP per capita than it's really. It's $ 16,600. It should have been updated because some one would think that Poland is such a poor country like never. Please fix it and do not update the data from the earlier years which are outdated.

Something Wrong Here

18. Flag of Australia Australia 33,037 2004
19. Flag of Greece Greece 33,004 2005
20. Flag of Japan Japan 32,530 2005
21. Flag of France France 31,825 2006
22. Flag of Israel Israel 31,561 2005
23. Flag of Germany Germany 31,390 2006
24. Flag of Italy Italy 31,051 2005

I won'tbother editing what is a clearly nationalist bravado by some Greek t**t, but wiki should really be more accurate otherwise no one is going to use source as relaible.

BTW PPP(EU estimate) for Greece was 86.5% of EU avrage, EU avrage is 30200 U$ giving Greece 26120 USD. This was data for 2006 btw, how Greece got to 33000 U$ is beyond me. 88.110.60.12 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greece's figure is accurate, as was provided in the recent report of the International Monetary Fund - here. Eliko 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's try to keep the scientific nature of this issue. The IMF data for Greece include two revisions that lead to increase, one for the PPP index as calculated by the IMF (along with Cyprus and Israel) and one due to Greece's GDP revision. As the latter was subsequently corrected - a much lower revision was finally agreed with Eurostat in Oct 07 - it is natural to expect a relevant correction by the IMF in its next release. Data for Greece are "prone" to some uncertainty, due to this country's huge - and difficult to measure - black economy. Correct value of Greece's GDP should be about 100% of EU27 average. Skartsis 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right, and money grows on trees in Greece as well. Plz change it down to 26 000 USD as stated by EUstat. And I looked on IMF sites, it states Greece at 23000 usd not 33 000 usd.

According to the new Eurostat GDP PPP Greece was boosted to 98% of the EU average which will justify the IMF as well for its figure for 33004 GDP PPP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.32.101 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get 36,982 when I request the data for 2008. So this is definitely what the IMF says. 193.132.242.1 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More problems with PPP calculations, let's just go back to nominal dollar values, they are much less prone to sudden changes like this 138.37.250.195 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

Do you have the data for Scotland? It would be very interesting to see where Scotland sits in the table. Alan, Scotland.

I'm glad you find it interesting to see where Scotland sits. Has it ever occured to you that Scotland is actually part of the United Kingdom? You should check the UK page out. This list only includes soverign states. The UK is a soverign state; England, Wales, Scotland & NI aren't. W2ch00 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPP is going to change on 2008

No one has mentioned that the ranking of PPP is going to change on 2008 so these results are going to be outdated, South America and Europe have yet given results without giving us international dollars.

By the other hand, where is the GNI PPP per capita World Bank ranking?... i guess it is a nice source http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf

Pennsylvania University figures

Is there any legitimate reason to keep that table up, despite the fact that it's very dated and that we already have two uptodate tables from more reliable sources listed? I don't see how the information could be of any use to anyone keeping in mind this isn't a historic article, and in my opinion it makes the whole page look amateurish and cluttered. Sbw01f (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read here and here for commentary on why it is important that we present users with different lists of GDP (PPP) per capita from different institutions. I'm also going to include a fourth list, by the World Bank. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the World Bank has a GDP (PPP) list? Where?

Eliko (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too wonder why those out-dated, non-credible data from a Penn University should be kept. First of all those data are 4 years old at best. Second, Penn Unicersity is neither an economic organization nor a credible reliable reference source such as CIA. I really wonder why this list is kept!77.83.43.254 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the importance of presenting information from different sources, but I think it's equally as important to make sure we only present credible, up-to-date info. I would be ok with listing 10 credible lists if they existed, but I would still opt to remove the University figures simply for the fact that 3-4 year old data is quite useless in the context of this article.

Sbw01f (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should present users with the newest data (2007 or earlier) that is available from all relevant institutions. If you read those two links I gave you, you will notice that the UN itself uses Penn data as source. That's how credible it is. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know where the UN gets its data from, but the thing is that those data that are presented are from 2004 (!!) which is way old. Its just doesnt make sense to have IMF and CIA data from 2006 and 2007 and right next to it, Penn data from 2004 with totally different data for each coutnry. I propose either to ease this list and keep those two lists, or replace it with the most recent World Bank list.77.83.43.254 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless and outdated data! The column should be removed. 3 references are sufficient, credible enough, and more readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.9.81 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the data. It makes the article too squashed and is out of date. --Bsrboy 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

I've tried to remove the data, but for some reason the user CieloEstrellado undid my changes saying that I had no support or consensus (4 for, 1 against, sound like reasonable support to me). Sbw01f (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU figures must be included !!!!!

Cyprus again

The reason the data for northern Cyprus should be attached to the Cypriot flag is because that is how the territory is treated by the CIA, i.e. as the Turkish-held part of the Republic of Cyprus, hence the single Cypriot entry with two sets of data. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The TRNC is a separate political entity with its own separate economic data. Placing an RoC flag next to it is simply factually false (and note the CIA is not the only source being used here). --A.Garnet (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, in this case, yes it is. The only economic data for the territory are those provided by the CIA, which clearly and unambiguously includes them under the Cypriot flag. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editprotected

The last version which was protected - is mistakenly a fourth revert which violates the 3RR. Please undo the fourth (illegal) revert.

Here are the four reverts:

Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

To sum up: please undo this last version - being the fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn the editor, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} template removed. No, the article is not going to be reverted, Eliko. You have brought this issue to the attention of several admins already and on WP:AN3. Quit canvassing. -- tariqabjotu 13:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "canvassing"? My request on the noticeboard was removed (not archived but rather: removed), and that's why I referred to other admins who may see the objective problem. If you don't see the objective problem - say "I don't see any problem", etc., but please don't prevent me from taking legitimate steps for solving what I consider as an objective problem.

Anyway, I didn't ask you to undo the "wrong" version (since nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to undo the version which violates the 3RR. Such a request is absolutlely legitimate and backed by objective criteria (not like any hypothetical request for subjectively preferring a "better" version over a "wrong" version). If you don't think that a version which violates the 3RR is illegal, then you're welcome to express your opinion (as emphatically as you can), and I promise that your opinion will be taken into account - just as opposite opinions of other administrators will be taken into account.

Why did you remove the {editprotected} template from my request on the article talk page? This template on the talk page is an integral part of my request. I don't want my request to be presented partly. Please put back the template, or remove my request wholly from the talk page (if you think that my request is illegitimate). Choose either alternative, but I don't want my request to be presented partly, because presenting my request partly - does not reflect my request.

Eliko (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order

Why is this in alphabetical order and not in order of GDP per capita (descending)? Should it not be both?W2ch00 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it much better the way it was .. in order of GDP per Capita descending. Can we please change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.98.205 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree, this is an outrage! I call upon the Wikipedians to fix this bullshit, set it back to the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.203.211 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Sort by rank is broken as well - 1,10,100, etc. Sorting should be in natural order rather than ascii order for numerical values —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.135.27 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. Don't use bad talk on a public G-Rated discussion, 71.211.203.211.

List of countries with rankings

I don't understand why the table didn't list top down ranking with the highest GDP PPP per capita listing first if it is listing under "list of countries with rankings"?? for the reference provided by World Bank (no.3) is not correct; it is not GDP PPP per capita but GDP PPP instead. Coloane (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click the little arrows at the top of the colums. Sbw01f (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

{{editprotected}} Could someone insert this map at the top right of the article, please and thanks? Image:GDP_PPP_Per_Capita_Worldmap_2007_CIA_factbook.PNG

Done Please sign your talk-page comments in future. Happy‑melon 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting Problems

{{editprotected}} The sorting feature does not work properly with Safari. Selecting any of the buttons only sorts by country name. Knappster (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sorry, I find no problem. The buttons work properly.

United Kingdom Constituent Countries

I would like to see GDP (PPP) per capita for each Constituent Country: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think it is needed seeing as the European Union is on here. I do not want it ranked, but just the data included in this table. Any thoughts? Bsrboy 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How would any of us go about getting that information? Sbw01f (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an article on wikipedia it says England's GDP per capita is 26 904 euros in 2004 [1]. It's worth a look. Bsrboy 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Sorting by rank, the orders are all messed up (i.e. 10 comes before 100, 101...)

--130.113.189.90 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PENN DATA

What is the reason of having those outdated, wrong, misleading data from Penn University? If there is a reason, for that same reason we could add data from Bangladesh University from 1990. I really cant understand it. Could someone explain it to me?Aee1980 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it's still up is because of one stubborn editor who does not have any support to keep it up keeps reverting its removal. Apparently the word consensus means nothing to him. Go ahead and remove it if you wish though, I fully support removing it, I just don't want to bother with edit wars. Sbw01f (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Take it down. Bsrboy 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Could someone just take it down? I would do it but I dont have the time right now to do it. But I'll make sure the correction it stays there. Please someone take down the Penn data.Aee1980 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to attempt the task then do it correctly and complete it, otherwise don't bother at all, Aee1980. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right El Greco sorry about that. Something went wrong during my edit. Thanks for the correction:)Aee1980 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, it's gone! (Bsrboy 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Sbw01f, you said there was an "overwhelming" concensus reached. Where? All I see are a few IPs, some newly registered accounts and only two legitimate users (Bsrboy and you) advocating for the removal of the Penn. data. That is not overwhleming concensus as I understand the concept. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really cant understand you CieloEstrellado. Are you working for the Penn University?? Thats about the only explanation I can give for that persistence of yours to used those outaded crappy data. How on earth can you persist on adding data back from 2000 or 2003 when the presend date is 2008? You know one of the real big advantages of Wikipedia is the fact that it can stay up to date. Otherwise, I would use my Encyclopedia from 1960. And its not that you want to add something that doesnt change too much over time. If you added on how the lion eats, I would say ok whether the data is from 1800's or 2000 its all the same, cause the lion eats the same way all the time. But when we talk about GDP per capita, which changes all the time, you just CANT insist on adding data which are 5 or 7 years old. No how, no way!Aee1980 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a total of 7 different users who are for removal, and only one against. It's not up to you to decide what a "legit" user is. This article belongs to anyone and everyone who cares enough to make good faith edits, and that includes first time users. You don't control this article or any other. Sbw01f (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was implying that these "users" are probably just sockpuppets of another user. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should report your suspicions at the appropriate place (though after checking edit histories, it seems your suspicions are unfounded, certainly not a legit reason to revert edits made by an established user). In the mean time, there are two unique IPs and three established users who support removing it, so the consensus is still overwhelmingly in favour of removal. Sbw01f (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the most imprortant reason for removal I would add, is the fact that those data are crappy and outdated. Would CieloEstrellado kindly reply my previous question, on why he is so persistent in adding crappy outdated data?Aee1980 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand outdated, but "crappy"? Care to explain how the data are "crappy"? ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you persist with keeping the data up there? Bsrboy (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok at least CieloEstrellado, you recognise that those Penn data are way outdated. So in essence you realize how wrong you are, trying to iclude them and ruin the whole article. When I say crappy data I mean that if I enter a data in the Earth article that says that Earth is in fact FLAT and not rounded, based on 600 b.c data, then everyone will say to me: What a bunch of crappy things you present us, not to say anything even worse.Aee1980 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I have noticed there was data's from some university, but why do we need data from them, the World Bank, CIA and IMF - all of these data are more reliable because it's not from a university, I dont think it's needed. Moshino31 (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we have it? We should probably not have 10 of them, I don't think a fourth one will be too much (Also the question arises, why should that university's data be less reliable/important than, say CIA's data) Why is the data from a university not reliable? That's absurd. UPenn is one of the leading universities in the world, and I'm guessing that their professors are highly qualified researchers. Anyway, I checked the IMF data. For instance, the data for Greece is based on year 2005, whereas the university data was based on year 2004. The report is itself from year 2006. Greece's GDP PPP/p appears to be 18k on the UPenn study, I hope that's not the problem. Anyway, year of IMF's data on Albania, Equador, Equatorial Guinea, ... is 2001, whereas UPenn's data is newer (2004) for those countries. So UPenn study has more recent data, should we delete IMF?

No,and if me or you and anyone else continues the discussion on the "IMF" could they please start a new section for it (this bit's getting rather long now). Bsrboy 00:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying we should delete IMF data, I'm saying that the reasonings mentioned above do not work, as UPenn study has more recent data for a good number of countries. I think, we can have all 4 of them, but list the years for all of the studies (IMF and World Bank ones as well), and let the reader decide. Currently the table is misleading, as IMF data is not based on the same year, so we need to mention the years as well, and if it won't take too much work, we should mark the most recent data for each country, in my opinion. Anyway, I'm out, do what you want. I am an old wiki editor who decided to stop editing months ago, I don't want to start again (at least now, and I shouldn't have made this second edit). Sorry for all the commotion. a renegade wiki editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.202.45 (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IMF bases their estimates for the year 2007 on data from previous years, but all the estimates are for one year: 2007. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA data of Bangladesh

For some reason the CIA have suddenly changed their information of the economy of Bangladesh. For example the GDP purchasing power parity has decreased very big, from $340 billion to $209 billion - are they saying there has been a great drop of the economy, because the growth rate seems to have increased to 6%, which is why the GDP per capita has gone down to a thousand, where do these guys get this information from??? The IMF and World Bank seem to have a clear type of information but CIA - very confusing!? Same goes for India!

That is because the CIA is using new updated data for their GDP PPP estimates. As they say on their site:

Additionally, the data for GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) has been rebased using new PPP conversion rates, benchmarked to the year 2005, which were released on 17 December 2007 by the International Comparison Program (ICP). The 2005 PPP data replace previous estimates, many from studies dating to 1993 or earlier. The preliminary ICP report provides estimates of internationally comparable price levels and the relative purchasing power of currencies for 146 countries. The 2005 benchmark revises downward the size of the world economy in PPP terms from the previous estimates, and changes the relative sizes of many of the world's economies.

So the CIA has actually more accurate PPP info than either the IMF or the World Bank at this stage. Penn data uses this updated data too, but you people prefer inaccurate estimates for 2007 than more accurate data for 2004. See this IMF article too. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008 IMF data

The data for Malta is a laugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.235.82 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed it too. It is the same case for Cyprus where the GDP PPP per capita jumped from 31,500 to 46,500. A possible reason for this gross miscalculation could be the adoption of the EURO. I am pretty sure that the adoption of the EURO did not have such a profound effect on the incomes of the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why the United Kingdom's GDP has fallen?

I am NOT entirely sure but I would give this explanation: Since this list of the IMF measures GDP Purchasing Power Parity then probably the inflation in the UK was bigger than its growth last year that would mean that the purchasing power of the country decreased. But I am not entirely sure. This is probably a wrong explanation since I am not an economist. I still waiting to see if Cyprus' and Malta's figures are changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...odd? Bsrboy (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Argentina's GDP per capita has fallen too, from 17500 to 13300, does anyone know why if the GDP has growth 8,7% in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italodal (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that grossly overestimated data allowed Argentina to be considered the "most developed country in Latin America" for quite a number of years, due to the Human Development Index using this outdated PPP data. Chile will now happily take its place. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one and only reason why GDP PPP per capita values have changed (dramatically in some cases) is because the IMF is using updated PPP exchange rates released by the International Comparison Program on December 17, 2007 (see section "CIA data of Bangladesh" above.) This is the product of a worldwide effort to collect pricing information for thousands of products in dozens of countries to allow comparisons among them. It's a hugely complex operation that was last done in 1993, I think. The new PPP info is now based on pricing info from 2005 not 1993. That is why the PPP values have changed so dramatically in some cases. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the GDP PPP list by IMF and noticed some huge changes too, but the list actually coincides with the CIA data pretty well now and seems a lot more accurate. But now we have to put up with new people reverting the changes because "my country went down so much it's not fair they must be wrong.." sigh. Although Myanmar going from 140,209 to 300 was a little odd. I wonder if that's a mistake or if I'm just not up to date on their economic situation. Sbw01f (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You updated all that information? That's insane ♥Hogan♥ (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Myanmar is listed as having an annual nominal GDP of $5. Is this due to some rampant crazy inflation that caused everyone's incomes to go to trash at the end of the year? I'd have thought Zimbabwe would be the one to have a number like that if inflation were to blame. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the IMF map to the newer IMF PPP facts. I am not sure if i really believe the accuracy of the Malta (or Cyprus) facts but they are official figures and the map should refer to those.

As for those wondering why some countries (actually most of Europe) slipped down some places, i guess it´s because a change of metodology rather than inflation figures wich were very low in 2007 while growth was very robust in many cases like the UK, and Ireland, Spain, Netherlands and Greece too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxbasealpha (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this is the PPP page and not the nominal GDP page. Which means that .. come on, that Myanmar data has got to be a mistake. Economic depressions happen, but I've never heard of a depression in which people are literally living on 0.2% of what they made the previous year, even after adjusting for changes in the cost of living. And yes I went to the IMF site and the number is there. So do you agree with me that number is wrong, and should it be tagged as dubious, despite reporting the source correctly, or is there something I'm not aware of that makes changes like $2432 --> $5 actually possible? Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've compared both IMF reports (October 2007 and April 2008). The only variable that has really changed for Myanmar is the so called "Implied PPP conversion rate" (In 2007, from 172.107 in Oct. '07 to 79087.460 in Apr. '08.) That variable is the one responsible for the change in both GDP PPP and GDP PPP per capita. Neither the population estimates nor the GDP data have changed. Myanmar has also kept its currency unchanged. Myanmar's GDP (nominal) per capita in 2007 was 234.707. I've never seen such a difference in nominal and PPP values within a country. There's something wrong here or this is a really rare exception. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately IMF, although together with World Bank is the most "neutral" and thus credible organization, does seem to make some technical errors when dealing with PPP conversions. Imagine that the PPP factor can vary greatly based on assumptions, and thus drastically change the final result. Malta's data are wrong, and so are those for Cyprus (it is enough to compare with Eurostat data, which, since these countries are EU members, are their own official data), and so are those for Myanmar (5 $) and so were earlier those for Liberia (17$ or something); Israel's number shot up earlier to come down again now, and so on. What is worse, these data will remain there until the next release - logically in October. World Bank seems to be much more "careful", while CIA is at least mathematically more correct as it rounds off figures. Recently there has been some debate about changes in the PPP calculation (not to be confused with the errors mentioned above); we are all waiting WB's official release of its revised data. Skartsis (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there seems to be a mistake with Myanmar data. Please compare these stats about Myanmar from respective IMF World Outlook databases: april07 db, oct07 db, april08 db Apparently, inflation turned out be less than expected, and we still have that huge discrepancy between "implied PPP conversion rates".
Anyway, I don't know if it happens since I am an anonymous editor, but when I try to sort the table in increasing order (rankings), I get -'s on top (the ones with no data). And when I sort it in decreasing order, it is sorted by reverse lexicographic order. So, #1 at the end, #10 just before #1, #100 just before #10. I guess, it happens since the numbers are regarded as strings due to -'s at the beginning. Can you please check whether it happens since I am anonymous? thanks i a. I guess, any visitor will most likely see -'s on top when s/he sorts the table to see the rankings. It might be related to cookies set by the browser. I am using Firefox 3b5.

I think that happens for everybody. There's a commented-out line in the article itself which indicates that there is a problem with the sorting. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think rank column should come after GDP PPP/capita values, not before. Is there a consensus on that?

I believe about 10 countries' (including Cyprus, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia) WB data are missing. Their GDP PPP is listed here, which is the reference for WB data for GDP PPP values on the main page. This is for the population, if anyone wants to calculate the GDP PPP per capita's for those countries. For Cyprus it's 21,318 = 16,308/.765. Kuwait: 25,677
List of countries by GDP (PPP) uses 2005 data, and the columns are split there. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to the links you gave the GDP PPP for Cyprus would be 19960/771= 25,888 User:WhiteMagick 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that they have recently updated it. For Kuwait it became 110,421/2.599 = 42,485. Amazing increase. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That increase is amazing however it is because of the massive oil increases and they might not in fact be that accurate because people's income more or less remains the same. it's the coffers of the companies that produce the oil that are swelling. What I am interested to know is now the EURO has affected the purchasing power of its newest members, Cyprus and Malta, because they had very favourable exchange rates with the Euro. The IMF increase might be justified because of that but such a massive increase probably not, especially in the case of Malta whose GDP PPP increased by almost 30,000 while Cyprus' by half of that. I'm also waiting to see how the CIA changes their figures. Remarkably enough most figures from the IMF now coincide with the CIA. User:WhiteMagick 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this: "Note: To sort the table in descending order, click four times on the square above the column you wish to sort by." Sorry I haven't noticed it before. I have a few more suggestions. I think we should move the worldwide average to the lead, and erase it from the table. Also, I think we should not have the averages for EU, ASEAN, OECD, OPEC, OIC, NATO, NAFTA, ..., even UN. They can be listed in the respective articles (their data can be mentioned in the lead). What US/CIA considers as a country should not be the reason we list them as a country. I do not have as strong opinion on this, but I don't think we should list "British overseas territories", etc. either, even if one of the sources give their data (due to the title of the article). Most likely, other sources include those overseas territories under UK, so they will be double counted (even if they don't affect UK GDP much). We can list the CIA-only ones separately (there is no IMF-only, or WB-only one). We need a footnote for Myanmar. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008 World Bank data

...have been finally published. You all remember the discussion about the new PPP estimates by the IMF and WB, according to which e.g. Chinese and Indian values have been drastically decreased, etc etc. The IMF data (April 2008) have already been posted in this article. The WB data (still for 2006, WB will take some more time to publish data for 2007) are now out. They can be found here - although in a format that should make their transfer difficult. WB seems to be avoiding the errors made by the IMF (by the way, I agree that in the IMF column footnotes should be added to the data for Malta, Cyprus and Myanmar that are wrong). Skartsis (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please order the countries from richest to poorest instead of A-Z.

That way, we can see what we are on the list.

The list is sortable, click on the little button along the column heading to sort with respect to that column value. --SMS ^Talk 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average map

Would anyone object to me replacing the dated world bank map with one showing countries above and below the world average gdp ppp per capita? Sbw01f (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numeric Sorting

Right now the sorting is broken. When sorting by a number it does it alphabetically, rather than value. For example, it sorts the rankings as 1,10,100,101 instead of 1,2,3,4. I tried to fix this myself but can't figure it out. --Fidodo (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known issue that apparently cannot be fixed at this time. See up above in this talk page for more info. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

I was reading by accident the Mediation Cabal and I must say that Eliko has a point in some of his requests.

CIA footnote -Eliko are simply more accurate.
IMF year column - the IMF year column removal was a huge loss in terms of information accuracy. Some countries only conduct PPP measurements once every 10 years and that column helped address that problem.
IMF year- Whenever consolidated number are available, those numbers should be used. Unless if the consolidated numbers are too old then we should use estimates but otherwise no.

In all, I really would like to see the IMF year column restored. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 days and no responses, I guess I can add the information back then.

I hate taking unilateral decision, it just seems hostile. I prefer to talk things over and reach and agreement. But I mean, nobody wants to talk to me.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked it over with Eliko so I decided not to pursue this issue any further.

I really wished to see the changes but I don't have the time.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar

According to the IMF, Myanmar's GDP is $5 per capita? Am I missing something? That's about 2% of Zimbabwe's. CIA estimates Myanmar's GDP as $1900, a full 380 times IMF's estimate. -- Mattbrundage (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]