Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)

Reliability of GDP (PPP)?

Chinese GDP(PPP) goes in U.S.A. after four years. Will you be true? If I continue an anual rate of 10% growth.

POV

Why is the CIA factbook in here? It can hardly be viewed as unbiased. It doesn't make any difference that two other sources are cited, because facts remain. The CIA factbook isn't an independent organisation. It's under US control and thus has no credibility whatsoever.

Take that logic to the List of countries by GDP (nominal) too, then, because the only reason the EU is included there is because the CIA World Factbook includes it. If this is an EU ego issue for you because one cites the USA as being ahead, removing the CIAWF would remove the EU anyway, and the USA would still be on top.

Updated Data, and sources

Is their really a trillion dollar discrepency for Poland between the various organizations?

The IMF list blatantly says 2006. I understand that the list was compiled in September 2005. Country articles say for example "2006 estimate" which is what the list is. If that's the case, every country article should not have the word "estimate" in there.

Even if 2005 onwards are projections, they are listed in the articles as such (2006 estimates). Also, Regardless, this list is more up to date than a 2004 list, which by your argument would have been compiled in 2003 anyway. -Doug Johnson

Could someone please explain the controversy or opposition to updating the IMF GDP list of in accordance with 2006 estimates. I knew that it would only be a matter of time before it was reverted back to the old list. Anyway, I very carefully followed the IMF numbers to the decimal. I have a source, the IMF website itself. But the following link will take you directly to the page where I got the information, which is once again: [1] -Doug Johnson

This is Doug Johnson. I just updated the entire IMF list for 2006 based on PPP. I made sure it was PPP. The following website will take you straight to the page: [2] -Doug Johnson

The figures for 2005 onwards are projections as the table was compiled in Sept 05. josh (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop updating the figures and read the talk page first. People change to the 2005/6 figures every few month and we explain each time why the 2004 figures are used. This article is about presenting facts about whats happened and not what is predicted to happen. New figures are released by the IMF bi-yearly (the next ones are this month when we will update to 2005). The current sept 05 figures can only guess what the 2005 figure is because it had not finished when the figures were compiled. The 2004 list was compiled in 2005. josh (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated Data 2

Ok, just spent nearly a hour fixing this mess you guys created. First of all, World Bank doesn't provide date on the European Union, only on the EU Monetary Union. Second, the IMF figures are off. Sources included below.

World Bank - Sources;

Prospects for the Global Economy - [3] Country Profiles - [4] World - [5]

United States - [6]

IMF - Sources;

Outlook [7] World - [8]

International Monetary Fund - Country Profiles United States - [9] European Union - [10]

Not to mention, that US GDP growth is nearly double of that compared to the sluggish European economies.

I reverted your edits on this article because of the following reasons :-

• The IMF data your using are estimates for 2005 not actual figures. You also used the nominal figures for USA. This article is for PPP
• I'm not sure if the USA figure from the World Bank is for PPP either
• If you update the data you need to update the entire articles

I'm going to have to revert it again. josh 22:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, we need to fix the European Union date under World Bank, because it's not listed. There is a extreme gap of 400 billion, which would be entirely inconsistent.

Also for 2005, the US GDP under IMF is listed to be 12,438, compared to that of European Union 12,329,110, I'm sure after the offical numbers are released it will be more clearer. So I will wait until the 2005 numbers are released to change the data. -- (unsigned)

I think they come out next April but theres plenty of people on this one. I think your still getting confused between this and nominal GDP which is listed seperately. josh 01:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

Perhaps a vote? The sooner the better. --JDnCoke 19:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Old data

Let me get this right? We've deleted the data from 2004 and replaced it with data from 2003? Why? to make the US look better? (EU is not mentioned now) --JFM 19:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wonder this too.. /magnus 2004-12-14.

who would agree to the data being reset to the previous 2004 data, but using the updated descriptions?--JFM 19:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

right i worked out the GDP for all 25 countries. this is only a rough number, since the 25 were not part of the EU in 2003, but we can call this pretty accurate until such a time as we get 2004 data (the number matches the one later in this thread)--JFM 18:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

What the hell is going on here? Why was the old information deleted in favor of the World Bank listing? This list is much more incomplete and omits certain countries. Please explain this. --Jiang 07:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(from Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)) 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…☎ 09:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

The ranking is misleading due to some major ommissions. I believe the old data came from the CIA. Maybe provide two data tables? --Jiang 10:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we can fill in the blanks using CIA values and indicate so with a foot note? —Cantus…☎ 13:12, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan--Jiang 01:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right Place?

Is this the right place for this page or should it be at List of countries by GDP? -- Graham  :) 21:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I originally made it at "... by gdp", but spelled lower case. I couldnt change this (on moving: error: this page exists). Compared to lower case I preferred "... by gross domestic product". The original page still exists as a redirect.--RScheiber 16:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One problem: there is already a list of the top 25 countries by gdp at Gross domestic product. I'm tempted to say keep this one but list all countries by gdp according to a recent list, what do you say? -- Graham  :) 20:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This list is based on exchange rates. That other list is based on purchasing power parity, which gives different results. Newer data than from 2001 would be appreciated, but is not fully available. Even for 2001 I didn't get precise data for some countries, mostly arabic ones. --RScheiber 16:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revamping of article

Regarding duplicate entries: I lifted this info verbatim from the CIA World Factbook site. They had those countries listed three times as well, as you can see here. I do not know if there is a reason for this, or a glitch in their software. See this page as well, which has multiple GDPs for the same country. --Cantus 01:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason not to treat it as a glitch. It's common sense. --Jiang 01:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion regarding exchange rates vs. ppp. But I doubt that it is necessary to remove the exchange-rate numbers. There is already an other page with a list of countries by ppp (Gross_domestic_product), even if this list is incomlete (25 countries). I prefer 2 lists: one with ppp, and one with exchange rates. Either in one page, or in two different. I think ppp would be more important, but exchange rates are of interest also. The two list solution would also be a good companion of the new discussion about ppp vs. exchange rates. --RScheiber 15:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am interested to know why the CIA World Factbook data was chosen over the World Bank data? The figures are fairly similar but the World Bank ones appear to be more accurate (ie. less rounding). There is also a footnote clarifying the Indian and Chinese figures which would answer most peoples first question when seeing the table. Any opinions on which data set to use? --Sekizaru 21:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Update and Expand

• It would be great to have the data from 2003 and perhaps a couple of years back like List of countries by GDP. - Jerryseinfeld 22:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I've began to update it. - Jerryseinfeld 22:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GDP

The IMF database put the EU PPP GDP at 10.953 trillion for 2003, PPP. That would put it behind the US for that year. - Jerryseinfeld 18:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverted clarification

I tried to clarify the explanation from:

Source: World Development Indicators database, World Bank, September 2004.

.. Not available. PPP is purchasing power parity; an international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as a U.S. dollar has in the United States.
Note: Rankings include only those economies with confirmed PPP GDP estimates. Figures in italics are for 2002 or 2001.
a. Estimate is based on a bilateral comparison between China and the United States (Ruoen and Kai, 1995).
b. Estimate is based on regression; other PPP figures are extrapolated from the latest International Comparison Programme benchmark estimates.
c. Data refer to mainland Tanzania only.

to

Source: World Development Indicators database, World Bank, September 2004.

.. Not available. PPP is purchasing power parity; the PPP of a U.S. dollar is the same as a "nominal" U.S. dollar, i.e. the PPP exchange rate of a U.D. dollar to a U.S. dollar is 1.0.
Note: Rankings include only those economies that count their GDP, and that have a confirmed PPP exchange rate of their currency to the U.S. dollar. Figures in italics are for 2002 or 2001.
a. Estimate is based on a bilateral comparison between China and the United States (Ruoen and Kai, 1995).
b. Estimate is based on regression; other PPP figures are extrapolated from the latest International Comparison Programme benchmark estimates.
c. Data refer to mainland Tanzania only.

but it was reverted. Now it'll be here for anyone to see. First of all there is no "international dollar", and it's not the "purchasing power over GDP as a U.S. dollar has in the United States", it's the PPP of a dollar anywhere in the world. And secondly, "only those economies with confirmed PPP GDP estimates", if no one counts the GDP, there wont be any GDP number, it doesn't fall from the sky, and the PPP of the local currency has nothing to do with GDP, it's the purchasing power of the currency to buy largely unprocessed commodities priced in the local currency. - Jerryseinfeld 19:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

EU?

On the page about the European Union, it is stated that the EU is the 1st by GDP, and the link leads here, but here the EU isn't mentioned in the table. The same for the List of countries by population. It looks odd that those links lead to pages where the EU is not even mentioned. We should either include the EU in the lists, like in the List of countries by area (where the EU, being the 7th largest, is listed after the 6th largest but is not numbered as 7th, so it doesn't mess up the order of actual countries), or we should delete the links leading here from the EU article, since the EU isn't included in the country lists either by population or GDP. I think the first idea is better, since Wiki should include as much info as it's possible. Opinions? Please answer at Talk:List of countries by population to keep the discussion in one place. Alensha 15:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this page has the EU data again - it was removed by someone (bias?) - if the EU were a country it would have the highest GDP, so the other pages are right- this is just a stupid edit war damaging the other articles --JFM 15:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info again. I hope it won't get lost in the edit war... Alensha 13:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The EU should be in its place, even CIA now recognizes. Only ppl that dont know it exclude it from the list. -Pedro 21:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The EU should be in the table, but not given a rank. If it is given a rank, then probably member countries should be listed since they are counted in EU. Anyway, I think having EU listed, but not having a rank # like "World" is fine solution. --Berkut 06:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The EU should be in the table, and be ranked. The CIA World factbook does it. The question is if "World" should be there at all. It's an interesting fact, but should hardly be in an indexed ranked table. Having a sorted table with some elements indexed and others not is plain stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.100.38.95 (talk • contribs) .

Is the EU a country? I thought it was "by country" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.175.64.6 (talk • contribs) .

You can only compare ranks between equals. If the EU is ranked then all the memberstates cannot. Agathoclea 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It isnt our (or Wikipedia's)decsion as to whether they should be on the list nobody from wikipedia compiled the lists. They are from an external source which just needs to be copied not discussed in any way as though it is wrong (which it well could be). It isnt up to us to decide what is on the list it is up to the source to decide what are countries and what it is good to include for comparitive purposes. Mad_onion 21:00 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we, for example, put in the African Union as well? Skinnyweed 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The EU is different to the African Union and other trade blocks. Such orgainisations simply create internal trade aggreements and continue to trade with the rest of the world as individual countries. The EU acts as a single unit when it comes to trade and becoming increasingly merged when it comes to other political matters as well. josh (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah its very annoying that you didnt actually read the comment which you were replying to Skinnyweed, if you had read my comment you would have understood that this simply isnt up to us to decide. the source should be copied directly and not changed in anyway, that means no discussion is required.

I think the inclusion of the EU is appropriate in the list as long as it doesn't interfere with the numerically rankings (as is the current method, as of 23rd May, 2006). The source data is not being modified (as no ranking numbers are being changed) and its appearance allows for arguably better comparison with other global entities. I agree that the official rankings should be as they appear in the source, but this does not mean additional useful information should not be displayed at all. Personally, if the EU figure were not presented I (and probably many others) would be immediatly trying to approximate what the EU rank is and so I think to have the value displayed is of definate benefit to readers. Just like the "World" value it is a useful to the reader and both values are from the source data anyway.

On a lighter note: it's funny how both World Bank and IMF methods place the EU at the top but the CIA places the EU just the tiniest amount behind the USA. Sounds a bit like Jealousy to me. Only kidding :-) Canderra 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just fess up and admit the true intention of including European Union. A transparent attempt to put down USA by showing that it comes in second behind a mythical United States of Europe. I say leave it in, since it helps insecure Europeans feel better about themselves.

Jealous, much? –– MichaelJBuck 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To the person above the above: It is not our decision as to what is included in the lists. These lists are official documents, compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the CIA World Factbook. We are just copying and pasting the information they have given. Yahadreas 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan/ROC

160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Instantnood 16:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rankings

Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed? — Instantnood 12:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest no, because then you lose the ability to directly compare to other countries. —Cantus…☎ 18:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

The GDP (PPP) for Equatorial Guniea is listed as $25,439 Million. The estimate in the CIA World Factbook and anywhere else seems to be closer from $900 to $1,400 Million. Someone should consider readjusting the positions on the table. A good figure is $1,200 Million. I don't know if this is common to find errors in the data, I was doing research and found one tremendous irregularity in GDP and GDP per Capita. I ran the data for all the countries and the GDP per Capita of Equatorial Guinea was close to $44,700, which as many of you know, impossible. Just keep your heads up for deviations from the norm.

Are you saying it is impossible because most of Africa is impoverished? You should do some research, buddy. Ecuatorial Guinea has a good economy for a country that has a small population. So it IS possible. stfu&&kthxbye!

Yes, the 25bn figure is certainly very suspect! However, the 1.2bn figure is also probably out of date, as it appears to come from 2002 or so. For an economy which is currently growing at 20% to 30% per annum (!) this matters, and we could do with a more up to date figure. Can anyone find any more up to date estimates? Enchanter 21:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes by anon user

Hi, 203.79.66.204, what is your source for the changes you just made to the GDP of Brazil, etc.? The data from the IMF is here: [11]. Pfalstad 02:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, someone reverted it.. Any changes made to the data should give a source. Pfalstad

Israel/West Bank/Gaza?

Are the GDPs of the West Bank and Gaza included as part of the Israel figure? I'm guessing they are, since the Israeli "customs envelope" includes them both. Either way, it should be noted here. --Jfruh 02:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Updated GDP ( Was old )

I updated the current GDP numbers. ( 2004 was about 8 months ago ) The US is currently growing around 3.2% in Q2 compared with the EU 0.3 %. As of September 2005 the United States had the largest GDP. Source included.

No it doesn't, EU GDP, 2004 and estimated 2005 the EU is still ahead... --JDnCoke 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

False.

US GDP 2005 - 12438.873 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2002&ED=2006&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=111&S=NGDP&CMP=0&x=49&y=14

EU GDP (Your Source) - 12329.110

2005 figures should replace the old out of date 2004 figures. IMF puts the US at top. Not to mention that the US is growing twice as much as the EU. Which makes sense with the change.

Old Date vs. More precise figures

Currently we use the 2004 report by the world bank that is now out of date. The CIA figures are up to date, however, they round to the hundredth. Which should be used? Jimbobsween 20:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging of tables

I will merge both tables into one, as in List of countries by GDP (nominal). This is the best compromise I can think of. —Cantus…☎ 03:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

By merging them, rankings by the World Bank were lost. Your merge is still blanking a large chunk of information. We need to reach a compromise first. --Vizcarra 18:18, 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 U.S. 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)

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)

I wouldn't want to interrupt your revert war, but the tables look fine even at 640x480 in Opera, Firefox, and IE. I don't think this is a resolution problem. Tbjablin

Alright, I admit I was sarcastic. I actually did want to interrupt your revert war. Now, can we take this to the talk page? Tbjablin 16:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey ... didn't I say that? ;) E Pluribus Anthony 22:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Eurozone does not belong on the list

Somebody added the Eurozone as a seperate entity to the list today. I see no reason why the Eurozone should be listed here. Unlike the EU, which is already listed, the Eurozone in no way constitutes a distinct political entity or trading bloc. Eurozone is merely a "designation" used to describe the group of EU states using the Euro as currency and does not constitute a unique organization or alliance. I removed the Eurozone reference but if anyone disagrees please discuss it. --Nikostar 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Shall be posted the GDP according to 2005 values?

The FMI has already released information about 2005 GDP values for every country and country group....We already passed 2005 and 2004 informations are not quite updated ..... --User:Remrex , 02 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The IMF (I assume that's what you mean) figures were released in September, before the end of 2005. Therefore they are still projections. josh (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Misc

If we include things like World and EU, why not things like North America, SE Asia, California and large companies as entities?

world factbook

so are we not going to use the world factbook for any of the economic content? since the US is the major shareholder in the bank wouldnt the cia figues be reasonably acurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmpenguin (talk • contribs) .

You obviously have already used it by now. Please note that the ranking in the World Fact Book is strictly numerical starting with "the World" at number 1. That throws all comparsions between countries. If used as basis please unnumber all non-country entities, like they are in the other lists. See my message on your talkpage re your changing of various country articles and their ranking based on this list Agathoclea 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ive noticed the canadian statistics are a little off also, canada is in the trillion class (nominal), if someone could checkup on that itd be great.

EU?

--The title of this article is "List of countries by GDP (PPP)"; then why is the EU even mentioned? It is not a country, it is many countries. Maybe the article should be re-named? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.39.176.40 (talk • contribs) .

It isnt our (or Wkipedia's)decsion as to whether they should be on the list nobody from wikipedia compiled the lists. They are from an external source which just needs to be copied not discussed in any way. It isnt up to us to decide what is on the list it is up to the source to decide what are countries and what it is good to include for comparitive purposes. --81.158.207.221 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What a copout that was, EU still isn't a country. Sorry.--Tomtom9041 01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The world isn't a country either. Get over your pitiful American bias and see that the EU is unique enough to be considered a reference state. –– MichaelJBuck 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Romania PPP GDP is 254 Billion EURO in 2006

For Romania you'll have to combine all 3 references http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 ; http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm ; http://www.infoeuropa.ro/ieweb/imgupload/RR_RO_2004_EN_00001.pdf (page 155) --GDP 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Data?

So, if this is calculated by 'millions', then everything in this chart, and on the specific pages for the countries is wrong. According to the July 2005 estimate for Chile on the CIA World Factbook [12], they had a GDP (PPP) of $187.1 Billion(<--click here), more then the World has on this chart.

Am I reading it wrong, or is every single number on this chart too small? Bones 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the figures. Chile for example has a quoted CIA figure of "185,100", which multiplied by one million (as the quotes are in millions) is $185.1 billion (with the SI standard method of 1 billion = 1000 million is used). Not sure where the $2 billion difference comes from though, I persume the one quoted on this page is a couple of years older than the 2005 one. Canderra 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. I was reading the numbers as, for example, 185.1 million and thinking 185 100 000. Bones 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Poland

Shouldn't Poland be light blue? Two sources say it's PPP is over 500.000, while one source say Poland's PPP is 495.000 It would be more correct to make it light blue

Like it says, the map is based on the IMF list (most often used in wiki history). That’s the 495,000 one, in that sense it could be considered correct (besides, the 500,000 color border is just an arbitrary rounded figure, that doesn’t make it a goal to reach) --Van helsing 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Abnormal American 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)

***CIA data needs to be updated***

the info. from the world factbook has been updated. here's the link:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

i'd update the info myself, but i'm sick.

What happened to Spain?

Why has Spain dropped in two of the lists? Spain is, by any measures, either the ninth, tenth or eleventh economy of the world. Somebody changed the classification. It needs to be restored