Talk:World economy

Russia is not one of the 6 largest economies

According to this article (World Bank´s 2011 graph), Russia is between the six largest economies, but in fact it´s not. On the other hand, Brazil is the 6th largest according to the IMF, but it´s not considered on the graph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.62.247 (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

The addition of 80 million people each year to an already overcrowded globe is exacerbating the problems of pollution, desertification, underemployment, epidemics, and famine.

Isn't that a bit subjective?

---

Perhaps it would be more accurate to show where in the globe can be classed as being overcrowded, as it is not a widely held opinion that the world in itself is overcrowded. There are areas in the world where no people can live due to climate, but there is no reason to suggest that future technology will not allow people to live there. With this in mind, it is important to show that overcrowding affects the economies of those places that *are* overcrowded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.251.247 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 May 2005

There is more to "crowding" than placing a human (or two or twenty) on every human-sized parcel of land. The area around Lake Chad doesn't have nearly as high of population density as Bangladesh, but the lake is still disappearing due primarily to too many homo sapiens running around. 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

GDP

GDP numbers (PPP), (currency), during 2003. $50.4 trillion, per person that's $8000(50.4/0.0063).

Per capita GDP growth rates: [1] set the 1950 PPP GDP at $6.8 trillion, [2] set the population at 2,555,360,972, that makes the per capita GDP $2,661 in 1950, compared with 2003 there's a 201% increase, that's 2.1% a year (2661*x^53=8000).

Since 1993s $6,599 (36.5/5,531,014,635) it's 1.9% a year (6599*1.9^10=8000). As a comparison, the IMF database put the PPP GDP at $30 trillion during 1993 ([3]), that's $5,424 per person (30/5.531). That's a 4.0% per year growth rate (5424*1.04^10=8000) - Jerryseinfeld 00:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

China

This article says that China is the second largest economy in the world, but the economy of China article says its the sixth. huh? The bellman 14:41, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

More China

Yes, I noticed the discrepency about China, too. Wikipedia's article on largest economies, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_largest_economies

lists China as the sixth largest, while this article says it is second. This may be due to difficulty in measuring China's economy. Does anyone have a source we can quote? Carax 8 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

Funny precision

Some values are given with lots of significant digits, which have no sense. There is no sense in "Population (midyear) 6,451,058,790", not only because it's changing every second, but because of lack of reliable statistics. I propose to round everything to 3 or less digits. --MvR 14:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I second that proposal, because it is totally absurd and probably pulled out of a hat. I, in fact, would go so far as to put the world's population at two significant digits because that's probably the granularity of the statistics. Also, 6.50 billion gets a little awkward unless you're reading a scientific report, which this is not. (Similar arguments for other numbers) IMacWin95 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• (Sorry for another recent update) Following a link bed, I get to http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html, which clearly states that the estimate is "not intended to imply that the population of the world is known to the last person. Rather, the clock is our [the site's] estimate of the world population size and an indication of how fast it is growing." The clock is also updated at about only 5-minute intervals, with changes in the thousands place, so any data "more accurate" than one million is probably incorrect... IMacWin95 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PPP and GDP per capita seem off

The listed per capita PPP is $9,300, but the listed global PPP divided by the listed population gives a PPP per capita of $9,135. Similarly, the calculated GDP per capita from given figures is $6,757 instead of the listed $5,755.

So, where are the listed numbers comming from?

Also, I'm wondering if we shouldn't be presenting the numbers as a range of estimated values, for example, listing the possible current world populating out to 1 or 2 sigma. (Elustran 00:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

Comparison between economies

This article should obviously include a list of the size of Economies in the world, and comparisons between them. Perhaps a circle graphic would be very explicative. Or perhaps several circle graphics since it is probable that many countries will not be apreciatable in a global one.

rm Superclass

I removed the section "Superclass". It looks like it's the title of a book, but not a general term in use. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'tis false: it's a well-accepted term; see super-affluent on http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4772889.ece--Bugnot (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a stretch at best to include this section in an article about the world economy. At a minimum, this concept should not have more words then the summary. This whole section should be removed. Bonewah (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. The section isn't even factually accurate. It cites Prince Alwaleed bin Talal as part of the superclass. Then it quotes the article from The Times which says, "They are unaffected by the credit crunch". Does the Wikipedia editor who added the Superclass section have any clue how much money Prince Alwaleed has invested in Citigroup? He has lost billions due to the credit crunch! --JHP (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Import / export numbers are totally fucked up

# Yearly exports: $1.1 trillion (f.o.b., 2002 est.)

# Yearly imports: $2.5 trillion (f.o.b., 2002 est.)

These two numbers are by definition exactly equal. Actually, due to various accounting issues they might differ by a few %, but this is just ridiculous.

desperately needs references

I undid this probably good edit because it didn't give references to check the updated numbers, and then noticed that this whole article is rife with unreferenced numbers. Oi! It really needs references. If other people (like me) are too lay or distracted to fix it all, at least try to provide references when adding or updating material. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

2000-2010 Section

The 2000-2010 section is in terrible condition, with misspelling, lack of punctuation, and lack of capitalization. Before I would attempt to correct anything, does anyone have an idea as to what "ewellk" might be? Shīrudou ōru (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiecon

I would love to see a Wiki project map out the global economy. In an organized format all local/country economic data would be collected. All authors would be required to write articles according to a standardized and cited format. The model revolves around publicly released economic data: GDP, employment, industries, corporations, fiscal policy, etc. Economists and volunteers can help determine which economic data accounts are most appropriate to be required under the standardized format. There is nothing in the world that resembles this model. There is no Wiki that allows economists to add economic data under a standardized format. I have already written the article for 'Economy of the United States'. It is 7 pages long. This article contains what I believe is the most important economic data available to the public. The data is almost entirely in table format. Citations include the U.S. Census Bureau, the World Bank, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Yahoo Finance, CNN'S Money's Fortune 500 list, U.S. treasury releases, Federal Reserve websites, company annual reports and the IMF. The article can be seen in PDF format at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Economy.pdf The Contents are: 1. States, 2. Industries, 3. Corporations, 4. Employment, 5. Fiscal Budget, 6. Monetary Policy, 7. Creditors, 8. Cities, 9. International Accounts 9. History All articles would be standardized and connected in an organized network. This model would go down to the most local level. All 196 countries would have a standardized country article to have the same exact format used in the attached file. This project would evolve as economists determine better ways to present the data.

The 'Economy of ______' pages would be a very educational collection of economic data. I think that these articles would be greatly improved if they were modified to become uniform. This would allow for greater comparability. I believe that these pages would be improved with a standardized and simplified format. This would allow for greater comparability and public understanding of the economy and fiscal budgets. Below are the Wikipedia Contents of the four biggest economy articles. As you can see, the Contents are inconsistent between them. I believe this can be fixed with my Wiki project proposal. 1. Economy of the United States 1 History 2 Overview 3 Employment 4 Research, development, and entrepreneurship 5 Income and wealth 6 Financial position 7 Industry Sectors 8 Notable companies and markets 9 Energy, transportation, and telecommunications 10 Finance 11 Health care 12 International trade 13 Currency and central bank 14 Law and government 15 See also 16 References 17 External links 2. Economy of China 1 History 2 Government role 3 Regional economies 4 Development 5 Macroeconomic trends 6 Financial and banking system 7 Industry Sectors 8 Labor and welfare 9 External trade 10 Foreign investment 11 Demographics 12 Transportation and infrastructure 13 Science and technology 14 See also 15 References 16 External links 3. Economy of Japan 1 Economic history 2 Infrastructure 3 Macro-economic trend 4 Services 5 Industry 6 Mining and petroleum exploration 7 Agriculture 8 Labor force 9 Law and government 10 Culture 11 Other economic indicators 12 See also 13 Notes 14 External links 4. Economy of Germany 1 History 2 Macroeconomic data 3 Economic region 4 Natural resources 5 Sectors 6 Infrastructure 7 Technology 8 See also 9 References 10 External links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.81.17 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Update needed

As indicated by the tag at the top of this article, an update is needed. Data currently reported are for 2011. 2012 data may now be available. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

PPP vs. Nominal Clarification

I'm only seeing clarification on which is being used in the info tablet. Also, unless you're doing a standard-of-living comparison, it makes little sense to use PPP and not Nominal for real comparisons between economies (which is basically this entire artice). Using both would be fine but not just PPP, and it needs to be clear which is being used. Beansy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

GDP PPP (World Bank data)

As the data price comparison for the countries in the list appears and GDP (PPP) for many countries was revised, the list should be overwritten not only for China (done already) but for all the countries. If you argue that IMF data stays unchanged... than the list should be separated in two. But, IMHO, that is not required as you can find old data at IMF web-site. I will remind that in previous price comparison (approx. 2006) GDP (PPP) for many countries was lowered and this info was accepted by IMF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.146.25.30 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Partly done2001:CC0:B003:22:28C0:342C:5705:3726 (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Historical comparisons - Why is the 2000-2010 period further broken down when previous decades aren't?

The 2000 onward period is currently broken down by economic events and trends, which seems reasonable, but the previous periods aren't to anywhere near the same degree. Arbitrarily dividing history by decades is of limited informative use since it obscures major events and trends, for example the sharp early 1980s US recession followed by an explosive boom. These charts also take up enormous space. I'd recommend either doing away with the decadal comparisons altogether or adding more detailed breakdowns to the earlier periods. Any thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)