![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why is Aruba excluded from this list? — Insta ntnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed? — Insta ntnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
There is a great deal of estimation involved in producing these figures. Results published by different organisations can be quite different. Even with the same source, they can change their minds from year to year. (I keep track of the CIA figures, and they downgraded the US from 158.8% of the UK figure in 2000 to 136.5% of it in 2003, and they nearly doubled their estimate of Russia's PPP per capita in the late 1990s, despite the collapse of the Russian economy.) If this rule is not applied, people can pick and choose the most favourable figure for their country and add it to the table. 82.35.34.11 13:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Should be 27,800$ per capita [1], and not 26,800.
I was checking the GDP figures in the articles for Germany, Uk and France, and noticed that they are nit the same those listed here. Can someone sort out which figures are correct, or perhaps why they are different figures so disagree?? Sandpiper 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Also have a look at China (#4 of the world re GDP) and USA, Germany, Japan as the largest economies. E.g. per capita of Germany (population 82mm) is some $30k (in reality is more than $32k))whereas the one of China (population more than 1bn, so way more than 10x as large) is $7k according to the ranking. Does not match at all, don't you think?
===> This is not strange at all. The data in this table is based on PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). Nomial GDP per capita is quite different from the PPP data. The nominal GDP per capita of China is around 2,500 $ as far as I know. $7k is the adjusted value based on the low prices in China. But recently, IMF announced that the prices of China had been underestimated so its true PPP value might be around $5k not $7k. This problem occurred since China did not officialy allow IMF to look into the prices in China, so IMF has been using old data based on the prices in 1986.
I have a question about the CIA World Factbook that might pertain to this article, since it uses CIA data. The issue is whether one can do an intertemporal comparison of national economies using the GDP section of the Factbook? One issue is that the Factbook is often irratic between years when it comes to national GDP. For example, in 1999 (from the 2000 factbook), the CIA listed the GDP of Russia (PPP) as being $620 billion; then in 2000 (from the 2001 factbook), it was listed as being $1.12 trillion, about 80% growth. Given that the Russian economy did not grow 80% in 2000 and the calculation is PPP, is it not true that the CIA must have changed the method that it used to calculate the statistic? In this case, does the CIA have estimates as to what it thought the Russian economy really was in 1999? If not, how do they explain the discrepancy? The official growth rate of Russia in 2000 was about 10%.
Of course, the issue is not limited only to Russia. If they changed the criteria in one case, they presumably did in other cases as well. In general, is it possible to do intertemporal comparison with factbook statistics such as the GDP PPP and per capita GDP PPP? I would appreciate especially if an employee who knows how the CIA factbook works sees this discussion. I have also posted this comment on the CIA article. 18.251.6.67 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that in 1999 Russia had $620 billion, but almost 86% inflation rate and that the value given in 2000 was 1.12 trillion. I also understand that in 1998 Russia was in a really tough depression that continued over to 99. 2000 had a bomb wih rising oil and Putin was able to get inflation down to normal. So 86% of the change came from inflation and the other 4 from economic growth.dualdual
I propose we should have multiple tables, 1 from IMF and 1 from CIA factbook, to show variation between calculation methods and also stop the incessant number changes that supporters of various countries perform. Frogular 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The third poorest country in the Americas (after Bolivia and Haiti), is missing from this list.
According to the much-debated article on Cuba, it should rank as the 126th country, with a per capita figure of $3,000, very close to Bolivia. By the way, both the figure and the position number given for Bolivia (#125 and Int. $2,817, respectively) are wrong, as they are in fragrant contradiction with the data in the article for Bolivia for 2006 (GDP Int. $949).
At any rate, the $3,000 figure for Cuba looks extremely fattened and unreliable (nothing to be surprised about).
Hopefully someone with access to solid, reliable information fixes these errors.
AVM 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"for all 180 members of the
International Monetary Fund" the IMF article says "With the exception of North Korea, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, Tuvalu and Nauru, all UN member states either participate directly in the IMF or are represented by other member states." Hence data for these countries should be added at the end as it's not like-for-like compatible. Lichenstein would have been very near the top I would expect.
Rich
Farmbrough 21:56
19 May
2006 (UTC).
14:55 - 01 June 2006 - Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.
The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP.
Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.
The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.
Source:
http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 --
212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006. -- 212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph (along with restoring the IMF figures due to an other editor):
It sounds all logic to me, but is it original research, or appropriate having it in this article (quite elaborate for a list off-article), can we use it somewhere else? Van helsing 13:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't Hong Kong on the map?
Do you know what is a country and what is a sovereign state? 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
On a high-contrast LCD monitor, 40k+ countries and 20k+ countries are completely undistinguishable, and 10k+ countries are indistinguishable from the former unless one looks VERY carefully. This image is much less informative than the multicolor copy. Practicality is more important than aestetics, put back the old image.
The IMF has published their newest data for September 2006:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weoselgr.aspx
( MD 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC))
Where's Iraq???
Where in the list can I find information about the DPRK? ( Stefan2 06:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
Ok,who totaly f***ed up the table,this is not the IMF ranking of estimates for 2005,for example in this list Croatia no.60 GDP 11,600,IMF website Croatia 2005. no.54 GDP 12,324,Serbia and Montenegro is listed twice with impossible GDP estimates...-- BorgDrone 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok,the list is fixed,thnx to Polaron.-- BorgDrone 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the [CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html] statictics the GDP of Azerbaijan is 4,800 not 4,600 little diference but could somebody update the numbers please Baku87 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an IMF list,there is a separate CIA World fact book statistics list.-- BorgDrone 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Data Interchanged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.33.162 ( talk • contribs) (and reverted)-- Van helsing 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooooh
Ireland appears to be on the list twice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.142.177 ( talk • contribs)
I think we should update the list to the 2007 estimates. The articles of the individual countries list the 2007 estimates anyway, and sometimes they compare them to these 2005 datas, leading to incorrect rankings. Frigo 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Greece should now be 14th on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.160.165 ( talk) 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Just wondering: number 29 in the table is 'Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands'. Why isn't Aruba included?
According to Netherlands,
"The Netherlands ... is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands ... which consists of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba."
I would have thought the figure would be for either:
What have I missed here? -- Shirt58 09:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Qatar is not 11th in the list. Apple 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
the list is based upon two different systems of data: one system is the IMF estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, whereas the other system is the CIA estimation for 2006 - based upon the most updated data (including 2006 data). e.g. Israel's data are taken from the (most updated) data of the CIA, whereas most of the other countries are exhibited with the (less updated) data of the IMF. Please fix the list, either by updating the data for all other countries according to CIA estimation for 2006 (based upon the most updated data including 2006 data), or by giving all the countries the same (less updated) IMF estimation for 2005 (obtained by extrapolating 2004 data). Eliko 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You've been absolutely wrong: what was published by the IMF in september 2006 - is an estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, and that's clearly declared in the very document of IMF. There are also further estimations for 2006 and even for 2007 - all of which based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an article for all of these estimations, named: " List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP)". All of these estimations are based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, making no use of more updated data. However, the data supplied by the CIA are based upon the most updated data - including 2006 data. e.g. in 2006 Equatorial Guinea became third in the world, since - in this year - much oil and gas was suddenly found in the country, but IMF doesn't even hint at this new fact, because IMF just extrapolated 2004 data (for the estimations of following years), so Equatorial Guinea is still located very low in the list of IMF, even in the estimates for 2006 and 2007 - which were unfortunately obtained by (extrapolating) 2004 data. Eliko 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I find the IMF results to be quite inaccurate. Either the IMF or the Australian Government have got it badly wrong according to this document (when comparing it to the IMF results): http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf ( Mattrix18 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
The name of the article - is "list of countries", but the two lists differ on defining the very term of " country". The IMF list deals mainly with (sovereign) states (plus two non-states: Netherlands Antilles - belonging to Netherlands, and Hong Kong - which is a part of China), whereas the CIA list deals - not only with (sovereign) states - but also with a lot of dependent territories (e.g. autonomous colonies, economic entities, and son on), thus adding other 31 non-states to the original list of the IMF. Here is the full list of 33 non-states (according to the order in the CIA list):
Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands (=Islas Malvinas), Macau, Aruba, Greenland, Puerto Rico, French Polynesia, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, American Samoa, Niue, Mayotte, Wallis and Futuna, Montserrat, Saint Helena, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Tokelau.
84.228.175.207 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you know the differences between country and sovereign state?
Porkie Chopie 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Eliko 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a new map. The last one was hard to read because some of the colors were too similar and the gaps were too big. Like 10,000-40,000 shouldn't have been the same color. Very large economic difference. I am pretty sure I made all the correct updates. Does everyone like it? Did I make any mistakes? - Brainboy109 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC
why the hell has saudi gone down to 13,600 when a few days ago it was 13,800 per capita, please change to 2007 est. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Unites (
talk) 07:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
this artical has suffered from major vanalism. someoone has changed it to an artical about tiolets per country and put a bunch of other stupid stuff. Can someone please fix it!
DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! — Nightstallion 09:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody update the IMF rank with newer data. The country's per capita income has increased significantly in recent years, to #2 (2005), instead of #37 as ranked by the IMF. Aran| heru| nar 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Map was updated.-- Thin Film 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Romania has a GPD/ capita of almost 10 000$, accordind to IMF, more precisely of 9 900, while Bulgaria's lower, with 9 600. In the map, Bulgaria is listed as a country with 10 000+ per capita, and Romania with lower -10 000, in yellow. I request the fast updating of the map. Thank you!
ComUSSR Friday, September 21st, 2007
Could someone please verify what currency is used on this page. It is not made clear. ♠
219.89.240.102 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The estimates of those countries are based on data of 2005 (except for Trinidad and Tobago of which estimates are based on data of 2002), as one can see here 213.151.32.56 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Source link is broken. I want to check that they really think Liberia's GDP per capita is 19 dollars. Someone please find a new source ASAP, I couldn't find one with a quick google search. Rm999 02:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think UPenn stats aren't necessary. They are outdated (most of data are of years 2003 and 2004) and only make this page messier. Sch614 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the CIA data is accurate and shouldn't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.128.35 ( talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You guys do realize that the transition from communist to market economy basicely killed those economies. They have been getting rebuild. To state that the old date is inaccurate because of the way these economies are now, is simply stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny4life ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The self-declared and internationally unrecognised "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" should not be numbered as any normal sovereign state. According to Wikipedia's list of sovereign states, it is only included as one of the "states that claim sovereignty" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, the source cited, the CIA World Factbook, includes the data for northern Cyprus under Cyprus, not a separate entry. If it is to be included at all, it should be listed as Northern Cyprus, per the article's location on Wikipedia, and italicised as are the territories of all other internationally recognised states. As for the former Yugoslav Republic of "Macedonia", the "established term" on Wikipedia per WP:MOSMAC is "Republic of Macedonia", so I have extended User:ChrisO's recent edit to the other two columns. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 11:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been an update of CIA data (2007 estimates) which should replace the ones posted. Also, when World Bank updated data are released, I think they should be used in place of the U Penn data (if there is a need for a third source). Skartsis ( talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I can't edit this page due to protection. I was going to add the 2007 est of gdp per capita, which needs to be added now. Anyway when will the world bank gdp per capita report be released? just asking. We also need a map showing the countries different datas.
Thank YOu. Bye. Muzammil01 ( talk) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The 2008 World Factbook has been issued and has updated the GDP per capita list. Also, I believe the University of Pen data are totally out of date, wrong and thus the whole list should be removed because it creates confusion. 77.83.46.166 ( talk) 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the column order (CIA, Penn., IMF, WB) is due to the number of entries (countries and other entities) in each list. The CIA has the most entries, Penn. has less, and so on. It's not because I have some special preference over any list; that would be POV. We could also order them alphabetically, but what letter do you choose for each list? "C" for CIA? or "W" for World Factbook, etc.? ☆ CieloEstrellado 10:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was shocked when I saw the term Cyprus (island), Cyprus (southern) and Cyprus (northern). If we are to include in this list unrecognised states then we better include Abkhazia, Nagorno-Kabash, South Ossetia, Somali Land, Tamil Eelam and Transnistria to say the least. But they are not included so this feature needs to be removed. I will remove it personally in two weeks time if no one objects to this. User:WhiteMagick
The list begins with Afghanistan: Silly! Pennsylvenia what?: Outdated! Please take look at other GDP list! If this is not fixed any time soon, I´ll reintroduce the old versions (IMF / CIA only) by myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.16.69 ( talk) 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have already warned User:Eliko and User:CieloEstrellado about resolving their dispute for this list, and yet they each continue to blindly revert each other's edits without making any compromise changes. I encourage them to reach consensus here on this talk page. The article has been fully protected for a week to stop the disputive ping-pong revert activity and allow for a consensus to be reached. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So far, just four points of controversy have remained between us (I and you only):
Yesterday, February 12 2008, the CIA updated its World Factbook information on Cyprus ( updated version here).
Here I present both before and after versions:
This is the version updated as of January 24 2008, available thanks to the Google cache ( link here):
This is the latest version updated as of February 12 2008 ( link here):
As you can see, the CIA has now removed the second value in "GDP (purchasing power parity) / area under government control," "GDP (official exchange rate) / area under government control," "GDP - real growth rate / area under government control" and "GDP - per capita (PPP) / area under government control."
What this means is that the second value (now removed) was an error made by the CIA that they've now corrected.
Now the CIA value for Cyprus will be included, as it is only one. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The order is presented numerically correct when sorted by the IMF numbers, but not by the other methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.207.6 ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
On most columns, sorting is alphabetical not numerical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.9.19 ( talk) 01:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you look carefully you'll see that the figures for the West Bank and Gaza are not a mere coincidence, as in the case of Tokelau and American Samoa or Guam and New Caledonia. The figure for the former "(includes Gaza Strip)" and vice versa. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, but CIA has split them because each of them is controlled by a separate body (which does not recognize the other one). Wikipedia is committed to citing its sources, rather than to making its sources undergo any external interpretation. SSnormal ( talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
IMF | World Bank | CIA Factbook | Penn | Suggested |
---|---|---|---|---|
Afghanistan, Rep. of. | Afghanistan | Afghanistan | Afghanistan | ![]() |
Antigua and Barbuda | Antigua and Barbuda | Antigua and Barbuda | Antigua | ![]() |
Bahamas, The | Bahamas, The | Bahamas, The | Bahamas | ![]() |
Brunei Darussalam | Brunei Darussalam | Brunei | Brunei | ![]() |
Myanmar | Myanmar | Burma | ![]() | |
Congo, Democratic Republic of | Congo, Dem. Rep. | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | Congo, Dem. Rep. | ![]() |
Congo, Republic of | Congo, Rep. | Congo, Republic of the | Congo, Republic of | ![]() |
Egypt | Egypt, Arab Rep. | Egypt | Egypt | ![]() |
Faeroe Islands | Faroe Islands | ![]() | ||
West Bank and Gaza | Gaza Strip | ![]() | ||
Channel Islands | Guernsey | ![]() | ||
Hong Kong SAR | Hong Kong, China | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ![]() |
Iran, Islamic Republic of | Iran, Islamic Rep. | Iran | Iran | ![]() |
Channel Islands | Jersey | ![]() | ||
Korea, Dem. Rep. | Korea, North | Korea, Dem. Rep. | ![]() ![]() | |
Korea | Korea, Rep. | Korea, South | Korea, Republic of | ![]() ![]() |
Kyrgyz Republic | Kyrgyz Republic | Kyrgyzstan | Kyrgyzstan | ![]() |
Lao People's Democratic Republic | Lao PDR | Laos | Laos | ![]() |
Macao, China | Macau | Macao | ![]() | |
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of | Macedonia, FYR | Macedonia | Macedonia | ![]() |
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. | Micronesia, Federated States of | Micronesia, Fed. Sts. | ![]() | |
Russia | Russian Federation | Russia | Russia | ![]() |
Slovak Republic | Slovak Republic | Slovakia | Slovak Republic | ![]() |
Syrian Arab Republic | Syrian Arab Republic | Syria | Syria | ![]() |
Taiwan Province of China | Taiwan | Taiwan | ![]() | |
Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of | Timor-Leste | Timor-Leste | ![]() | |
Venezuela | Venezuela, RB | Venezuela | Venezuela | ![]() |
Virgin Islands (U.S.) | Virgin Islands | ![]() | ||
West Bank and Gaza | West Bank | ![]() | ||
Yemen, Republic of | Yemen, Rep. | Yemen | Yemen | ![]() |
Other comments:
— Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept all - except for Ivory Coast and East Timor: When I say "Wikipedia should cite" - I mean: "english wikipedia should cite (of course after translating the terms into english)". For example, I think that when giving the french president's statements - the english wikipedia should cite his statements - of course after translating them into english. The same with Ivory Coast and East Timor. Furthermore, if the english sources had given foreign names (including proper names, e.g. Espania) which have an eglish version (e.g. Spain) - then the english Wikipedia should have translated them as well. That's why I think that "Timor Leste" should be changed to "East Timor". SSnormal ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am against putting combined data into uncombined entities. That's just misleading, even with a footnote. Wikipedia shouldn't mislead users, even in good faith. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have the data for Scotland? It would be very interesting to see where Scotland sits in the table. Alan, Scotland.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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
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/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ek.html
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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
160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Insta ntnood 16:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I totally agree with you. Don't use bad talk on a public G-Rated discussion, 71.211.203.211.
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)
On an article on wikipedia it says England's GDP per capita is 26 904 euros in 2004 [6]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
...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)
That way, we can see what we are on the list.
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)
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)
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)
I was reading by accident the Mediation Cabal and I must say that Eliko has a point in some of his requests.
In all, I really would like to see the IMF year column restored. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
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) —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
recent data from the world bank suggested that China's GDP was overstated by as much as 40%, that is probably the reason for the drop.
The data for Malta is a laugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.235.82 ( talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the United Kingdom's GDP has fallen?
Yeah...odd? Bsrboy ( talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wow! You updated all that information? That's insane ♥Hogan♥ ( talk) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
These sorting buttons are a mess, why don't just have three normal tables in column sorted by rank as in List of countries by GDP (PPP)? -- Anna Lincoln ( talk) 09:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a Muslim Country; Qatar, now has the highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world!! just taken over Luxermburg! CIA lits is now updated! please check!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The Cia List has been updated for some countries. Thank You.
Shakaib ( talk) 09:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that it is a bit redundant to have both the CIA and IMF world maps for GDP (PPP) per capita since they contain essentially the same data. I recommend removing one of them. The CIA version is in the preferred SVG format, but I do like the color scheme of the IMF version a little better. What are some other thoughts? Thatoneguy89 ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a mistake, Brunei is ranked very high on this list with over $50,000 per capita, while the main article on the country says that it only has $24,826 per capita. Am I missing something? -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In both IE 7 and Firefox 2, sorting by the supposedly numerical fields sorts the data as if the data is in string format (for example, 1 < 101 < 5, instead of 1 < 5 < 101). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.62.227 ( talk) 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange thing is: the first time you sort the IMF Rank, it works well (at least on this IE7 browser), second time ranking and other ranks give the same problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.56.153.180 ( talk) 09:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem confirmed in Firefox 3 RC. This should really be fixed... totally annoying. 85.224.7.253 ( talk) 05:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorting countries by rank does not work properly. If I click on the sorting button, I see the country in lexycographical ordering 1, 10, 100, 101, 102, ..., 2, 20, 21 etc instead of the natural ordering 1,2,3,4,... I do not know how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 ( talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This method puts all the N/A's at the top of the list. Not good. I have absolutely no problem with the good old "click twice" method. I use Safari and it works. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
See this video I made, where I show that sorting does work. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed this map, since it isn't really correct. See the Talk page of this picture for information. H2ppyme ( talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
How about ranking the countries by highest GDP per Capita. Also, how about not using PPP also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 ( talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the rank be the default selection in this article?
Like in the articles of these countries, it says 1st, 4th, 15th and so on. If you press the link on those numbers in those articles, people come to this list, and expect to find the country they clicked on to be at the rank they wanted to find. And therefore it should not be in an alphabetic order. Just a thought. 83.108.236.203 ( talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion of this subject here. Tomeasy T C 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
some prankster has boosted mexico's figures, but forgot to update the ranking too :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 ( talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How can we make it sort as numbers, not text? As it is when I click to sort by rank, it goes 1, 10, 11, 100, etc, completely useless. Emeraldemon ( talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
are you insane ordering it by alphabet, how is someone supposed to get an overview???? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.241.228.15 (
talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
We should establish a list of countries by ranking, not like that, its confusing. I think we should begin since the reading of this important talk to should complete such a long list. Historian19 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
(1) The default ordering of the table should be by "Rank" from "richest" per capita to "poorest".
(2) There's a nasty glitch in the table software. Instructions say "To sort the table in descending order, click twice on the square above the column you wish to sort by." If I sort by Rank: "descending" ("poorest to richest"), table displays correctly. (Starts with four non-ranked countries, then Burundi at #179, etc.) However, when I attempt to sort by Rank: "ascending" ("richest to poorest"), displays by first digit of rank: i.e.
Rank
- - - -
1
10
100
101
102
...
108
109
11
110
111
112
...
118
119
12
120
This is Wrong, and needs to fixed.
--
201.37.230.43 (
talk) 13:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
CIA data for 2008 (GDP per capita) have been published. It looks that they follow more WB estimates this time. Skartsis ( talk) 12:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
IMF Ranking for Pakistan showing 28 together with Greece ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanuraj ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Its clearly seen that is a typo error. It should have been 128. The position 128 is missing in the IMF Ranking !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanuraj ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of having a link to Indian states' GDP? Seems pretty much irrelevant to me. CaptainFugu ( talk) 09:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
IMF data isn't sorting properly. It is sorting all the ones first whether they are 1,000 or 10,000 or 100. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Trying to use these lists in this article is hopelessly hard. It would be much better to make a list like this: http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdas_land_etter_bruttonasjonalprodukt_per_innbyggjar or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... 83.108.208.23 ( talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Norsk" one needs an update :). It was already suggested. We can have some vote or something. Rave92 ( talk) 09:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
These data were published yesterday (April 22). Also, the maps (IMF, CIA) need some updating. Congratulations for the great work, anyway (I read a lot of criticism for details, but actually a lot of credit is due to those who put together such great - continuously updated - articles). The availability of an on-line medium with such an amazing wealth of updated information is something we couldn't dream of, even a few years earlier; it is clearly a product of a lot of hard work which has to be appreciated. Skartsis ( talk) 06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this list be based on high to low? Not alphabetically? It's fun to look at countries and see their ranks... So why is it in alphabetical order? That's not a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krajowandleap ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but to come with CIA or WB rank? We can maybe have a vote about should we organize it by rank. Rave92 ( talk) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 IMF data for Brazil shows per capita GDP as 10,325.796, a long way from the 38,830 shown here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.15.147 ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Then just fix it. Rave92( talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The World Bank published the GDP and Population figures for 2008 today, so the article needs to be updated. 208.79.239.160 ( talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Where I can find it? -- Wilder 1989 ( talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Done ☆
CieloEstrellado 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Great job CieloEstrellado for taking the time to update the list!!! Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Can this WB info be used on Infobox about country like the info about PPP? As for the most the IMF one is used... Rave92( talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
By the CIA Factbook, GDP PPP of Montenegro is 10,100, not 9,700. Rave92( talk) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
These should ONLY be included when the original source has them. Otherwise it is Original Research. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Does everyone agree on using commas in countries to be able to sort them alphabetically? For example, China, People's Republic of instead of People's Republic of China? If nobody is against the use of commas, I will change the article accordingly. Pristino ( talk) 12:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why we would do that? It's not like countries are set alphabetically but by their GDP PPP. Rave92( talk) 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Why does the list exclude .....-- 222.64.18.96 ( talk) 05:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Bangladesh ranked first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.134.195 ( talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the CIA List, Serbia has 10,800 so above World-Average of 10,400. Thus on the 2nd Map Serbia should be in blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.205.10 ( talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The insertion of Hong Kong's unofficial data into the official data does not put into consideration that it would hinder the already calculated results for China. One must make a note of this. Hardassteel ( talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there no-one in here to update the data since 2008 ? omg.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.113.71 ( talk) 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
I've recalculated data down to "Russia" on the list of countries by total GDP, someone else needs to complete this.
what about Tunisia?
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)
GDP only 16,000, cia factbook says it is third with a gdp of 50,000, just type in cia factbook in google
The map indicates that the data is "US $". In fact, the IMF's PPP data is given in International $s. --Pandyora
Are bad. Poland has too low per capita, than in reality. Sad, people thinking misuse.
No one has mentioned that the ranking of PPP is going to change on 2008 so these results are going to be outdated, South America and Europe have yet given results without giving us international dollars.
By the other hand, where is the GNI PPP per capita World Bank ranking?... i guess it is a nice source http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf
As far as i can see, this page is about "GDP per capita by countries ", considering countries are listed alphabetically. 85.102.162.226 ( talk · contribs)
User:Khalidshou insists on removing the data year for countries in the CIA list ( here and here), while misleadingly putting "2009" in the heading as if all the values in the list were from 2009 only. I kindly ask Khalidshou to stop doing this. Pristino ( talk) 06:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed Kosovo was taken off the list. It was in the 2008 lists, now it's not. Could someone double check this please? --Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 ( talk) 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I have deleted the column for how many percent about the average a country is. However, the way I calculated the average was hardest, taking the plain average of the values of the first column of the table. That average does not take into account the populations of the countries or the economic power of the countries. Coming up with a better way of calculating the average would be helpful. Given we are interested in the figures per capita, taking the populations of the countries as the weight for building a weighted average rather than plain average would probably be the best way to do it.
Does PPP per capita realy depict relation between salaries and prices?For example it's somewhat hard to believe for me that Greeks (PPP 32.100$) and Spaniards (PPP 33.700$) live basicaly as good as Germans (PPP 34.200$).I thought there should be remarkeable difference in level of life between those countries.Where is it possible to obtain more true comparison in prices and salaries coefficient for different countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggernaut
Spain currently have unemployment 18.5%,which is at least 2 times greater than that of Germany,Greece has terrible budget crisis and Southern half of Italy almost do not produce anything.Those countries always been on donations in EU.If they have basically the same income per capita as Germany what is reason to receive donations?What is produced by Southern Europian countries?In documentary movies they seem to look much less developed then Nothern Europian. added by Juggernaut
Unemployment and deficits have nothing to do with current standard of living (they may have to do with trends though, i.e., rate of development). Iceland (the worst hit country that went to the IMF) is richer than Germany, Spain or Greece, and so (actually much richer) is Ireland (let alone the state of California !). Now about the E.U. "donations", I'll agree on that, but there were established when there were larger differences in incomes. The E.U funds, nonetheless, are supposed to have mutual benefits - at least in the long run. Both Spain and Greece have been very good "customers" to donor countries' exports (in the case of the latter, including billions of Euros of military orders). Again, though, I'll agree that any "donation" would make no sense whatsoever nowadays.... Skartsis ( talk) 15:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The graph shows Above and Below Average, but does not show average, maybe this will help. 195.124.114.41 ( talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
GDP Per capita is registering $87,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.75.39 ( talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Here.
Eliko ( talk) 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Should it be noted in the article that the IMF and World Bank lists do not include several countries (presumably because they don't have reliable data or they don't track the particular country)?
65.4.91.169 ( talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there no IMF data for the European Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.252.202 ( talk) 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Brazil's GDP is $11,289 which is above the $10,500 world GDP (PPP) per capita, but its color on the map is orange. Ademsemir ( talk) 04:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The CIA table sorts Zimbabwe, at 400, last. The two nations above it are listed at 300, both below Zimbabwe. Consistency is not always the hobgoblin of small minds. MartinRinehart ( talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If you go to the country's Wikipedia page GDP per capita in PPP is $8,063 so something is seriously out somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.162.109 ( talk) 15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The numbers don't add up for its 103rd rank on the list. If the GDP figures are correct, Syria should follow 108th Fiji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.1.60 ( talk) 04:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The rankings on these tables do not properly deal with those counted as 'equal'. For example, if there are two countries who are ranked as equal third, by definition there is no fourth rank, and the next country should be ranked fifth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.232.28 ( talk) 02:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello:
This article seems to be preferred over other articles on median income by country, and those have been neglected, with very old (2004, 2007) numbers.
For economic study purposes, I understand. However, for an individual trying to understand people they meet in another country, wouldn't current median income numbers be more useful? Haven't we seen a great deal of news articles and research pointing out the importance of wealth distribution, i.e. that median income is much more important than average income?
Thanks,
MiszaBot I ( talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.9.210 ( talk) 01:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
some dude vandalized this, i tried to fix it by choosing a different version but doesnt help-- MiszaBot I ( talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quwazz22 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
here.
I've made the tables collapsible, to make it feasible to add more tables without making the article appear too crowded due to too many tables appearing at once. I've also added the Penn World Tables, which is a highly esteemed estimation of GDP PPP. Pristino ( talk) 07:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
See Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order. See the section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to maintain and update. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add also a column with statistic from here www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/
These reseachers use a methodology of Angus Madisson and continue his line of historical statistic.
THe most important part of this file - "gdp per capita in G-K dollars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.193.223 ( talk) 07:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Ujongbakuto has been removing the lists from the CIA World Factbook and from the U. of Pennsylvania. Both of these lists are widely used and cited and both include countries not available in either World Bank or IMF lists. They should not be deleted. Pristino ( talk) 00:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why is Aruba excluded from this list? — Insta ntnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Can it be two-column - one for ranking of sovereign states, and the other for all countries listed? — Insta ntnood 12:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
There is a great deal of estimation involved in producing these figures. Results published by different organisations can be quite different. Even with the same source, they can change their minds from year to year. (I keep track of the CIA figures, and they downgraded the US from 158.8% of the UK figure in 2000 to 136.5% of it in 2003, and they nearly doubled their estimate of Russia's PPP per capita in the late 1990s, despite the collapse of the Russian economy.) If this rule is not applied, people can pick and choose the most favourable figure for their country and add it to the table. 82.35.34.11 13:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Should be 27,800$ per capita [1], and not 26,800.
I was checking the GDP figures in the articles for Germany, Uk and France, and noticed that they are nit the same those listed here. Can someone sort out which figures are correct, or perhaps why they are different figures so disagree?? Sandpiper 12:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Also have a look at China (#4 of the world re GDP) and USA, Germany, Japan as the largest economies. E.g. per capita of Germany (population 82mm) is some $30k (in reality is more than $32k))whereas the one of China (population more than 1bn, so way more than 10x as large) is $7k according to the ranking. Does not match at all, don't you think?
===> This is not strange at all. The data in this table is based on PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). Nomial GDP per capita is quite different from the PPP data. The nominal GDP per capita of China is around 2,500 $ as far as I know. $7k is the adjusted value based on the low prices in China. But recently, IMF announced that the prices of China had been underestimated so its true PPP value might be around $5k not $7k. This problem occurred since China did not officialy allow IMF to look into the prices in China, so IMF has been using old data based on the prices in 1986.
I have a question about the CIA World Factbook that might pertain to this article, since it uses CIA data. The issue is whether one can do an intertemporal comparison of national economies using the GDP section of the Factbook? One issue is that the Factbook is often irratic between years when it comes to national GDP. For example, in 1999 (from the 2000 factbook), the CIA listed the GDP of Russia (PPP) as being $620 billion; then in 2000 (from the 2001 factbook), it was listed as being $1.12 trillion, about 80% growth. Given that the Russian economy did not grow 80% in 2000 and the calculation is PPP, is it not true that the CIA must have changed the method that it used to calculate the statistic? In this case, does the CIA have estimates as to what it thought the Russian economy really was in 1999? If not, how do they explain the discrepancy? The official growth rate of Russia in 2000 was about 10%.
Of course, the issue is not limited only to Russia. If they changed the criteria in one case, they presumably did in other cases as well. In general, is it possible to do intertemporal comparison with factbook statistics such as the GDP PPP and per capita GDP PPP? I would appreciate especially if an employee who knows how the CIA factbook works sees this discussion. I have also posted this comment on the CIA article. 18.251.6.67 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that in 1999 Russia had $620 billion, but almost 86% inflation rate and that the value given in 2000 was 1.12 trillion. I also understand that in 1998 Russia was in a really tough depression that continued over to 99. 2000 had a bomb wih rising oil and Putin was able to get inflation down to normal. So 86% of the change came from inflation and the other 4 from economic growth.dualdual
I propose we should have multiple tables, 1 from IMF and 1 from CIA factbook, to show variation between calculation methods and also stop the incessant number changes that supporters of various countries perform. Frogular 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The third poorest country in the Americas (after Bolivia and Haiti), is missing from this list.
According to the much-debated article on Cuba, it should rank as the 126th country, with a per capita figure of $3,000, very close to Bolivia. By the way, both the figure and the position number given for Bolivia (#125 and Int. $2,817, respectively) are wrong, as they are in fragrant contradiction with the data in the article for Bolivia for 2006 (GDP Int. $949).
At any rate, the $3,000 figure for Cuba looks extremely fattened and unreliable (nothing to be surprised about).
Hopefully someone with access to solid, reliable information fixes these errors.
AVM 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"for all 180 members of the
International Monetary Fund" the IMF article says "With the exception of North Korea, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, Tuvalu and Nauru, all UN member states either participate directly in the IMF or are represented by other member states." Hence data for these countries should be added at the end as it's not like-for-like compatible. Lichenstein would have been very near the top I would expect.
Rich
Farmbrough 21:56
19 May
2006 (UTC).
14:55 - 01 June 2006 - Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.
The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP.
Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.
The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.
Source:
http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 --
212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006. -- 212.227.101.15 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph (along with restoring the IMF figures due to an other editor):
It sounds all logic to me, but is it original research, or appropriate having it in this article (quite elaborate for a list off-article), can we use it somewhere else? Van helsing 13:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't Hong Kong on the map?
Do you know what is a country and what is a sovereign state? 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
On a high-contrast LCD monitor, 40k+ countries and 20k+ countries are completely undistinguishable, and 10k+ countries are indistinguishable from the former unless one looks VERY carefully. This image is much less informative than the multicolor copy. Practicality is more important than aestetics, put back the old image.
The IMF has published their newest data for September 2006:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weoselgr.aspx
( MD 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC))
Where's Iraq???
Where in the list can I find information about the DPRK? ( Stefan2 06:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
Ok,who totaly f***ed up the table,this is not the IMF ranking of estimates for 2005,for example in this list Croatia no.60 GDP 11,600,IMF website Croatia 2005. no.54 GDP 12,324,Serbia and Montenegro is listed twice with impossible GDP estimates...-- BorgDrone 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok,the list is fixed,thnx to Polaron.-- BorgDrone 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the [CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html] statictics the GDP of Azerbaijan is 4,800 not 4,600 little diference but could somebody update the numbers please Baku87 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an IMF list,there is a separate CIA World fact book statistics list.-- BorgDrone 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Data Interchanged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.33.162 ( talk • contribs) (and reverted)-- Van helsing 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooooh
Ireland appears to be on the list twice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.142.177 ( talk • contribs)
I think we should update the list to the 2007 estimates. The articles of the individual countries list the 2007 estimates anyway, and sometimes they compare them to these 2005 datas, leading to incorrect rankings. Frigo 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Greece should now be 14th on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.160.165 ( talk) 08:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Just wondering: number 29 in the table is 'Netherlands Antilles, Netherlands'. Why isn't Aruba included?
According to Netherlands,
"The Netherlands ... is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands ... which consists of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba."
I would have thought the figure would be for either:
What have I missed here? -- Shirt58 09:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Qatar is not 11th in the list. Apple 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
the list is based upon two different systems of data: one system is the IMF estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, whereas the other system is the CIA estimation for 2006 - based upon the most updated data (including 2006 data). e.g. Israel's data are taken from the (most updated) data of the CIA, whereas most of the other countries are exhibited with the (less updated) data of the IMF. Please fix the list, either by updating the data for all other countries according to CIA estimation for 2006 (based upon the most updated data including 2006 data), or by giving all the countries the same (less updated) IMF estimation for 2005 (obtained by extrapolating 2004 data). Eliko 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You've been absolutely wrong: what was published by the IMF in september 2006 - is an estimation for 2005 - based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, and that's clearly declared in the very document of IMF. There are also further estimations for 2006 and even for 2007 - all of which based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an article for all of these estimations, named: " List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP)". All of these estimations are based upon (extrapolating) 2004 data, making no use of more updated data. However, the data supplied by the CIA are based upon the most updated data - including 2006 data. e.g. in 2006 Equatorial Guinea became third in the world, since - in this year - much oil and gas was suddenly found in the country, but IMF doesn't even hint at this new fact, because IMF just extrapolated 2004 data (for the estimations of following years), so Equatorial Guinea is still located very low in the list of IMF, even in the estimates for 2006 and 2007 - which were unfortunately obtained by (extrapolating) 2004 data. Eliko 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I find the IMF results to be quite inaccurate. Either the IMF or the Australian Government have got it badly wrong according to this document (when comparing it to the IMF results): http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf ( Mattrix18 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
The name of the article - is "list of countries", but the two lists differ on defining the very term of " country". The IMF list deals mainly with (sovereign) states (plus two non-states: Netherlands Antilles - belonging to Netherlands, and Hong Kong - which is a part of China), whereas the CIA list deals - not only with (sovereign) states - but also with a lot of dependent territories (e.g. autonomous colonies, economic entities, and son on), thus adding other 31 non-states to the original list of the IMF. Here is the full list of 33 non-states (according to the order in the CIA list):
Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands (=Islas Malvinas), Macau, Aruba, Greenland, Puerto Rico, French Polynesia, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, American Samoa, Niue, Mayotte, Wallis and Futuna, Montserrat, Saint Helena, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Tokelau.
84.228.175.207 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you know the differences between country and sovereign state?
Porkie Chopie 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Eliko 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a new map. The last one was hard to read because some of the colors were too similar and the gaps were too big. Like 10,000-40,000 shouldn't have been the same color. Very large economic difference. I am pretty sure I made all the correct updates. Does everyone like it? Did I make any mistakes? - Brainboy109 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC
why the hell has saudi gone down to 13,600 when a few days ago it was 13,800 per capita, please change to 2007 est. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Unites (
talk) 07:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
this artical has suffered from major vanalism. someoone has changed it to an artical about tiolets per country and put a bunch of other stupid stuff. Can someone please fix it!
DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! — Nightstallion 09:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody update the IMF rank with newer data. The country's per capita income has increased significantly in recent years, to #2 (2005), instead of #37 as ranked by the IMF. Aran| heru| nar 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Map was updated.-- Thin Film 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Romania has a GPD/ capita of almost 10 000$, accordind to IMF, more precisely of 9 900, while Bulgaria's lower, with 9 600. In the map, Bulgaria is listed as a country with 10 000+ per capita, and Romania with lower -10 000, in yellow. I request the fast updating of the map. Thank you!
ComUSSR Friday, September 21st, 2007
Could someone please verify what currency is used on this page. It is not made clear. ♠
219.89.240.102 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The estimates of those countries are based on data of 2005 (except for Trinidad and Tobago of which estimates are based on data of 2002), as one can see here 213.151.32.56 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Source link is broken. I want to check that they really think Liberia's GDP per capita is 19 dollars. Someone please find a new source ASAP, I couldn't find one with a quick google search. Rm999 02:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think UPenn stats aren't necessary. They are outdated (most of data are of years 2003 and 2004) and only make this page messier. Sch614 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the CIA data is accurate and shouldn't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.128.35 ( talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You guys do realize that the transition from communist to market economy basicely killed those economies. They have been getting rebuild. To state that the old date is inaccurate because of the way these economies are now, is simply stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny4life ( talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The self-declared and internationally unrecognised "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" should not be numbered as any normal sovereign state. According to Wikipedia's list of sovereign states, it is only included as one of the "states that claim sovereignty" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, the source cited, the CIA World Factbook, includes the data for northern Cyprus under Cyprus, not a separate entry. If it is to be included at all, it should be listed as Northern Cyprus, per the article's location on Wikipedia, and italicised as are the territories of all other internationally recognised states. As for the former Yugoslav Republic of "Macedonia", the "established term" on Wikipedia per WP:MOSMAC is "Republic of Macedonia", so I have extended User:ChrisO's recent edit to the other two columns. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 11:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been an update of CIA data (2007 estimates) which should replace the ones posted. Also, when World Bank updated data are released, I think they should be used in place of the U Penn data (if there is a need for a third source). Skartsis ( talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I can't edit this page due to protection. I was going to add the 2007 est of gdp per capita, which needs to be added now. Anyway when will the world bank gdp per capita report be released? just asking. We also need a map showing the countries different datas.
Thank YOu. Bye. Muzammil01 ( talk) 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The 2008 World Factbook has been issued and has updated the GDP per capita list. Also, I believe the University of Pen data are totally out of date, wrong and thus the whole list should be removed because it creates confusion. 77.83.46.166 ( talk) 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the column order (CIA, Penn., IMF, WB) is due to the number of entries (countries and other entities) in each list. The CIA has the most entries, Penn. has less, and so on. It's not because I have some special preference over any list; that would be POV. We could also order them alphabetically, but what letter do you choose for each list? "C" for CIA? or "W" for World Factbook, etc.? ☆ CieloEstrellado 10:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was shocked when I saw the term Cyprus (island), Cyprus (southern) and Cyprus (northern). If we are to include in this list unrecognised states then we better include Abkhazia, Nagorno-Kabash, South Ossetia, Somali Land, Tamil Eelam and Transnistria to say the least. But they are not included so this feature needs to be removed. I will remove it personally in two weeks time if no one objects to this. User:WhiteMagick
The list begins with Afghanistan: Silly! Pennsylvenia what?: Outdated! Please take look at other GDP list! If this is not fixed any time soon, I´ll reintroduce the old versions (IMF / CIA only) by myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.16.69 ( talk) 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have already warned User:Eliko and User:CieloEstrellado about resolving their dispute for this list, and yet they each continue to blindly revert each other's edits without making any compromise changes. I encourage them to reach consensus here on this talk page. The article has been fully protected for a week to stop the disputive ping-pong revert activity and allow for a consensus to be reached. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So far, just four points of controversy have remained between us (I and you only):
Yesterday, February 12 2008, the CIA updated its World Factbook information on Cyprus ( updated version here).
Here I present both before and after versions:
This is the version updated as of January 24 2008, available thanks to the Google cache ( link here):
This is the latest version updated as of February 12 2008 ( link here):
As you can see, the CIA has now removed the second value in "GDP (purchasing power parity) / area under government control," "GDP (official exchange rate) / area under government control," "GDP - real growth rate / area under government control" and "GDP - per capita (PPP) / area under government control."
What this means is that the second value (now removed) was an error made by the CIA that they've now corrected.
Now the CIA value for Cyprus will be included, as it is only one. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The order is presented numerically correct when sorted by the IMF numbers, but not by the other methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.207.6 ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
On most columns, sorting is alphabetical not numerical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.9.19 ( talk) 01:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you look carefully you'll see that the figures for the West Bank and Gaza are not a mere coincidence, as in the case of Tokelau and American Samoa or Guam and New Caledonia. The figure for the former "(includes Gaza Strip)" and vice versa. ·ΚέκρωΨ· ( talk) 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, but CIA has split them because each of them is controlled by a separate body (which does not recognize the other one). Wikipedia is committed to citing its sources, rather than to making its sources undergo any external interpretation. SSnormal ( talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
IMF | World Bank | CIA Factbook | Penn | Suggested |
---|---|---|---|---|
Afghanistan, Rep. of. | Afghanistan | Afghanistan | Afghanistan | ![]() |
Antigua and Barbuda | Antigua and Barbuda | Antigua and Barbuda | Antigua | ![]() |
Bahamas, The | Bahamas, The | Bahamas, The | Bahamas | ![]() |
Brunei Darussalam | Brunei Darussalam | Brunei | Brunei | ![]() |
Myanmar | Myanmar | Burma | ![]() | |
Congo, Democratic Republic of | Congo, Dem. Rep. | Congo, Democratic Republic of the | Congo, Dem. Rep. | ![]() |
Congo, Republic of | Congo, Rep. | Congo, Republic of the | Congo, Republic of | ![]() |
Egypt | Egypt, Arab Rep. | Egypt | Egypt | ![]() |
Faeroe Islands | Faroe Islands | ![]() | ||
West Bank and Gaza | Gaza Strip | ![]() | ||
Channel Islands | Guernsey | ![]() | ||
Hong Kong SAR | Hong Kong, China | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ![]() |
Iran, Islamic Republic of | Iran, Islamic Rep. | Iran | Iran | ![]() |
Channel Islands | Jersey | ![]() | ||
Korea, Dem. Rep. | Korea, North | Korea, Dem. Rep. | ![]() ![]() | |
Korea | Korea, Rep. | Korea, South | Korea, Republic of | ![]() ![]() |
Kyrgyz Republic | Kyrgyz Republic | Kyrgyzstan | Kyrgyzstan | ![]() |
Lao People's Democratic Republic | Lao PDR | Laos | Laos | ![]() |
Macao, China | Macau | Macao | ![]() | |
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of | Macedonia, FYR | Macedonia | Macedonia | ![]() |
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. | Micronesia, Federated States of | Micronesia, Fed. Sts. | ![]() | |
Russia | Russian Federation | Russia | Russia | ![]() |
Slovak Republic | Slovak Republic | Slovakia | Slovak Republic | ![]() |
Syrian Arab Republic | Syrian Arab Republic | Syria | Syria | ![]() |
Taiwan Province of China | Taiwan | Taiwan | ![]() | |
Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of | Timor-Leste | Timor-Leste | ![]() | |
Venezuela | Venezuela, RB | Venezuela | Venezuela | ![]() |
Virgin Islands (U.S.) | Virgin Islands | ![]() | ||
West Bank and Gaza | West Bank | ![]() | ||
Yemen, Republic of | Yemen, Rep. | Yemen | Yemen | ![]() |
Other comments:
— Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept all - except for Ivory Coast and East Timor: When I say "Wikipedia should cite" - I mean: "english wikipedia should cite (of course after translating the terms into english)". For example, I think that when giving the french president's statements - the english wikipedia should cite his statements - of course after translating them into english. The same with Ivory Coast and East Timor. Furthermore, if the english sources had given foreign names (including proper names, e.g. Espania) which have an eglish version (e.g. Spain) - then the english Wikipedia should have translated them as well. That's why I think that "Timor Leste" should be changed to "East Timor". SSnormal ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am against putting combined data into uncombined entities. That's just misleading, even with a footnote. Wikipedia shouldn't mislead users, even in good faith. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have the data for Scotland? It would be very interesting to see where Scotland sits in the table. Alan, Scotland.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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
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/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ek.html
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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
160.39.195.88 changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Taiwan". — Insta ntnood 16:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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:
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I totally agree with you. Don't use bad talk on a public G-Rated discussion, 71.211.203.211.
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)
On an article on wikipedia it says England's GDP per capita is 26 904 euros in 2004 [6]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
...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)
That way, we can see what we are on the list.
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)
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)
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)
I was reading by accident the Mediation Cabal and I must say that Eliko has a point in some of his requests.
In all, I really would like to see the IMF year column restored. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
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) —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
recent data from the world bank suggested that China's GDP was overstated by as much as 40%, that is probably the reason for the drop.
The data for Malta is a laugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.235.82 ( talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the United Kingdom's GDP has fallen?
Yeah...odd? Bsrboy ( talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wow! You updated all that information? That's insane ♥Hogan♥ ( talk) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
These sorting buttons are a mess, why don't just have three normal tables in column sorted by rank as in List of countries by GDP (PPP)? -- Anna Lincoln ( talk) 09:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a Muslim Country; Qatar, now has the highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world!! just taken over Luxermburg! CIA lits is now updated! please check!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The Cia List has been updated for some countries. Thank You.
Shakaib ( talk) 09:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that it is a bit redundant to have both the CIA and IMF world maps for GDP (PPP) per capita since they contain essentially the same data. I recommend removing one of them. The CIA version is in the preferred SVG format, but I do like the color scheme of the IMF version a little better. What are some other thoughts? Thatoneguy89 ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a mistake, Brunei is ranked very high on this list with over $50,000 per capita, while the main article on the country says that it only has $24,826 per capita. Am I missing something? -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In both IE 7 and Firefox 2, sorting by the supposedly numerical fields sorts the data as if the data is in string format (for example, 1 < 101 < 5, instead of 1 < 5 < 101). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.62.227 ( talk) 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange thing is: the first time you sort the IMF Rank, it works well (at least on this IE7 browser), second time ranking and other ranks give the same problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.56.153.180 ( talk) 09:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem confirmed in Firefox 3 RC. This should really be fixed... totally annoying. 85.224.7.253 ( talk) 05:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorting countries by rank does not work properly. If I click on the sorting button, I see the country in lexycographical ordering 1, 10, 100, 101, 102, ..., 2, 20, 21 etc instead of the natural ordering 1,2,3,4,... I do not know how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 ( talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This method puts all the N/A's at the top of the list. Not good. I have absolutely no problem with the good old "click twice" method. I use Safari and it works. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
See this video I made, where I show that sorting does work. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed this map, since it isn't really correct. See the Talk page of this picture for information. H2ppyme ( talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
How about ranking the countries by highest GDP per Capita. Also, how about not using PPP also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 ( talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the rank be the default selection in this article?
Like in the articles of these countries, it says 1st, 4th, 15th and so on. If you press the link on those numbers in those articles, people come to this list, and expect to find the country they clicked on to be at the rank they wanted to find. And therefore it should not be in an alphabetic order. Just a thought. 83.108.236.203 ( talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion of this subject here. Tomeasy T C 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
some prankster has boosted mexico's figures, but forgot to update the ranking too :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 ( talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How can we make it sort as numbers, not text? As it is when I click to sort by rank, it goes 1, 10, 11, 100, etc, completely useless. Emeraldemon ( talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
are you insane ordering it by alphabet, how is someone supposed to get an overview???? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.241.228.15 (
talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
We should establish a list of countries by ranking, not like that, its confusing. I think we should begin since the reading of this important talk to should complete such a long list. Historian19 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
(1) The default ordering of the table should be by "Rank" from "richest" per capita to "poorest".
(2) There's a nasty glitch in the table software. Instructions say "To sort the table in descending order, click twice on the square above the column you wish to sort by." If I sort by Rank: "descending" ("poorest to richest"), table displays correctly. (Starts with four non-ranked countries, then Burundi at #179, etc.) However, when I attempt to sort by Rank: "ascending" ("richest to poorest"), displays by first digit of rank: i.e.
Rank
- - - -
1
10
100
101
102
...
108
109
11
110
111
112
...
118
119
12
120
This is Wrong, and needs to fixed.
--
201.37.230.43 (
talk) 13:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
CIA data for 2008 (GDP per capita) have been published. It looks that they follow more WB estimates this time. Skartsis ( talk) 12:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
IMF Ranking for Pakistan showing 28 together with Greece ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanuraj ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Its clearly seen that is a typo error. It should have been 128. The position 128 is missing in the IMF Ranking !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanuraj ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of having a link to Indian states' GDP? Seems pretty much irrelevant to me. CaptainFugu ( talk) 09:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
IMF data isn't sorting properly. It is sorting all the ones first whether they are 1,000 or 10,000 or 100. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Trying to use these lists in this article is hopelessly hard. It would be much better to make a list like this: http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdas_land_etter_bruttonasjonalprodukt_per_innbyggjar or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... 83.108.208.23 ( talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Norsk" one needs an update :). It was already suggested. We can have some vote or something. Rave92 ( talk) 09:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
These data were published yesterday (April 22). Also, the maps (IMF, CIA) need some updating. Congratulations for the great work, anyway (I read a lot of criticism for details, but actually a lot of credit is due to those who put together such great - continuously updated - articles). The availability of an on-line medium with such an amazing wealth of updated information is something we couldn't dream of, even a few years earlier; it is clearly a product of a lot of hard work which has to be appreciated. Skartsis ( talk) 06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this list be based on high to low? Not alphabetically? It's fun to look at countries and see their ranks... So why is it in alphabetical order? That's not a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krajowandleap ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but to come with CIA or WB rank? We can maybe have a vote about should we organize it by rank. Rave92 ( talk) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 IMF data for Brazil shows per capita GDP as 10,325.796, a long way from the 38,830 shown here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.15.147 ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Then just fix it. Rave92( talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The World Bank published the GDP and Population figures for 2008 today, so the article needs to be updated. 208.79.239.160 ( talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Where I can find it? -- Wilder 1989 ( talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Done ☆
CieloEstrellado 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Great job CieloEstrellado for taking the time to update the list!!! Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Can this WB info be used on Infobox about country like the info about PPP? As for the most the IMF one is used... Rave92( talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
By the CIA Factbook, GDP PPP of Montenegro is 10,100, not 9,700. Rave92( talk) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
These should ONLY be included when the original source has them. Otherwise it is Original Research. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Does everyone agree on using commas in countries to be able to sort them alphabetically? For example, China, People's Republic of instead of People's Republic of China? If nobody is against the use of commas, I will change the article accordingly. Pristino ( talk) 12:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why we would do that? It's not like countries are set alphabetically but by their GDP PPP. Rave92( talk) 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Why does the list exclude .....-- 222.64.18.96 ( talk) 05:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Bangladesh ranked first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.134.195 ( talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the CIA List, Serbia has 10,800 so above World-Average of 10,400. Thus on the 2nd Map Serbia should be in blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.205.10 ( talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The insertion of Hong Kong's unofficial data into the official data does not put into consideration that it would hinder the already calculated results for China. One must make a note of this. Hardassteel ( talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there no-one in here to update the data since 2008 ? omg.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.113.71 ( talk) 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
I've recalculated data down to "Russia" on the list of countries by total GDP, someone else needs to complete this.
what about Tunisia?
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)
GDP only 16,000, cia factbook says it is third with a gdp of 50,000, just type in cia factbook in google
The map indicates that the data is "US $". In fact, the IMF's PPP data is given in International $s. --Pandyora
Are bad. Poland has too low per capita, than in reality. Sad, people thinking misuse.
No one has mentioned that the ranking of PPP is going to change on 2008 so these results are going to be outdated, South America and Europe have yet given results without giving us international dollars.
By the other hand, where is the GNI PPP per capita World Bank ranking?... i guess it is a nice source http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf
As far as i can see, this page is about "GDP per capita by countries ", considering countries are listed alphabetically. 85.102.162.226 ( talk · contribs)
User:Khalidshou insists on removing the data year for countries in the CIA list ( here and here), while misleadingly putting "2009" in the heading as if all the values in the list were from 2009 only. I kindly ask Khalidshou to stop doing this. Pristino ( talk) 06:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed Kosovo was taken off the list. It was in the 2008 lists, now it's not. Could someone double check this please? --Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.61.194 ( talk) 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I have deleted the column for how many percent about the average a country is. However, the way I calculated the average was hardest, taking the plain average of the values of the first column of the table. That average does not take into account the populations of the countries or the economic power of the countries. Coming up with a better way of calculating the average would be helpful. Given we are interested in the figures per capita, taking the populations of the countries as the weight for building a weighted average rather than plain average would probably be the best way to do it.
Does PPP per capita realy depict relation between salaries and prices?For example it's somewhat hard to believe for me that Greeks (PPP 32.100$) and Spaniards (PPP 33.700$) live basicaly as good as Germans (PPP 34.200$).I thought there should be remarkeable difference in level of life between those countries.Where is it possible to obtain more true comparison in prices and salaries coefficient for different countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggernaut
Spain currently have unemployment 18.5%,which is at least 2 times greater than that of Germany,Greece has terrible budget crisis and Southern half of Italy almost do not produce anything.Those countries always been on donations in EU.If they have basically the same income per capita as Germany what is reason to receive donations?What is produced by Southern Europian countries?In documentary movies they seem to look much less developed then Nothern Europian. added by Juggernaut
Unemployment and deficits have nothing to do with current standard of living (they may have to do with trends though, i.e., rate of development). Iceland (the worst hit country that went to the IMF) is richer than Germany, Spain or Greece, and so (actually much richer) is Ireland (let alone the state of California !). Now about the E.U. "donations", I'll agree on that, but there were established when there were larger differences in incomes. The E.U funds, nonetheless, are supposed to have mutual benefits - at least in the long run. Both Spain and Greece have been very good "customers" to donor countries' exports (in the case of the latter, including billions of Euros of military orders). Again, though, I'll agree that any "donation" would make no sense whatsoever nowadays.... Skartsis ( talk) 15:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The graph shows Above and Below Average, but does not show average, maybe this will help. 195.124.114.41 ( talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
GDP Per capita is registering $87,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.75.39 ( talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Here.
Eliko ( talk) 17:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Should it be noted in the article that the IMF and World Bank lists do not include several countries (presumably because they don't have reliable data or they don't track the particular country)?
65.4.91.169 ( talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there no IMF data for the European Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.252.202 ( talk) 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Brazil's GDP is $11,289 which is above the $10,500 world GDP (PPP) per capita, but its color on the map is orange. Ademsemir ( talk) 04:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The CIA table sorts Zimbabwe, at 400, last. The two nations above it are listed at 300, both below Zimbabwe. Consistency is not always the hobgoblin of small minds. MartinRinehart ( talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If you go to the country's Wikipedia page GDP per capita in PPP is $8,063 so something is seriously out somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.162.109 ( talk) 15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The numbers don't add up for its 103rd rank on the list. If the GDP figures are correct, Syria should follow 108th Fiji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.23.1.60 ( talk) 04:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The rankings on these tables do not properly deal with those counted as 'equal'. For example, if there are two countries who are ranked as equal third, by definition there is no fourth rank, and the next country should be ranked fifth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.232.28 ( talk) 02:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello:
This article seems to be preferred over other articles on median income by country, and those have been neglected, with very old (2004, 2007) numbers.
For economic study purposes, I understand. However, for an individual trying to understand people they meet in another country, wouldn't current median income numbers be more useful? Haven't we seen a great deal of news articles and research pointing out the importance of wealth distribution, i.e. that median income is much more important than average income?
Thanks,
MiszaBot I ( talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.9.210 ( talk) 01:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
some dude vandalized this, i tried to fix it by choosing a different version but doesnt help-- MiszaBot I ( talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quwazz22 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
here.
I've made the tables collapsible, to make it feasible to add more tables without making the article appear too crowded due to too many tables appearing at once. I've also added the Penn World Tables, which is a highly esteemed estimation of GDP PPP. Pristino ( talk) 07:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
See Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order. See the section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to maintain and update. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add also a column with statistic from here www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/
These reseachers use a methodology of Angus Madisson and continue his line of historical statistic.
THe most important part of this file - "gdp per capita in G-K dollars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.193.223 ( talk) 07:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Ujongbakuto has been removing the lists from the CIA World Factbook and from the U. of Pennsylvania. Both of these lists are widely used and cited and both include countries not available in either World Bank or IMF lists. They should not be deleted. Pristino ( talk) 00:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)