Talk:List of countries by future GDP (nominal) estimates

To everybody who thinks the data given here is not real: PLEASE consider the currency exchange rate first. Thank you. --SleepySheepy (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this list, the nominal GDP of the EU will be 15,342.908 billions of USD by the end of this year, and it was 18,394,115 millions of USD (about 18,394 billions) last year ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) ). However according to IMF's "WORLD ECONOMIC OUTPUT (APRIL 2009)/Real GDP Growth"-list (http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php) the GDP of the EU will "only" fall 4% this year. Using simple mathematics ( 18,394,115 * 0.04 = 735,764.1 18,394,115 - 735,764.1 = 17,658,350.9 ) would make the GDP of the EU about 17,658,350.9 millions of USD next year. Am I doing something wrong here or did they forgot about 2 trillion dollars!? - Swedish pirate (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that both lists provided were updated at about the same time. - Swedish pirate (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gdp growth rates and exchange rates are changing all the time the numbers for 2008 could have been made a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.250.83 (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Russia 1.3 trillion Brazil 1.31 trillion

2008 Russia 1.7 trillion Brazil 1.6 trillion

how are those countries and Spain growing faster than Canada which has a strong currency, lots of oil, and ranks 8-9th in the world in exports and imports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.212.64 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stability, lots of oil, strong currency, etc. aren't the only factors in growth. Canada also has a very stifling tax/social welfare system that makes doing business in Canada very undesirable. Canada also is much less populous than Russia and Brazil, thus it's market is consequently smaller.68.164.3.124 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then what happened in 2009 ? Russia and Brazil contracted a lot more than Canada did.

Chchow (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the new estimates show that Canada is almost keeping up with India's growth until 2014 and Russia until 2013 overtaking Spain in 2 years

Grmike (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)grmike. it is also growing a lot faster than South Korea, Australia, Mexico. doesn't seem to be consistent with what happened over the last year.[reply]

But still, Canada can't shrink that fast...

Let's keep in mind that this page is about reporting estimates about future GDP and not about plugging one country over another. These are IMF's estimates, and I see nothing wrong with this data.Dagojr (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India's Nominal GDP is higher than projected in this list

Cross posting from the merged thread

Indian GDP for 2007

Its crossed the 1 trillion dollar mark guys... As such the 933 billion dollar figure is inaccurate and wrong. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

The IMF data is not uptodate. If there is no data available from other reliable sources then we must rely on it. If there is uptodate accurate data available why stick to the old, inacurate data provided by IMF? Chanakyathegreat 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it IMF data is out of date for India, it's also out of date for everyone else, so take it easy.68.164.3.124 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data available need to be used to update the article rather than keep the old data which is incorrect.Chanakyathegreat 05:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2008 figure is WP:OR, your 2007 figure is replacing a figure from a international, reliable, independent source. If you want to use local media as a source for all countries an all years, this page will become in-maintainable and the values will be incomparable with each other. Coming September the IMF will update their figures, please be patient. --Van helsing 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds does the EU has been included in the list???!! If it's because it's a trading bloc then it should be immediately "removed". It has to be either a country or a trsding bloc(only one of them). I ' m quite shocked to see that the data provided by the IMF is so outdated. India's GDP has surpassed the 1 trillion dollar mark in 2007 itself. I seriously suspect that the IMF is deliberately lowering the GDP so that India is down the list while pumping other countries(like netherlands)...now you know why it's called IMF...International Manipulating Fund.......User:PintuDaKintu--218.248.75.1 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)7:30,17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Yeah, that's right the IMF is just a big conspiracy to screw-over India and tick off impotent Indian nationalists like yourself whose entire self-worth is dependent on how great India is. See a therapist.68.164.3.124 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data from the links at present is highly reliable since it is uptodate information. The problem here is not that IMF is not reliable or unreliable. At present the data by IMF is unreliable or not upto date. A note to the readers need to be placed informing about it. Anyway we cannot have daily update of the same, but atleast such huge disparities in the data need to be corrected or the article itself becomes unreliable. IMF has already made certain updates. It can be seen in their websites. Let's await the said update in September to see the expected changes. Chanakyathegreat 13:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a disputed tag until the latest data is available. Chanakyathegreat 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the numbers in the article are the latest available from the IMF. Does anyone dispute that? If not, I'll take off the disputed tag. When new data is available, we should update the article (or put up a tag saying the article is out of date). There will always be newer, conflicting data from multiple sources. Our job is to pick a reliable source (IMF) and report their data, not to try to sort through thousands of conflicting sources.

Chchow (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come Russia will be ahead of India; plus, why does Russia grows faster than India? Russia is not a country that can grow faster than China and India!

This list shows estimates of GDP in nominal terms. Russia's economic growth in the past decade has been based on expansion and exports of its oil resources. This means that Russia's trade exposure to the outside world is large and its economy is "well" measured in nominal terms.

On the other hand, India's trade with the outside world is still small (as a fraction of its GDP). Hence, its economy remains undervalued in nominal terms. A better estimate may be obtained by measuring using the criterion of Purchasing Power Parity, according to which India is the fourth largest economy (and is expected to become third largest is 1-2 years).

As far as pace of growth is concerned, Russia's growth is strongly correlated with world oil prices. So its growth spikes up whenever oil prices increase, and vice versa. This might provide spurts of faster growth. On the other hand, the Indian economy's growth is very broad based (though agricultural growth always seems to lag). This might show up as as slower, but relatively more reliable growth

Anirudhvij (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's oil production could double or triple in the next decade (not a major oil producer right now but has 2nd largest oil reserves so there is much room for growth) this data doesn't reflect the affect your logic suggests it should have.

there are many factors at play. the thing most people are ignoring is the biggest factor. whether the US will have another economic collapse (this is almost a guarantee because what is propping up the US economy is unsustainable). everything from a terrorist attack (that would lead to war) to another bubble burst will cause that.Grmike (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

This article correctly makes use of parentheses to designate alternative names or information about the listed countries. It also incorrectly (by any manual of style, and companion articles) uses parentheses to show parent countries of separately listed territories. IE, Republic of China (Taiwan) is correct, it tells the reader the more familiar name. Hong Kong (People's Republic of China) is not correct, PRC is not a more familiar name for Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a constituent part of the People's Republic of China. As a manual of style would direct, going from lesser to greater for a place name necessitates a comma. The name Hong Kong uses in economic NGOs is Hong Kong, China. I am going to make that change. In doing so, I am removing Kingdom of the Netherlands from Netherlands Antilles, as Netherlands is already part of the name, giving readers all that they need to know. SchmuckyTheCat 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, please discuss before you apply your preference. Second, British Columbia isn't (as at 20:14, June 9, 2006) British. — Instantnood 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, Taiwan is not a country, it should appear in the list the same format as Hong Kong and Macau! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chow (talk • contribs) 11:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan certainly is a country, no matter how much China wishes it weren't 210.215.140.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Taiwan is certainly not a country, no matter how much Taiwan wishes it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.221.32.215 (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is not a country, but the Republic of China is. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China is a de facto country with embassies in most other countries, but this highlights a larger problem. The EU is not a country and yet it's on the list, i think the title of the page needs re-evaluation.

Re [6] - Why should the Netherlands Antilles be ranked, but not Hong Kong? — Instantnood 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I changed the numbering scheme. Quit making stupid style edits that get reverted and this kind of thing won't happen. Why don't you re-number Hong Kong without making other edits you know will be reverted? SchmuckyTheCat 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes in three different edits [7]. You have the obligation to revert only what you disagrees. " .. stupid style edits .. " - Please take note of WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. — Instantnood 06:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the table in this page have all of these figures when it is a page about GDP estimates for 2006? We already have pages for past GDP values and 2007 GDP estimates --Colonel Cow 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest: it was a bit of an test to see if the relative new sortable table feature would work well with big tables like these. Not a very good reason, I know. But it does work, though not incredibly quick. The sortable feature would make it unnecessary to create separate GDP articles for each year, because the reader has the opportunity to sort on the year of his/her interest (not possible before in a multiple column table).

What would you prefer? Separate sorted GDP year articles or one sortable multi year GDP article (big, but easier to compare years). --Van helsing 09:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the sorting thing is pretty spiffy. However, I think we should try to avoid overlapping the established list over at List of countries by GDP (nominal). Maybe a solution would be to create another page, List of countries by future GDP estimates (nominal) for example, on which we can place this table for the years 2006 & 2007 and update as the years go by. It would spare us the pain of having to create a new page each year. What do you think? --Colonel Cow 22:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. --Van helsing 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 discussion page not merged: Talk:List of countries by GDP estimates for 2007 (nominal)

Come on, the figures for Zimbabwe are comical - where on Earth have these statistics come from? Obviously wrong, as Zimbabwe's economy is shrinking and hardly exploding, even nominally, as suggested here.58.160.121.129 11:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the separate list of trade blocks with the EU and Mercosur looks silly. There was a long discussion about this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29, where the consensus was to keep the EU in the main table, without a ranking. To summarize, the European Union is unique in the world (not at all comparable to Mercosur or any other trade bloc), and is economically close to being a country. Can we agree to put the EU back in the main table, and delete the table of trade blocs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.72.27 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who added the "Economy 40% down" comment : The World Bank made that correction to China's GDP *PPP*, not nominal GDP. Commutator (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the reference? And how does the World Bank's GDP estimates relate to IMF's numbers? For 2007, China's GDP is much higher, so what's the explanation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhfive (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. I guess the 40% correction is due to the realization that there are many more below poverty-line people in China than was previously accounted for. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dee3a0d2-9218-11dc-8981-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 Mhhfive (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think is needed now the new estimations for 2009.LearnratesX (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The E.U cannot be added to the list since it is not a country. And if E.U is added as a country in the list then we have to remove the member states from the list like U.K, Germany, France, Italy etc.Chanakya The Great (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EU being present on such lists has a long precedence. And anyway, based on your logic we would have to remove all the nations because the world is listed. 78.105.230.196 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EU is a political and economic Union- not a merger there are very significant differences. By definition the EU is not a country, but a international organization.

they are all very close for the next 5-6 years small changes in exchange rates or the price of oil could change the order of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.63.221 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its ridiculous to suggest that pakistan has currently a half a trillion dollar economy measured in nominal terms. Which is projected to become a trillion dollar one by 2010. these are the antics of some self-deprecating idiot from pakistan going through an inferiority complex.

Rather than mouth off like some pathetic angry idiot, revert the changes, should be simple enough to do. And vandalism happens all over Wikipedia, which is why this site will never be a fully reliable academic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are so furious. You can just use the I.M.F. data to change it back. The data is reliable if you use data from the I.M.F. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2013&scsm=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=52&pr1.y=7&c=512%2C446%2C914%2C666%2C612%2C668%2C614%2C672%2C311%2C946%2C213%2C137%2C911%2C962%2C193%2C674%2C122%2C676%2C912%2C548%2C313%2C556%2C419%2C678%2C513%2C181%2C316%2C682%2C913%2C684%2C124%2C273%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698%2C941&s=PPPGDP&grp=0

((cchow2)talk) 3:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

October database is available

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=79&pr.y=7&sy=2008&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C446%2C914%2C666%2C612%2C668%2C614%2C672%2C311%2C946%2C213%2C137%2C911%2C962%2C193%2C674%2C122%2C676%2C912%2C548%2C313%2C556%2C419%2C678%2C513%2C181%2C316%2C682%2C913%2C684%2C124%2C273%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698%2C941&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=

I'll start to modify the old data and to order the table based on 2013 values —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadeiuss (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone post a source link to figures posted by User:58.9.163.196? In other way they have to be restored to IMF data. Elk Salmon (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC), Elk Salmon (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 11:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which column is used to come up with the initial ranking of the list that readers see when they just start reading the article (i.e., before manually ranking the list)?

I assume this should be according to the 2008 data, but it is not. Actually, none of the columns proved to be consistently used for this ranking. Therefore, I propose to fix this problem using the 2008 estimate as reference to apply the initial ranking. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

It's not sorted according to any column. It's shown according to the source code of the page. For example, if Burkina Faso was first in the source code, it would be shown at the top of the list. --95.40.5.236 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some serious flaws about India. India is the next superpower and the major competitor of China. How it possible India's GDP is so tiny.

China 2008 4,222.423 India 2008 1,232.946

China 2014 9,156.053 India 2014 2,285.012

That is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India is not the next superpower. China maybe. 90.219.254.51 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a perfect example of Western media brainwash, what a sad day for you to wake up to the reality!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.56.158 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality for India is even harsher, the latest data for 2008 is out now, and: China 4,401,614 India 1,209,686 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.67.131 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data for France and the UK were switched, which I have now corrected. 90.219.254.51 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's you who switched the data in contradiction with the source document. That's called vandalism, plain and simple. 83.202.82.33 (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you: Why don't you show your sources? Produce the links and te issue will be solved. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the history of the article and you'll understand. The list came from the IMF (source at the bottom of the article), then on January 10 the IP 84.226.84.58 from Switzerland changed the figures for the 16 top entries based on "UBS Wealth Management research (WMR) as of Dec 2008" (no link given, but the figures look credible enough), then on February 1 the IP 90.219.254.51 from the UK vandalized the article by switching the names "France" and "United Kingdom", thus placing the UK above France (surprise, suprise!), and probably the same person (90.206.170.130) did the same again on February 2 while claiming to "correct" the article. The fact that editors allow these vandals to act without hindrance is a big reason why many people do not trust Wikipedia. 82.123.115.195 (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are right in not doing so, and Wikipedia itself does not rely on Wikipedia as a source, for that matter. So there's nothing new here.

You say that your version is based on a UBS source, which is not even mentioned and that the list is currently not according to the source it claims to use as a reference. This is indeed a big problem. There are two ways to proceed: Either give the UBS source as a reference and base all data presented upon it, or revert to the last version which was consistent with the IMF source. the latter would have my preference, since the IMF is most commonly used as a source for GDP data on Wikipedia.

That is, if you can install a version that is in sync with the sources it cites, you will install quality and a stable version. Any tries from the other IP to swap UK and France will fail, if it is clear which source is used and the source can be checked by anyone. I would guess the IP would even stop their actions in this case. As I understand your explanation, the credibility of the current version unclear and this usually triggers what you call vandalism. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should tell that to IP 84.226.84.58 from Switzerland. He/she is the one who edited the article with the USB source, not me. 82.123.115.195 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was telling it to you, because you were complaining, while claiming that you know what is going on. If so, than just go ahead and fix the problem instead of telling others to do it for you. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lets stick to the firgures from the IMF october 2008, the next update are in April —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.34.139 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

by next year Canada is expected to overtake Brazil and it will have a larger economy for the next 3 years. if it takes a phenomenal year for India in 2013 to get it past Canada for the first time in history it doesn't deserve the spot its at. Keep Canada where it's at until 2011 and then check the estimates for 2013. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.224.12 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should. every economic indiacator besides nominal gdp places Canada far ahead of Brazil. Nominal gdp Canada is a lot larger for the next 3 years. 2012 is far away any generous estimates for that time should be taken lightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) "Taiwan, Republic of China"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita "China, Republic of (Taiwan)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_growth "Taiwan"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_and_Pacific_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) "Republic of China (Taiwan)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) contains a footnote which explains that the name "Taiwan, Province of China" is based on the IMF's naming convention. For tables which use IMF data, it might not be a bad idea to name Taiwan consistently and incorporate a footnote to clarify the name for people (like me) who are confused because they are not familiar with the IMF's naming convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.47.123 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above comment that "Taiwan, Province of China" should be used for data from IMF, with a footnote for people who are not familiar with IMF"s naming convention. Any other form violates the original meaning of the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.168.52 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think theese estimates are very low —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.59.192 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Monetary Fund list says germanys GDP of 2008 is 3,667,513 How can it be that it is already MUCH higher than what is expected for 2014 (3,292.870) while it's growing each year on this list? German GDP must shrink by 16.8% in 2009 to get low as the stupid 2009 estimation of 3,060.312

This list is completely nonsense, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.118.33 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this list is utter bullshit. Compare current nominal GDP with this list's supposed figures: Now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) This list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_(nominal)_estimates

Have a look at Australia: a $1,000 billion dollar economy which is projected to grow about 1% during this recession and 2 or 3% in 2010. Yet this list has its size at $750 billion this year. What the heck? Similar for other countries. It's just bull. 210.215.140.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Currency exchange rate !!! <--- Australia has its own currency. Growing in australian dollars, doesn't mean growing in american dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.115.10.253 (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one of the worst recessions in the world happened between 2008 data and 2009. that's why almost every economy contracted. average exchange rate of euro to us dollar was about 1.4-1.5 in 2008. in 2009 so far it's between 1.35-1.40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.175.1 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} {{lists of countries}} is currently undergoing deletion. Please replace its use in the article with its relevant successor template {{GDP country lists}} --Cybercobra (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done JPG-GR (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in 2008 their lists differed a lot . world bank Canada gdp 1.4 trillion cia factbook Canada gdp 1.6 trillion. the imf list is not more important than the other ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.175.1 (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current table seems not to include the only verified data of the year 2008. Right now all annual figures including the year 2009 are estimates and speculation. I´m wondering that not one figure here has a sustainable value. Very strange. Seniorfox (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the data is a projection of factual data put together by the imf over the course of the year. the page is titled estimates for that reason.Grmike (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)grmike[reply]

the gdp is 920 billion putting it ahead of South Korea, Mexico.Grmike (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)grmike[reply]

It appears that the table is ranked for the column most right, while you looked at the left. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea, Spain, Russia rankings reflect the first column not the last. ranking using the first column is better because the data in the right columns becomes progressively less reliable.Grmike (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)grmike[reply]

I have no strong inclination to either coumn being used, as long as one column is used consistently. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of european countries were in recession during 2009. How can the article present a growth GDP for countries like Spain?

Please, this article is not acceptable for studies and consult. Someone clear that data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malves12 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Spanish GDP for 2008: 1,601.964

Spanish GDP for 2009: 1,438.356 (estimated)

What growth??!!?!

Are you saying that 1,438.356 is BIGGER than 1,601.964 ? LOL --95.40.5.236 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that list its a bunch of crap.Polish GDP nominal is already more than 567,400 and on that list estimates on 2014 is 535,655.So what?One of the fastest growing economy will not grow or will contract?please somebody fix that list of nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.201.88 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dear, do not forget about the currency exchange rate. The data here is given in US dollars. Polish zloty has dropped much since October 2008. USD used to cost 2.00 PLN. Now it's about 2.90 PLN --SleepySheepy (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would b nice if you'd try to respond without patronising me with words like "my dear".Anyway exchange rate have nothing to do with that.if it would u would have to change them every month.Yes, Polish currency dropped but now its 1USD=2,70PLN.U r tryin 2 say that if in 2008 Polish GDP was 535,655 somehow it will take 6 years to achieve the same result?Where is sense in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.209.32 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, I just wanted to be nice, my dear :P Exchange rate DOES have a lot to do with that. Remember, these estimates were published in October 2009. So I guess they were based on the exchange rate from July or something like this. In April 2010 new estimates will be published. And I'm sure they will take the new exchange rate into account. So the answer is: NO, it won't take 6 years to achieve the same result, because the value of PLN is growing. I will paste you a link to original IMF data for Poland. GDP in national currency (PLN) and in USD. You will see that GDP in national currency has NOT dropped: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=964&s=NGDP%2CNGDPD&grp=0&a=&pr.x=68&pr.y=10 --SleepySheepy (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dear Mr SleepySheepy is indeed right. It has a lot to do with the exchange rate, as the Polish GDP that presumably is first calculated in PLN needs to tranfered into USD to be comparable to all the others. This transition is done by nothing else than the exchange rate. Hence, if the Polish economy stagnates in PLN it can still in- or decrease in USD. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the new IMF estimate for Poland for 2010 will be around 495 billions (or more), although the official data for 2009 will remain at around 420 billions. When IMF calculates the GDP in dollars, it divides the GDP in national currency by the average exchange rate during the given year. For example, if the average exchange rate USD/PLN in 2008 was 2.41 and the GDP in national currency is 1,271.734, then the GDP in dollars will be 1,271.734 / 2.41 = 527.700. The average exchange rate in 2009 was more or less 3.14 PLN for 1 USD; estimated GDP in national currency for 2009 is 1,332.339 billions. Let's divide 1,332.339/3.14. Result = 424 billions. So it's very similar to IMF's estimate (422 billions). --SleepySheepy (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some code today. When you go to the source with IMF data, select everything using your mouse, copy & paste to a text file (in.txt). My program will sort everything according to the left-most year. Then it will create an output file with wiki-like formating. You just need to copy the content of the output file and paste it to wiki ;)

This is the code of my program:

/* * VERY IMPORTANT: * * there HAS TO be a SPACE at the end of each line !!! * * there HAS TO be a new line at the end of the input file !!! * * name of the input file: in.txt * name of the output file: out.txt * * The programme does not need any parameters to run * */ #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> typedef struct strROWS { char line[1000]; double value; } strROWS; void operate_on_row(int current_line, strROWS *structure, char *row); void word(int current_line, strROWS *structure, char *word, int *WRITE, int *SPACE_OR_PIPES, int *WAS_FIRST_YEAR); double extract_value(char *word); int sort_function(const void *a, const void *b); int main(void) { FILE *fileIn, *fileOut; strROWS RowsOfStr[500]; int current_row = 0; char row[1000]; char character; int current_char = 0; char get_enter[5]; int i; //loop counter fileIn = fopen("in.txt", "rt"); if (fileIn == NULL) { printf("I can't open the input file in.txt\n"); fgets(get_enter, 3, stdin); return 1; } fileOut = fopen("out.txt", "wt"); if (fileOut == NULL) { printf("I can't open the output file out.txt\n"); fgets(get_enter, 3, stdin); fclose(fileIn); return 1; } while ( (character = fgetc(fileIn)) != EOF ) { if (character != '\n') //there HAS TO be a new line at the end of the input file { row[current_char] = character; current_char++; } else { row[current_char] = '\0'; RowsOfStr[current_row].line[0]='\0'; operate_on_row(current_row, RowsOfStr, row); //operate on this row current_row++; // go to the next row current_char = 0; } } qsort((void *)RowsOfStr, current_row, sizeof(strROWS), sort_function); for (i=current_row-1; i>=0; i--) { fprintf(fileOut, "|{{Flag|"); fprintf(fileOut, RowsOfStr[i].line); fprintf(fileOut, " || October 2009\n|--\n"); } fclose(fileOut); fclose(fileIn); return 0; } void operate_on_row(int current_line, strROWS *structure, char *row) { char buf[100]; char character; int current_char = 0; int char_in_buf = 0; int WRITE = 1; //1-true, 0-false int SPACE_OR_PIPES = 1; //1-space, 0-pipes int WAS_FIRST_YEAR = 0; //1- yes, 0-no while ( (character = row[current_char]) != '\0' ) //process entire row { if (character != ' ') { buf[char_in_buf] = character; char_in_buf++; } else { buf[char_in_buf] = '\0'; word(current_line, structure, buf, &WRITE, &SPACE_OR_PIPES, &WAS_FIRST_YEAR); //process the word char_in_buf = 0; } current_char++; } } void word(int current_line, strROWS *structure, char *word, int *WRITE, int *SPACE_OR_PIPES, int *WAS_FIRST_YEAR) { if ( strcmp(word, "Gross") == 0 ) { *SPACE_OR_PIPES=0; *WRITE=0; strcat(structure[current_line].line, "}}"); } if ( strcmp(word, "") == 0 ) { *WRITE=1; return; } if (*WRITE==0) return; if (*SPACE_OR_PIPES == 1) strcat(structure[current_line].line, " "); else { if (*WAS_FIRST_YEAR == 0) { *WAS_FIRST_YEAR = 1; structure[current_line].value = extract_value(word); //return; //omit first year (use this year only for sorting) } strcat(structure[current_line].line, " || "); } strcat(structure[current_line].line, word); } double extract_value(char *word) { char buf[100]; int i; int found_a_comma = 0; int marker; double to_return; strcpy(buf, word); do { marker = 0; for (i=0; buf[i]!='\0'; i++) { if ( buf[i] == ',' ) { found_a_comma = 1; buf[i] = '\0'; strcat(buf, buf+i+1); marker = 1; //breaks the loop earlier break; //break the FOR loop } } if ( marker == 0 ) found_a_comma = 0; //if "normally" exited the loop } while ( found_a_comma == 1 ); to_return = atof(buf); return to_return; } int sort_function(const void *a, const void *b) { if ( ((strROWS*)a)->value < ((strROWS*)b)->value ) return -1; if ( ((strROWS*)a)->value > ((strROWS*)b)->value ) return 1; return 0; // a == b }

--SleepySheepy (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Grmike:

This list is initially sorted according to the 2008 IMF ranking. According to this ranking Russia is between Italy and Spain. Here is a link for you:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=193%2C273%2C223%2C156%2C924%2C922%2C184%2C132%2C134%2C534%2C136%2C112%2C158%2C111&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=&pr.x=40&pr.y=13

--SleepySheepy (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these are estimates shouldn't the data be ranked according to the earliest estimate that would be 2009 nominal gdp ?

Grmike (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

This is debatable. If you want, you can make a poll and ask others lol. But i think, initial ranking according to the 2008 data is the best solution, because it allows people to compare current official rank with the earliest estimated rank. --SleepySheepy (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 2008 colum. The table should initially be ranked according to either the most left numerical column or the one most right. Anything else would be highly confusing. I have no preferences to either side, but as long as there is no strong consensus for a change, I pleadge to stick to status quo. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We have 2 votes for and 1 vote against the change. One more vote "for" and i will give up and sort everything according to the left-most column;;;;;; Or maybe we should just add 2008 column for comparison? What do you think? I think it would be the best idea. --SleepySheepy (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote 1.: Currently the table is initially sorted according to 2008 data, but there is no 2008 column (2008 is the last official IMF data). So I suggest adding 2008 column to the table and sorting the table according to 2008 column. It will enable people to easily compare the current official data with the estimated future data. --SleepySheepy (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i vote to rank them by the earliest estimate information. the rightmost column is too unreliable and adding another year in the future would make things confusing. it could take one country 5 years to reach another one and just barely. a small change in economic growth would change future estimates and rank a lot. the current year data is not an estimate and so should have no bearing on this list. Grmike (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Vote 2.: "i vote to rank them by the earliest estimate information" Grmike

Ok, let's see what other people think. --SleepySheepy (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no time to call for a vote. I see almost no arguments exchanged. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not follow majorities but reason.

Second, you were counting 3 votes. It is unclear to me who you distributed them. What is the earliest data? 2008, which does not exist yet, or 2009 which comes after 2008 but at least is in the list.

Allow yourself and others to develop a clearer mind and do not rush things by meaningless poll calls.

Some questions that come to my mind, please add more, are: Can a list called estimates contain actual values? Is a table rather ranked to a left or a right column, or is any column equally fine? Should the ranking depend on how probable the truth of the data is? Tomeasy _{T C} 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is much time to call for a vote. Do we have a deadline or something? And I CAN see many reasonable arguments exchanged. Grmike said "i vote to rank them by the earliest estimate information. the rightmost column is too unreliable". Wasn't it an argument?

Second, yes, i counted 3 votes. 1st vote: Mine, 2nd vote: Grmike's, 3rd vote: Yours ("The table should initially be ranked according to either the most left numerical column or the one most right. Anything else would be highly confusing.") <-- wasn't it your vote?

Yes, 2008 column doesn't exist yet, but i can easily create it during less than 1 minute using my program.

The poll was not meaningless. It's only you who says so. And I totally disagree with your last change. You deleted the thread. But IT WAS a new thread, because it doesn't refer to Russia only. It refers to the entire article, so creating a new thread was reasonable.

"Can a list called estimates contain actual values?" <- Of course it can, for easy comparison. We can shade the column with actual values, so people will know that they are not estimated. Now, if somebody wants to compare the estimated data with the actual data, he or she has to go to a different wiki article. Creating a column for actual data would enable people to easily compare the actual data with estimated data, without having to search for other articles.

"Should the ranking depend on how probable the truth of the data is?" <-- Yes, I think it should. And Grmike thinks so too.

Now I will change my program and sort the table according to the left-most column. I think it will satisfy both of you. But i still think, that we should add a column for actual data... --SleepySheepy (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

great job ! solid reasoning. i think the first column is the right way to go because any economic predictions that affect gdp estimates that are off slightly will have much larger impacts on the data in 5 years than next year. the 2008 data won't even be current when the 2009 estimates replace it in the next couple months. don't think the 2008 column is necessary.Grmike (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Done! --SleepySheepy (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we added 2008 column with actual data, it would look like this:

Nominal GDP table (sortable; amounts in billions of US$)

Country	Actual 2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	Estimate as of
United States	14,441.425	14,266.201	14,704.207	15,326.881	16,008.506	16,729.376	17,419.352	October 2009
Japan	4,910.692	5,048.634	5,187.464	5,267.138	5,410.700	5,591.428	5,791.625	October 2009
China	4,327.448	4,757.743	5,263.327	5,843.569	6,524.225	7,287.762	8,283.348	October 2009
Germany	3,673.105	3,235.463	3,325.760	3,358.213	3,397.872	3,443.060	3,485.904	October 2009

Shading 2008 column would be useful, but i don't know how to do this lol I think having both, actual and future estimated data in one article, is much better for people, than jumping from one article to another in order to compare actual data and future data. --SleepySheepy (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. It seems dear Mr. Tomeasy misunderstood the idea of my poll. It wasn't meant to oblige anybody to follow the poll's results. I created that voting-thread in order to encourage people to express their opinions on the issue. We can't get a consensus for any change, if we don't ask people about what they think. --SleepySheepy (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems indeed there has been a misunderstanding concerning the term poll and vote. You might want to revise how these terms are used here on Wikipedia. However, since you just meant to encourage other to express their opinions and display arguments, I am absolutely fine. That's just what I was asking for as well. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votings called "consultative referenda" function even in real democratic countries, where people are asked to vote, but the government is not obliged to follow the voting's result ^^ Yes, you asked people for it too, but i did it more explicitly so that everybody could see the question. That's why i created the thread "VOTING", which you have deleted. --SleepySheepy (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine. Let's move on. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba information has been removed. Why has this happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.136.175 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply. I don't know why. The article contains all the countries mentioned in IMF's WEO Database. Tomorrow a new WEO Database should be released. Maybe it will contain Cuba. --SleepySheepy (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Still no data for Cuba. --SleepySheepy (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan is missing from this list, but appears in the List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates. Is this an oversight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.137.189 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not in the source, then it's the IMF's fault. Ask them. We can't do anything about it lol --SleepySheepy (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are countries like Canada and Australia almost always estimated at the very low end 2+ years in the future, every time the list is made? Those countries were suppose to grow less than 50 billion in 2011 even though they had nominal gdp growth similar to China and Brazil in 2010, and again they outperformed by a lot. For example last year every list had Canada and Australia trailing countries like Russia and India by a large margin as recently as 2011/2012 but every year they end up outperforming by a lot. My guess would be the large populations in the developing world they think will have a much bigger impact than the rising prices of natural resources/stable currencies (Canada). I know this isn't a forum for debate but just wanted to know if anyone has noticed growth IN countries like Australia usually being a lot higher in the future than the estimates suggest.Grmike (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Where is data about Libya ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.5.165 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya data is not given in the list. it says na for every year.Grmike (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Why not just rename this page 'IMF List of countries by future GDP'?, then with that solved you can all go and argue about the rankings in top of the pops. Don't you all see these figures are meaningless? 1) Because of the dollar exchange rate issue, which can't be predicted 40 days ahead, let along 40 years! If it could I would be a very, very rich man. 2) Because the same thing applies to growth rates. 3) Because you certainly cannot predict events like natural disasters (I'm obviously alluding to Japan's tsunami here), the effects of civil unrest in places like China and the middle east, future wars over natural resources, etc, etc.

On that last point, maybe we would all be better off if these figures weren't rising so fast, but falling. The planet can't handle us at the moment, so can you imagine what its gonna be like when China's output becomes greater than the whole world's right now. One thing is certain, by 2050, a few of the countries at the bottom can be removed from the list as they will be sunk (literally).1812ahill (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]