Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

In a basis of CIA, South Korea's Nominal gdp per capita in 2009 was USD 17,100.

In 2009, CIA announced South Korea's Nominal GDP was US$832500000000 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html). and, split by South Korean total population that was announced by CIA, U.S.Federal cencus(48,508,972 it's same each other CIA and US Federal cencus), the result is about 17,161 US$. Althouth it has a minimal differences, as a correction, it must to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namhyunc89 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Data for Brazil is completely false. According to the CIA web page nominal GDP per capita was 8378 dollars in 2008

I have corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santibanezmx (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Sortable Table Introduced in the Last Few Months

This table is badly designed and broken. Here's why:

1. The initial sort should not be done alphabetically. When I want to see the GDP for Afghanistan, I go to the Wikipedia page for Afghanistan. I do not come to the GDP page. The only time an initial alphabetical sort would make sense is if I had to quickly retrieve the GDPs of multiple countries without concern for interrelation. This scenario is implausible. First of all, I can already retrieve this immediately using Wikipedia search. Secondly, it is far more likely that if I have to look up the GDPs of multiple countries that I'm doing it for the purposes of comparison, in which case it makes sense to sort the countries by GDP. While finding the name of a country in an unsorted list is relatively easy, comparing an unsorted list of numbers against itself is extremely difficult. For these reasons alphabetical sort should come secondary to numerical sort.

2. It is recognized that the sorting function is broken on lists. If you are familiar with computer science terminology, then you understand that the GDP rankings are initially being sorted as if they were strings rather than as if they were integers. This causes the ordering 1, 10, 100 instead of the desired 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, ..., 100. Worse is that the fifteen entries without a GDP ranking, indicated by a useless dash "-", come before the actual 1-2-3 rankings in the integer sort. This makes the list difficult to use, and in fact when browsing on a laptop sized screen it is difficult to tell when you've actually sorted them correctly, since the "no data" entries tend to take up the entire page.

I frequently reference this list. There used to be just a plain table here ordered by rank, with a small number of special entries at the top (e.g. European Union). Can't we go back to this list? Or at least fix the sorting? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.8.125 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See response in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken table ordering, articles on GDP. -- Tcncv (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Who the was the retard to introduce this broken solution without checking whether it works or not. Non of the rankings actually work correctly. Please revert back to normal table or fix it. I don't know how to fix it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.75.216 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Figures

The Australian GDP (nominal) listed on this page differs from that listed on the Australian page.

Modified it.... view source at http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/aust.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.50.202.71 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find most of the data is inaccurate, I was thinking providing links, example, I changed Slovenian GDP data, as Slovenia had GDP of 52 billion USD in 2007, Slovenian Central Bank data, but someone reversed the change, now who you believe more, some t**t on wiki who clearly has no idea and clue or state bank which does this for living.

No wonder ppl laugh at wiki, everyone publishes/edits data with no citations.

I am sure if you look at every single country you'll find data is out of sink, but than question is, what is accurate source. Also if you go to IMF/WB pages and you compare data on wiki and their pages, you'll find wiki's data totally wrong, and they suppose to be quoting IMF and WB. go figure... + Data from IMF is only an estimate, not accurate data if you ask me. Mic of orion (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian GDP seriously undervalued

according to my calculations based on wikipedia materials alone, the GDP of Russia is rought $12070 per capita, almost twice as high as the level shown here.

It may be GDP PPP value. Olvegg (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of PPP measurements, which is almost double their nominal GDP. There are various wiki pages for all of the different types of measurements: List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP) etc..

Also keep in mind that this page is not completely up to date. Go here to see the most up to date figures. Sbw01f (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Map?

Can somebody please plot these data on a map like rich (above world average GDP per capita) and poor (below world average GDP per capita)?

Missing data

Where are the figures for Cuba, Macau, North Korea, Liberia, Iraq, West Bank, Gaza Strip and Somalia?

Does not reflect reality. Information from 2005, Q1 2006 is missing. (Canada's US$1.13 trillion economy = GDP per capita of US$35,060)

It does reflect reality, only as the first sentence says ...for the year 2004. Maybe we should make a list like this one List of countries by GDP (nominal)/update, or make a footnote out of it, like all the discussion going on about the updated figures of China in List of countries by GDP (nominal). --212.102.225.147 12:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an updated GDP list should be made! Otherwise, what good is it to have an encyclopedia with old information? I will withdraw my continued dispute with regards to Canada's GDP per capita, so long as a new list is made.

A uniform source of data is needed for this sort of list, compiled by a single organization such as the World Bank, IMF, or CIA. FYI, GDP figures for 2005 are still being verified/processed, and Q1 2006 is merely estimated GDP. Please wait for IMF to release their data for 2005 (for all countries) in April. It is impractical to have a seperate list for the latest projected/estimated/still-in-processing figures as there is no single source for these figures - you have to get them from individual countries' reports. And that creates the problem of no having no standard basis with which to make meaningful comparisons. Frogular 04:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the economist Canada's GDP per capita for the year 2005 was in the range of US$35,800. This is not PPP but rather quoted in nomimal figures. I agree that there needs to be a standard basis with which meaningful comparisons can be made. As mentioned before, it is vital that such information is kept up to date.

As up to date as the organizations that compile such data - IMF will release their updated figures soon (April). Frogular 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

One source needs to be used, and some sources such as the IMF and Worldbank are very extensive, and all other countries that are not availabe in one of those sources should be marked with a star or some other marker.

GOSH!!!!

_________________________________________________________________________________________

THE US IS THE TOP OF E-V-E-R-Y one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priapeace (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Update and Expand

It would be great to have the data from 2003 and perhaps a couple of years back like List of countries by GDP. - Jerryseinfeld 22:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That isn't very easy. If you put data for several years, you have to use a fixed price for a given year, a base year that might be from a decade ago. Here we are trying to put the latest data at the current price. --Cantus…☎ 01:57, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I do not quite see why we should completely exclude available information about super rich countries like Brunei, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra, and San Marino. The Vatican would be an interesting case, too. We can mark them to be estimations and provide the sources, but keeping it as it is means pretending the people in the top listed countries were the richest in the world, and this is not at all the case. Get-back-world-respect 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The GDPs for a number of countries are definitely not from 2003 - from which source are the GDPs taken?

List of cities/conurbations/metropolitan areas by GDP

Is there any list on the GDP per capita of cities, conurbations or metropolitan areas? — Instantnood 09:33 Mar 7 2005 (UTC)

Romanian GPD

Look, the Romanian GPD is nto 3,200, right? Romania is not more poor that Bulgaria or others countries at the same level. Take a look at Romania and see what's its GPD. NorbertArthur 18 March 2006

This Article Is Seriously Misleading

This article needs to make it clear that: "GDP (nominal) per capita" is based on one thing and one thing only: the world currency markets. Say what you want to about the latter, but the value that markets assign to currency is the ONLY real-world value that currencies have. Thus GDP (nominal) per capita is the ONLY definitive way to compare national economies. The PPP method, which has increasingly gained favor in recent years, is highly flawed and is based on obscure methodology that (absurdly) ranks items like McDonald's "Big Mac" hamburgers (even though the latter is far more of a "staple" of daily living in a place like the U.S., than somewhere like Taiwan or Bolivia. Meanwhile, the basic staples of daily life in a place like, say, Japan, are not even factored into the PPP valuations. The U.S. media is very strongly misleading its readers when it relies solely on PPP numbers (and fails to inform its readership exactly what PPP is based on). There are some (flimsy) arguments for the use of PPP, but by and large it is a highly flawed methodology that really needs to be scrapped entirely. It's foolish to rely on anything other than the marketplace to determine the true value of a given currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.156 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 June 2006

forecast

why the page doesnt include a link to the forecast for the year 2006 or 2007, as most of the pages of this kind have.--Ifeldman84 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Inexact figures

Romanian GDP for 2007 is expected to be around 107.9 billion euros, considering a 7% growth for 2006 and a 6.4% growth in 2007. More precisely, 381,000 million RON at a yearly conversion rate of 3.53 lei/euro in 2007. http://www.guv.ro/presa/afis-doc.php?idpresa=50868&idrubricapresa=&idrubricaprimm=&idtema=&tip=2&pag=4&dr= This is the governmental page, all the media has published these figures as well. In 2002 Romania's population was 21.68 million, decreasing at a rate of -0.21 percent a year. Since that trend is maintaining, in 2007 Romania's population should be rouhgly 21.446 million. Considering an average conversion rate of 1.3 dollars per euro, the 140 billion dollars GDP (107.9 bil euros) divided by 21.446 million inhabittants would give a 6,540 dollars nominal GDP per capita for 2007. Quite a large gap from the figures displayed now, which are in the 4,500 margin. WikiRaptor

Update to 2007 estimates

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)

Outdated

...uhh...where to start...The top 7 or so countries are OK. But the rest of the list is ABSOLUTELY RUBBISH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahm2307 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

UK figure

UK figure is not for 2005 but for 2006! 212.50.147.101 09:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, happened here, repaired. --Van helsing 10:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Greece figure

There is some talk about a revised greek gdp (including the black economy). This proposal as of yet has not been decided upon by the EU.

The fugure of 27.000+ for 2007 is not taking things very serious.

---

Go and have a look at the Greece article. Apparently, it's hit 30,000. 210.49.113.167 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Monaco

While you're at it. Monaco is not in the IMF list, and therefore can't be in this list either. Although the figure sounds about right. Migdejong 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Australian GDP (nominal) listed on this page differs from that listed on the Australian page.

EU in lists

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)

Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein is not in the list, but on the country's article page per capita is filled with 100,xxx which means that it would actually show up on this list on 1st place as I see it.

liechtenstein

its missing!

EU Figure

May I ask how was that figured out? Chaldean 14:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Article source says: EU(27) GDP / population = x. --Van helsing 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel

The figure for Israel is an estimate of its GDP in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), and not the nominal GDP. And even this figure is somewhat dubious, as discussed in the source given (a statement given by the Israel Bank). The actual figure should be around 20k and not 32k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk) 15:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

This page needs SERIOUS CORRECTIONS, since it differs from both the Spanish version of Wikipedia and, more importantly, from IMF's official figures, see:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/weoselgr.aspx

And:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_PIB_%28nominal%29_per_c%C3%A1pita —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus1967 (talk • contribs) 09:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

2007 est!

Hello, when will they have the 2007 estimates for ppp per capita Muzammil01 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In April 2008. Eliko 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The table sbould be updated

The IMF has published new data in October 2007. Eliko 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Exchange Rates

It would be a big help if you put in the exchange rates used. If the Euro/US$ rate was $1.43 or $1.20 then you would have vastly different results. Publishing the exchange rate actually used would allow people to make a quick and dirty adjustment based on current exchange rates. As it is, I assume that the US per capita GDP is comparatively far higher on this list than it should be using current exchange rates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Right now there is an enormous difference in relation to these figures if we consider the current exchange rates. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Romania?

Why Romania is mentioned twice in the list? 59th and 65th 212.50.147.101 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This problem has been resolved. Bsrboy (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The GDP table should have been updated

The data which are given in the table should be updated. The data are not valid anymore. Please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misiek889 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please update now the article because this article is already outdated!--Joseph Solis in Australia 08:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated with 2007 IMF data

Could somebody please find an updated GDP per capita calculation for the EU? The IMF list doesn't have it. Commutator (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What about this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7174372.stm -- states that the UK has a higher GDP/capita than the USA. 84.66.212.99 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the 2008 forecast. Read carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.244.50 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing data

For Netherlands it says "N/A" (CIA list) when there is clearly data from CIA for this. According to the CIA the Netherlands' GDP is $644.6 billion and its population is 16 570 613, therefor a GDP per capita of $38 900. I do not know the rank, but if I inserted the rank this would affect the rest of the table and there may be a lot more countries with missing data such as this. Please redo this table. Bsrboy 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Data

I must say, much of this data is rather conflicting and as a result might appear inaccurate. Example, table suppose to indicate latest data for 2007, but fair bit of data is for 2006 and even 2005. To edit this table would take to much time, so I won't even attempt to edit and research all the data, It is a weeks worth of work, but editors should be encouraged to perhaps update data and make it more accurate, after all Wiki is used as a source by many. Thank you, Mic of orion (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The data are either for 2007 or 2006. And all the values coming from one source are for the same year. All of the data in the IMF and CIA columns are for 2007. Likewise all of the data in the WB column are for 2006. I really don't know what you're talking about. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And you're also vandalizing the article. Tsk-tsk. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranking does not work

There's a bug in the ranking algorithm. It sorts countries according to the value of the first digit. e.g. 1,10,100,101, ..., 2,20,200,201, etc. and not, as expected, according to the numeric value of the complete fiure, e.g. 1,2,3,4,5. Just try it out yourself to understand what I mean by clicking on one of the squares in the table header. I have no idea how to fix this bug. so, I am simply requesting attention to the issue. Tomeasy (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you click it four times it works. I have no idea how to fix it though... Bsrboy 13:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

I do not think clicking four times is the solution. I have introduced a comment, so that more people get aware of this bug. Perhaps one will be able to fix it. Tomeasy (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You should address Wikipedia bugs elsewhere, not here. But I don't think is a bug. It just uses different sorting algorithms. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did not know that this is a wikipedia wide issue. I thought this algorithm applies to this table only. I have just seen that numbers are generally ranked this way in wikipedia tables and I am really wondering why that is. Do you know where this might be discussed? Tomeasy (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply add (a) zero(s) onto non-three-digit values. #1 becomes #001 and so on. I'm going to attempt to apply this to the first 10 countries (001-010) to see if it works. ~KM FuzzyCuteness (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed 1 of 3 Okay. I fixed the SORT BY RANK column for the IMF section by adding zero(s) to 1 and 2 digit values. It was long and tedious process, but we now know it works. Still to do: fix the rest of the columns. I'm not going to fix the rest of the columns; Could someone with more spare time than me please take up where I left off? Thanks, ~KM FuzzyCuteness (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see the problem. I've reverted your edits. What browser and operating system are you using? Unless you're using Linux, I want to know if I can reproduce the problem. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, clicking four times IS THE SOLUTION. Just deal with it. There are two ways to sort: 1, 10, 100, 2, 20, 200 and 1, 2, 3, 4, ascending and descending. Deal with it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Both ways isn't the solution. A user would expect a sorting algorithm to sort for the numerical value of the compounded figure and not as it is implemented in wiki tables. On the other hand, introducing leading zeros is obviously also not the solution, especially from an editor point of view. Nevertheless, as I was told before this issue needs to be addressed elsewhere, since it applies globally. Here we should simply leave it with the workaround solution to click multiple times for the desired result. Tomeasy (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem comes from the inclusion of non-numeric entries like dashes in the column to be sorted. The column will always sort according to the type of data in the topmost entry, and when this is a non-number like a dash or an "n/a" the column sorts "alphabetically" (putting 11 and 100 ahead of 2, etc.) When the top entry is a number, the non-numeric items are treated as 0. So first sort (numerical), the dashes go to the top because 0 is less than 1, then next sort (alphabetical) the numbers are "alphabetized" instead of being ordered properly. To solve this, I might suggest using 999 or whatever the lowest rank would be instead of "-" in the "rank" columns. This wouldn't be too misleading because the entry of blank or n/a in the adjacent cell would still make it clear that the item is unranked, and not necessarily bottom-ranked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.221.87 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Change CIA data for France

The mentioned data needs to be changed, since the current value was calculated using the wrong population figure. The CIA states two figures for the French population (total and metropolitan). Moreover, the CIA states one figure for the GDP in PPP and one figure for the GDP per capita in PPP. With the latter two figures one can show that the CIA uses the metropolitan population to calculate the per capita value. Doing so for the nominal exchange rate GDP yields 41313.4. If no disagreement, I will soon correct this. Tomeasy (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, comes the annual update of the list -- comes again this edit war. How can it be that you, Cielo, are again edit warring on this data with an IP? Correct me if I mistaken, but to me it appears all very simple. You go to the economy section for France on the CIA webpage. You take the GDP in official exchange rate $2.56 trillion. Next you take the population, which you find somewhere above this figure. Important is to take the value for metrolpolitan France, as I explained above. The value is 60,876,136. There's nothing left to do then divide the GDP by the population and you end up with ca. $42053 per capita.

I will immplement this figure now in the list. And before you or this IP address touch it again, please hit me here first. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me that the CIA uses the population for Metropolitan France to calculate its GDP (PPP) per capita.

The CIA provides GDP (PPP) data for 2007, but the Population data is for 2008, thus we cannot combine both to calculate GDP (PPP) per capita for 2007. However, if we use a 2007 archive of the CIA World Factbook (here), we find the 2007 population for Metropolitan France (which suspiciously enough has not changed in 2008). Thus:

• GDP (purchasing power parity): $2.047 trillion (2007 est.) --> from current version of the Factbook
• Population: 63,713,926 (total); 60,876,136 (metropolitan France) (July 2007 est.) --> from archived version of the Factbook

Now dividing both: 2.047 trillion / 60,876,136 = 33,626 (or 33,600 in typical CIA fashion)

But the CIA reports that:

• GDP - per capita (PPP): $33,200 (2007 est.) --> from current version of the Factbook

Therefore to obtain 33,200 the population must be approximately 61.6 million. But where did the CIA obtain this population of 61.6 million, which is neither the population for Metropolitan France, nor the population for the totality of France?

Conclusion: There is no mathematical basis to assume that the CIA World Factbook is using the population of Metropolitan France to calculate GDP (PPP) per capita. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you act with your multiple reverts? The figure you impose seems to be off by about 5%. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you act with your multiple reverts? Initially I was reverting an anonymous user who was changing sourced values without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This is what any experienced Wikipedia editor would consider vandalism. I then reverted your edits —which were NOT vandalism— and gave my full explanation for doing so above.

The figure you impose seems to be off by about 5%. I'm not imposing anything; "40,200" is the result of dividing 2.56 trillion by 63,681,742; both values being properly sourced in the "References" section of the article. You claim the CIA is using the pop. for Metropolitan France for calculating France's GDP (PPP) per capita, so we should use this pop. for calculating France's GDP (nominal) per capita. But, as I've already demonstrated above, this is not the case. Unfortunately (and confusingly) no combination of 2007 GDP (PPP) and 2007 population given by the CIA result in the 33,200 GDP (PPP) per capita they report in the Factbook. ☆ CieloEstrellado 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking the 63 million pop. figure doesn't work either. This is proven in exactly the same way. Just that you will find that the error is even much larger. The error that you showed using the metrop. data is of the same order as for any other country. Just try it with your own country. Clearly the CIA figures are not consistent in the sense that you can divide GDP by pop. and retrieve the exact GDP per capita value. France is no exception to this. so what we are doing here is actually original research and perhaps it would be the best to take the CIA column out. However, if we do it we have to do it correctly. That the CIA GDP for France is based on metrop. is quite obvious. Just take the PPP value divide it by both pop. figures and see which one is pretty close and which one is not. And that pretty close is just as close as for all the countries. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the Metro. pop. instead of the Total pop. does result in a vaue that is closer to what is reported by the Factbook, however it is not within the margin of error. You see, the CIA treats anything that ranges from 33,150 to 33,249 as 33,200. But using the Metro. pop. it results in 33,626, which is beyond the rounding limit. Using Total pop. gives 32,128, also beyond the limit.

If you calculate the GDP (PPP) per capita for other countries (always using data for the same year), the results are always within the rounding margin. France is one anomaly, there may be others too.

My point is that because we don't know for sure what population the CIA is using, the safest bet is to use the entire country population.

We may also just delete the CIA entry for France altogether if you think the article's accuracy is being compromised.☆ CieloEstrellado 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the total pop. figures are far more off and therefore lack any basis.

BTW, the IP reverted again and has at least as much reason to do this than you. However, you should ask yourself, if this whole revert war has any sense. You are fighting to impose a value for that you do not have any reference, which just appears better for you through original research. The argumentation as to why it is the better choice is absolutely unclear. And yet you clutter the history of this article by two new versions every day. Lay back, I would like to suggest. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Monaco is Missing

The Title Says All —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.86.218 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Monaco is currently excluded, because all three columns would have a NA value. That is, none of the three sources reports the nominal GDP for Monaco. What do you mean by "The Title Says All"? Tomeasy_talk 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP is trying to say Monaco is missing from the table. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So much I understood--and I answered to that. What I do not understand is the body of post, the part that I cited. So Andy, as you like to interpret the IP's intention, what do you think he means by "The Title Says All".Tomeasy_talk 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He means the post's title ("Monaco is Missing") says it all; that is, it contains all the information that he wanted to communicate. So much so, that the post doesn't even need to have a body. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! How can a tiny little missing it confuse me so much. Well, I think this chapter is closed then. Tomeasy_talk 12:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lichtenstein's GDP original research

I posted this on the talk page for countries by GDP and I feel the critique stands here. Canada Jack (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote, and therefore the new number, sounds to me like original research. While the basis for believing there is an error here may be sound, it is merely the opinion of some wikipedians what the error here is and what the "real" figure is. I'd say we note the original number with a footnote indicating that the number seems out of line with other reported data, and list that reported data while omitting the speculation as to what the error was and what the true figure actually is. "This seems extraordinarily high and is probably the result of GDP data entered as 36.33 instead of 3.63..." Sure, but maybe "6" was punched in in error and the true figure is 3.33 billion, for example. The figure on the page here, IOW, is merely speculation as to the error.

From the data supplied from other sources, it will be pretty clear that something around 1/10th the figure is the likely correct ballpark figure. Canada Jack (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides my objection as stated above in terms of original research, it seems there is an error in the footnote: Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion and GDP per capita of US$130,277. Had the CIA GDP value been reported as $3.633 billion, this would have resulted in a GDP per capita of $106,082.

But why does the higher GDP figure (3.633 billion) result in a substantially lower per capita GDP (106k)? Surely Lichenstein's population hasn't risen the substantial portion it would need to by 2006/07 to lower per capita GDP by something like 20 per cent! This doesn't sound correct. Canada Jack (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops - here is the text of the footnote: The value from the original source has been changed. The CIA World Factbook reports a value for Liechtenstein of $1,060,823. This seems extraordinarily high and is probably the result of GDP data erroneously reported as $36.33 billion instead of $3.633 billion. To give credence to this hypothesis the Landesverwaltung Liechtenstein reports that the provisional GDP for 2004 was CHF4.279 billion and the GDP per capita for the same year was CHF162,000. Using the average exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the US dollar in 2004, as given by the CIA, this results in a GDP of US$3.441 billion and GDP per capita of US$130,277. Had the CIA GDP value been reported as $3.633 billion, this would have resulted in a GDP per capita of $106,082. To give further credence to this, the United States Department of State reports a GDP of $3.52 billion (CHF4.28 billion) for Liechtenstein on its country profile article dated October 2007. Canada Jack (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sortable tables

The tables in this article are improperly formatted as they list the countries by the first digit of the number (i.e. 1, 10, 100, 11 etc.) rather than in numerical sequence. Idon't know how to fix it, but someone should take a look.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sort by value, not ranking. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita

Someone should fix the ranking system for the Internation Monetary Fund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.185.49 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorting Sucks Solution

There are like 8 sections already on this going back years and the table still blows. The solution can be seen on this page's layout. I've looked over the help for sorting tables, Help:Sorting at meta and there isn't a good solution. Basically the mediawiki software sucks as you can't just put a tag in each category header telling it what sort method to use. Check it out for yourself, its kind of painful. I can't think of an automated way of getting the information in the new format, so I'm not going to fix it now. Hopefully someone else will or I think of a way to make it easier. Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Right, so can someone explain exactly how listing countries' GDP by alphabetic order makes sense? Do try and remember, very few users will figure out how to sort the tables. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we let the users decide for themselves which list to sort first? ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For once, I have to side Cielo, which (unfortunately) does not happen too often ;-)

As long as we present a single table with multiple columns to compound all three sources, alphabetic ordering is the only clearly NPOV way out. If you, BHL, insist on rank-wise ordering, which certainly has many good reasons, then we should rather discuss the presentation format, see for example List of countries by GDP (nominal). Tomeasy _{T C} 07:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Very, very few users will figure out how to sort the table, using the IMF figure makes sense as, unless I'm mistaken, they're the only actual figures that we have. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, all the country articles use the IMF figure, does this violate NPOV? Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it does. It's just pragmatic to use IMF as a single source; lifting the NPOV hurdle in country infoboxes as high as for an article dedicated to the topic is impractical. I guess, you agree that it is a good idea to list multiple sources here. If we do so, we are obliged not to give prevalence to any of them. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So I did a bit of digging in the history, and it seems like CieloEstrellado changed it from the three column system, which works, to this sortable disaster in February of last year with no consensus or mention on the talk page. The data presentation was much, much better and much more clear with that system. I really think we should change it back. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you, Oreo. That table is utterly horrible; I was looking for information here a couple days ago and found the table to be outright unreadable; rendered the entire page pretty much useless for me. It's confusing, unaesthetic, and when I tried sorting it by the IMF figures it jumped all over the map. Table literally went from Burundi to Luxembourg with no countries in-between. I would've laughed if it didn't seriously piss me off. I fully support reformatting these pages so that they look similar to the total GDP listings, as seen here:

List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Three individual tables that are nice, neat, readily readable, independently comparable and ordered in a manner that makes far more sense. Legend Saber (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it back Cielo! It looks good now. -Oreo Priest ^talk 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nameing and listing of the National Republic of China, Taiwan

Please people, for so many days now I am following your revert war on this subject – discuss the issue here and now. Another plea: While doing so leave the main space untouched. I am sure there is an easy solution to it, a Wikipedia guideline might already exist... Tomeasy _{T C} 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a Wikipedia guideline. It's WP:NC-TW and the anonymous IP from Taiwan has been notified about it. That's the end of the discussion. The anonymous IP from Taiwan should take the issue over to that page, not here. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had enough with him.I gave him several warnings and he's still doing it. I've reported him to Admins to block him. 24.83.176.171 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have called for a block of this IP and it has been granted. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

I always thought Irish people made up most of the lower class of England. This list says they're the fifth wealthiest nation per capita. Is this true?--Parthian Scribe (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I could respond but I'm just too busy laughing....... Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This section of the talk is offensive and should be removed. Wushu 1984 14:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Data regarding China (PRC)

• A massive discrepancy exists for China: in the IMF data presented, its per-capita GDP is over 16,000 USD, while for the two other data sets, the per-capita GDP is around 2,500 USD! --Dpr (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Finland/ Netherlands

Sometimes (when I'm logged out), I can't see the number 8 and 9 (if I'm correct), which are The Netherlands and Finland. But when I'm logged in, I can see them. Is this a problem, or is this normal? If not normal; how to avoid this? --Robster1983 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

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 11:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Viva Brasil :-)

According to these lists Brazil has a higher percapita GDP than the EU, which would be nice... were it not wrong. I don't have the data at hand, so I can't fix this, but I think the figures have been multiplied by 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.143.192 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Pfainuk talk 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC) STILL NOT FIXED.

Brazil has a nominal income per head similar to Argentina.--81.32.120.148 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

UAE in World Bank

I don't see the UAE in the World Bank column. Does anyone have an explanation? --Alexander (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See the sources. The data for several oil-rich countries are from a different year, thus they were not included in this article. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The World Bank published the 2008 figures today (July 1, 2009)

The World Bank published the GDP and Population figures for 2008 today, so the article needs to be updated. 208.79.239.160 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

now when u have this going on it really makes the world feel like its going under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.142.141.74 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Using commas in country names

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)

See my comment at....

Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Why does the list exclude .....--222.64.18.96 (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the EU

Is there no IMF data for the European Union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.252.202 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

2009 world bank data

World bank 2009 data needed to be updated, can anyone do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.26.213 (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

New data have been issued today by IMF.

Here.

Eliko (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

em-dashes kill numeric sorting

there are several em-dashes in the three different sortable tables in the Rank column. what is the purpose of these? their presence causes wikipedia to interpret that column as text instead of numbers, which breaks sorting. for example, it sorts as '77, 78, 79, 8, 80, 81' instead of '8, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81'. changing them to simple hyphens (or just blank) allows correct numeric sorting of the rank column, but i don't want to just charge in and make that change without knowing what the em-dashes are supposed to signify (unranked, unknown, same rank as previous row, etc?). Jrrs (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (real) per capita

I think it would be nice if such article exists.Tawarama (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) is what you're after —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.67.100 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding history changes

Hi,

I think we should also add another column of changes since y-o-y (year on year) this will give a good indication on which country made the best advanced GDP improvement If you want I can help

Yiftach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygolan (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Australia's GDP (nominal) per-capita figure

Listed under the IMF estimate as $54,800. The World Bank & CIA Factbook estimates are $42,200 & $46,300 respectively.

Maybe $54,800 is a miscalculation. Under the IMF estimate of total GDP(nominal), Australia is listed as $994,200 million. The population of Australia is estimated as 22.5 million. $994,200 / 22.5 = $44,187. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markinlinyi (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Was there an update to the imf 2010 data?

It seems like some of the data has changed but the source still gives Dec. 11 as the last access date. Wuzzyrabbit (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The data of "OECD Countries" is not offical announcement. Because of that, I deleted "OCED" data.

namhyunc89 (User talk:namhyunc89|talk]]) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand in the map

According to the IMF data from which the map is supposedly derived, New Zealand had a nominal GDP per capita of $32,00. That is more than the $30,000 threshold and thus New Zealand should have been colored in dark blue instead of light. If my argument is correct, is there a way to fix that? -- And Rew 21:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

MAp

The map needs updating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New IMF data of 2010 (updated in September 2011) are on the air !!!!

here HOOTmag (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

IMF column, no Turkey

As of 6 Feb 2012, the IMF column has no entry for Turkey. elpincha (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Rationale behind using CY2011 forecasts made in Sep 2011

Does it make sense to use 2011 estimates made during the same year, 2011 (i.e., effectively making them forecasts)? Note that in List of countries by GDP (nominal), the 2010 figures as of Sep 2011 are used. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Translations to other languages

Why show me the translation, f;e. to german an other information different to the english page? That is often so in your WIKI, why?--RvB (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reni von bifamo

New IMF data are on the air.

here.

77.125.7.7 (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

clarification please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

I assume that the numbers given refer to trillions of dollars… however, it would be very reassuring if this were specified in the article, and other similar articles.

Apologies for my ignorance- I have no idea whether or not I am presenting this observation in the correct place or not, but I do appreciate your patience.

Thanks for all the years of hard work that have gone into Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia to be an excellent resource and it has provided me with information and sources of information that have been invaluable to my education.

Sincerely,

Sara Cooper [History log at WP:RFC/BOARD was: 67.11.169.132 (talk)‎ . . (92,247 bytes) (+680)‎ . . (→‎clarification please: new section)]

The numbers are US dollars (stated in the article body) per capita (stated in both the article body and the article title).Per capita means per person. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved the above post from WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why in Hong Kong, Taiwan, their GDP nomimal per capita is lower than GDP PPP capita?

Could someone explainkongshengxin (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Because a dollar "goes further" on average in these places than a dollar in the US.

Look at Equatorial Guinea for a comparison:

• Nominal GDP per capita: 14,661$ (IMF), 27,478$ (World Bank), 29,600$ (CIA)
• PPP GDP per capita: 19,356$ (IMF), 36,515$ (World Bank), (nevermind the CIA numbers, someone have messed with them)

The counter-example could be the Netherlands, where a dollar doesn't by you as much as in the US:

• Nominal GDP per capita: 50,355$ (IMF), 50,087$ (World Bank), 50,500$ (CIA)
• PPP GDP per capita: 42,183$ (IMF), 43,339$ (World Bank), 42,300$ (CIA)

Mojowiha (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism about French data

VANDALISM ABOUT FRENCH DATA? I think there have been vandalism about French data because until now it always showed it to be behind that of the U.S. and Germany for 2011. And, in fact, German GDP increased more than France´s last year...--83.37.96.210 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rank-order column (1,2,3) could be static and separate

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) 04:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Kazakhtsan gdp per capita under International Monetary Fund is indicated two times and first row about Kazakhstan gdp is wrong. Somebody please fix it.

Kazakhtsan gdp per capita under International Monetary Fund is indicated two times and first row about Kazakhstan gdp is wrong. Somebody please fix it.--Azalmat (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 numbers

I think the 2012 numbers for the IMF should be restored. Even though they are a project, it improves the article to make info up to date. There should be a note though that the numbers are projections. Anyone agree?

Breakermordant (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

CANADA

Get ready for it ... Canada is now richer than the United States. Looking forward to the subsequent changes to this info. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/your-american-cousin-is-now-your-poorer-one/article2282595/ 173.180.193.139 (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to be richer with a cost of living twice that for Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.11.189 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Canada and Australia are poorer when PPP is taken into account. The above statistic was probably calculated when the Canadian dollar was higher than the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:279:1CED:8336:739:AE00 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Why shown in US dollars and not euros?

US dollar in only used in one country. Euros are used in most countries of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the United States dollar still remains the world's primary reserve currency and is normally used for such international comparisons.

Mojowiha (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yellow spot between Switzerland and Austria must be in error

In the map, you see a yellow spot between Switzerland and Austria. Yellow meaning "very poor". This must be in error. There is no poor country in this area, but one very rich, particularly per capita, Liechtenstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.24.120 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Brazil per capita

Brazil never had 16,000+ of per capita. Brazil's actual nominal per capita is around 10,500. Someone very insecure obviously edited Brazil's numbers and put it above Chile, just to make it seem like Brazil is richest country in Latin America, when in fact it's Chile.

187.60.103.36 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

New data have just been published by IMF

New data.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Intro, sources, refs blanking; replacement information not correct

User Khalidshou (User talk:Khalidshou) has blanked the introduction and refs from this article several times. This user has a history of removing sourced information from country lists. After this blanking, the explanation of PPP by user 86.161.11.232 is not correct. PPP is a measure of the price of goods between countries, and GDP by PPP adjusts GDP data by the cost of goods relative to the United States (international dollar). Income equality does not enter in to the equation. Canada is "downgraded" by PPP because the average person in Canada lives in a higher cost location than the average person in the United States (compare Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary to large low cost cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc.). I have tried to restore the information that was there before, but I might have missed something. Please let me know if I've missed a thing or two. Ufwuct (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Map

Shades of green would be better for the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E1stettler (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Error?

Belgium & Japan as well as Comoros & Lesotho seem scrambled in their hierarchy, isn't it? --Tomakos (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.144.35 (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC) The Czech Republic is not in the list of CIA World Factbook (3rd column)!!! Why?

IMF needs a map?

Why doesn't IMF recognize the existence of Monaco? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)