Talk:List of continents by GDP (nominal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

where is Central America in the list?[edit]

Sorry if i am somehow not obbeying the correct way to place this discussion. Where is Central America included in the list below?? It goes from north america to south america!


  • eles estão a englobar central como norte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.52.33 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

aliás patetico a ue querendo ficar por cima até omite que catai a passou numa fonte e faz a america parecer supercontinente a la eua quando é continente america do norte é sub continente — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.52.33 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

america é o continente mais rico mais que a europa e america latina supera no per capita a eurasia e região mais rica do terceiro mundo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.52.33 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

PPP does not remove the exchange rate problem[edit]

"PPP largely removes the exchange rate problem...", really, who says? If PPP could predict exchange rate changes, through describing the true wealth of an economy, then it would have been adopted and used by currency traders to predict future exchange rates. That's how the Efficient Market Hypothesis works. PPP would therefore become very quickly equal to Nominal GDP per capita, but as they are not equal to each other PPP obviously does not remove the exchange rate problem at all!

PPP does however have a wealth distribution problem. PPP and Real GDP inflate the value of an economy if it has a greater economic inequality compared to other economies at a similar level of nominal GDP per capita. That is because PPP and Real GDP assumes that the wealth of a country is fairly distributed for it to work as a comparison measure but this situation exists in no country on Earth. The greater the economic inequality within a country the higher its PPP is relative to its Nominal GDP per capita. It is a quirk, an intrinsic flaw, of the PPP measure. This is because, the cost of living is not any kind of indicator of the wealth of a country. If bread costs half as much in economy A compared to economy B but the average person in economy A is being paid four times less they are still twice as poor, despite the lower cost of living in country A. The cost of living is one thing and the standard of living is something else, the two are not necessarily connected. At least with nominal GDP per capita and nominal GDP how fairly distributed a country's income is does not become an issue as these are just measures of the total and average wealth of a country, no other assumptions are being made in calculating these measures, they're not pretending to be anything else. You can try to measure the economy size as nominal GDP, measure how fairly income is distributed across an economy, measure life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc but you can't bring these measures together into one all encompassing measure as PPP and Real GDP attempts and fails to do. PPP overrates the importance of the cost of living at the expense of how fairly income is distributed and so it is a very politically biased measure of wealth and not something remotely scientific.
You cannot hybridise nominal GDP per capita with the cost of living as PPP does, it just doesn't make sense, it takes no account of how fairly income is distributed and so it is a pointless exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.22.95 (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

IMF numbers don't add up[edit]

The 2016 numbers of IMF in the list don't add up to 75.2 trillion USD, but to 73 trillion USD. 2,2 trillion USD are missing somewhere. --Shikeishu (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I've revised the figures and realised that the IMF's region of Asia and Pacific excludes the Middle East, which is about 2.2 trillion USD. That's likely where the error occurred. Jolly Ω Janner 08:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone's also going to have to explain how the GDP per capita of every continent except South America can increase between the 2000s and 2018 (per the tables), yet that of the world can "lose" nearly half of that value within the same time frame. It seems like the "world" figures are pretty drastically wrong for the center and rightmost tables... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.138.25.32 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)