Talk:List of countries by GDP estimates for 2007 (nominal)

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]

Yes, not to mention this list is in US Dollas, which as fallen against most other major currencies in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.242.97 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Stupid List (Turkey, Belgium comparison)

This list doesnot make sense at all. A year ago in 2006 Turkish Gdp is estimated to be $414,000,000,000 while Belgian GDP is 371,000,000,000. Everything is fine in 2006 estimates. But if we look at it in 2007, Turkish GDP falls to $400 billion while Belgian GDP rises to $409 billion. I am lmao, because in reality Turkish GDP growth is over 7% while Belgian GDP growth is 1.5%...

There is a clear mistake here. Turkish GDP in 2007 should have risen to $450 billion while Belgian should have risen to $380 billion. It is distracted over 80 billion dollars...

These are estimates for 2007. The very reason that you can give solid percentages for Turkey and Belgium implies that you are talking about a time period before 2007. Your criticism is meaningless.UberCryxic 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GDP for Turkey in 2006 was 363 billion USD, the source from the World Bank is in Turkey article. It was not 414billion by a long shot.. Baristarim 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North vs South Korea

what does 'korea' on this list represent? north or south?

Does the European Union figure include Romania & Bulgaria - given that they're set to join the EU in 2007? The 2 countries have a combined estimated GDP on the list of about $200,000. jkm 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania figures and estimation for 2007 are anyway very suspect. A jump from 113k to 149k would mean in increase of GDP of over 30% in only one year. Rather think, it's a very optimistic expactation of a "patriot" ;-) Can somebody please verify? --194.203.215.254 12:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan GDP

You know its strange that pakistans gdp(nominal) in 2006 is written 133,903 million dollers and in this list of 2007 its becomes 126,504 million......why is that?? --Mm11 10:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe an expected recession? More probably the 2006 figure has been modified and 2007 not--194.203.215.254 12:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too find this very strange that Pakistan's GDP for the year 2007 is less then the year 2006. The scenario of recession is unquestionable. For year 2005-2006 Pakistan's economy grew by 6.4% while for the previous year it grew by a record 8% (2nd only to China for world's 10 most populace countries). For this year Govt. forcast is 8%, even if that is exaggerated, independent economists agree that the figure will remain above 6% atleast. There can be no explanation whatsoever for a shrinking economy. However maybe the figure of GDP for 2006 is exaggerated, in any case, one of these figures is wrong.

Here the range from 2003 till 2007 from IMF. Not much people have these future GDP estimate articles on there watch list. --Van helsing 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Union/ Europe GDP:

Please keep this on the list as it is factual; thanks

Update: modified EU to account for Bulgarian and Romanian acceptance into the EU in 2007.

Please note however that no other GDP list on Wikipedia makes mention of continental statistics. Remember this is a list of countries by 2007 GDP (with the European Union being about as far as you can stretch that definition). --Colonel Cow 15:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true. The EU is a 'country' in many senses of the word:currency, circulation... Putting the EU on that list is just getting ready to what is to come... Daniel Montin 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, what I was trying to say was that an organisation like the European Union should be included in this list while entire continents (Europe, Asia, North America, etc) should not (something the first user was doing). --Colonel Cow 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Then yes, I agree with you, they shouldn't be put on this list. Daniel Montin 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]