Talk:Gross world product

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

GDP per capita - Numbers doesn't add up

"In 2012, the GWP totalled approximately US$83.12 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity"

USD 83,120,000,000,000/7,021,836,000 (CIA world fact book population July 2012 est) = USD 11,837 would probably be rounded to USD 11,800. But in the article it says: "while the per capita GWP was approximately US$12,400" a difference of 600 dollars!

The GWP per capital could be meant to mean nominal (but it isn't read that way as it is written)but that would be even less: USD 71,830,000,000,000/7,021,836,000=USD 10,230

The only conclusion that I can make is that CIA have used a old number for the population since the number they must have used is: 83,120,000,000,000/12,400= 6,703,225,806 rounded to 6,700,000,000 which would be close to their July 2008 est.

So why don't the numbers add up?

Nikolaj Cyon (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical And Prehistorical Estimates should be changed

It is not a good idea to list modern estimates of world GDP with prehistorical and historical suppositions about GDP. Modern GDP only takes account of the monetary value of goods and services that are exchanged or will be exchanged. Services like cleaning your own house, cooking your own dinner, your mom baking you an apple pie are not counted as part of GDP. It seems unclear how you can translate this idea to a premonitory society especially a band of hunter gatherers. There is only one source for the historical and prehistorical estimate and this source's methods could be yielding bizarre results. Modern estimates based on actual data and not on a purely theoretical model should be listed separately from his estimates derived from an untested theoretical approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.156.67 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The invention of currency occurred at a certain point in history. Now, this is a delicate point, because it depends if you count the official start as coinage, as a weight of precious metal, as a quantity of grain or other foods, or merely the promise to repay a debt in a concrete way. Nonetheless, the data here is playing the reader for a fool, because these concepts in their modern concrete forms would have been alien to an Old-Kingdom Egyptian administrator, let alone someone from 4000 BCE. The presence of 100,000 BCE on the chart is just absurd. What written documents do we have from this period? Of course, none, because writing had not yet been invented. Precisely what archeological record and excavation data could be considered so reliable, as to be a data point in a plotted graph?!

I understand that a full professor from California has written a paper about this, but is that really our standard of evidence? If a full professor from a prestigious university were to write a paper stating that the moon is made of green cheese, would we be obligated to include this data in the article about the moon? Are we capable, or incapable, of evaluating evidence in the context of related information and facts from historical periods? ---Gregory V. Bard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.213.39 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]