This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economy of Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in European Union. |
I'm just wondering where are the source for the "Population below poverty threshold"-number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
More little factoids about how the EU is soooo great compared to the United States were removed from the first paragraph, as were some facts about how the United States is soooo great compared to the EU. Those could be put someplace lower--though it's unnecessary--but they don't belong in the first paragraph. Chiss Boy 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've shortened the first, long winded, sentence. It was way OTT refering to the EU economy "if considered as a single state" - the whole article is predicated on treating the EU economy as a single economy, which is after all what it is - there is complete freedom of labour, goods, services and capital. You'd never say "the US economy, if considered as a single ecomomy" because the US constitution provides that the power for regulating interstate commerce rests with the congress, therefore it is one economy.
This article is supposed to be on the Economy of the European Union, not on how the EU supposedly beats the United States in some areas. Chiss Boy 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The comment that the EU's GDP is larger than the United States' was removed. If the EU has the largest economy in the world, then it obviously is larger than the USA's. However, stating that it is so is debatable. The United States is a single country--the EU is not. There are several other trade blocs with an economy larger than the EU's (notably NAFTA's--for a functioning bloc, and APEC for a looser one). Chiss Boy 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC
While you are correct that the EU is not a nation, NAFTA is much looser grouping than the EU. You will find a great deal more said about the EU BECAUSE it is very 'nation' like than any other trading block. EU trade and economic policy operates more as one nation than it does in other true nations. 143.167.202.7 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
True, the EU gonverns every aspect of life within member states. For example, the highest court of the land in Great Britain can be over-ruled by the European court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.124.2 (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The article contains a nice figure of GNI per capita in various European countries. However, it is far from clear what figures the map is based from. In particular, they do not seem to agree with World Bank 2005 estimates. It is also not obvious why GNI should be used instead of GDP, when individual country pages in Wikipedia list GDP per capita.
At the very least, I think the caption should specify what estimates the figure is based upon.
Filur 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the deficit number, several countries are running a surplus, yet all have a deficit in this article.
Woo, I was hoping somebody would create this. I'll try and add something to it at the weekend -- Joolz 23:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Big, BIG BIG bone of contention, I've been looking at this for a long time now. According to the Summary Template of the EU's economy, growth is 1%. Also, in several places within the article it says that "EU growth has been far behind US GDP growth for some time now". Both of these are wrong.
Using IMF figures I have complied GDP growth listing for the EU25, broken down into the EU15 and the 10 new member states and growth is as follows: EU15: 2.787% (2004) and 1.973% (2005 est.). 10 new memberstates, 5.18% (2004) and 4.63% (2005 est.).
Table for your conveniance:
Table to show IMF EU15 GDP Growth Rates, 2004 & 2005 (est.)
Country | % GDP Growth 2004 |
% GDP Growth 2005 |
---|---|---|
Austria | 2.4 | 1.9 |
Belgium | 2.7 | 1.2 |
Denmark | 2.4 | 2.2 |
Finland | 2.8 | 1.8 |
France | 2 | 1.5 |
Germany | 1.6 | 1.8 |
Greece | 4.2 | 3.2 |
Ireland | 5.5 | 5.0 |
Italy dam you punks | 1.2 | 0 |
Luxembourg | 4.4 | 3.1 |
Netherlands | 1.7 | 0.7 |
Portugal | 1.0 | 0.5 |
Spain | 3.1 | 3.2 |
Sweden | 3.6 | 2.6 |
United Kingdom | 3.2 | 1.9 |
Averages | 2.787 | 1.973 |
A fraction of a percentile from 3% is not 1%. However this just represents part of the EU (however this does represent the vast majority of total EU GDP).
Table to show IMF GDP Growth Figures for 10 new EU Memberstates, 2004 & 2005 (est.)
Country | % GDP Growth 2004 |
% GDP Growth 2005 |
---|---|---|
Cyprus | 3.7 | 3.8 |
Czech Rep. | 4.4 | 4.1 |
Estonia | 7.8 | 7.0 |
Hungary | 4.2 | 3.4 |
Latvia | 8.5 | 7.8 |
Lithuania | 6.7 | 6.8 |
Malta | 1.0 | 1.5 |
Poland | 5.4 | 3.0 |
Slovakia | 5.5 | 5.0 |
Slovenia | 4.6 | 3.9 |
Averages | 5.180 | 4.360 |
As can be seen the 10 new memberstates have much higher growth rates, for obvious reasons. So that brings us to a grand total, as mentioned previously:
Country | % GDP Growth 2004 |
% GDP Growth 2005 |
---|---|---|
EU25 | 3.983 | 3.302 |
Now I was never good at maths, but can someone tell me how 1% = 3.989%? I don't know, maybe some smartly dressed student came up with a new theory perhaps...
Getting to the point, the EU isn't some clapped out old heap of impoverished nations about to collapse in on themselves because of "socialist social democracy", as undoubtedly some Washington Hawks and our learned friends at Timbro would like.
I will be re-entering this table removed by User:Osomec:
Year | GDP in trillions |
% Change | % of GWP |
---|---|---|---|
2001 | 10.445 | NA | 22.6% |
2002 | 10.693 | 2.4% | 22.2% |
2003 | 10.953 | 2.4% | 21.7% |
2004 | 11.323 | 4.0% | 21.3% |
2005 | 11.848 | 3.3% | 21.1% |
As this table correctly shows overall EU25 growth rates, and Global World Production share.
All my sources of information come from the International Monetary Fund, which is in the process of being used as the main Wikipedia Economic information source.
Links to specifics: Link to Growth Rates for the Eurozone
Link to non-Eurozone EU15 countries Growth Rates
Link to 10 new memberstates Growth Rates
I have been thorough so hopefully there will be no need to edit much. --JDnCoke 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
In the calculations cited above a wrong approach was follwed. Here is the way to do these calculations correctly: Total GDP of the EU = Sum of the GDP volumes of all member contries. GDP growth of a country = volume of GDP in one year divided by the volume of GDP in the previous year (adjusted for inflation etc). Total GDP growth of the EU = Sum of the GDP volumes of all countries in one year divided by the corresponding figure in the previous year. Hence, what we need here is a sum of weighted averages (which is a growth rate multiplied by the size of a country's economy)). That's why I deleted incorrect average values.
EU GDP growth = Σ (Member state's GDP growth)* (member state's GDP) / (Total EU GDP)
Im bored doing it right now maybe another time.Basiljabber (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't the contents show on this page ? Parmaestro 08:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At the moment some figures are quoted in euros, some in dollars. It's easier if we use one currency instead of both, since at the moment it's confusing. I'd prefer the use of the dollar as it's easier to compare to most other pages which are also in dollars. -- Joolz 23:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not an economist, but I'd like to point out two things:
As it stands now, half the section of "regional variation" consists of an essay on why the other half is utterly meaningless.
I tried to reduce the essay-on-meaningless to half its size, but I was told it is all essential. If the meaningless of the rest of the section truly needs two whole pages to be detailed in full, then I think it's better to just remove the section in its entirety. If it's truly community consensus that the NUTS divisions are utterly useless, then don't use them. But if they are useful at all, then let's cut down on the whining. People get it already -- the regions are largely arbitrary, some figures are thus hyperinflated, all this can all be explained in *three sentences*.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox to complain about the regional divisions used by the Statistics organizations of the European Union, and it's not a place for original research either. Aris Katsaris 20:07, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Joolz, you don't seem to be aware that the so-called table of the "Top 10: economically strongest areas" as it stands now is actually mixing NUTS 1 and NUTS 2 levels. So this table presents the same flaws that you criticized above in the table that I had put and that you deleted. Specifically, in your "Top 10: economically strongest areas" table, there are four NUTS 1 regions (Brussels-Capital, Luxembourg, Hamburg, Île-de-France) and six NUTS 2 regions (Inner London, South Tyrol, Stockholm County, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire, Oberbayern, Vienna). Hardouin 11:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
In order to solve this problem, I have replaced the top 10 as it stood with a top 10 of the NUTS-1 regions. So this time all the regions are in the same category. It is not possible to provide a top 10 of the NUTS-2 regions, because there are some parts of the EU without NUTS-2 regions. For instance, Île-de-France is a NUTS-1 region that is not divided into smaller NUTS-2 regions, and Denmark is also a NUTS-1 region that is not divided into smaller NUTS-2 regions. There is still a problem with the bottom 10 list of weakest NUTS regions. 9 of the regions there are NUTS-2 regions, but one is a NUTS-1 region (Latvia). Latvia is not subdivided into smaller NUTS-2 regions, so either we change the table and put a bottom 10 list of weakest NUTS-1 regions, either we leave it as it is, but with a little note. Hardouin 13:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Check this [1]. Read the table at the bottom, not just the flashy headline on top. NUTS-1 regions are bolded, NUTS-2 regions are unbolded, it's quite clear. Besides, I really don't like your peremptory tone and your total faith in everything Eurostat say. For one, I have been following that subject since 1995, and I have seen the regional GDPs ever since 1995. Until 2000, Eurostat was highlighting the top 10 with only NUTS-1 regions. For example, in their top 10 they listed Greater London, they didn't list Inner London. Then suddenly in the beginning of the 2000s, God knows why, they started to mix NUTS-1 and NUTS-2, so that up to 2000 Luxembourg was regularly number one, but now suddenly for the last years Inner London is number 1. Why did it suddenly change? Perhaps the arrival of new bureaucrats at Eurostat (perhaps some British bureaucrats? after all Tony Blair said the UK needed to re-conquer Brussels from within... makes you wonder...). Anyway, understand that the top 10 and bottom 10 at the beginning of the document is just bogus. Just a headline to attract journalists. The real stuff is the detailed table at the bottom, and the table is pretty clear, and I have just copied numbers that are inside the table. We are not a news agency here, we are not here to report Eurostat news releases without changing dots. We are here to present information that makes sense, with an encyclopedic perspective. Hardouin 20:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The little stars I put for commuters inflows are based on statistical information that can be found anywhere. It's not me who invented it. Brussels-Capital is known to receive 1 to 2 million commuters daily, coming from Antwerp and Ghent. Greater London is also known to receive from 3 to 4 million commuters daily, coming from Surrey, Kent, Berks., and so on. Same with Hamburg and Bremen, with commuters coming from the suburbs located outside of the states of Hamburg and Bremen. On the other hand, regions like Île-de-France or Hesse have only few commuters coming from outside the region (a few commuters from Chartres, Orléans, or Lille come into Île-de-France, a few commuters from Mainz come into Hesse), but these commuter inflows are too small to change much to the GDP per capita. I think it is important to leave the stars so that people don't get the wrong idea, especially people not familiar with statistics. For instance, someone not familiar with statistics will leave with the idea that Hamburg is the richest area of Germany, which is totally not true. If Munich was a state by itself (as Hamburg is), then this "State of Munich" would surely be on top of the list, way above Hamburg. Hardouin 19:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the NUTS regions are totally surreal, and the population criteria that user Themanwithoutapast dug out is absolutely not respected. I mean, Île-de-France, with 11,264,000 inhabitants, is absurdly considered a NUTS-2 region, although NUTS-2 regions are supposed to have 3 million inhabitants at the most. The département of Paris (2,142,800 inhabitants), of the département of Hauts-de-Seine (1,428,881 inhabitants), clearly fall into the definition of NUTS-2 regions, and their GDP per capita is higher than Inner London, in fact the highest in Europe, but no, Eurostat in its unfathomable ways decided that Paris and Hauts-de-Seine would be NUTS-3, and that Île-de-France would be both NUTS-1 and NUTS-2. Go figure! And so, tadam, Inner London is the richest area of Europe. If you think this is detail, check this [6] and this [7], and you'll understand that these "details" are actually widely expected by the press and used to promote a city over another (both articles are even confusing Inner London with London as a whole! - "Fortunately for many Londoners, they at least have the highest gross domestic product in the European Union to help them cope with their living expenses."). So I just say, we should not use Eurostat data with blind eyes, and help concur to cliches and misunderstandings. We need to select data that make sense, not just surreal data that received an official stamp. Hardouin 11:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the table which absurdly showed that the EU economy is roaring ahead at 4.6% growth. I can only think that is the cash increase includign inflation, but inflation is always excluded when growth rates are discussed. A new table showing legitmate figures which can be compared with other entities is needed. Osomec 07:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
What's the meaning of "Low Countries" in the "Economic Growth" section? Nederlands? Southern Europe?
User:Bruguiea 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
True, they are better for the EU but it could be a little POV. Which one is considered the most reliable?
User:Bruguiea 17:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition to unemployment, it would be good to know how high the actual employment is. From an economical perspective, this is much more informative since it says how many people actually work (and hence incorporates demography etc.)--Filur 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This is especially true since many countries in Europe have a mandatory service requirement --- without it, EU unemployment would be substantially higher.
Should I (or somebody else) change the GDP per capita data to the 2006 projections, taken from here[8]?
Edit: Since I know this talk page won't be visited for days I've changed to what I said above. If anybody has any problems with that then just revert back. MichaelJBuck 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I slightly reordered the sections. It seems much more natural to me to write about the size of the EU economy and the economies of member states first, than about the economic growth. I do hope that's fine with you guys. MikeZ 10:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The Spain's poorest region is not Extremadura. It's Andalucía. At least that's what I've alredy know and read in Spanish wikipedia. I'm not changing anything because I'm not totaly sure but I asked for reviewing it. Sgined a Spanish guy, September 2006.
Although EU25 GDP is on the increase, the percentage of Gross world product is decreasing
is this true by back dating the economies of acceding contries,or new members ar conted as quantum leaps?--Pixel ;-) 01:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What does this field (see the table) [9] actually mean, could someone give a link. Regardng Budget deficit e.g Estonia: revenues: $5.126 billion; expenditures: $5.017 billion; including capital expenditures of $NA (2005 est.) (CIA World fact Book). So the -1.8 can't be this. 213.35.213.206 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This needs to be updated to include Romania and Bulgaria.
Yes I perfectly agree. I don't understand why nobody does that, its already passed more than a month that the 2 countries have joined the EU. And the people still say that Wikipedia is an exactly and accurate source....Come on people, what do you have against these two countries??? Arthur 4 February 2007
Is there an agreement on which sources should be used? Perhaps this has been discussed somewhere else on Wikipedia? Voodoo 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Table needs to be converted to the form ((Infobox Economy)). Thanks — Jack · talk · 01:59, Monday, 19 March 2007
Romania is now the 12th economy in European Union. However, Romania will be soon the 7th largest economy in European Union.
Member State sorted by GDP |
GDP in billions of $ (USD) (2006) |
GDP % of EU (2006) |
GDP per capita in PPP $ (USD) (2006 est.) |
Public Debt % of GDP |
Deficit % of GDP |
Inflation % Annual |
Unemp. % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
European Union | 13 840.8 | 100.0% | 27 849 | 63.8 | -2.6 | 2.0 | 7.5 |
1. Germany | 2 698.7 | 19.5% | 32 684 | 66.0 | -3.7 | 1.8 | 7.7 |
2. United Kingdom | 2 004.4 | 14.5% | 32 949 | 41.6 | -3.2 | 2.0 | 5.4 |
3. France | 1 998.2 | 14.4% | 31 377 | 65.6 | -3.7 | 1.8 | 8.4 |
4. Italy | 1 791.0 | 12.9% | 30 383 | 105.8 | -3.0 | 2.2 | 6.7 |
5. Spain | 1 203.4 | 8.7% | 28 810 | 48.9 | -0.3 | 2.7 | 8.6 |
6. Poland | 556.9 | 4.0% | 14 609 | 43.6 | -4.8 | 1.4 | 12.6 |
7. Netherlands | 549.7 | 4.0% | 33 079 | 55.7 | -2.5 | 1.5 | 3.6 |
8. Belgium | 353.3 | 2.6% | 33 908 | 95.6 | -0.1 | 2.7 | 7.8 |
9. Austria | 298.7 | 2.2% | 36 189 | 65.2 | -1.3 | 2.0 | 4.5 |
10. Sweden | 296.7 | 2.1% | 32 548 | 51.2 | -1.4 | 0.8 | 6.3 |
11. Greece | 274.5 | 2.0% | 24 733 | 106.5 | -2.8 | 3.2 | 8.7 |
12. Romania | 244.5 | 2.0% | 11 500 | 24.4 | -1.9 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
13. Portugal | 217.9 | 1.6% | 20 673 | 61.9 | -2.9 | 3.0 | 7.2 |
14. Czech Republic | 210.4 | 1.5% | 20 539 | 37.4 | -3.0 | 1.3 | 6.6 |
15. Denmark | 203.5 | 1.5% | 37 399 | 42.7 | -2.8 | 1.7 | 3.2 |
16. Ireland | 191.7 | 1.3% | 45 135 | 29.9 | -1.3 | 1.9 | 4.4 |
17. Hungary | 190.3 | 1.4% | 18 922 | 57.6 | -4.5 | 3.7 | 7.9 |
18. Finland | 179.1 | 1.5% | 34 162 | 43.6 | -2.1 | 1.0 | 7.0 |
19. Slovakia | 101.2 | 0.7% | 18 705 | 36.9 | -2.9 | 2.5 | 11.0 |
20. Luxembourg | 35.2 | 0.2% | 76 025 | 7.5 | -1.1 | 3.2 | 5.0 |
21. Bulgaria | 74.5 | 0.5% | 10 300 | 58.4 | -2.9 | 5.6 | 11.0 |
22. Lithuania | 57.0 | 0.3% | 16 756 | 19.7 | -2.5 | 2.0 | 6.1 |
23. Slovenia | 49.1 | 0.4% | 24 459 | 29.4 | -1.9 | 1.7 | 5.0 |
24. Latvia | 34.4 | 0.2% | 15 061 | 14.4 | -0.8 | 6.6 | 6.3 |
25. Estonia | 25.8 | 0.2% | 19 243 | 4.9 | -1.8 | 4.6 | 4.2 |
26. Cyprus | 19.7 | 0.1% | 23 419 | 62.3 | -3.5 | 1.5 | 4.7 |
27. Malta | 8.5 | 0.1% | 21 081 | 75.0 | -5.2 | 2.1 | 6.8 |
Preceding unsigned edit by User:Monobook maker at 18:18, 16 April 2007
Shouldnt Eurostats be the official source for the measure of economic evolution instead of CIA? 5 days ago (21st May`07) the updated table appeared on their official website and contradicts somehow much of the info given here.
Shouldnt it be appropiate switching to eurostats? Besides i consider it should be stated that the average gpd per capita is calculated in relation to EU-25, that´s it, Romania and Bulgaria excluded.
A complete official GPD table 1997- 2008 can be found here:
I could add it myself if most of you think it´s allright, but i don´t know how to make such clear and polished tables like you do.
I think Eurostat is the most fair and objective source when it comes to EU data, at least these are THE official numbers EU works with.
I updated it myself. Keep on the good work!
Foxbasealpha 17:28 CET 9 May 2007
Red King, the figures you deleted were from the IMF.
I really don't think we should use Eurostat for projections, considering there is already so much confusion about economic statistics. There's already CIA Factbook, World Bank and the IMF to get projections from; why further muddy the waters? FusionWarrior 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There are new updated figures of GDP per capita from eurostat for 2006 (not estimates as previously). This section needs to be updated with them as the ones currently showing are estimates from April '07. Thanks 18 Dec '07
The following are two general, but important, things: 1) according to me there should be an obvious difference between the PROJECTED figures and the KNOWN figures. This is also the case at the EUROSTAT page. Now it looks as if the growth is know in several cases in which it is not, this will fool readers. 2)Furthermore, what happens when the projected figures are updated by national agencies. And is the EUROSTAT date not acctually bases on the national data? Lets take a case: the Netherlands statistical agency (CBS) just published a new figure of growth: 3.5% for 2007. Do we change the figure in this case? Lennart Feb 16, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.116.6 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to the following site, which offers updated information about the GDP, GDP p.c. and economic growth of the EU. Source is Eurostat: http://www.economic-growth.eu/English/index_eng.html --84.174.89.160 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There is something obviously wrong with the tables. how can it be that all countries' percentage of EU27 GDP per capita grew from 2006 to 2007? This would mean that the average also grew which is nonsense (the average is set equal to 100). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.210.24 (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The map and data tables should be updated for the year 2007 or at least for the estimates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.255.118 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Can somedody explain me why the unemployment rate is different in the "Economies of member states" and in the "Unemployment section"...why this?!!?!??!?!?Olliyeah (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Eurostats has given new statistics about per capita income. The most relevant data is that Spain has surpassed Italy. I can remenber the following data:
Germany 114%
France 111%
Spain 105%
Italy !03%
I do not have the links, but maybe someone with the links or all the data can apdate the tables. Newyorker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the data are for 2005. >Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the percentages in the table using the latest EUROSTAT data (the link is actually below the table itself). There were some dramatic differences for some countries - esp. Romania, Greece and Poland. I don't know if the data in the table was outdated or simply tampered with but it was very wrong. The amounts should be edited, as well, as they are completely inconsistent. It is scandalous to quote a source and then to have data completely different from it. user:78.83.225.63 (Talk) 19:01, 4 March 2008
Eurostat has published data for 2008. Unfortunately I don't have time to update it, I should be in bed! Would someone else please do so? --Red King (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I updated the figures on Public Debts, Deficit and Unemployment rate (sources provided and ((update))-tag removed). But the article still needs more current figures, namely the sections about "regional variations" (Top 10: economically strongest NUTS-1 and NUTS-2 regions) and about the "Comparison with regional blocs". Gugganij (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
One can update further the table from IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=914%2C946%2C963%2C962%2C918%2C943%2C960%2C964%2C935%2C968%2C939%2C942%2C944%2C936%2C941%2C186&s=NGDPD%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr.x=23&pr.y=8 --SouthStream (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to put here an information about percentage of working people in all of this countries. For instance in Poland this is about 50% - the rest is taking benefits. However an article contains information that we have only 7,7% rate of unemployment (!) It's silly to think that is reliable indicator which measures the phenomenon. IlluminatiX (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering whether economic indicators (such as unemployment, GDP growth etc.) of candidate countries (obviously clearly labeled as candidates) should be placed alongside current member data for comparison. How difficult would it be to get that data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by El cubo (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's some data from the imf website: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=25&pr.y=6&sy=2005&ey=2008&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=962%2C960%2C186&s=NGDP_RPCH&grp=0&a=
Country Subject Descriptor Units Scale 2005 2006 2007 2008 Croatia 4.295 4.762 5.754 4.254 Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of 4.104 3.748 5.000 4.500 Turkey 8.402 6.893 4.950 3.950
There are new data (at least forecasts/predictions) at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=REF_TB_national_accounts&root=REF_TB_national_accounts/t_na/t_nama/t_nama_gdp/tec00001, can someone update the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.127.2 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Like the UN said. Per capitas mean nothing, they don't tell us whos poorer are richer, yes they give us some insight on the wealth of the nation. If we look at Europe or US per capita does not really mean anything. Because though the US economy is 14 trillion, more then half of that is in the hands of 10% of the population. You don't need to be living in a hut in Africa to be struggleing. Like the former USSR showed us, you can have a house, school system, job, and a road system. But undernether all that fabric your really struggleing.
The problem with Europe and US is that the data means nothing because percapita is messured by the gross dommestic product. But messureing it that way is false because if more then half the wealth is in 10% of the populations hands, then you would actually have to messure the wealth of the nation minus the 10% and the wealth they control.
Another reason why percapita means nothing is that for example people may earn $40,000 in Europe a year but half of that is taking from the government in taxes. Also Gas, and food in some parts of Europe can be more expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Where can I read about industry in Europe?--MathFacts (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Economy of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economy of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Please correct the table. Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Brexit should be mentioned in European Union section.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economy of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it fair to make comparison against individual countries? Just as well one may write "The economy of Asia is the largest in the world beating US by a large margin". Loew Galitz (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)