http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...inal)_estimates

2009 2010
1 US 14,002.739 14,050.753
2 China 4,832.992 5,302.660
3 Japan 4,992.846 4,724.695
4 Germany 3,060.312 3,008.993
5 France 2,499.146 2,527.606
6 UK 2,007.049 2,027.927
7 Italy 1,987.836 1,987.445
8 Spain 1,397.232 1,390.760
9 Russia 1,163.645 1,329.377
10 Brazil 1,268.508 1,317.251
11 Canada 1,229.367 1,244.597
12 India 1,185.726 1,234.044
13 Mexico 827.189 863.357
14 Australia 755.066 744.265
15 Netherlands 742.966 744.088
16 South Korea 727.111 740.594
17 Turkey 552.180 535.324
18 Indonesia 468.389 503.819

but like only one or two cities in China are considered "developed cities" by International Monetary Fund's (IMF) definition (GDP per capita > $10K)

hey look at the numbers carefully... china is 3rd on that list...
But i personally believe that PRC will be 2nd by end of 2010.

Nominal GDP sucks. PPP GDP is better, since it takes into account inflation and cost of living for each country.

This is an endless debate in economics but I believe in comparing countries in international competitiveness nominal is better. PPP is good for some living standards but nominal takes into account international scale things like PRC's ability to buy western bonds/loans as a government (i.e. their stake of ownership in the US) while PPP is just a good indication of future prospects.

In 2020, my friends, China will become the world's superpower.

^ Are you kidding.

Shanghai will become an China's first "international financial centre" by 2020. (if you do not count Hong Kong of course) China will continue to take five year plans to achieve it's goals.

China will be the world's largest GDP. A position it occupied for the past 2 millenia.

Largest share of world GDP is only one factor of superpower. China's SCO will need to rival NATO (which occupies 80% of the world defense spending).

China also doesn't have an exportable doctrine like Soviet style socialism, US imperialism/democracy.

Right now... China's influence is mainly through it's status as "the manufacturing juggernaut of the world".... or the "sweatshop factory of the world" lol.

The list also change because the value of the currency.

Before the U.K. always had a higher GDP then France. Now the Brittisch Pound very low, so France GDP is higher.

I also thought that Korea before had a higher GDP then the Netherlands. But the Korean Won is now also very low, so the Netherlands gain one possition and go to the 15th place.

well gdp was never meant to make accurate comparisons between countries.. i mean if the difference is heaven and earth then it works, but various

factors like differences in ratios of renting home to owning homes between countries skews up the comparisons.

(renting homes, everyone has to keep on paying rent, gets added to gdp; owning homes you don't pay anyone, so no addition to gdp; in reality the 2

situations are the same when considering the strength of the economy but the gdp can be very different)

I am sure that China will be the world's largest GDP very soon. But calling it a position occupied for the past 2 Millenia is typical Chinese revisionist history. Most respected scholars accept that Ancient India (before the Islamic invasions from the 11 century onwards) was the world's largest GDP for over 1,500 years And China was very large too. Perhaps close.

^
Looks like you are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regio..._past_GDP_(PPP)

He is right if there was a nation called india before 1947, it is based on the number of countries in south Asia combining areas within the borders of modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is basically an Indian revisionist history to called these ancient nations around south Asia as India, so you are right that China has the highest GDP for the last 2 Millennia.

Using your brilliant logic, there was nothing like Modern China until the Qing Empire. Before that there was Han China, Mongols, Tibet, Ughur Khanate and sometimes even Manchuria. It works both ways. You can't have it your way for China's GDP and not have it another way for India's GDP.

As I said, China will definitely have the world's largest GDP very soon and probably rule the world. But you can;t change history just for that.

lol the wiki page consistently used "India" including modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh area since 1st century.


Han China, Song China, Ming China, etc. these were all specific dynasties and entities directly controlling their land. it is not including the land mass China currently has like they did with India since first century. actually, "India" includes pakistan, and that isnt India's land even now. so i have no idea what they are doing.

Mughal India (and british india, sort of) was the only equivalent to the Chinese entities listed.

But Ancient India has always included India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They were unified under Chandragupta Maurya, then Ashoka and several succeeding dynasties. At various times, they also became smaller kingdoms. Similarly, Han China, Tang China, Min China and Qing China has different territories.

maurya's successor didnt rule anything close to that land mass :/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunga_Empire


actually..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_India_(disambiguation)

most seem to be missing huge chunks in south asia continent. the ones that seem to have ruled the land mass you say appear to be:

Mauryan dynasty from 321 to 185 B.C.E

Mughal Empire 1526–1707

could you tell me which empires and dynasties im missing?


yes, chinese dynasties had different land under their control. thats why the wiki page had separate entity's for China through the centuries. Mings GDP has nothing to do with whether or not land was under Han for example. only Ming.

so if you say the page is fair to include pakistan, india and bangledesh; then each time period should have the empire or dynasty that ruled over that land mass. i mean you cant say "this land was united in 3 century BC, so we will include it hencefore in gdp from now on, even if there is no single entity ruling over that land mass in year 1000".

Let's agree to disagree. You seem to want to change history to make China's GDP the highest in the past. As you wish.

I like to keep history pure and intact. If in the past, India was bad, it was bad. If it was good, it was good. I don't bring my patriotism to the levels where I change facts to make me feel good.

but thats exactly what you are doing

the land mass you mention has been unified twice, around 300 years only. (since you didnt mention im missing any empires or dynasty) yet you claim it ALWAYS included India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. that is a lie


yet despite only 300 years of one entity ruling that land entire mass (with 1500 year gap in between) its GDP included that land mass throughout the entire time frame, except mughal india and british india. when they actually used a proper entity.


another thing is Mauryan ended before 1st century. even its successor the sunga ended before the 1st century. yet magically that whole area is included into "india"s GDP for 1st century. under WHO is what im asking? Satavahana Empire is in that time period, but it didnt rule anything close to that landmass either.


here is the biggest problem. if i were to travel back in time to 100 AD, id go to the Han Dynasty, and get records the Emperor already had on the countrys GDP. for the same period in what we call India now, (notice how the largest empire barely rules half the landmass you mentioned)



id have to visit at least 2 kingdoms, 2 empires, add up the GDPs, then come back and for some reason list it as one thing. do you understand why it doesnt make sense? they are listing a single entity that did not exist. lets see if you really mean this "I don't bring my patriotism to the levels where I change facts to make me feel good."

Hah, this punk b!tch fevertonite just got owned.

Mind your language, you idiot. Just because he quoted different eras for India and China doesn't change history. I know it does in Chinese minds. Your country has used revisionist history for over 60 years to gobble up Tibet, Uighur lands and even parts of Bhutan but most of us know history is long gone.

Good comeback. Ancient India has been like EU (see my article http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=217792). United under large empires at times like Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka the Great, Mughals, British India etc., but several nation-states at times too. I guess it depends on how we want to define the country.

Recently Chinese media (in fact a Chinese-government sponsored blog) called India a british creation and said it would be best for China and the region to split it into different cultural countries. Chinese find it difficult to comprehend the concept of co-existing cultures. They believe in the primacy of one culture. e.g. the Hans currently. Mind you, I am not judging that or calling it wrong.

Whereas India has always been a country of diverse cultures - Ancient Kingdoms earlier, different states now. And that is the key difference why you and I will continue to argue.

We are both right from our point of view. You from the point of view that Ancient India is an amalgam of cultures, me from the point of view that it always has been and will be. Lets settle this on amicable terms at that.

filthy little monkey boy, go back to your 3rd world whore house mother's tit.

^ WTF. Grow a pair seriously lol.

^^^I'll slap your mother across the face with a limp d!ck, punk.

Lorax leave Evertonie alone for he is completely misguided

Are you really an African? Or a Chinese with the username African?

I am an African by birth