Talk:Economy of Europe

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poverty 

message: 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)
thread_title: More dross removed.

message: 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)
thread_title: Focus of the Page

message: 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)
thread_title: Unnecessary reference to the American economy removed.

message: 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)
thread_title:  GNI per capita figure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deficit number 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GDP Growth 

message: 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)
thread_title: Incorect average values of GDP growth

message: Why doesn't the contents show on this page ?  Parmaestro 08:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows fine for me. It might not have shown for you because of cache problems, or because it may have been hidden by your browser behind the economy infobox. I've rearranged the page now because with the contents it (for my browser anyway) pushed the economy infobox into the middle of the page. -- Joolz 13:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed table

message: 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)
thread_title:  IMF figures vs World Bank 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Employment 

message: Should I (or somebody else) change the GDP per capita data to the 2006 projections, taken from here? 
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)
thread_title:  2006 GDP per capita projections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  reorder of sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: * Obviously, as developing countries such as the PRC and India start gaining a larger portion of global GDP, and are growing at a much faster rate than the EU, the EU's percentage of global GDP will decline.  Chiss Boy 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me explain it using an abstract example. Suppose you have two varaibles (A & B). In 2004, A had a value of 50 and so did B. Toghther thay had a combined value of 100 with A and B making up 50% of the total. The value of a A is growing at 5 points a year, the value of B is growing at 7 points a year. In 2006, after two years of mutual growth, variable A has a value of 60, while B has a value of 74. The total combined value is 134 with A making up 45% of the total and B making up 55% of the total. You see, even though both A and B increased in value, B just grew so much faster that it changed the overall breakdown. That will either help or confuse you ;-) Signaturebrendel 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   the percentage of Gross world product is decreasing 

message: What does this field (see the table)  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)
thread_title: Deficit

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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 </br />(2006)	GDP  per capita  in PPP $ (USD)  (2006 est.)	Public Debt   % of GDP	Deficit % of GDP	Inflation % Annual	Unemp.  %
                          	13 840.8                      	100.0%                    	27 849                                      	63.8                  	-2.6            	2.0               	7.5
1.                        	2 698.7                            	19.5%                     	32 684                                      	66.0                  	-3.7            	1.8               	7.7
2.                        	2 004.4                            	14.5%                     	32 949                                      	41.6                  	-3.2            	2.0               	5.4
3.                        	1 998.2                            	14.4%                     	31 377                                      	65.6                  	-3.7            	1.8               	8.4
4.                        	1 791.0                            	12.9%                     	30 383                                      	105.8                 	-3.0            	2.2               	6.7
5.                        	1 203.4                            	8.7%                      	28 810                                      	48.9                  	-0.3            	2.7               	8.6
6.                        	556.9                              	4.0%                      	14 609                                      	43.6                  	-4.8            	1.4               	12.6
7.                        	549.7                              	4.0%                      	33 079                                      	55.7                  	-2.5            	1.5               	3.6
8.                        	353.3                              	2.6%                      	33 908                                      	95.6                  	-0.1            	2.7               	7.8
9.                        	298.7                              	2.2%                      	36 189                                      	65.2                  	-1.3            	2.0               	4.5
10.                       	296.7                              	2.1%                      	32 548                                      	51.2                  	-1.4            	0.8               	6.3
11.                       	274.5                              	2.0%                      	24 733                                      	106.5                 	-2.8            	3.2               	8.7
12.                       	244.5                              	2.0%                      	11 500                                      	24.4                  	-1.9            	3.6               	4.0
13.                       	217.9                              	1.6%                      	20 673                                      	61.9                  	-2.9            	3.0               	7.2
14.                       	210.4                              	1.5%                      	20 539                                      	37.4                  	-3.0            	1.3               	6.6
15.                       	203.5                              	1.5%                      	37 399                                      	42.7                  	-2.8            	1.7               	3.2
16.                       	191.7                              	1.3%                      	45 135                                      	29.9                  	-1.3            	1.9               	4.4
17.                       	190.3                              	1.4%                      	18 922                                      	57.6                  	-4.5            	3.7               	7.9
18.                       	179.1                              	1.5%                      	34 162                                      	43.6                  	-2.1            	1.0               	7.0
19.                       	101.2                              	0.7%                      	18 705                                      	36.9                  	-2.9            	2.5               	11.0
20.                       	35.2                               	0.2%                      	76 025                                      	7.5                   	-1.1            	3.2               	5.0
21.                       	74.5                               	0.5%                      	10 300                                      	58.4                  	-2.9            	5.6               	11.0
22.                       	57.0                               	0.3%                      	16 756                                      	19.7                  	-2.5            	2.0               	6.1
23.                       	49.1                               	0.4%                      	24 459                                      	29.4                  	-1.9            	1.7               	5.0
24.                       	34.4                               	0.2%                      	15 061                                      	14.4                  	-0.8            	6.6               	6.3
25.                       	25.8                               	0.2%                      	19 243                                      	4.9                   	-1.8            	4.6               	4.2
26.                       	19.7                               	0.1%                      	23 419                                      	62.3                  	-3.5            	1.5               	4.7
27.                       	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
: Source? --Red King 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP

message: 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
: I've deleted the obsolete CIA Factbook information, since this should have replaced it. --Red King 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, better use Eurostat values, but I think that it is better to use the GDP (nominal) column instead of two GDP (PPP) columns with forecasts for two years ahead... Alinor 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The primary source for current data is Eurostat: the others are copies of decreasing provenance.  So I make no apology for deleting them. Projections, on the other hand, are expert opinion.  It is reasonable to use these opinions provided we make clear the source. For example, I would personally give more weight to the IMF opinion than to the World Bank.  I don't see any value in citing the CIA-WFB here (but recognise its value for places without a functioning independent Office of National Statistics).  --Red King 19:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP lists should better be based in Eurostat and not CIA Factbooks

message: *Few days ago Montenegro signed a treaty of stabilisation and integration. Does that make it a candidate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harac (talk • contribs) 10:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Montenegro

message: 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)
thread_title: economic variation tables wrong

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unemployment

message: 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)
replies: text: Here are the latest available figures as published at Eurostats website: Regional GDP per inhabitant in the EU27, released on Feb 12, 2008. Gugganij (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: 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 
:It is unfortunate and regretable that people vandalise the data.  Thank you for correcting it. Did you apply the 2007 data or the 2008 data? --Red King (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Candidate Countries 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Per capitas mean nothing 

message: Hi! Where can I read about industry in Europe?--MathFacts (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Economy of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930180648/http://www.eubusiness.com/Finance/061106110526.c9tkks7c to http://www.eubusiness.com/Finance/061106110526.c9tkks7c
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520174617/http://www.pr-inside.com/global-wealth-stages-a-strong-comeback-r1942019.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/global-wealth-stages-a-strong-comeback-r1942019.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Isn't it OR?
:Western European (without Spain and Portugal) originally.
:Yugoslav Wars took place in Europe.
Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of World War II brought European countries closer together 

message: Please correct the table. Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced, partially hoax.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities by GDP 

message: Brexit should be mentioned in European Union section.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brexit 

message: *The lead quotes 2010 data.
*Regional variation - the map  shows 2012 data, but doesn't inform about it. Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete data 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130503015110/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/European-rail-study-report.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/European-rail-study-report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The European Union has the second largest economy in the world"