1485:
capita incomes in proportion to 200 days of the average wage (particularly
European countries in the 16-18th centuries), that's because as workers worked 300-350 day every year and consisted of 40% of the total population, so the per capita supply of work days would be 120-140 days. Since labor usually consists of 60-70% of the national income (the rest being profits, rents and interest), therefore per capita income is proportional to the wages of 200 work days. Therefore Roman per capita income was 800 sesterces. Since the price of wheat was 3 sesterces per modius and a modius had 6.5 kg of wheat, therefore the cost of wheat was 0.46 sesterces per kg. Therefore the per capita income in terms of wheat of the Roman Empire was 1,740 kg. A much higher number than those provided by the Roman GDP estimates in the Roman Economy page.
1381:"INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIALIZATION LEVELS FROM 1750-1980", European Journal of Economic History, he put's Western Europe share at 22%, while the USSR gets 15%! However, Western Europe was producing 17-18 million motor vehicles in 1980, while the USSR was producing 2.2 million motor vehicles (only little west Germany, a country of 60 million, was pumping 5 million motor vehicles every year) and the quality of European motor vehicles was greatly superior. While one can argue that the USSR didn't put much weight on the production of motor vehicles but the difference is simple too great, since the motor vehicle industry was the largest manufacturing industry in the world in 1980. And the second largest was the emerging electronics industry, also an industry that the USSR did not develop.
1595:
so called "guessimate" IMF data and you keep on deleting it and so on and so forth, I had entered the data from rounded off IMF and CIA World
Factbook figures and since I forgot to include references you erased my independently entered unprotected "raw" data. I don't know who you are but I urge you not to delete the data that I may enter because I am just a high school student and my school's board keeps track of updated data and adds that data in their textbooks and that may affect the youth outlook of my country and several others on a high scale pessimistic extent or a high scale false optimistic extent. For your information, my country is full of realistic critics. Face the facts and accept change because it is inevitable and is also a reality.
1489:
than any other per capita income estimate of the Empire produced by these researches. That's mainly because they regarded the 4 sesterces average wage as the income of craftsman and other sub-elite occupations and the not the average income of the general population. They usually use the 4.5 kg of wheat average wage for
Egyptian laborers, that would yield a per capita income of 900 kg of wheat, much closer to some estimates. But other evidences indicate that the wages in Egypt were lower than in other parts of the Empire, which explains why Egypt didn't use slave labor in large scale.
1423:
Europe (source: Adam Smith, The Wealth of
Nations). Smith argues that the living conditions of the average Chinese were far worse than any European country, though the aggregate total wealth of China was great. Conclusion: His estimates shouldn't be used as if they were rigorous estimates that can be used as if they represented reality unbiased. Maddison estimates are a bit better, but his numbers also need a great degree of interpretation and I also found many errors in his estimates, thought less errors than Bairoch's semi useless estimates. --
690:
669:
1340:, had a higher level of GDP per capita than China. Pomeranz's Great Divergence also suggests that Chinese per capita income was at least as much as Western Europe as recent as 1800, but Maddison's estimates are that European per capita income was 3X as much at that date! Another example of astonishingly off statistics would be the aforementioned statistic about American natives having the same GDP per capita as Roman Britain. It seems to be me that these are some pretty wild (and astonishingly inaccurate) guesses.
1493:
in 1500 or
Western Europe in 1820 and 10 times the GDP of Han China. Impossible? Perhaps not, Rome had 1 million inhabitants in the first century, Alexandria had about half million (perhaps a million according to the fact that in 50 BCE the city had 300,000 "citizens", which may mean adult male citizens), London had 960,000 inhabitants in 1800, Paris had 550,000. The two largest cities in Western Europe were the same size as the two largest cities in the Empire.
220:
362:
341:
559:
474:
1409:
accounts database, Germany's per capita manufacturing production in 1980 was 160% of the United States, not 70%, a number much more consistent with the physical production numbers of
Germany and the US manufacturing industries. The explanation? The US per capita consumption of energy was greater than Germany and Japan, so Bairoch's estimates on per capita industrial production were also distorted in this case.
464:
779:
758:
446:
310:
372:
266:
598:
1395:
production, since Brazil is a country powered by hydropower and is very energetically efficient, producing a GDP greater than Russia today and emitting only 20% of the Co2. One shouldn't use energy consumption estimates to estimate manufacturing production. Specially today, when the bulk of the energy consumed by the United States isn't used in industry.
1501:. Therefore the maximum possible difference in size of money stock would imply in a Roman stock 15 times greater than Han China. GDP is very strongly correlated with money stock, though more advanced ancient economies may need a larger money stock to operate because they have greater degree of monetization.
1594:
I don't want to contradict your correction of my "guessimate" data. But if you're as intellectual as your profile suggests I would like you to please add "unguessimate" information so that educational institutions follow updated data. Please do so if you can or otherwise I will keep on re-entering my
1496:
Also, Roman GDP may have been much larger than Han China's, according to
Sheildel: "However, despite these very considerable margins of uncertainty, even the broadest range of guesses for the money stock in Han China of between 6 and 28 billion liters of grain equivalent barely overlaps with the much
1253:
Fair enough, I'm not convinced but it looks like the data is less accurate than I'd have expected (I find it difficult to believe that the UK was poorer than the USA when we had beasts of burden and they didn't) so its impossible to argue that the
Chinese were significantly richer on average than the
1394:
Why he manage to produce such estimates? Simple: he used total energy consumption estimates. Anybody knows how
Western Europe is energetically efficient, while the USSR was enormously inefficient in terms of energy input/production output. His estimates also greatly underestimate Brazil's industrial
1335:
It appears the only estimates available on wikipedia are that of
Maddison, which is not exactly the best way to insure balance. For starters, a wide variety of estimates for past GDP (PPP) per capita are avilable (with huge margins of error for all), and it is best to list them all to give readers a
911:
But there are no such percentages in Maddison's work and the way many numbers for ancient empires were calculated by simply adding up modern countries was OR and SYN. The list as it is now represents Maddison's chart (whatever its intrinsic merits) absolutely faithfully both in terms of contents and
1492:
Roman population estimates vary from 45 million to 120 million. Using the uppermost estimate, Gibbons classic guesstimate for the empire was 120 million, and applying the 1,990 per capita income on Gibbon's estimate yields a GDP of tremendous 238,800 million 1990 dollars. About the GDP of the world
1357:
Stop removing mentions of Pomeranz from the lead. This is a complete case of WP:OWN in which editors are removing valid sources and materials from the lead. It's obvious that if GDP per capita estimates are off, so are GDP figures. Pomeranz states clearly that he agrees with the traditional view of
1729:
Os Tubas são um grupo pequeno criado originalmente por duas pessoas e mais 3 membros oficiais sendo eles ( não sabemos os nomes reais deles ) : Dudu, Dio, Edu, Matheus-tytu e Matheus-Pituu Os aliados dos tubas são : Coxinhas e Lulas, ja os inimigos são : Pintinhos Não se sabe muito sobre eles mais
1422:
His 1800 GDP per capita estimates are also inconsistent with the evidence in many cases. China's life expectancy was 24 years in 1800, UK's life expectancy was 36 years, an enormous difference for pre industrial countries. According to first hand accounts, China was much poorer than any country in
1408:
Also, he estimated that Japan's per capita industrial production in 1980 was 60% of the US and Germany, 70%. However, Germany and Japan had much greater steel, motor vehicle, shipbuilding, machinery and electronics production per capita than the US in 1980. According to the United Nations national
1380:
Bairoch's estimates have severe problems. I have read some of his papers, where he makes such claims. His methodology is not the best and he appears to be driven by an certain "anti European" agenda. For example, his estimates of the distribution of world manufacturing production in 1980, from his
1299:
Due to that I think that Maddison is just making an educated guess for the US - therefore while the figures for other regions could well be equally dodgy, the figures for China and India could be too low or they could be too high - I don't think the data is accurate enough to really surmise either
1191:
Well, because this is the way Maddison organized his list which I reproduced faithfully. The underlying reason is obviously that the steep economic performance of Japan, the first industrialized non-Western country, since the 19th century has kept it apart from the rest of Asia which only began to
1068:
Exactly, only total GDP values are given, therefore your notion of "wealthier", which refers to GDP per capita, is misplaced here. Wealth is always per-capita wealth, not aggregate one (ten people living close to subsistence level could in sum earn more than one rich man, yet everybody would still
1488:
Since the subsistence income was proportional to 350 kg of wheat, or 160 sesterces, the equivalent to 400, 1990 international dollars (while Goldsmith estimate minimum subsistence at 150 sesterces.), the Roman Empire had a per capita income of 1,990 dollars according to this estimate, much higher
1052:
The article only gives Total GDP (PPP) and not on per capita basis. Per the given figures, "Total Asia (excl. Japan)" has higher figures than "Total Western Europe" until 20th century. For instance, the figures of India alone are more than twice that of "Total Western Europe" in 1 and 1000 CE and
1268:
Not sure whether you have undestood the stats fully. According to Maddison, Western Europe was on average wealthier than China in all time periods save 1000 AD, while the UK had a GDP per capita as high or higher than the US until 1913. It's only stats, others have other numbers, but that's what
1504:
Usually economic historians like Temin and Sheildel deny that the Roman Empire had GDP in these levels based on the conclusion that it would be impossible for it do have developed so much, as they imply that it would be impossible for any other civilization to reach the degree of development of
1484:
My estimate is based on the data on the average daily wages for laborers in Roman Italy and other areas like ancient Palestine (according to the bible, a day's wage was 1 denarius, equivalent to 4 sesterces), which was in the area of 4 sesterces a day. Historically, many countries had their per
1115:
How would you do that? Where do you get the numbers from? I had been thinking about making amendments to Maddison's numbers from other authors, too, but then I refrained because exactly that method has created a mess of the old version over time. Same with creating new entries by adding up or
1641:
Can't really say that the recently added boxes with Bairoch's growth figures are an improvement to the article. The layout now looks cluttered and figures three digits behind the comma give the reader a misleading impression of a precision which is not there in theses estimates/guessimates.
984:
Good rewrite. But why don't we keep the Angus Maddison estimates only. Ofcourse i know most studies have been done Roman centric, but putting that here is giving much undue weight to the Romans. Atlast, India and China were far more wealthier than the Romans were during their heydays.
1069:
call them poor). The numbers on Europe, Roman Empire (which actually surpasses the GDP of both India and China in Milanovic and Scheidel estimates) and Eastern Roman Empire are given because they are there and discussed a lot. Without them, the article would be little more than
1295:
According to the figures in 1AD the UK was equally as rich as the US even though we had beasts of burden and were part of a large and fairly well governed empire. Given the US at the time had neither it seems highly unlikely they were as rich per capita as the UK at the time.
1155:
For the reasons above. I am not aware of any separate estimate of the British empire by Maddison (or anyone else, although there must exist some), but if there is one we need to work out, I believe, how to include it best without affecting the integrity of his 1-2003 list.
1100:
I had been planning to update the 1913 section of the old article, by reformatting Maddison's numbers to reflect the boundaries of the time. For example, Austria-Hungary is not listed and Britain's colonies are excluded from the UK total. Should I create a new
1563:
Although placed among the highest incomes per capita in the world in 1900, Argentinas ratio to OECD income fell to 84 percent in 1950, 65 percent in 1973, and a mere 43 percent in 1987. . . Argentina is therefore unique (della Paolera and Taylor, 2003, p.
1532:
economies, where data is most sketchy and scholars commonly need to apply ingenious means to arrive at them. You can't group this 'guessimate' data together with modern reliable statistics of the past three decades, the difference is like night and day.
1139:
I see the British Empire has been removed from the list, yet the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire are mentioned in their own section and the former USSR has its own place in a list. Why are we treating some entities a certain way and not others?
1552:
I think it would be interesting to have some information about Argentina, the only country that has gone from being one of the richest in the early 1900s to one of the developing countries in the 2000s. Apparently it is a very unique case:
1661:
Moderators, please, pay attention! Someone has more than once incorrectly changed Bairoch's figures for Russian GDP in 1830-1913. I guess, it could be done for ideological reasons - to put the Soviet Union far ahead of Russian empire.
153:
1336:
balance. For example, the estimates of Bairoch, another economic historian, puts Chinese per capita income in 1800 at a higher level than western Europe, yet Maddison believes Finland, with its self-sufficient
1033:
According to Maddison estimates, GPD (PPP) per capita of Western Europe is the highest throughout most of the past two millennia. Not sure what systemic bias you mean, since this is article is concerned with
952:
The old version left out many entries such as the Western European states, but added self-created "GDP shares" which were not offered by AM and don't even add up in many cases due to geographical overlaps.
1474:
1 - To demonstrate how much some estimates may have underestimated the Roman GDP in comparison to other countries. This would be the upper estimate of the upper range of possible estimates of Roman GDP.
1210:
So over the past two millennia who were more significant in GDP per capita? Because it seems pretty unlikely the Chinese and Indians had half the worlds population or even close for the past 2000 years.
1018:. Per Maddison, (which is the only global set of figures we have here) Eastern sphere leads the GDP charts until 19th century CE. So IMO the European centrism doesn't help the balance of the article.
1441:, who spend a great deal of time and energy to give the whole discussion a sinocentric spin by talking up its pre-industrial potential to nonsensical heights, his mess hasn't still be cleared up at
740:
44:
147:
1192:
develop post 1945. One should keep in mind that GDP as such means very little, under premodern conditions basically only a function of population size, and that this list rests on
1471:
I am a PHD candidate in economics. Although perhaps I am still not qualified to make a scientific estimate of the Roman GDP, I will make one estimate right here for two reasons:
938:
The old version only listed Maddison's GDP estimates as if they were the only or best ones, but there are many more economic historians who have offered estimates of their own.
1053:
continues to be higher until 18th century. Still the subsequent sections are based on Europe, Roman and Byzantine Empires; in total neglect of the riches of India and China.
1176:
Why do we have Total Asia (excl. Japan) but not Total Asia (excl. China and India) when in fact China and India have dominated world GDP for 95% of the past 2000 years. --
955:
The old version invented new entries by adding states and regions to form empires such as the Spanish empire or the Caliphate, again without a basis in Maddison's work (
1558:
The fourth group of countries encompasses those that were developed in 1900 and are developing in 2000. Only one country falls into this category and that is Argentina.
960:
237:
190:
1665:
The correct data are: 1830 - 10,550 1840 - 11,200 1850 - 12,700 1860 - 14,400 1870 - 22,920 1880 - 23,250 1890 - 21,180 1900 - 32,000 1910 - 43,830 1913 - 52,420
578:
1236:
1798:
730:
286:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
1773:
640:
428:
418:
79:
1478:
2 - To demonstrate how large is the degree of arbitrariness in ancient GDP estimates. The purpose here is to show how arbitrary these estimates can be.
1803:
1793:
1788:
1778:
1763:
1572:
I hope somebody else can add some information about this in the article (to show an example of a country going from rich to developing). Regards.
1000:
If "wealthier" means higher GDP per capita, then they weren't. I think you did a good job by restructuring the article as it now stands. Thanks.
1813:
1768:
833:
823:
273:
1014:
wealthier by GDP(PPP) per Maddison estimates. Apart from the Maddison estimates, don't you feel the article to be European-centric; a kind of
168:
1740:
1497:
higher range from 22 to 90 billion liters proposed for the Roman empire.", The Monetary Systems of the Han and Roman Empires, page 52, link:
1292:
Damn, I missed out a very key part of my previous statement, which is that I'm talking about the 1AD figures. So let me rephrase my comment.
706:
85:
135:
1783:
496:
394:
1818:
1602:
1573:
1697:
884:
really ? I have in front of me Angus Maddison's The World Economy on the topic and the list is clearly mentioned there in table 8b.
1808:
1227:
24:
799:
697:
674:
129:
900:
487:
451:
385:
346:
289:
277:
99:
30:
1618:
104:
20:
1686:
967:
The new version now lists GDP estimates of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and Maddison's estimates as separate entries.
125:
1719:
1705:
377:
74:
571:
321:
175:
795:
791:
786:
763:
65:
1674:
Paul Bairoch, "Europe's Gross National Product: 1800-1975", Journal of European Economic History, #2 (1976), p. 281.
185:
1481:
I know that in wikipedia original research shouldn't be put into the article, but this is in the discussion area.
1116:
splitting numbers from Maddison's data set which, however, Maddison did not present this way. Seems too close to
246:
199:
1744:
1315:
You are absolutely right that particularly these early estimates are not more than educated guesses – at best.
1145:
1106:
613:
1566:
1606:
1577:
141:
1647:
1626:
1538:
1450:
1320:
1274:
1244:
1201:
1161:
1125:
1081:
1043:
1015:
1005:
972:
917:
875:
295:
109:
1617:
This list of past GDP has a strong historical perspective. For the inclusion of current data, please go to
1701:
1669:
1363:
1345:
597:
1682:
1305:
1259:
1223:
1181:
327:
1710:
I wish the british empire was represented everything always lists british colonies as separate stuff.
1120:. Right now, I cannot think of a better method than to set up separate tables for separate estimates.
855:
This article used to have such a list which was very useful. Could that list be please brought back ?
689:
668:
1736:
1598:
1215:
888:
629:
1678:
1141:
1102:
896:
860:
161:
55:
1711:
705:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
495:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
393:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1643:
1642:
Transferring the data into graphs may solve this problem, but these boxes are counterproductive.
1622:
1591:
1534:
1528:. There are numerous other lists for that (see bottom template). The list here firmly focuses on
1446:
1316:
1270:
1240:
1197:
1157:
1121:
1077:
1061:
1039:
1026:
1001:
993:
968:
913:
871:
252:
204:
70:
1748:
1651:
1630:
1610:
1581:
1542:
1514:
1454:
1432:
1367:
1349:
1324:
1309:
1278:
1263:
1248:
1205:
1185:
1165:
1149:
1129:
1110:
1085:
1063:
1047:
1028:
1009:
995:
976:
921:
904:
879:
870:
I am afraid not, because it was thoroughly OR. The cited source did not give these percentages.
864:
1196:
for which however neither India nor China were particularly notable in the last two millennia.
1715:
1510:
1438:
1428:
1359:
1341:
586:
283:
51:
250:
203:
1442:
1301:
1255:
1219:
1177:
479:
248:
219:
201:
1498:
1300:
way. So if he's gone just with Asia ex. Japan then I think we should just go with that. --
1337:
593:
892:
856:
606:
558:
1757:
1117:
1055:
1020:
987:
956:
1506:
1424:
473:
361:
340:
1696:
England isn't listed, even tho these stats come from a British source... wtf..?
702:
469:
367:
934:
I decided to rewrite and update the whole article for the following reasons:
959:). Some entries like on the Roman Empire were even outright fabricated (see
778:
757:
463:
445:
390:
298:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
1730:
eles tem ate um discord, caso queira entrar aqui esta o link do convite :
371:
1505:
europe in 1800. I think that they are assuming what they need to prove.--
1670:
http://www.jeeh.it/articolo?urn=urn:abi:abi:RIV.JOU:1976;2.273&ev=1
492:
1172:
Total Asia (excl. Japan) but not Total Asia (excl. China and India)
1731:
303:
260:
253:
213:
205:
15:
1269:
Maddison's estimates of GDP per capita in terms of PPP say.
798:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1499:
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/09-07-022.pdf
1525:
547:
542:
537:
532:
160:
701:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
491:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
389:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
941:The Angus only version relied on his outdated 2001
1331:Question about other estimates other than Maddison
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1524:This article is really not the best place for
174:
8:
1237:List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita
943:The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective
790:, an attempt to structure and organize all
1734:
752:
663:
566:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
520:
440:
335:
309:
307:
1656:
947:Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD
945:, therefore I replaced it with his 2007
794:. If you wish to help, please visit the
1691:
754:
665:
442:
337:
949:which gives somewhat revised figures.
581:; see if anything catches your fancy.
7:
784:This article is within the scope of
695:This article is within the scope of
485:This article is within the scope of
383:This article is within the scope of
1657:Bairoch's estimates for Russia/USSR
326:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1799:Mid-importance Statistics articles
1071:List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
14:
1774:Top-importance Economics articles
1692:Why isn't england represented????
524:WikiProject Countries to-do list:
25:List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
1668:See source in the JEEH Archive:
777:
756:
715:Knowledge:WikiProject Statistics
688:
667:
596:
557:
472:
462:
444:
370:
360:
339:
308:
264:
218:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1804:WikiProject Statistics articles
828:This article has been rated as
735:This article has been rated as
718:Template:WikiProject Statistics
639:pages of related articles, and
505:Knowledge:WikiProject Countries
423:This article has been rated as
403:Knowledge:WikiProject Economics
288:Content must be written from a
272:The subject of this article is
1794:List-Class Statistics articles
1789:WikiProject Countries articles
1779:WikiProject Economics articles
1764:Knowledge controversial topics
1619:List of countries by GDP (PPP)
851:GDP as percentage of world GDP
594:clean-up listing for Countries
508:Template:WikiProject Countries
406:Template:WikiProject Economics
1:
1814:High-importance List articles
1769:List-Class Economics articles
1749:17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
1732:https://discord.gg/d7QttbySvJ
1515:22:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
1455:19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1433:20:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
922:19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
709:and see a list of open tasks.
499:and see a list of open tasks.
397:and see a list of open tasks.
378:Business and economics portal
42:Put new text under old text.
905:21:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1784:List-Class country articles
1358:population in China/Europe.
1073:according to Angus Maddison
808:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists
282:When updating the article,
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1835:
1819:WikiProject Lists articles
1582:22:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
1368:22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
880:00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
834:project's importance scale
811:Template:WikiProject Lists
429:project's importance scale
1706:21:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1687:05:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
1652:14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
1526:data on present countries
1350:19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1325:12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1310:12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1279:11:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1264:22:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
1249:20:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
1206:19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
1186:17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
1166:13:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1150:12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1130:08:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1111:00:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1086:15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1064:14:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1048:13:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1029:12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
1010:14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
996:15:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
977:11:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
865:21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
827:
772:
734:
683:
519:
457:
422:
355:
334:
284:be bold, but not reckless
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1809:List-Class List articles
1720:16:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1631:15:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
1611:14:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
1520:Figures for 1980-present
614:Category:Stubs by region
1543:21:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
1239:, identical in format.
792:list pages on Knowledge
1587:2012 figures inclusion
698:WikiProject Statistics
316:This article is rated
276:and content may be in
75:avoid personal attacks
1467:My Roman GDP Estimate
488:WikiProject Countries
386:WikiProject Economics
290:neutral point of view
100:Neutral point of view
1038:GDP (PPP), however.
612:de-stub articles in
105:No original research
1725:Republica dos Tubas
1637:Growth of GDP boxes
1437:There was recently
721:Statistics articles
409:Economics articles
322:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1751:
1739:comment added by
1601:comment added by
1232:
1218:comment added by
908:
891:comment added by
848:
847:
844:
843:
840:
839:
787:WikiProject Lists
751:
750:
747:
746:
662:
661:
658:
657:
654:
653:
650:
649:
439:
438:
435:
434:
302:
301:
259:
258:
212:
211:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1826:
1613:
1443:Great Divergence
1231:
1212:
1058:
1023:
990:
907:
885:
816:
815:
812:
809:
806:
781:
774:
773:
768:
760:
753:
741:importance scale
723:
722:
719:
716:
713:
692:
685:
684:
679:
671:
664:
634:
628:
601:
600:
572:Article requests
561:
554:
553:
521:
513:
512:
511:country articles
509:
506:
503:
482:
480:Countries portal
477:
476:
466:
459:
458:
448:
441:
411:
410:
407:
404:
401:
380:
375:
374:
364:
357:
356:
351:
343:
336:
319:
313:
312:
311:
304:
268:
267:
261:
254:
222:
214:
206:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1754:
1753:
1741:177.141.131.242
1727:
1694:
1659:
1639:
1596:
1589:
1550:
1522:
1469:
1338:Natural economy
1333:
1213:
1174:
1056:
1021:
988:
932:
886:
853:
830:High-importance
813:
810:
807:
804:
803:
767:High‑importance
766:
720:
717:
714:
711:
710:
677:
646:
632:
626:
592:
552:
510:
507:
504:
501:
500:
478:
471:
408:
405:
402:
399:
398:
376:
369:
349:
320:on Knowledge's
317:
265:
255:
249:
227:
208:
207:
202:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1832:
1830:
1822:
1821:
1816:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1791:
1786:
1781:
1776:
1771:
1766:
1756:
1755:
1726:
1723:
1693:
1690:
1658:
1655:
1638:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1588:
1585:
1570:
1569:
1560:
1549:
1546:
1521:
1518:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1254:Europeans. --
1194:GDP per capita
1173:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1142:BritishWatcher
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1103:Roger J Cooper
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
965:
964:
953:
950:
939:
931:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
882:
852:
849:
846:
845:
842:
841:
838:
837:
826:
820:
819:
817:
782:
770:
769:
761:
749:
748:
745:
744:
737:Mid-importance
733:
727:
726:
724:
707:the discussion
693:
681:
680:
678:Mid‑importance
672:
660:
659:
656:
655:
652:
651:
648:
647:
645:
644:
617:
602:
582:
579:article alerts
577:Check out the
565:
563:
562:
551:
550:
545:
540:
535:
529:
526:
525:
517:
516:
514:
497:the discussion
484:
483:
467:
455:
454:
449:
437:
436:
433:
432:
425:Top-importance
421:
415:
414:
412:
395:the discussion
382:
381:
365:
353:
352:
350:Top‑importance
344:
332:
331:
325:
314:
300:
299:
269:
257:
256:
251:
247:
245:
242:
241:
233:
232:
229:
228:
223:
217:
210:
209:
200:
198:
197:
194:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1831:
1820:
1817:
1815:
1812:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1787:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1759:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1724:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1675:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1663:
1654:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1644:Gun Powder Ma
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1623:Gun Powder Ma
1620:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1603:59.93.200.172
1600:
1593:
1592:Gun Powder Ma
1586:
1584:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1574:85.50.203.110
1568:
1565:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1547:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1535:Gun Powder Ma
1531:
1527:
1519:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1502:
1500:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1466:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:Gun Powder Ma
1444:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1317:Gun Powder Ma
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1297:
1293:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:Gun Powder Ma
1267:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:Gun Powder Ma
1238:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:Gun Powder Ma
1195:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1158:Gun Powder Ma
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1122:Gun Powder Ma
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:Gun Powder Ma
1075:
1074:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1040:Gun Powder Ma
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1017:
1016:Systemic bias
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:Gun Powder Ma
999:
998:
997:
994:
992:
991:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
974:
970:
969:Gun Powder Ma
962:
958:
954:
951:
948:
944:
940:
937:
936:
935:
929:
923:
919:
915:
914:Gun Powder Ma
910:
909:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
883:
881:
877:
873:
872:Gun Powder Ma
869:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
850:
835:
831:
825:
822:
821:
818:
814:List articles
801:
797:
793:
789:
788:
783:
780:
776:
775:
771:
765:
762:
759:
755:
742:
738:
732:
729:
728:
725:
708:
704:
700:
699:
694:
691:
687:
686:
682:
676:
673:
670:
666:
642:
638:
631:
624:
622:
618:
615:
611:
609:
608:
603:
599:
595:
591:
589:
588:
583:
580:
576:
574:
573:
568:
567:
564:
560:
556:
555:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
530:
528:
527:
523:
522:
518:
515:
498:
494:
490:
489:
481:
475:
470:
468:
465:
461:
460:
456:
453:
450:
447:
443:
430:
426:
420:
417:
416:
413:
396:
392:
388:
387:
379:
373:
368:
366:
363:
359:
358:
354:
348:
345:
342:
338:
333:
329:
323:
315:
306:
305:
297:
293:
291:
285:
281:
279:
275:
274:controversial
270:
263:
262:
244:
243:
240:
239:
235:
234:
231:
230:
226:
221:
216:
215:
196:
195:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1735:— Preceding
1728:
1709:
1698:76.102.26.97
1695:
1676:
1673:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1640:
1597:— Preceding
1590:
1571:
1562:
1557:
1551:
1529:
1523:
1503:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1360:Teeninvestor
1342:Teeninvestor
1334:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1235:I created a
1193:
1175:
1138:
1072:
1070:
1054:
1035:
1019:
986:
966:
946:
942:
933:
887:— Preceding
854:
829:
796:project page
785:
736:
696:
636:
620:
619:
605:
604:
585:
584:
570:
569:
486:
424:
384:
328:WikiProjects
287:
271:
236:
224:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1677:Sincerely,
1302:Eraserhead1
1256:Eraserhead1
1220:Eraserhead1
1214:—Preceding
1178:Eraserhead1
630:WPCountries
148:free images
31:not a forum
1758:Categories
1530:historical
800:discussion
712:Statistics
703:statistics
675:Statistics
318:List-class
238:/Archive 1
1548:Argentina
1439:some user
893:Madmonk11
857:Madmonk11
502:Countries
493:countries
452:Countries
400:Economics
391:Economics
347:Economics
296:citations
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1737:unsigned
1679:Mindover
1599:unsigned
1228:contribs
1216:unsigned
1101:article?
912:format.
901:contribs
889:unsigned
294:Include
225:Archives
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1712:Uhrfuvf
1507:RafaelG
1425:RafaelG
930:Rewrite
832:on the
739:on the
587:Cleanup
538:history
427:on the
278:dispute
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1118:WP:SYN
957:WP:SYN
641:assess
324:scale.
126:Google
1308:: -->
1262:: -->
1184:: -->
1057:Arjun
1036:total
1022:Arjun
989:Arjun
805:Lists
764:Lists
621:Other
607:Stubs
548:purge
543:watch
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1745:talk
1716:talk
1702:talk
1683:talk
1648:talk
1627:talk
1607:talk
1578:talk
1539:talk
1511:talk
1451:talk
1429:talk
1364:talk
1346:talk
1321:talk
1306:talk
1304:<
1275:talk
1260:talk
1258:<
1245:talk
1224:talk
1202:talk
1182:talk
1180:<
1162:talk
1146:talk
1126:talk
1107:talk
1082:talk
1044:talk
1006:talk
973:talk
961:here
918:talk
897:talk
876:talk
861:talk
824:High
637:talk
625:add
533:edit
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1567:pdf
1564:5).
731:Mid
635:to
419:Top
176:TWL
1760::
1747:)
1718:)
1704:)
1685:)
1650:)
1629:)
1621:.
1609:)
1580:)
1541:)
1513:)
1453:)
1445:.
1431:)
1366:)
1348:)
1323:)
1277:)
1247:)
1230:)
1226:•
1204:)
1164:)
1148:)
1128:)
1109:)
1084:)
1076:.
1046:)
1008:)
975:)
963:).
920:)
903:)
899:•
878:)
863:)
633:}}
627:{{
156:)
54:;
1743:(
1714:(
1700:(
1681:(
1646:(
1625:(
1605:(
1576:(
1537:(
1509:(
1449:(
1427:(
1362:(
1344:(
1319:(
1273:(
1243:(
1222:(
1200:(
1160:(
1144:(
1124:(
1105:(
1080:(
1042:(
1004:(
971:(
916:(
895:(
874:(
859:(
836:.
802:.
743:.
643:.
623::
616:.
610::
590::
575::
431:.
330::
292:.
280:.
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
