# The 50 cities with the highest GDP in the world...



## FAAN

Post the top ten cities with the highest GDP of your country... Rank. City Country GDP in billions of U.S. dollars 
1 Tokio







Japan $ 1479 
2 New York







United States
 $ 1406 
3 Los Angeles







United States $ 792 
4 Chicago







United States $ 574 
5 London







United Kingdom
 $ 565 
6 Paris







France $ 564 
7 Osaka







Japan $ 417 
8 Mexico City








Mexico $ 390 
9 Sao Paulo








Brazilhttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos $ 390 
10 Philadelphia







United Stateshttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasil $ 388 
11 Washington DC







United States $ 375 
12 Boston







United States $ 363 
13 Buenos Aires







Argentina $ 362 
14 Dallas







United States $ 338 
15 Moscow







Russia $ 321 
16 Hong Kong







Hong Kong $ 320 
17 Madrid







Spain $ 308 
18 Atlanta







United States $ 304 
19 San Francisco







United States $ 301 
20 Houston







United States $ 297 
21 Miami







United States $ 292 
22 Seoul







South Korea
 $ 291 
23 Toronto







Canada $ 253 
24 Detroit







United States $ 253 
25 Seattle







United States $ 235 
26 Xangai







China $ 233 
27 Frankfurt am Main







Germany $ 221[2] 
28 Singapore







Singapore $ 215 
29 Sydney







Australia $ 213 
30 Mumbai







India $ 209 
31 Rio de Janeiro







Brazil $ 208 
32 Phoenix







United States $ 200 
33 Minneapolis







United States $ 194 
34 San Diego







United States $ 191 
35 Istambul







Turkey $ 182 
36 Barcelona







Spain $ 177 
37 Melbourne







Australia $ 172 
38 New Delhi







India $ 167 
39 Pequim







China $ 166 
40 Denver







United States $ 165 
41 Manila







Philippines $ 149 
42 Montreal







Canadá $ 148 
43 Cairo







Egito $ 145 
44 Rome







Italy $ 144 
45 Guangzhou







China $ 143 
46 Brasilia







Brazil $ 140 
47 Milan







Italy $ 136 
48 Tehran







Iran $ 127 
49 Saint Louis







United States $ 126 
50 Tampa







United States $ 123


----------



## FAAN

The 10 cities with the highest GDP of my country Brazil are:
1. Sao Paulo - US$ 390 billion
2. Rio de Janeiro - US$ 208 billion
3. Brasilia - US$ 140 billion
4. Curitiba - US$ 65 billion
5. Belo Horizonte - US$ 61 billion
6. Manaus - US$ 45 billion
7. Porto Alegre - US$ 42 billion
8. Salvador - US$ 34 billion
9. Guarulhos - US$ 32 billion
10. Fortaleza -US$ 31 billion


----------



## Clery

Source?
Methodology?
Municipalities or metro area?
GDP at current exchange rate or in purchasing power parity?
Year?


----------



## DiggerD21

^^ Sense?


----------



## Chrissib

GDP in 2009 of the largest metropolitan areas in Germany:

$
Rhein-Ruhr 488bn (Ruhr-Area 194bn; Köln-Düsseldorf 255bn, Wuppertal 39bn)
Rhein-Main 228bn (Frankfurt)
Berlin 174bn
München 169bn
Hamburg 166bn
Stuttgart 130bn
Rhein-Neckar 86bn (Mannheim-Ludwigshafen)
Nürnberg 67bn
Hannover 63bn


----------



## Christian347

Lists like these are very had to make since the definition for metropolitan areas vary from place to place and some cities don´t have an official metropolitan area and some of the figures will probably just be for some kind of administrative area.


----------



## royal rose1

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Washington DC
6. Boston
7. Dallas
8. Atlanta
9. San Francisco
10. Houston

and nine more cities in the top 50! Muahaha USA USA USA! I'll never fail to be impressed by how economically dominant US cities are.


----------



## Chrissib

royal rose1 said:


> 1. New York
> 2. Los Angeles
> 3. Chicago
> 4. Philadelphia
> 5. Washington DC
> 6. Boston
> 7. Dallas
> 8. Atlanta
> 9. San Francisco
> 10. Houston
> 
> and nine more cities in the top 50! Muahaha USA USA USA! I'll never fail to be impressed by how economically dominant US cities are.


Add the 5 missing German cities, and, whoops, just 17 left. :lol:


----------



## Axelferis

sources?

What is this farce?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Every year I organize a chart comparing American and Brazilian metro areas. Here the latest list, from 2009 (over 500,000 inhabitants):

*Countries -- GDP 2009 (US$) -- Pop. 2010

US --- 14.014.849.000.000 --- 308.745.538
Brazil --- 1.600.841.000.000 --- 190.732.694*

*Metro Areas -- GDP 2009 (US$) -- Pop. 2010*

1. New York -- 1.379.570.000.000 -- 21.895.722

2. Los Angeles -- 876.468.000.000 -- 17.877.006

3. San Francisco -- 535.327.000.000 -- 7.468.390

4. Chicago -- 515.119.000.000 -- 9.686.021

5. Washington -- 412.129.000.000 -- 5.710.642

6. Houston -- 363.201.000.000 -- 5.946.800

7. Dallas -- 359.835.000.000 -- 6.492.650

8. Philadelphia -- 354.573.000.000 -- 6.533.683

9. Boston -- 347.164.000.000 -- 5.798.287

10. São Paulo -- 340.775.000.000 -- 22.433.448

11. Atlanta -- 270.856.000.000 -- 5.448.544

12. Miami -- 252.647.000.000 -- 5.564.635

13. Seattle -- 251.636.000.000 -- 4.060.107

14. Detroit -- 217.694.000.000 -- 5.218.852

15. Minneapolis -- 197.396.000.000 -- 3.468.926

16. Phoenix -- 190.725.000.000 -- 4.192.887

17. Denver -- 177.511.000.000 -- 3.090.874

18. San Diego -- 171.471.000.000 -- 3.095.313

19. Baltimore -- 138.420.000.000 -- 2.710.489

20. Rio de Janeiro -- 131.401.000.000 -- 12.528.986

21. Cleveland -- 129.964.000.000 -- 2.780.440

22. St.Louis -- 124.558.000.000 -- 2.812.896

23. Portland -- 117.006.000.000 -- 2.226.009

24. Orlando -- 113.937.000.000 -- 2.724.700

25. Pittsburgh -- 111.597.000.000 -- 2.356.285

26. Tampa -- 111.377.000.000 -- 2.783.243

27. Charlotte -- 110.427.000.000 -- 1.758.038

28. Indianapolis -- 105.875.000.000 -- 1.964.671

29. Kansas City -- 103.137.000.000 -- 2.035.334

30. Sacramento -- 99.046.000.000 -- 2.316.019

31. Cincinnati -- 98.260.000.000 -- 2.130.151

32. Las Vegas -- 91.742.000.000 -- 1.951.269

33. Columbus -- 91.308.000.000 -- 1.836.536

34. Milwaukee -- 89.115.000.000 -- 1.751.316

35. Raleigh -- 86.841.000.000 -- 1.634.847

36. Salt Lake City -- 81.980.000.000 -- 1.671.381

37. Norfolk -- 79.600.000.000 -- 1.671.683

38. Hartford -- 79.424.000.000 -- 1.212.381

39. Austin -- 78.426.000.000 -- 1.716.289

40. San Antonio -- 77.712.000.000 -- 2.142.508

41. Nashville -- 75.764.000.000 -- 1.589.934

42. Brasília -- 69.680.000.000 -- 3.722.141

43. New Orleans -- 68.008.000.000 -- 1.167.764

44. Providence -- 64.341.000.000 -- 1.600.852

45. Memphis -- 62.735.000.000 -- 1.316.100

46. Richmond -- 61.447.000.000 -- 1.258.251

47. Oklahoma City -- 61.099.000.000 -- 1.252.987

48. Louisville -- 60.418.000.000 -- 1.427.383

49. Jacksonville -- 58.303.000.000 -- 1.345.596

50. Greensboro -- 56.732.000.000 -- 1.352.649

51. Belo Horizonte -- 54.539.000.000 -- 5.044.532

52. Birmingham -- 53.276.000.000 -- 1.128.047

53. Honolulu -- 50.071.000.000 -- 953.207

54. Porto Alegre -- 49.073.000.000 -- 4.174.332

55. Tulsa -- 47.066.000.000 -- 937.478

56. Omaha -- 45.733.000.000 -- 865.350

57. Grand Rapids -- 44.472.000.000 -- 1.210.149

58. Rochester -- 43.517.000.000 -- 1.054.323

59. Albany -- 43.418.000.000 -- 999.639

60. Campinas -- 43.315.000.000 -- 2.883.245

61. Buffalo -- 43.157.000.000 -- 1.135.509

62. Curitiba -- 39.907.000.000 -- 3.184.709

63. Baton Rouge -- 39.686.000.000 -- 802.484

64. Greenville -- 39.138.000.000 -- 1.108.419

65. Des Moines -- 37.719.000.000 -- 569.633

66. Dayton -- 36.504.000.000 -- 979.835

67. Little Rock -- 36.023.000.000 -- 800.015

68. Albuquerque -- 35.498.000.000 -- 907.755

69. Madison -- 34.786.000.000 -- 568.593

70. Salvador -- 34.357.000.000 -- 3.728.753

71. Tucson -- 32.697.000.000 -- 980.263

72. Fresno -- 32.466.000.000 -- 1.081.315

73. Knoxville -- 31.593.000.000 -- 834.638

74. Harrisburg -- 31.561.000.000 -- 683.043

75. Columbia -- 31.101.000.000 -- 767.598

76. Bakersfield -- 29.053.000.000 -- 839.631

77. Portland -- 29.000.000.000 -- 621.800

78. Allentown -- 28.597.000.000 -- 821.173

79. Recife -- 27.285.000.000 -- 4.375.642

80. Wichita -- 26.967.000.000 -- 623.061

81. Charleston -- 26.691.000.000 -- 664.607

82. Syracuse -- 26.352.000.000 -- 662.577

83. El Paso -- 26.333.000.000 -- 800.647

84. Sarasota -- 26.308.000.000 -- 862.259

85. Toledo -- 25.397.000.000 -- 651.429

86. Colorado Springs -- 25.270.000.000 -- 645.613

87. Boise City -- 24.771.000.000 -- 616.561

88. Huntsville -- 24.692.000.000 -- 571.422

89. Jackson -- 23.689.000.000 -- 539.057

90. Chattanooga -- 23.670.000.000 -- 643.931

91. Vitória -- 22.841.000.000 -- 1.852.424

92. Springfield -- 22.514.000.000 -- 692.942

93. S.José Campos-Taubaté -- 21.729.000.000 -- 1.525.657

94. Fortaleza -- 21.550.000.000 -- 3.671.713

95. Manaus -- 20.298.000.000 -- 1.892.981

96. South Bend -- 19.934.000.000 -- 516.783

97. Cape Coral-Ft. Myers -- 19.910.000.000 -- 618.754

98. Goiânia-Anápolis -- 19.751.000.000 -- 2.538.108

99. Stockton -- 19.698.000.000 -- 685.306

100. Scranton-Wilkes -- 19.079.000.000 -- 563.631

101. Lancaster -- 18.538.000.000 -- 519.445

102. Palm Bay-Melbourne -- 18.464.000.000 -- 543.376

103. Augusta -- 18.412.000.000 -- 556.877

104. Lakeland -- 16.367.000.000 -- 602.095

105. Youngstown -- 16.225.000.000 -- 565.773

106. Port St.Lucie-Vero Beach -- 15.213.000.000 -- 562.135

107. Johnson City-Kingsport -- 14.872.000.000 -- 508.260

108. Modesto -- 14.665.000.000 -- 514.453

109. Provo -- 14.414.000.000 -- 526.810

110. Piracicaba-Limeira-R.Claro -- 13.932.000.000 – 1.229.099

111. Sorocaba-Itu -- 13.911.000.000 – 1.260.957

112. McAllen -- 13.082.000.000 -- 774.769

113. Belém -- 12.841.000.000 -- 2.461.102

114. Ribeirão Preto -- 12.267.000.000 – 1.092.130

115. Volta Redonda-B.Mansa -- 12.153.000.000 – 827.583

116. Joinville -- 11.963.000.000 -- 842.821

117. Campos dos Goytcazes – 11.204.000.000 -- 587.762

118. Caxias do Sul -- 10.433.000.000 – 820.069

119. Uberlândia -- 9.093.000.000 -- 716.245

120. Londrina -- 8.842.000.000 -- 1.087.815

121. Florianópolis -- 8.460.000.000 -- 952.116

122. São Luís -- 8.328.000.000 -- 1.489.149

123. Araraquara-São Carlos -- 8.243.000.000 -- 704.126

124. Itajaí-B.Camboriú -- 7.929.000.000 -- 571.027

125. Natal -- 7.775.000.000 -- 1.504.960

126. Blumenau -- 7.603.000.000 -- 677.553

127. João Pessoa -- 7.349.000.000 -- 1.291.452

128. São José do Rio Preto -- 6.746.000.000 -- 772.711

129. Cuiabá -- 6.642.000.000 -- 865.071

130. Maceió -- 6.405.000.000 -- 1.350.442

131. Campo Grande -- 6.231.000.000 -- 859.381

132. Aracaju -- 5.954.000.000 – 1.016.388

133. Bauru -- 5.834.000.000 -- 561.764

134. Maringá -- 5.485.000.000 -- 724.053

135. Pelotas-Rio Grande -- 5.411.000 -- 601.552

136. Teresina -- 4.957.000.000 -- 1.119.641

137. Cascavel-Toledo -- 4.562.000.000 -- 514.276

138. Ipatinga -- 4.553.000.000 -- 555.081

139. Juiz de Fora -- 4.472.000.000 -- 655.413

140. Criciúma -- 4.358.000.000 -- 502.297

141. Feira de Santana -- 3.986.000.000 -- 859.869

142. Macapá -- 2.936.000.000 -- 520.413

143. Campina Grande -- 2.898.000.000 -- 801.614

144. Caruaru -- 2.525.000.000 -- 833.894

145. Ilhéus-Itabuna -- 2.388.000.000 -- 527.516

146. Petrolina-Juazeiro -- 2.285.000.000 -- 536.772

147. Arapiraca -- 1.727.000.000 -- 698.376

148. Juazeiro do Norte-Crato -- 1.682.000.000 -- 623.054

_Source: BEA (US) and IBGE (Brazil)_


----------



## Somnifor

The US numbers posted are for CSAs which are extremely expansive. CSA numbers are useful for various sorts of planning but they are not a good measure of metropolitan areas. The smaller MSAs are much better for that. The name *metropolitan* statistical *area* sould be a hint. Actually US urbanized area are probably the closest corollary to metros in most other developed countries but I don't think there are GMP figures for those.


----------



## kingchef

i admit that statistics can easily be misused and incorrectly applied, depending on the information and numbers gathered; however, poor old detroit takes a constant beating about its apparent worth, image, going down for the third time, and the like. however, she seems pretty sound, when it comes to looking at gdp numbers, what she contributes to the economy, and how she compares to other metros. looks as if she is a long way from being put out of her supposed misery. i for one want to give her a thumbs up, because she always seems to be dogged. i'm not going to get into a pissing contest on why or how it came about, who is to blame, who failed, etc., i just simply think that it is good to see her on a decent list of obvious positive things. congratulations, yall.

i just saw post 11, after i had posted. then seems to warrant some discussion and some study on my part. i realize, in america, most major metros have msa/csa designation; however, there are some that do not, e.g. memphis. perhaps, about 7-11 others, but i do know that memphis doesn't have one, which makes absolutely no rhyme or reason, especially w/ the present economic growth and the small metros that lie w/in 45-60 minutes from the city center. there is no consistent use or application of census bureau numbers or information. maybe leaving out 50,000 might not be a big deal, but when you get up to 1 to 1.2 or 3 million...well, that makes a difference.


----------



## royal rose1

Chrissib said:


> Add the 5 missing German cities, and, whoops, just 17 left. :lol:


Oh no! The us only has 17/50 instead of 19/50! Blow me, that's an absolutely minuscule difference


----------



## Aaronj09

royal rose1 said:


> 1. New York
> 2. Los Angeles
> 3. Chicago
> 4. Philadelphia
> 5. Washington DC
> 6. Boston
> 7. Dallas
> 8. Atlanta
> 9. San Francisco
> 10. Houston
> 
> and nine more cities in the top 50! Muahaha USA USA USA! I'll never fail to be impressed by how economically dominant US cities are.


It's proof that a city with a large economy doesn't mean anything.. Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Dallas, Houston - these are hardly global mecca cities up with the likes of London, Paris, Madrid or Sydney. So this list means nothing other then a willy-waving opportunity for Americans.


----------



## Mr. Uncut

Aaronj09 said:


> It's proof that a city with a large economy doesn't mean anything.. Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Dallas, Houston - these are hardly global mecca cities up with the likes of London, Paris, Madrid or Sydney. So this list means nothing other then a willy-waving opportunity for Americans.


most firms here in the DFW area only covering the us...Dallas is not a international financial hub for sure, but thats not the point on that list! Economic power doesn't mean international greatness, it means local power in a city/region/state!


----------



## ukiyo

Clery said:


> Source?
> Methodology?
> Municipalities or metro area?
> GDP at current exchange rate or in purchasing power parity?
> Year?


It's the PWC study done in 2008 using questionable PPP data by metropolitan area and is missing many cities entirely.

I have a feeling this thread will be locked since it will turn into country vs country or city vs city eventually..but just to show how incorrect it is for Japan (and I know it's also very incorrect for Germany)



FAAN said:


> Post the top ten cities with the highest GDP of your country... Rank. City Country GDP in billions of U.S. dollars
> 1 Tokio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan $ 1479
> 7 Osaka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan $ 417


Direct data from the japanese cabinet office using the official OECD PPP exchange rate: http://www.cao.go.jp/index.html

1. Tokyo: ¥165.01 trillion, * $1545 billion* PPP 
2. Osaka: ¥82.122 trillion, *$769 billion* PPP 

The PWC is also entirely missing Japan's third largest metro *Nagoya* which has a metropolitan GDP of *$420* PPP


----------



## Somnifor

On closer inspection this list appears to use CSA numbers for some US metros and MSA for others. The 2010 economic numbers for MSAs can be found here:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2011b/pdf/gdp_metro0211b.pdf


----------



## funnyhouse88

Guangzhou......i don't like it!


----------



## FAAN

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Every year I organize a chart comparing American and Brazilian metro areas. Here the latest list, from 2009 (over 500,000 inhabitants):
> 
> *Countries -- GDP 2009 (US$) -- Pop. 2010
> 
> US --- 14.014.849.000.000 --- 308.745.538
> Brazil --- 1.600.841.000.000 --- 190.732.694*
> 
> *Metro Areas -- GDP 2009 (US$) -- Pop. 2010*
> 
> 1. New York -- 1.379.570.000.000 -- 21.895.722
> 
> 2. Los Angeles -- 876.468.000.000 -- 17.877.006
> 
> 3. San Francisco -- 535.327.000.000 -- 7.468.390
> 
> 4. Chicago -- 515.119.000.000 -- 9.686.021
> 
> 5. Washington -- 412.129.000.000 -- 5.710.642
> 
> 6. Houston -- 363.201.000.000 -- 5.946.800
> 
> 7. Dallas -- 359.835.000.000 -- 6.492.650
> 
> 8. Philadelphia -- 354.573.000.000 -- 6.533.683
> 
> 9. Boston -- 347.164.000.000 -- 5.798.287
> 
> 10. São Paulo -- 340.775.000.000 -- 22.433.448
> 
> 11. Atlanta -- 270.856.000.000 -- 5.448.544
> 
> 12. Miami -- 252.647.000.000 -- 5.564.635
> 
> 13. Seattle -- 251.636.000.000 -- 4.060.107
> 
> 14. Detroit -- 217.694.000.000 -- 5.218.852
> 
> 15. Minneapolis -- 197.396.000.000 -- 3.468.926
> 
> 16. Phoenix -- 190.725.000.000 -- 4.192.887
> 
> 17. Denver -- 177.511.000.000 -- 3.090.874
> 
> 18. San Diego -- 171.471.000.000 -- 3.095.313
> 
> 19. Baltimore -- 138.420.000.000 -- 2.710.489
> 
> 20. Rio de Janeiro -- 131.401.000.000 -- 12.528.986
> 
> 21. Cleveland -- 129.964.000.000 -- 2.780.440
> 
> 22. St.Louis -- 124.558.000.000 -- 2.812.896
> 
> 23. Portland -- 117.006.000.000 -- 2.226.009
> 
> 24. Orlando -- 113.937.000.000 -- 2.724.700
> 
> 25. Pittsburgh -- 111.597.000.000 -- 2.356.285
> 
> 26. Tampa -- 111.377.000.000 -- 2.783.243
> 
> 27. Charlotte -- 110.427.000.000 -- 1.758.038
> 
> 28. Indianapolis -- 105.875.000.000 -- 1.964.671
> 
> 29. Kansas City -- 103.137.000.000 -- 2.035.334
> 
> 30. Sacramento -- 99.046.000.000 -- 2.316.019
> 
> 31. Cincinnati -- 98.260.000.000 -- 2.130.151
> 
> 32. Las Vegas -- 91.742.000.000 -- 1.951.269
> 
> 33. Columbus -- 91.308.000.000 -- 1.836.536
> 
> 34. Milwaukee -- 89.115.000.000 -- 1.751.316
> 
> 35. Raleigh -- 86.841.000.000 -- 1.634.847
> 
> 36. Salt Lake City -- 81.980.000.000 -- 1.671.381
> 
> 37. Norfolk -- 79.600.000.000 -- 1.671.683
> 
> 38. Hartford -- 79.424.000.000 -- 1.212.381
> 
> 39. Austin -- 78.426.000.000 -- 1.716.289
> 
> 40. San Antonio -- 77.712.000.000 -- 2.142.508
> 
> 41. Nashville -- 75.764.000.000 -- 1.589.934
> 
> 42. Brasília -- 69.680.000.000 -- 3.722.141
> 
> 43. New Orleans -- 68.008.000.000 -- 1.167.764
> 
> 44. Providence -- 64.341.000.000 -- 1.600.852
> 
> 45. Memphis -- 62.735.000.000 -- 1.316.100
> 
> 46. Richmond -- 61.447.000.000 -- 1.258.251
> 
> 47. Oklahoma City -- 61.099.000.000 -- 1.252.987
> 
> 48. Louisville -- 60.418.000.000 -- 1.427.383
> 
> 49. Jacksonville -- 58.303.000.000 -- 1.345.596
> 
> 50. Greensboro -- 56.732.000.000 -- 1.352.649
> 
> 51. Belo Horizonte -- 54.539.000.000 -- 5.044.532
> 
> 52. Birmingham -- 53.276.000.000 -- 1.128.047
> 
> 53. Honolulu -- 50.071.000.000 -- 953.207
> 
> 54. Porto Alegre -- 49.073.000.000 -- 4.174.332
> 
> 55. Tulsa -- 47.066.000.000 -- 937.478
> 
> 56. Omaha -- 45.733.000.000 -- 865.350
> 
> 57. Grand Rapids -- 44.472.000.000 -- 1.210.149
> 
> 58. Rochester -- 43.517.000.000 -- 1.054.323
> 
> 59. Albany -- 43.418.000.000 -- 999.639
> 
> 60. Campinas -- 43.315.000.000 -- 2.883.245
> 
> 61. Buffalo -- 43.157.000.000 -- 1.135.509
> 
> 62. Curitiba -- 39.907.000.000 -- 3.184.709
> 
> 63. Baton Rouge -- 39.686.000.000 -- 802.484
> 
> 64. Greenville -- 39.138.000.000 -- 1.108.419
> 
> 65. Des Moines -- 37.719.000.000 -- 569.633
> 
> 66. Dayton -- 36.504.000.000 -- 979.835
> 
> 67. Little Rock -- 36.023.000.000 -- 800.015
> 
> 68. Albuquerque -- 35.498.000.000 -- 907.755
> 
> 69. Madison -- 34.786.000.000 -- 568.593
> 
> 70. Salvador -- 34.357.000.000 -- 3.728.753
> 
> 71. Tucson -- 32.697.000.000 -- 980.263
> 
> 72. Fresno -- 32.466.000.000 -- 1.081.315
> 
> 73. Knoxville -- 31.593.000.000 -- 834.638
> 
> 74. Harrisburg -- 31.561.000.000 -- 683.043
> 
> 75. Columbia -- 31.101.000.000 -- 767.598
> 
> 76. Bakersfield -- 29.053.000.000 -- 839.631
> 
> 77. Portland -- 29.000.000.000 -- 621.800
> 
> 78. Allentown -- 28.597.000.000 -- 821.173
> 
> 79. Recife -- 27.285.000.000 -- 4.375.642
> 
> 80. Wichita -- 26.967.000.000 -- 623.061
> 
> 81. Charleston -- 26.691.000.000 -- 664.607
> 
> 82. Syracuse -- 26.352.000.000 -- 662.577
> 
> 83. El Paso -- 26.333.000.000 -- 800.647
> 
> 84. Sarasota -- 26.308.000.000 -- 862.259
> 
> 85. Toledo -- 25.397.000.000 -- 651.429
> 
> 86. Colorado Springs -- 25.270.000.000 -- 645.613
> 
> 87. Boise City -- 24.771.000.000 -- 616.561
> 
> 88. Huntsville -- 24.692.000.000 -- 571.422
> 
> 89. Jackson -- 23.689.000.000 -- 539.057
> 
> 90. Chattanooga -- 23.670.000.000 -- 643.931
> 
> 91. Vitória -- 22.841.000.000 -- 1.852.424
> 
> 92. Springfield -- 22.514.000.000 -- 692.942
> 
> 93. S.José Campos-Taubaté -- 21.729.000.000 -- 1.525.657
> 
> 94. Fortaleza -- 21.550.000.000 -- 3.671.713
> 
> 95. Manaus -- 20.298.000.000 -- 1.892.981
> 
> 96. South Bend -- 19.934.000.000 -- 516.783
> 
> 97. Cape Coral-Ft. Myers -- 19.910.000.000 -- 618.754
> 
> 98. Goiânia-Anápolis -- 19.751.000.000 -- 2.538.108
> 
> 99. Stockton -- 19.698.000.000 -- 685.306
> 
> 100. Scranton-Wilkes -- 19.079.000.000 -- 563.631
> 
> 101. Lancaster -- 18.538.000.000 -- 519.445
> 
> 102. Palm Bay-Melbourne -- 18.464.000.000 -- 543.376
> 
> 103. Augusta -- 18.412.000.000 -- 556.877
> 
> 104. Lakeland -- 16.367.000.000 -- 602.095
> 
> 105. Youngstown -- 16.225.000.000 -- 565.773
> 
> 106. Port St.Lucie-Vero Beach -- 15.213.000.000 -- 562.135
> 
> 107. Johnson City-Kingsport -- 14.872.000.000 -- 508.260
> 
> 108. Modesto -- 14.665.000.000 -- 514.453
> 
> 109. Provo -- 14.414.000.000 -- 526.810
> 
> 110. Piracicaba-Limeira-R.Claro -- 13.932.000.000 – 1.229.099
> 
> 111. Sorocaba-Itu -- 13.911.000.000 – 1.260.957
> 
> 112. McAllen -- 13.082.000.000 -- 774.769
> 
> 113. Belém -- 12.841.000.000 -- 2.461.102
> 
> 114. Ribeirão Preto -- 12.267.000.000 – 1.092.130
> 
> 115. Volta Redonda-B.Mansa -- 12.153.000.000 – 827.583
> 
> 116. Joinville -- 11.963.000.000 -- 842.821
> 
> 117. Campos dos Goytcazes – 11.204.000.000 -- 587.762
> 
> 118. Caxias do Sul -- 10.433.000.000 – 820.069
> 
> 119. Uberlândia -- 9.093.000.000 -- 716.245
> 
> 120. Londrina -- 8.842.000.000 -- 1.087.815
> 
> 121. Florianópolis -- 8.460.000.000 -- 952.116
> 
> 122. São Luís -- 8.328.000.000 -- 1.489.149
> 
> 123. Araraquara-São Carlos -- 8.243.000.000 -- 704.126
> 
> 124. Itajaí-B.Camboriú -- 7.929.000.000 -- 571.027
> 
> 125. Natal -- 7.775.000.000 -- 1.504.960
> 
> 126. Blumenau -- 7.603.000.000 -- 677.553
> 
> 127. João Pessoa -- 7.349.000.000 -- 1.291.452
> 
> 128. São José do Rio Preto -- 6.746.000.000 -- 772.711
> 
> 129. Cuiabá -- 6.642.000.000 -- 865.071
> 
> 130. Maceió -- 6.405.000.000 -- 1.350.442
> 
> 131. Campo Grande -- 6.231.000.000 -- 859.381
> 
> 132. Aracaju -- 5.954.000.000 – 1.016.388
> 
> 133. Bauru -- 5.834.000.000 -- 561.764
> 
> 134. Maringá -- 5.485.000.000 -- 724.053
> 
> 135. Pelotas-Rio Grande -- 5.411.000 -- 601.552
> 
> 136. Teresina -- 4.957.000.000 -- 1.119.641
> 
> 137. Cascavel-Toledo -- 4.562.000.000 -- 514.276
> 
> 138. Ipatinga -- 4.553.000.000 -- 555.081
> 
> 139. Juiz de Fora -- 4.472.000.000 -- 655.413
> 
> 140. Criciúma -- 4.358.000.000 -- 502.297
> 
> 141. Feira de Santana -- 3.986.000.000 -- 859.869
> 
> 142. Macapá -- 2.936.000.000 -- 520.413
> 
> 143. Campina Grande -- 2.898.000.000 -- 801.614
> 
> 144. Caruaru -- 2.525.000.000 -- 833.894
> 
> 145. Ilhéus-Itabuna -- 2.388.000.000 -- 527.516
> 
> 146. Petrolina-Juazeiro -- 2.285.000.000 -- 536.772
> 
> 147. Arapiraca -- 1.727.000.000 -- 698.376
> 
> 148. Juazeiro do Norte-Crato -- 1.682.000.000 -- 623.054
> 
> _Source: BEA (US) and IBGE (Brazil)_


The U.S. GDP is correct, but the Brazilian is out of date as opposed to 1.6 trillion, nowadays is 2.5 trillion.


----------



## FAAN

Clery said:


> Source?
> Methodology?
> Municipalities or metro area?
> GDP at current exchange rate or in purchasing power parity?
> Year?



Source? 
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Lista_de_cidades_por_PIB 
Methodology? 
Municipalities or metropolitan area? 
Only the municipality. 
GDP at current exchange rate or purchasing power parity? 
Nominal GDP. 
Year? 
In 2011.


----------



## ukiyo

^^ No it is by metropolitan area, the year is 2008 and it is done by PPP not nominal. Here is the direct source to the study: https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562


----------



## anakngpasig

yup looks like that list is the study done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers 4 years ago. The rankings in that list should already be very different by now


----------



## NorthWesternGuy

The figure for Mexico City looks too high, perhaps PPP? :dunno:


----------



## isaidso

Detroit and Toronto have the same GDP? That would mean that Toronto is 20% poorer per capita. How is that even possible? :weird:


----------



## CarltonHill

The list is quite old and not updated. (I think he just wants us to see that his country BRAZIL is in top10) ..sorry.


----------



## NorthWesternGuy

Some figures from Mexican cities (data from 2009, GDP in nominal value)

City or metro / Population / GDP in bn (USD) / GDP per capita

Mexico City - 19,826,918 ----- $218.77 --------- $11,033
Monterrey -- 3,928,871 ------- $59.9 ----------- $15,246
Guadalajara - 4,298,715 ------- $37.09 ---------- $8,628 
Puebla ------ 2,605,578 ------- $21.94 ---------- $8,420 
Tijuana ----- 1,725,498 ------- $20.2 ----------- $11,706
Leon ------- 1,522,618 ------- $19.15 ---------- $12,577
Queretaro -- 1,014,026 ------- $17.57 ---------- $17,326
Juarez ------ 1,384,102 ------- $17.18 --------- $12,412
Toluca ------ 1,739,004 ------- $14.76 --------- $8,487
Culiacan ------ 811,741 ------- $11.46 --------- $14,117


Bonus :tongue3:

At place 13:

Mexicali ------ 908,724 -------- $10.51 --------- $11,566


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

^^ Wow, whats the source? The numbers are a lot lower than I expected.

We need to compile different lists. One for MSA's, one for CSA's, and one for city proper...ect. GDP per capitas/PPP per capitas would also be great.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

Aaronj09 said:


> It's proof that a city with a large economy doesn't mean anything.. Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Dallas, Houston - these are hardly global mecca cities up with the likes of London, Paris, Madrid or Sydney. So this list means nothing other then a willy-waving opportunity for Americans.


Why does Seattle not mean anything, yet Sydney is a "global mecca"? Since you can easily argue the opposite in today's world.


----------



## hseugut

*To 20*

1	Tokyo Japon	1 479
2	New York États-Unis	1 406
3	Los Angeles États-Unis	792
4	Paris France	731
5	Chicago États-Unis	574
6	Londres Royaume-Uni	565
7	Ōsaka Japon	417
8	Mexico Mexique	390
9	Philadelphie États-Unis	388
10	São Paulo Brésil 388
11	Washington États-Unis	375
12	Boston États-Unis	363
13	Buenos Aires Argentine	362
14	Dallas États-Unis	338
15	Moscou Russie	321
16	Hong Kong Chine	320
17	Atlanta États-Unis	304
18	San Francisco États-Unis	301
19	Houston États-Unis	297
20	Miami États-Unis	292


----------



## Isek

royal rose1 said:


> Oh no! The us only has 17/50 instead of 19/50! Blow me, that's an absolutely minuscule difference


By same statistical basis the US maybe has even just 10/50. :nuts: Or do you not think that cities like Milan or Madrid will enter having CSA like population figures of 8 and 6 million respectively. And what about Kobe, Sapporo, Hiroshima? And other cities like Hamburg, Cologne, Munich, Vienna and even Zurich or Lyon?


----------



## TheMoses

You can find so many different sources for this. See: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Cities_the_next_frontier_for_global_growth_2758 for a different example.


----------



## DiggerD21

Applying CSA concept to Europe? The result could be the Blue Banana.


----------



## ukiyo

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> ^^ Wow, whats the source? The numbers are a lot lower than I expected.
> 
> We need to compile different lists. One for MSA's, one for CSA's, and one for city proper...ect. GDP per capitas/PPP per capitas would also be great.


I can do one for USA and Japan, maybe others can add to the list that I will compile. It is all directly from the countrys government and not third party sources.. The American MSA system is equivalent to the japanese metropolitan area statistics.. For Tokyo I am using the One metropolis 3 prefectures definition. PPP is found by using the official OECD exchange rate. I stop at #8 because London and Paris are somewhere in there. Rhein-Ruhr is probably in there too so maybe I should have stopped #7 for the top 10.

Nominal $ billions ; Per capita
1.







*Tokyo*: $2,075; $58,303
2.







*NYC*: $1,280; $67,725
3.







*Osaka*: $1,033; $55,536
4.







*LA*: $736; $57,374
5.







*Nagoya*: $574; $65,977
6.







*Chicago*: $532; $56,236
7.







*DC*: $425; $88,726
8.







*Houston*: $384; $65,085

PPP $ billions
1.







*Tokyo*: $1,545; $43,400
2.







*NYC*: $1,280; $67,725
3.







*Osaka*: $769; $41,344
4.







*LA*: $736; $57,374
5.







*Chicago*: $532; $56,236
6.







*Nagoya*: $427; $49,080
7.







*DC*: $425; $88,726
8.







*Houston*: $384; $65,085

For city alone I only have this:

Tokyo Metropolis (13 million people)
Nominal: $1,182; $90,908
PPP: $880; $66,747

Sources: 
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2011b/pdf/gdp_metro0211b.pdf
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces...?pid=DEC_10_NSRD_GCTPL2.US24PR&prodType=table
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/jinsui/index.htm
http://www.cao.go.jp/index.html
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA_TABLE4


----------



## Somnifor

DiggerD21 said:


> Applying CSA concept to Europe? The result could be the Blue Banana.


BosWash isn't a CSA so I doubt the Blue Banana would be either. They are too polycentric. CSAs are defined by commuting rates into the core urban counties in the same way as MSAs but with a lower threshold.


----------



## hmueller2

Tbh I don't really trust those lists

According to a BBC list from 2006 Frankfurt has the highest GDP in Europe f.e.(London 23)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4781048.stm


GDP is useless anyway, cause it doesn't show the balance.

You also have to take a look at the Gini coefficient and other things.
What is a city with a high GDP when the majority of the citizens don't benefit from it?

(The Gini coefficient of the US really sucks btw. So much for the "dominant" US cities..)


----------



## NorthWesternGuy

isaidso said:


> Detroit and Toronto have the same GDP? That would mean that Toronto is 20% poorer per capita. How is that even possible? :weird:


US GDP artificially inflated due to excessive private consumption (credits, debts leading to a bubble), perhaps?


----------



## tk780

Somnifor said:


> BosWash isn't a CSA so I doubt the Blue Banana would be either. They are too polycentric. CSAs are defined by commuting rates into the core urban counties in the same way as MSAs but with a lower threshold.


Actually, CSAs are defined by the employment interchange rate between neighboring MSAs. The Blue Banana still wouldn't be a single CSA though.


----------



## aquaticko

Yeah, this isn't going to be a useful thread unless we can manage to make sure that all the figures posted are for areas that are equivalent in size and/or population. There's a reason why Tokyo so greatly outsizes the other cities by GDP--the metro area is essentially the entire prefecture. Likewise, the New York figure is for the "regional" economy. The Seoul figure, by contrast, is the city proper, while the figure equivalent to the NYC and Tokyo figures take into account all of Gyeonggi-do and Incheon, and is closer to $750 billion. This will just be a waste of everyone's time with the measures used being as inconsistent as they are.


----------



## royal rose1

You guys, since I don't agree with this thread it must be inaccurate. I hate that cities like Budapest, where my family is from, gets no credit! It should undoubtedly be ranked #1! No way cities like the completely LAME Seattle, San Diego, Chicago, and New York have higher GDPs than the almighty BUDAPEST! 

^^ That was a satire of the absolutely stupid responses you guys have made due to your displeasure. Get real, even with the most conservative estimates US cities would dominate. Name recognition doesn't equal economic might. 

Wendy's, Cardinal Health, IGS Energy, OCLC, and Mindleaders are all headquartered in Dublin, Ohio, a city that no one on here has heard of, and it's a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, a city that still very few people have heard of, but combined the companies headquartered here amass over 105 billion dollars in revenue annually. Meaning the annual revenue of these companies nearly equates the GDP of the bottom metro areas on this list. A city of 40,000! The US despite being seen as "relatively weak" is still completely dominant in terms of GDP! The US has a GDP almost equivalent to Germany, China, and Japan combined! (The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest economies). Don't underestimate our cities just because they don't have the name recognition of Rio.


----------



## gabrielbabb

^^ Well I believe New York and Chicago are more recognized for name than Budapest, and there are even more cities n Europe more recognized than Budapest, Mexico City is not that recognized but we have the 8th place because we have a loooot of monopolies and a big popultaion


----------



## NorthWesternGuy

krkseg1ops said:


> Wow, two of the biggest US cities have smaller GDP than Tokyo! Talk about domination.





krkseg1ops said:


> ^^ They combined have less GDP of course





royal rose1 said:


> I'm not sure if I just don't understand you, or if you are just completely incapable of performing simple math, but NYC and Los Angeles combined have $2.2 trillion GDP, far higher than Tokyo. Not to mention, even comparing NYC and Tokyo is deceiving because Tokyo's population is the highest in the world. The metropolitan area of Tokyo has 35,682,460 people compared to NYC's 18,897,109. Tokyo has almost DOUBLE the population that NYC has, yet almost the same GDP. I don't consider that domination.


When the two extremes meet...


----------



## ukiyo

ukiyo said:


> ...
> Sources:
> http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2011b/pdf/gdp_metro0211b.pdf
> http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces...?pid=DEC_10_NSRD_GCTPL2.US24PR&prodType=table
> http://www.stat.go.jp/data/jinsui/index.htm
> http://www.cao.go.jp/index.html
> http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA_TABLE4


Updated the list, changed to CSA for LA and San Francisco due to commuting patterns.

Nominal $ billions ; Per capita
1.







*Tokyo*: $2,075; $58,303
2.







*NYC*: $1,280; $67,725
3.







*Osaka*: $1,033; $55,536
4.







*LA*: $881; $49,311
5.







*Nagoya*: $574; $65,977
6.







*San Francisco*: $545; $72,973
7.







*Chicago*: $532; $56,236
8.







*DC*: $425; $88,726
9.







*Houston*: $384; $65,085

PPP $ billions ; Per Capita
1.







*Tokyo*: $1,545; $43,400
2.







*NYC*: $1,280; $67,725
3.







*LA*: $881; $49,311
4.







*Osaka*: $769; $41,344
5.







*San Francisco*: $545; $72,973
6.







*Chicago*: $532; $56,236
7.







*Nagoya*: $427; $49,080
8.







*DC*: $425; $88,726
9.







*Houston*: $384; $65,085

Hopefully somebody can give me the official government 2010 statistics for Paris, London, Rhein-Ruhr, Mexico City and Sao Paolo. If we can compile more, using official government data we can fix the wikipedia page since it is outdated, using wrong sources, and missing entire cities (Nagoya, Rhein-Ruhr etc). I researched a bit about Seoul and it is almost half of South Korea's entire GDP, and almost half of Korea's entire population.. South Korea's real GDP (PPP) was about $1.4 trillion in 2010 so Seoul Metropolitan area should be over $600 billion and not $291, even nominally it should be around $400-$500.


----------



## Bricken Ridge

^^gee, with all the stars and strips in the top ten, you think the economy shouldn't be in a recession? you think a lot of people should have jobs? less homes foreclosed?


----------



## t3ars_culprit

royal rose1 said:


> I'm not sure if I just don't understand you, or if you are just completely incapable of performing simple math, but NYC and Los Angeles combined have $2.2 trillion GDP, far higher than Tokyo. Not to mention, even comparing NYC and Tokyo is deceiving because Tokyo's population is the highest in the world. The metropolitan area of Tokyo has 35,682,460 people compared to NYC's 18,897,109. Tokyo has almost DOUBLE the population that NYC has, yet almost the same GDP. I don't consider that domination.



:lol:
I guess he say 
New York or LA < Tokyo
Not NY + LA < Tokyo.. :nuts:


----------



## Chrissib

Chrissib said:


> GDP in 2009 of the largest metropolitan areas in Germany:
> 
> $
> Rhein-Ruhr 488bn (Ruhr-Area 194bn; Köln-Düsseldorf 255bn, Wuppertal 39bn)
> Rhein-Main 228bn (Frankfurt)
> Berlin 174bn
> München 169bn
> Hamburg 166bn
> Stuttgart 130bn
> Rhein-Neckar 86bn (Mannheim-Ludwigshafen)
> Nürnberg 67bn
> Hannover 63bn


Ukiyo, here are the most recent data for Germany. Rhein-Ruhr had a population of 11.38 million people in 2009, so a GDP/capita of 42,871 USD.


----------



## Bannor

ukiyo said:


> Updated the list, changed to CSA for LA and San Francisco due to commuting patterns.


I'm just saying adding some CSA numbers like that to the mix will opena a can of worms due to its non-uniformity!

Please don't... There has to be set rules on how to meassure a city metropolis/urban area here.

LA CSA area is: 33,954 sq mi (87,490 km2)
SF Bay Area: 6,984 sq. mi. (18,088 km²)
Lombardy area is : 9,206 sq mi (23,844 km2)
The Netherlands: 16,039 sq mi (41,543 km2)

Or look at this:

Only some Yangtze River Delta provincial cities combined:
Shanghai: 2,448.1 sq mi (6,340.5 km2)
Jiaxing: 1,512 sq mi (3,915 km2)
Hangzhou: 6,505 sq mi (16,847 km2)
Suzhou: 3,277.40 sq mi (8,488.42 km2)
Wuxi: 1,848.51 sq mi (4,787.61 km2)
Changzhou: 1,693 sq mi (4,385 km2)
Nantong: 3,298.9 sq mi (8,544.1 km2)
Huzhou: 2,246 sq mi (5,818 km2)
Area total: 22,828 sq mi (59,125 km2)

And don't tell me people in Lombardy don't commute to Milan. If you have ever been outside Milan during rush hours, you'd know otherwise.
As for the chinese delta's, commuting patterns depends alot on trains and subway's, but if you have a car, you can easily live in Wuxi, and work in Shanghai too.


----------



## Bannor

Chrissib said:


> Ukiyo, here are the most recent data for Germany. Rhein-Ruhr had a population of 11.38 million people in 2009, so a GDP/capita of 42,871 USD.


Those figures can't include the whole metro regions as determined here, and figures in euros:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_regions_in_Germany

That meassurement would put Stuttgart at well over 200bn today, at least if going by US area meassurements ;p


----------



## Jonesy55

Based on these population figures

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

Which are of course debatable as to their comparability, coverage etc I would estimate the biggest UK metro areas by GDP nominal in 2010 as:

London $775bn
Birmingham $120bn
Manchester $85bn
Leeds-Bradford $75bn
Liverpool $65bn

Newcastle, Sheffield, Portsmouth-Southampton, Nottingham-Derby and Glasgow all $45-50bn


----------



## krkseg1ops

*del


----------



## Blackpool88

Jonesy55 said:


> Based on these population figures
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
> 
> Which are of course debatable as to their comparability, coverage etc I would estimate the biggest UK metro areas by GDP nominal in 2010 as:
> 
> London $775bn
> Birmingham $120bn
> Manchester $85bn
> Leeds-Bradford $75bn
> Liverpool $65bn
> 
> Newcastle, Sheffield, Portsmouth-Southampton, Nottingham-Derby and Glasgow all $45-50bn



Hang about, when did Birmingham ever have 3.6million? I was under the impression that it was slightly ahead of Manchester both around the 2.5million mark for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. That wiki list is absolute bollocks.


----------



## Jonesy55

Blackpool88 said:


> Hang about, when did Birmingham ever have 3.6million? I was under the impression that it was slightly ahead of Manchester both around the 2.5million mark for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. That wiki list is absolute bollocks.


West Midlands county and Greater Manchester County are not the limits of the metropolitan areas though, people commute in sizeable numbers from further afield. Birmingham looks about right to me but Manchester should probably have some other parts of cheshire added imo.


----------



## ukiyo

I found some data on Seoul metropolitan area for 2010 (Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi Province). ₩564,118 Billion which is *$502 billion nominally* and *$685 billion by PPP*. Source is the Korean Statistics Department: http://kostat.go.kr/portal/index/statistics.action



Bricken Ridge said:


> ^^gee, with all the stars and strips in the top ten, you think the economy shouldn't be in a recession? you think a lot of people should have jobs? less homes foreclosed?


My list is missing all of Europe, latin america and Asia (not incl Japan). It's a work in progress. Paris, London, Seoul and possibly Rein-Ruhr, Mexico city and Sao Paolo are in the top 10..kicking out Nagoya and the others.

@ Chris and Jonesy

Thanks, can you give me the data in euros so I can find the PPP? And can you provide the source?



Bannor said:


> I'm just saying adding some CSA numbers like that to the mix will opena a can of worms due to its non-uniformity!
> 
> Please don't... There has to be set rules on how to meassure a city metropolis/urban area here.


Well I did it all by MSA before, but someone who seems really knowledgeable from the US told me LA and SF should be CSA not MSA due to commuting patterns. Is there any consensus in the US about LA and San Francisco? If it should only be MSA..than my previous list has that so not a big deal.


----------



## ukiyo

So far nominally it's like this, though I only have official sources from USA, Japan and Korea so far. I went back to MSA (metropolitan statistical areas) just to use the same definition for every city. I am using Brisavoine's figure for Paris but hopefully all of you guys can give me sources later and the figures in the national currency. BTW all nominal figures are found using the current exchange rate (which is why it would be nice to have euro figures to find the PPP).

Nominal $ billions ; Per capita
1.







*Tokyo*: $2,075; $58,303
2.







*NYC*: $1,280; $67,725
3.







*Osaka*: $1,033; $55,536
4.







*Paris*: $779
5.







*London*: $775
6.







*LA*: $736; $57,374
7.







*Nagoya*: $574; $65,977
8.







*Chicago*: $532; $56,236
9.







*Seoul*: $502; $21,256
10.







*Rhein-Ruhr*: $488; $42,871
11.







*DC*: $425; $88,726
12.







*Houston*: $384; $65,085

Sources: 
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2011b/pdf/gdp_metro0211b.pdf
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces...?pid=DEC_10_NSRD_GCTPL2.US24PR&prodType=table
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/jinsui/index.htm
http://www.cao.go.jp/index.html
http://kostat.go.kr/portal/index/statistics.action
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA_TABLE4


----------



## Jonesy55

We don't use Euro here, but I'll try to find some official pound figures.


----------



## royal rose1

Bricken Ridge said:


> ^^gee, with all the stars and strips in the top ten, you think the economy shouldn't be in a recession? you think a lot of people should have jobs? less homes foreclosed?


We're long out of the recession. The US hasn't been in a recession since June/July 2009. A recession is defined as two consecutive periods of economic decline, and since June 2009 we've been in nearly constant growth.


----------



## Jonesy55

Not very strong growth though...


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Bannor said:


> I'm just saying adding some CSA numbers like that to the mix will opena a can of worms due to its non-uniformity!
> 
> Please don't... There has to be set rules on how to meassure a city metropolis/urban area here.
> 
> LA CSA area is: 33,954 sq mi (87,490 km2)
> SF Bay Area: 6,984 sq. mi. (18,088 km²)
> Lombardy area is : 9,206 sq mi (23,844 km2)
> The Netherlands: 16,039 sq mi (41,543 km2)
> 
> Or look at this:
> 
> Only some Yangtze River Delta provincial cities combined:
> Shanghai: 2,448.1 sq mi (6,340.5 km2)
> Jiaxing: 1,512 sq mi (3,915 km2)
> Hangzhou: 6,505 sq mi (16,847 km2)
> Suzhou: 3,277.40 sq mi (8,488.42 km2)
> Wuxi: 1,848.51 sq mi (4,787.61 km2)
> Changzhou: 1,693 sq mi (4,385 km2)
> Nantong: 3,298.9 sq mi (8,544.1 km2)
> Huzhou: 2,246 sq mi (5,818 km2)
> Area total: 22,828 sq mi (59,125 km2)
> 
> And don't tell me people in Lombardy don't commute to Milan. If you have ever been outside Milan during rush hours, you'd know otherwise.
> As for the chinese delta's, commuting patterns depends alot on trains and subway's, but if you have a car, you can easily live in Wuxi, and work in Shanghai too.



The LA number you posted includes hundreds upon hundreds of miles of open desert and mountains. the counties stretch from the urban edge about 50 miles east of downtown LA all the way to the nevada border 250 miles away.


----------



## brisavoine

ukiyo said:


> So far nominally it's like this, though I only have official sources from USA, Japan and Korea so far. I went back to MSA (metropolitan statistical areas) just to use the same definition for every city. I am using Brisavoine's figure for Paris but hopefully all of you guys can give me sources later and the figures in the national currency. BTW all nominal figures are found using the current exchange rate (which is why it would be nice to have euro figures to find the PPP).
> 
> Nominal $ billions ; Per capita
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tokyo*: $2,075; $58,303
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NYC*: $1,280; $67,725
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Osaka*: $1,033; $55,536
> 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Paris*: $779
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *London*: $775
> 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LA*: $736; $57,374
> 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nagoya*: $574; $65,977
> 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chicago*: $532; $56,236
> 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Seoul*: $502; $21,256
> 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rhein-Ruhr*: $488; $42,871
> 11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DC*: $425; $88,726
> 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Houston*: $384; $65,085
> 
> Sources:
> http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2011b/pdf/gdp_metro0211b.pdf
> http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces...?pid=DEC_10_NSRD_GCTPL2.US24PR&prodType=table
> http://www.stat.go.jp/data/jinsui/index.htm
> http://www.cao.go.jp/index.html
> http://kostat.go.kr/portal/index/statistics.action
> http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA_TABLE4


The figures for Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya look inflated to me. How did you come up with such high figures?

Also, which year are these figures referring to?


----------



## ukiyo

brisavoine said:


> The figures for Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya look inflated to me. How did you come up with such high figures?
> 
> Also, which year are these figures referring to?


The figures are high due to the exchange rate. The yen has been at record strength vs the dollar since around April 2011, that's why you need to look at the PPP figure to see the real picture instead of the overvalued nominal figure. You can find all of the data in the source: http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/menu.html

If you don't want to look around for all the info (since its spread out and need to add alot of stuff) use this: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/県民経済計算 though it's a bit outdated.


----------



## CanadianDemon

GDP of Toronto (GTA) is $323b, population of just over 6 million. The city of Toronto (Central Area) has a GDP of $114b, population of over 2.5m.

I don't know where that makes Toronto stand in the top 50.


----------



## Atomicus

In 2011 Madrid province grew a 1.4% though, and has been growing for 27 months now, likely it will grow also during the first quarter of 2012. I'd like to check out how's the per capita now just for curiosity..


----------



## nicdel

Berlin had a huge economy (large companies like Siemens, Borsig, AEG etc. were all from Berlin) but after WW2 and the German divison it all got lost or moved to other German cities (primarily to Munich) .



Yuri S Andrade said:


> It's amazing how "poor" Berlin is! Look what the government does with Brasília GDP per capita (2009 figures): US$ 18,720 (metro area) and US$ 25,398 (Distrito Federal).


But "poor" is relative. The Berlin borough, where i live in, is actually quite rich and prosperous and many surrounding boroughs are similar. So I guess it is mostly "poor" regarding the economic output and financial structures. The famous quote "poor, but sexy" by Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit traces back to this situation. By contrast, Life quality seems fine (except in run-down areas with high unemployment rate obviously).

Munich and the Rhein-Main region are the economic centers and powerhouses of Germany, whereas Berlin is the cultural, political, touristic and innovative/avant-gardist one.


----------



## Chrissib

nicdel said:


> Berlin had a huge economy (large companies like Siemens, Borsig, AEG etc. were all from Berlin) but after WW2 and the German divison it all got lost or moved to other German cities (primarily to Munich) .


I think Berlin and the whole East being poor is an artificial situation made by the cold war and will adjust to the natural situation of Berlin and Saxony being very rich in the future. Being a capital is a natural advantage in getting rich. I think besides Berlin only Jerusalem as a capital is poorer than the rest of the country globally, but of entirely different reasons.


----------



## hmueller2

well afaik tourism (and therefore service sector) + start-ups etc. has driven berlin's economy in recent years.
but you are right Chrissib, due to the new airport and other infrastructure and r&d projects i expect a growth in industry.
the berlin brandenburg region f.e. ranks among the top-three innovative regions in the eu. berlin is also one of the top three convention cities in the world.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^ Is that because Berlin is more reliant on government/public administration than private industry which was hit in the recession?


Exactly. Capital cities usually do very well during recessions. Look what happen to *Washington DC* metro area in the *1930's* (using Census 1950 definitions):

*Metro Area --- Pop. 1940 --- Pop. 1930 --- Growth*

New York --- 11,660,839 --- 10,859,443 --- 7.4%

Chicago --- 4,825,527 --- 4.675,877 --- 3.2%

Philadelphia --- 3,199,637 --- 3,137,040 --- 2.0%

Los Angeles --- 2,916,403 --- 2,327,166 --- 25.3%

Boston --- 2,656,131 --- 2,611,926 --- 1.7%

Detroit --- 2,377,329 --- 2,177,343 --- 9.2%

Pittsburgh --- 2,082,556 --- 2,023,269 --- 2.9%

San Francisco --- 1,461,804 --- 1,347,772 --- 8.5%

St. Louis --- 1,432,088 --- 1,359,712 --- 5.3%

Cleveland --- 1,267,270 --- 1,243,102 --- 1.9%

Baltimore --- 1,083,300 --- 984,606 --- 10.0%

*Washington --- 967,985 --- 672,198 --- 44.0%*

Buffalo --- 958,487 --- 911,737 --- 5.1%

Minneapolis --- 940,937 --- 857,513 --- 9.7%

Cincinnati --- 787,044 --- 756,281 --- 4.1%

Milwaukee --- 766,885 --- 725,263 --- 5.7%

Kansas City --- 686,643 --- 665,655 --- 3.2%

Providence --- 634,157 --- 616,495 --- 2.9%

New Orleans --- 552,244 --- 505,306 --- 9.3%

Houston --- 528,961 --- 359,328 --- 47.2%

Atlanta --- 518,100 --- 424,273 --- 22.1%

Seattle --- 504,980 --- 463,517 --- 8.9%

Portland --- 501,275 --- 455,037 --- 10.2%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the *1920's*, Washington's growth was actually one of the smallest:

New York --- 27.9%

Chicago --- 32.8%

Philadelphia --- 15.6%

Los Angeles --- 133.2%

Boston --- 12.2%

Detroit --- 66.7%

Pittsburgh --- 15.0%

San Francisco --- 33.5%

St. Louis --- 19.3%

Cleveland --- 27.9%

Baltimore --- 15.6%

*Washington --- 17.5%*

Buffalo --- 21.0%

Minneapolis --- 21.7%

Cincinnati --- 20.2%

Milwaukee --- 34.4%

Kansas City --- 25.9%

Providence --- 8.4%

New Orleans --- 22.1%

Houston --- 92.5%

Atlanta --- 38.2%

Seattle --- 19.1%

Portland --- 22.1%


As you can see, capitals love recessions.


----------



## brisavoine

Chrissib said:


> I think Berlin and the whole East being poor is an artificial situation made by the cold war and will adjust to the natural situation of Berlin and Saxony being very rich in the future.


I doubt it. The center of gravity of Europe has moved to the West. Berlin is too far to the east to recover its former rank as a major economic hub.


----------



## Bannor

brisavoine said:


> I doubt it. The center of gravity of Europe has moved to the West. Berlin is too far to the east to recover its former rank as a major economic hub.


What makes you say that? Look at Poland, and Swedens growth rate for the past few years. If anything, it seems to me as if the economy of europe is moving towards the baltic sea, where also Russia with Kaliningrad and St.petersburg is a big player. There is also the Nord Stream Pipeline going under the baltic sea towards east germany.


----------



## pesto

Yuri: very interesting comparisons. It would be even more interesting if we could distinguish between govt. growth (and the associated deadweight loss) vs. productive non-govt. growth that just happens to be in the capital city. One is terrible, the other just fine. Unfortunately in recessions most of the growth is typically deadweight.

brisavoine: you are probably right. But sometimes the future is not like the past. At some point, the costs in the west pushes development further east.


----------



## brisavoine

Bannor said:


> What makes you say that? Look at Poland, and Swedens growth rate for the past few years.


Poland? 38 million people and declining. Catastrophic fertility rate. Sweden? Only 9 million people. There are more people in Paris than in the entire Sweden.


Bannor said:


> If anything, it seems to me as if the economy of europe is moving towards the baltic sea, where also Russia with Kaliningrad and St.petersburg is a big player.


That would defy the laws of demographic gravity.


----------



## brisavoine

pesto said:


> At some point, the costs in the west pushes development further east.


One word: skills. :gossip:


----------



## hmueller2

saxony for instance did some awesome things in the last 10-15 years.
they have had the highest economic growth in germany with round about 10% in the last years. their education system is one of the bests in germany.
(rank 1 for 6 years in a row in the annual education survey, outperforming the self-appointed powerhouse bavaria)
of course they still have some problems with unemployment, infrastructure etc, but i see no reason why this state oder other former gdr states couldn't reach the same level as bavaria or bawü.


----------



## Federicoft

ukiyo said:


> BTW is Milan the richest metro in Italy?


Yes. By a long shot. 



Bannor said:


> Milan metro is substantially larger and richer than Rome. Rome is just where the government is. Italy without Milan would be quite poor. So they are deffinately dragging the rest of the country with them.
> 
> Rome is about the same size as Naples I think. It does have a higher gdp though. Both Naples metro and Rome metro has about 3.5-4.5 mio population (depending on definition), so I'm guessing they are at 50-60% of Milan metro in gdp each.


Rome is not just where the government is. We're not talking about Ottawa or Canberra.
Rome is both the 2nd richest and 2nd largest metro area of the country. Its per capita GDP is almost twice that of Naples.


----------



## brisavoine

hmueller2 said:


> but i see no reason why this state oder other former gdr states couldn't reach the same level as bavaria or bawü.


The Ossies have different work ethics. They were raised in a different culture. They don't cherish economic success like in the West. The heritage of 40 years of Socialism is still there in the minds of people.


----------



## hmueller2

brisavoine said:


> The Ossies have different work ethics. They were raised in a different culture. They don't cherish economic success like in the West. The heritage of 40 years of Socialism is still there in the minds of people.


are you serious :? :?


----------



## Chrissib

brisavoine said:


> The Ossies have different work ethics. They were raised in a different culture. They don't cherish economic success like in the West. The heritage of 40 years of Socialism is still there in the minds of people.


Are you serious? :nuts:

Have you ever been to an Eastern city? The people there are as hard working as those in the West, unemployment is falling rapidly (unlike in certain parts of France) No German NUTS-2 region has unemployment as high as in Languedoc-Rousillon or in the DOMTOMs). Thuringia and Saxony have excellent education systems and they are just learning how to keep those talents from going to the West. The Ossies were able to create successful companies like Audi. Saxony once provided a quarter of the production of German cars.

Just give the East time, then they can unleash their full potential again. One of the main problems until today is the lack of huge multinational corporations located in the East.


----------



## brisavoine

Chrissib said:


> Have you ever been to an Eastern city?


Ja. Berlin. I even took a ride to the eastern end of the U-Bahn, in Hellersdorf, for a real glimpse at East Germany. A very enlightening trip.

And when I talked about work ethics, I didn't mean it in a bad way. I think the more relaxed approach of the Ossies towards work and success is probably saner than the manic attitude of the Bavarians and Swabians regarding work. Socialism was wrong in many ways, but it had one or two things right.


Chrissib said:


> No German NUTS-2 region has unemployment as high as in Languedoc-Rousillon or in the DOMTOMs).


No German NUTS-2 region has net migration and fertility rates as high as Languedoc-Roussillon or the DOM-TOM. QED.


----------



## hmueller2

brisavoine said:


> think the more relaxed approach of the Ossies towards work and success is probably saner than the manic attitude of the Bavarians and Swabians regarding work. Socialism was wrong in many ways, but it had one or two things right.


sry, but this is just a big pile of shit 

first of all stereotypes are very stupid and you can't measure everything by the same yardstick. there are no "ossies" , "bavarians" , "germans" whatsoever
what is a ossie? what is a bavarian? what is a "german"?
a guy from northern bavaria (called a "franke" - you should know as a french ) will punch you in the face when you call him a bavarian 

secondly:
even when your silly stereotype idea would be right, the "ossies" must have a higher work ethic as west germans, cause they had to work harder in the gdr.
the gdr gave a shit about the health and rights of workers. when you refused to do the hard work or you relaxed all the time you ended up in prison.
what most people don't get is, that the gdr had much more in common with the third reich than you might think. in fact the third reich was a socialistic country as well (nationalsozialistisch - NSDAP=national socialist german workers party)

and as chrissib said, the heart of german engineering and mittelstand lies also in east germany. bavaria was a hicksville decades ago..


----------



## brisavoine

hmueller2 said:


> first of all stereotypes are very stupid and you can't measure everything by the same yardstick. there are no "ossies" , "bavarians" , "germans" whatsoever
> what is a ossie? what is a bavarian? what is a "german"?


What is a Greek? What is a German? What is a Portuguese? Sorry but you can't measure everything by the same yardstick.


----------



## hmueller2

a "german" for example is just someone who is holding a german citizenship. nothing more.
but it has nothing to do with values, mentality, traditions and so one. 
(although 95% might believe it, like every "german" is wearing lederhosen and eating sauerkraut....)
an "ossi" is just someone who was a former gdr citizen or is now born in former gdr.
so it is or it should be just a geographic attribute.
but you can't say things like: all "ossis" behave like this or that and so on.


----------



## Bannor

brisavoine said:


> Poland? 38 million people and declining. Catastrophic fertility rate. Sweden? Only 9 million people. There are more people in Paris than in the entire Sweden.
> 
> That would defy the laws of demographic gravity.


The polish population is declining primarily because of emigration to western europe like scandinavia, germany, britain and the benelux. They have a hard time holding onto their skilled workers. Like former east germany has. However, the gdp per person in Poland is growing rapidly.

Swedens population is the fastest growing in Europe, and the fastest growing economy too, so a young population with some good companies can't be that bad. I know Paris is large, but I thought we were talking about growth rates here. Some of which are low in western europe (britain, ireland, belgium, spain, portugal, italy etc). The ones holding up former west europe are the countries furthest to the east, like scandinavia, germany, austria and switzerland. And some former east bloc countries have solid growth rates. Then there is Russia too...


----------



## Christian347

Bannor said:


> The polish population is declining primarily because of emigration to western europe like scandinavia, germany, britain and the benelux. They have a hard time holding onto their skilled workers. Like former east germany has. However, the gdp per person in Poland is growing rapidly.
> 
> Swedens population is the fastest growing in Europe, and the fastest growing economy too, so a young population with some good companies can't be that bad. I know Paris is large, but I thought we were talking about growth rates here. Some of which are low in western europe (britain, ireland, belgium, spain, portugal, italy etc). The ones holding up former west europe are the countries furthest to the east, like scandinavia, germany, austria and switzerland. And some former east bloc countries have solid growth rates. Then there is Russia too...


Sweden's population certaintly isn't the fastest growing country in Europe. Population growth in Norway is about the same in real numbers despite having just over half the population, so it´s much higher in %.


----------



## Jonesy55

Bannor said:


> I know Paris is large, but I thought we were talking about growth rates here. Some of which are low in western europe (britain, ireland, belgium, spain, portugal, italy etc). The ones holding up former west europe are the countries furthest to the east, like scandinavia, germany, austria and switzerland.


A major structural change like 'shifting the focus of the European economy to the Baltic' would take decades of such growth trends, you can't just extrapolate current growth rates forward for such a long period, these things are cyclical.

You could have said in 2005 that the focus of the European economy was shifting to the Eurozone periphery, Spain, Greece, Ireland based on the growth rates back then but it didn't quite work out like that.


----------



## Bannor

Jonesy55 said:


> , you can't just extrapolate current growth rates forward for such a long period, these things are cyclical.


Then I'll base it on work ethics and current lower employment expenses in east europe. Especially Poland, but also the Baltics and Russia.


----------



## Jonesy55

What is the difference in work ethics?


----------



## Bannor

Jonesy55 said:


> What is the difference in work ethics?


Harder workers, less breaks. On time etc. There is no hiding that the polish and baltics have a very good reputation for that in europe. Much more so than other west europeans perhaps except swedes and germans.

Thats the general idea in Norway though, and there are alot of foreign workers here from all over europe. Hard manual labour.


----------



## Metro007

hmueller2 said:


> a "german" for example is just someone who is holding a german citizenship. nothing more.
> but it has nothing to do with values, mentality, traditions and so one.


I am not sur i understand what you mean....So being German has nothing to do with mentality and values? Are you serious?

Each country of the world has different mentalities and values of course! Even inside a country there can be big differences, for example beetween northern and southern Italy. In Germany for example there are more differences beetween northern and southern Germans than beetween southern Germans and Swiss / Austria in mentality and values. And that has nothing to do with a comparaison such as "this part is better than anoter". It's just the way it is in the reality. Sorry.


----------



## Jonesy55

Bannor said:


> Harder workers, less breaks. On time etc. There is no hiding that the polish and baltics have a very good reputation for that in europe. Much more so than other west europeans perhaps except swedes and germans.
> 
> Thats the general idea in Norway though, and there are alot of foreign workers here from all over europe. Hard manual labour.


That, if true, isn't some inbuilt genetic trait, just a product of the circumstances people find themselves in, there is no guarantee that as economic circumstances change to being more comfortable for more people that won't change.....

I can't see the focus of the European economy shifting to an already lightly populated region with pretty awful demographics any time soon. Sure those regions will get richer, but they just don't have the weight of population to become dominant over other, much more populous regions.


----------



## Federicoft

Work ethics also means creativity, efficiency, independence, entrepreneurship, self-confidence, resourcefulness, willingness to innovate and courage to take risks.
Reducing everything to the propensity for manual labor is very simplistic. Ask yourself why Chiapas or inland China are not some of the richest and most productive regions in the world, and why central London or Frankfurt are not some of the poorest.


----------



## Bannor

Federicoft said:


> Work ethics also means creativity, efficiency, independence, entrepreneurship, self-confidence, willingness to take risks.
> Reducing everything to the propensity for manual labor is very simplistic. Ask yourself why Chiapas or inland China are not some of the richest and most productive regions in the world, and why central London or Frankfurt are not some of the poorest.


Most of the things you point to has to do with the education system though, and the society. And eastern europe has had alot to catch up to in that regard the past 20 years. But are you saying these things can't change? mentioning two banking hubs seems off topic though. Britain aint the most innovative country out there either.


----------



## Jonesy55

As a demonstration of the demographic situation, much of the Baltic region and East Germany has some of the most dramatic population decline in the whole of Europe, and with very low fertility rates that is unlikely to change significantly in the near future.


----------



## Jonesy55

Bannor said:


> Most of the things you point to has to do with the education system though, and the society. And eastern europe has had alot to catch up to in that regard the past 20 years. But are you saying these things can't change? mentioning two banking hubs seems off topic though. Britain aint the most innovative country out there either.


But far from the least innovative too....


----------



## Federicoft

Bannor said:


> Most of the things you point to has to do with the education system though, and the society. And eastern europe has had alot to catch up to in that regard the past 20 years. But are you saying these things can't change? mentioning two banking hubs seems off topic though. Britain aint the most innovative country out there either.


Perhaps no, still far more innovative than any Eastern European country.
Things could change as much as they can stay as they are, I'm not the one trying to predict the future here. As we are speaking, it is yet to be proven they will change. EE has enjoyed democracy and market economy for more than twenty years, it has made huge progress but the difference with Western Europe remains large. West Germany completely recovered from WWII in about a decade, and by the late 50s was already one of the most powerful economies in the world.


----------



## brisavoine

Bannor said:


> Swedens population is the fastest growing in Europe


Here is the average population growth rate since the start of the economic crisis for a few countries.

Population growth rate from Jan. 2008 to Jan. 2012:
- Luxembourg: +1.90% per year
- Norway: +1.29% per year
- Sweden: +0.81% per year
- Metropolitan France: +0.53% per year

In terms of absolute growth, of course, Sweden's growth is not very impressive, due to the limited size of its population.

Absolute growth rate from Jan. 2008 to Jan. 2012:
- Metropolitan France: +1,325,902 people
- Sweden: +299,928 people
- Norway: +248,729 people
- Luxembourg: +37,388 people

So in 4 years, Sweden added less people to its population than Metropolitan France in just one year. Not to mention the fact that during these 4 years, the states bordering the Baltic had a total population loss (growth in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland was more than offset by losses in Germany, Poland, and the Baltic States). So how could the center of gravity move towards the Baltic??


----------



## hmueller2

Metro007 said:


> I am not sur i understand what you mean....*So being German has nothing to do with mentality and values?* Are you serious?


of course!
i am a german citizen, angela merkel is a german citizen, boris becker is a german citizen, many millions are german citizens as well.
but i am quite sure that "we" all don't share the same values and menatlity.
i am even very different from my parents. 



> Each country of the world has different mentalities and values of course! Even inside a country there can be big differences, for example beetween northern and southern Italy.


even when this hypothesis would be right (which isn't imo), it is very illogical, cause mentalities and values don't have borders. they tend to be very asymmetric. you could f.e. grow up in a very hard working family and your parents could have these "work ethics" , but nevertheless you could end up being a lazy person. still today science doesn't know what influences people and in which proportion (genetics,setting, education etc)
and eeeeven if they would have borders, this theory is illogical as well, cause borders changed so dramatically in europe in the last centuries.



> In Germany for example there are more differences beetween northern and southern Germans than beetween southern Germans and Swiss / Austria in mentality and values.


right, i never denied this. there are differences in terms of economy, culture, dialects etc. 
i don't think you get my point. i am not saying that there are no differences in terms of mentalities etc. but these differences are very asymmetric, various, infinite, discombobulated and haphazard.
i just have a bad feeling about generalization and prejudice.


----------



## Taller Better

These always devolve into endless City vs City/Country vs Country affairs.


----------

