Yes - but it`s not all.
According to what they have presented here:
...and I`ve measured it very precisely, according to World Bank the Russian
GNI in 2004 was $375 billion
and the GNI per capita was $3333
...lets look at the World bank statistics
According to the World Bank statistics - expressed according to the COURENT EXCHANGE RATE the Russian:
GNI in 2004 was $488 billion
and the GNI per capita was $3400
Which means that they had drown that graph incorrectly..
But why in the world would someone take the GNI number expressed according to the courrent exchange rate to compare the economies of two different countries (you have to remember that $3400 in Russia is worth a lot more than in the US) - and not mention this fact in the article - and why would someone take 2 year old data knowing that (well asuming that the BBC reportes know what they are writingabout) Russia had its biggest economic growth during the past two years ?
Why haven`t they used newer GDP data expressed according to the purchase power parity - which is being used to compare the actual size of different economies.
I mean com`on BBC - is it really so hard to go to the IMF website:
France GDP(PPP) per capita = $29316.419
France GDP(PPP) = $1830.110 billion
Germany GDP (PPP) per capita = $30579.396
Germany GDP (PPP) = $2521.699 billion
Russia GDP(PPP) per capita = $11041.070
Russia GDP (PPP) = $1575.561 billion
UK GDP(PPP) per capita = $30469.843
UK GDP (PPP) = $1832.792 billion
US GDP(PPP) per capita = $41399.428
US GDP(PPP) = $12277.583 billion
I have also no idea why they havent mentioned that Russia had large budget surpluses over the recent years - and that it is also one of the least indebt countries in the world right now.
...So is it simple stupidity or is it cheap sensation seeking ?