The more important city: Washington, DC VS Los Angeles (rates, place, bigger)

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

I think we can all agree on the fact that New York City is the most important city in the country, possibly the world.

I disagree with that. DC in my opinion is the most important "city" in the US, possibly world. Decisions made in DC effect everyone in every part of the US. As big and important as NYC is, the same can't be said for it in that regard. However, this has nothing to do with what a city offers and other factors. I mean could anyone argue that if the entire Federal government up and moved from DC to some back water town in the middle of Nebraska it wouldn't then become the most important city?

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

I disagree with that. DC in my opinion is the most important "city" in the US, possibly world. Decisions made in DC effect everyone in every part of the US. As big and important as NYC is, the same can't be said for it in that regard.

I'll leave that topic for an already existing thread that concerned New York City. I think for this thread your post seems like it's going for team Washington (DC).

I am still split in the decision for this thread myself. Logically I think I have developed a case for both sides already thought up in my head. And it still doesn't help me make a overall decision.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

But the difference is this. Yes Los Angeles is more known in popular culture.

But there are 50 US states & the Territory of Puerto Rico, they all have capitals. But what city controls the legislation even further of all 50 states and Puerto Rico? Washington DC does.

It's also got a major tech presence, and it's economy is among the best in the country right now. The most stable.

Historically established district to govern the whole nation and it's involvement, deep involvement in the Civil War.

Not to mention the fact that leaders from every country in the world when coming to the USA come into here on political debates. (When not talking about the UN)

Yes, Los Angeles has the larger GDP, but that would be like saying Charlotte is more important than many of the cities it has a larger GDP over.

Los Angeles has the media control and foreign recognition, but Washington DC is what brings all 50 states together.

You can't compare Austin, Sacramento, Denver to Washington DC. The elections for offices in Washington DC are closely followed by not only people in all California, not only people in all 50 states, but by majority of the world.

The elections bring together a large mass of Americans. Politics, IMHO drives this nation nearly the same length as media. A form of media, get online, go to Yahoo's home page, I bet you anything there will be at least one article in the news with Washington DC politicians in it.

I think people from Washington DC can make a pretty strong case. Same for people of Los Angeles, especially when it comes to port & trade, entertainment, & diversity.

There's also this: A farmer in Mongolia is more likely to know President Barack Obama of Washington DC or Tom Cruise of Los Angeles?

Those are some excellent points you make about DC. I for one don't think it gets enough credit and recognition for things other than politics. I don't understand why though. Maybe because DC has changed so quickly and dramatically over the past couple of decades and people haven't caught on to it.

Personally, I prefer DC to LA (I feel more at home on the east coast), but the reality is that size often does matter. And in that aspect, LA comes out on top.

[DANNYY]

And here is the Los Angeles side of the argument:

Despite the connection of Washington DC to the rest of the world politically. Would the average Mongolian farmer who knows of both cities (Washington DC by political reason, Los Angeles by media reason) want to be in Washington DC or Los Angeles? My immigration statistics most foreigners are in droves to Los Angeles & that too by the offer of different employment opportunities.

Los Angeles, appeals more to the average person (in the world) than Washington DC does, in my honest opinion.

Los Angeles port is among of the busiest, port of entry and regulations with the Pacific Rim. Strong economic ties (which are increasing) with China, Japan, Singapore, India, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Hong Kong, & Indonesia. Major imports/exports as well as immigration statistics at one of the highest levels in the country.

The foreign businesses invested in Los Angeles, with foreign media establishing some smaller base here.

Washington DC might be politically related to Mexico City, but Los Angeles is culturally related to the Mexican people. The average people there.

Large manufacturing base in the country, and employment opportunities for H1/L1's. And very busy international airport for cargo and human traffic.

By importance Los Angeles can appeal more to the average person, in the 6 inhibited continents at least, well known by political leaders, but no interest in it specifically. By importance Washington DC can appeal more to the superpowers and politicians of the world, well known by the people, but no appeal for it by living determinations. Both I can see appealing to two different type of people, which is why I don't have a straight decision yet.

Among others reasons, but those (^) are from the top of my head currently.

[grapico]

DC, fbi, cia, supreme court, house, senate, federal gov, pentagon, world bank, imf, national law firms, foreign embassies.

[AJNEOA]

I think it's as simple as analyzing which city would have a larger impact if it were instantly wiped off the map. I mean, if LA were removed, there would be large financial (and cultural) impacts across the world. However, the US would continue moving forward and functioning.

If DC were removed, there would be political chaos, pretty large financial impact, and it would be seen across the world extensively. All the troops, federal programs, legislation, etc. run this country. Trade, war, executive orders, the Supreme Court, etc etc.

I respect LA's importance, but this is an apples and oranges comparison.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

I think for this thread your post seems like it's going for team Washington (DC).

Yup.

Originally Posted by OmShahi

And here is the Los Angeles side of the argument:

Despite the connection of Washington DC to the rest of the world politically. Would the average Mongolian farmer who knows of both cities (Washington DC by political reason, Los Angeles by media reason) want to be in Washington DC or Los Angeles? My immigration statistics most foreigners are in droves to Los Angeles & that too by the offer of different employment opportunities.

Los Angeles, appeals more to the average person (in the world) than Washington DC does, in my honest opinion.

Los Angeles port is among of the busiest, port of entry and regulations with the Pacific Rim. Strong economic ties (which are increasing) with China, Japan, Singapore, India, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Hong Kong, & Indonesia. Major imports/exports as well as immigration statistics at one of the highest levels in the country.

The foreign businesses invested in Los Angeles, with foreign media establishing some smaller base here.

Washington DC might be politically related to Mexico City, but Los Angeles is culturally related to the Mexican people. The average people there.

Large manufacturing base in the country, and employment opportunities for H1/L1's. And very busy international airport for cargo and human traffic.

By importance Los Angeles can appeal more to the average person, in the 6 inhibited continents at least, well known by political leaders, but no interest in it specifically. By importance Washington DC can appeal more to the superpowers and politicians of the world, well known by the people, but no appeal for it by living determinations. Both I can see appealing to two different type of people, which is why I don't have a straight decision yet.

Among others reasons, but those (^) are from the top of my head currently.

This to me is an argument better suited as to why LA is a pop culture icon and/or why it is more popular for immigrant/transplants. None of it strikes me (aside from LA's role as a cargo and transportation hub) as why Los Angeles is "important".

[AJNEOA]

Oh, one more point. I think that security from foreign threat and famine have to come before culture or entertainment. DC provides that security, and without a functioning body of legislation in this country, there would be no time for culture/fashion/entertainment.

[missRoxyhart]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

I disagree with that. DC in my opinion is the most important "city" in the US, possibly world. Decisions made in DC effect everyone in every part of the US. As big and important as NYC is, the same can't be said for it in that regard. However, this has nothing to do with what a city offers and other factors. I mean could anyone argue that if the entire Federal government up and moved from DC to some back water town in the middle of Nebraska it wouldn't then become the most important city?

You're way off on that, being the home of so many of the world's most powerful companies, the UN, the stock exchange, being the financial center of the richest country on Earth carries more than enough weight to impact the entire country and the world, and it does.

"New York City is one of the global centers of international finance, politics, communications, film, music, fashion, and culture, and is among the world's most important and influential cities. It is home to many world-class museums, art galleries, and theaters. Many of the world's largest corporations have their headquarters here. The headquarters of the United Nations is in New York and most countries have a consulate here. This city's influence on the globe—and all its inhabitants—is hard to overstate, as decisions made within its boundaries often have impacts and ramifications literally across the world." New York City travel guide - Wikitravel

Anyway, back on topic, I think it's definitely DC. Yeah LA is way bigger, more people, more money and all that, but Washington runs this country. DC is the head of everything we have, they decide where most of the money we make goes, what the laws we follow are, who we go to war with, they have the army, the courts, the senate, everything. They control the country LA "serves", and could hurt if they wanted to, I mean with things like trade embargoes against other countries for example, like imagine if there was a trade ban on certain major countries that go to LA's port, I'm not saying that would ever happen, just that technically it could. Washington has crippled New England's trade like that before in our history, even when it was one of the country's top commerce centers. Basically, what I'm really trying to say is that DC runs the show, in the end LA has to heed Washington's decisions, not the other way around. How I see it is that DC is the head of the machine LA is a part of. (Same with NYC, Chicago etc.)

LA and all the economic power it has is obviously way important, I'm not disagreeing with anyone on anything about that so I don't need an argument there, but I think the city that can claim to be the head of the most powerful nuclear armed country on Earth is more important. It's the city that's the head of the country LA and NYC are a part of.

[ladarron]

District Of Columbia is the capital of the United States, so it is more important.


US Capitol before Expansion and Renovation (Date:1846)



The Renovation and Expansion (Date:1961)


Now