Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't the big three(nywallst-chicago-LA) pull the most strings in Washington anyway? The politics in Washington acts like a puppet for those cities. In my opinion whats important is the economy. LA contributes more than DC economically. Ny and LA are Americas Pitbulls when it comes to raw dollars of metro areas.
This is a good point, but saying that these cities are puppet-masters is like saying that kids run the household because they sometimes get their parents to do what they want. Ultimately, the parents are still in charge, and there's a lot more to keeping a roof over the heads of the children than making some decisions/rules that benefit the kids.
When it comes down to it, politicians appease these larger cities to keep getting re-elected (yes, amongst other reasons), so some would say it's technically the other way around. However, it's still DC that prints money, makes decisions, wages war and the like. You could look at these other cities as cash cows for the lawmakers in DC. Cash cows never run the farm, but they are used as assets for the farmer. If one dies, the farm lives. If the farmer dies, the cows starve.
100 years ago, Los Angeles was practically unknown in the world. 50 years ago, Washington, DC was in the regional shadow of Baltimore in many ways. Amazing how things have changed over time.
This is a good point, but saying that these cities are puppet-masters is like saying that kids run the household because they sometimes get their parents to do what they want. Ultimately, the parents are still in charge, and there's a lot more to keeping a roof over the heads of the children than making some decisions/rules that benefit the kids.
When it comes down to it, politicians appease these larger cities to keep getting re-elected (yes, amongst other reasons), so some would say it's technically the other way around. However, it's still DC that prints money, makes decisions, wages war and the like. You could look at these other cities as cash cows for the lawmakers in DC. Cash cows never run the farm, but they are used as assets for the farmer. If one dies, the farm lives. If the farmer dies, the cows starve.
I've now met my quota for analogies for the year
I look at DC as a place that just regulates the real powers, not a city that is powerful itself. Dc is just there to make sure everything is balanced we need that in this country anyway. I don't think LA,chicago,nyc would starve without DC these city's make more than enough cake to take care of themselves. DC bails out wall street but than again its in DCs best interest to bail out wall st
Quote:
However, it's still DC that prints money, makes decisions, wages war and the like. You could look at these other cities as cash cows for the lawmakers in DC. Cash cows never run the farm, but they are used as assets for the farmer. If one dies, the farm lives. If the farmer dies, the cows starve.
A'lot of this still goes back to the influence of the major city's. And the city's are cash cows that can say F the farmer and farm themselves. Like a seasoned rockstar who has a manager, but really could go on and manage himself
I look at DC as a place that just regulates the real powers, not a city that is powerful itself. Dc is just there to make sure everything is balanced we need that in this country anyway. I don't think LA,chicago,nyc would starve without DC these city's make more than enough cake to take care of themselves. DC bails out wall street but than again its in DCs best interest to bail out wall st
A'lot of this still goes back to the influence of the major city's. And the city's are cash cows that can say F the farmer and farm themselves. Like a seasoned rockstar who has a manager, but really could go on and manage himself
What can be done in Los Angeles that cannot be done in San Diego? What can be done in NYC that cannot be done in Charleston? Are these cities that indispensable? It seems that neither enjoys a natural competitive advantage that makes them so unique as to render the cities and their industries virtually irreplacable.
It could be argued that democracy and free market principles allow cities such as Los Angeles and New York to thrive. What do you think would happen if we replaced the current administration with the Politburo?
Los Angeles does get more international visitors because it does what it needs to do it. It's a competition, which city can get more people, the economy thrives off of it.
That is why those beaches, and mountains in Los Angeles thrive over those museums and Monuments in Washington DC. (No offense anyone) Because Washington DC does not market itself adequately enough.
This I agree with and I see it changing in the coming years. DC has been low-profile for too long. But it has so much to offer to market itself more strongly as a global power capital, among them being:
the most powerful government in the world (that's worth repeating :-)
most of the political history of the U.S. at the national level
the largest museum complex in the world
many of the top-ranking museums in the U.S., including the best air & space museum
the largest library in the world
the tallest obelisk in the world
world-renowned memorials and monuments
the largest catholic church in the U.S.
the 2nd largest cathedral in the U.S.
foreign embassies from all over the world
one of the largest technology sectors in the U.S.
one of the fastest growing metro areas on the east coast
several of the highest household-income counties in the U.S.
several very good universities
all the major pro sports
and numerous great parks, restaurants, hotels, malls, clubs, historic sites, arenas, beaches, mountains, sailing, cruises, rafting, skiiing, watersports, theme parks, skydiving, etc., etc., all within reach.
DC is transforming into a very different kind of city. It should start marketing itself in warp drive and stop being so humble. :-)
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 07-21-2010 at 11:07 AM..
I look at DC as a place that just regulates the real powers, not a city that is powerful itself. Dc is just there to make sure everything is balanced we need that in this country anyway. I don't think LA,chicago,nyc would starve without DC these city's make more than enough cake to take care of themselves. DC bails out wall street but than again its in DCs best interest to bail out wall st
A'lot of this still goes back to the influence of the major city's. And the city's are cash cows that can say F the farmer and farm themselves. Like a seasoned rockstar who has a manager, but really could go on and manage himself
I see your points, and I don't disagree except that I think the major cities influence DC only on specific levels: Economic decisions, some federal legislation (e.g. abortion, taxes on imports/exports, etc.) and some federal funding. The cities do not have power to control whether we go to war, how wars are fought, control/management/mismanagement of the federal deficit and spending, etc. NYC/LA/Chicago may have the largest impact on DC, but they're still only a handful of cities in the US, out of 100s.
So, while I agree there are other hugely important cities in the US, I default to the fact that DC performs the most unique functions that govern how our country is managed. IMHO DC is still the most important.
Apart from Hollywood I don't see anything in LA that can't be anywheresville USA
I don't think LA is all that Unique. It has a hella lot of people and the things that come with having a hella lot of people, but in terms of importance I don't see LA or Chicago being as important as DC
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.