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.
Your lack of ability to read the whole research is the main problem here. Financial maturity is just one of the criteria used in those studies.
By the way, the big boys who influence the world economy are the cities with major financial centers like NYC, London, Tokyo, HongKong, Chicago, Paris, Shanghai, Seoul ,etc. The financial flow does not go through LA so that's why it's become less relevant on the global scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Yeah, but even ranking cities by their economies is tricky. Some go by total GDP, other go by GDP per capita, others lean exclusively on lists that rank the top financial centers (see above), others by diversity of economy. Also, as scraniX correctly pointed out, U.S. cities have a leg up when it comes to GDP. Some would say "oh well" but I don't think it's that simple. Putting it all together (economy, political clout, cultural influence, and global recognition) I don't think Chicago cracks the top 10. Top 20, yeah.
Kid we're talking about international here. Singapore and Hong Kong's intermodal ports affect the shipments and supply of other countries. Chicago's stays within the US because its in the midwest. It's servicing is the US. So that would be domestic influence. Sound familiar kiddo? Just like Mexico City, right bruh?
How about wrong?
Chicago's port on the great lakes fracks and ships into Canada and the major cities along the Great Lakes and this includes Toronto. It's one part of NAFTA, where the goods from Mexico make their way to Canada via United States and guess what? Chicago has the biggest hand in that by land, air, & rail (especially this one). Sea, ehhh we know the story here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
One thing I picked up on after living in the bay is that I will take my chances on not having as diverse of an economy and take a place that diverges with its own trademark industry. For us its tech and for Chicago it's nothing, which is why inflation catapults the bay's GDP soaring passed Chicagoland. Even after that consideration the bay's economy touches a little bit of every industry. Mexico City the same way has a surging GDP which just crossed $410B in 2011, keep in mind not every city in the world has GDP output like the US. Comparing which cities are most important in the US is easy just look at the GDP, comparing them with cities of other countries you have to consider a slew of other things unless you want to argue Chicago is up there with Paris?
Yeahh and you're underestimating long term benefits. A diverse economy doesn't inflate the GDP while that niche industry is rising like the way tech, energy, and formerly government were post 2010 but it keeps the metropolitan economy more stable for a long term future.
Both have their strong points but all I have to say is look at Seattle in the 90's and Houston in the 80's and I'll personally go with the diverse economy instead.
So we'll agree to disagree here. For the record, I'm also very aware of the Bay Area's economic diversity, it's got it's hands in a lot of things but the Silicon Valley/San Jose area makes it into a concentrated niche market for tech.
London has a larger GDP than Chicago at this point but Paris is slightly ahead and to be frank with you, so many people see Paris up there with Tokyo, London, & New York. I personally don't. I see it in an exclusive tier with Hong Kong right after those three and right before the tier that Chicago & Los Angeles are in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
Domestic kid.
Looks like domestic needs a new strategy. I mean, why count an industry that literally bridges the eastern part of the United States and the western part of the United States, right? That's the logic being applied here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
How is this relevant? The folks that wind up with layovers in Chicago don't even step foot in the city. You think being one of the layover capitals of the world is important?
You can say that to London Heathrow the next time they force you to stop there on the way to Mumbai, Singapore, Moscow, Hong Kong, and so on and so forth. It's about revenue and layover cities make lots of it by connections, traffic, goods bought at the airport, stays in airport hotels, and the uses of their services. It's actually an astonishing amount of revenue made.
Mind boggling? Yeah not really, the employment numbers of Hartsfield-Jackson International airport (Atlanta's largest employer), O'Hare International, & Heathrow International should answer that for you. It's an economic boom and a plus for the regional economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
Chicago is not NYC, LA, Houston, Seattle, Oakland. It does not relate to foreign involvement in anything it ships, imports, and exports. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm drawing blanks how this is affecting the rest of the world?
It's called logistics. By air its second to Atlanta, by rail its triple the next closest competitor in the United States (Kansas City) and double the next largest in the world (Chengdu), by road its more profitable as a distribution center than any other United States city, and by sea, ehhh well that one can be conceded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
Mexico City is for the same landlocked reason unable to have international ties by shipping and cargo unless you're talking about cargo planes through the airport. That's the only thing that puts import and export on the map for both of these cities IMO.
Tell Union Pacific that, they're shipping global goods from the Asian countries to the European countries and Chicago is the largest link between the port of Los Angeles, port of Houston, & port of New York.
What distinguishes this from Mexico City is NAFTA. Mexico City does not have the logistical setting of Chicago or Dallas for that matter. It's never going to be as large of an industry there, Mexico City probably has a larger surplus in exports than imports for that very reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
Mexico City is home of ALL the primary insurance, banks, and Mexican Stock Exchanges of Mexico. How's this any different?
Get real man, we're comparing the U.S. Federal Reserve to the Mexican reserve now?
You cant compare the banking infrastructure of the United States and Mexico and say both cities are serving the same exact (and equal) purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
CME and CBOT are the only advantages Chicago has here. Chicago is a more important financial center because of CME, if it wasn't for that then no.
They happen to be huge advantages too, considering CME is the worlds leader in commodities exchange. CME exists in Chicago because it works, the same way logistics works in Chicago because of its location. That's its natural advantage and Mexico City cant put up with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
Architecture is a baseless argument against Mexico City. It has several hundred years lead to Chicago and if you've seen the Aztec Pyramids then it speaks for itself. What do architects have anything to do with importance anyway?
More like influence than importance but whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
Same with Mexico City except they actually stay in Mexico City when they take office.
Except Mexico is no where close to as powerful, influential, & heated as the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
You're kidding yourself if you think Mexico City lacks name recognition. Anholt's brand recognition analysis has both Mexico City and Chicago represented.
Neither city really lacks anything, just one punches above its weight and the other doesn't. There's nothing wrong with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
This excludes being the economic, political, social, cultural, financial, and logistical beast of one of the worlds 15 most powerful nations both by size and GDP while also being a "hypercity" as you put it.
What Chicago is, is for the worlds number one country. It's got finance, tech, manufacturing, a role in politics, undisputed winner in United States logistics, and so on and so forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
btw kid, how many megacities and "hypercities" have you been to underestimate Mexico City's power and influence?
Metacity/Hypercity:
- New York
- Mumbai
- Delhi
- Shanghai
Megacity:
- Los Angeles
- Kolkata (Calcutta)
- Cairo
- London
- Paris
- Bangkok
Number one place on my priority list is Seoul. So that'll be another hypercity down, I hope soon. Tokyo is another one I want to see one day but it's not as high up there as Seoul for me. Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Istanbul, & Osaka are also up there. I've been to Hong Kong & Singapore but they're both neither a megacity or a hypercity. Whatever.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-08-2012 at 11:53 PM..
Why isnt DC the most important city in the world? Its GDP is 4th largest in the US and 11th in the world, and its unquestionably the most important political center in the world?
DC lacks size. If it was the size of Paris, London, Buenos Aires, Chicago, or LA then it would unquestionably be in the top 10 of the world IMO. Size goes a long way and its certainly not every thing but it counts for more than its given credit for.
As a metro of 6M, it's a little munchkin to the rest of the world IMO.
Your lack of ability to read the whole research is the main problem here. Financial maturity is just one of the criteria used in those studies.
By the way, the big boys who influence the world economy are the cities with major financial centers like NYC, London, Tokyo, HongKong, Chicago, Paris, Shanghai, Seoul ,etc. The financial flow does not go through LA so that's why it's become less relevant on the global scale.
Pretty funny, you thinking Chicago is a "big boy" next to Los Angeles. Dream a dream, kid. When the Los Angeles CSA tops $1 trillion in GDP sometime this decade, for your sanity, I suggest you finally concede that it's the #2 city in the country. Just a suggestion.
Please don't blame him. I think you need to read the research by The Economist to understand. The study is based on the following criteria: Economic strength, Physical capital, Financial maturity,Institutional effectiveness, Social and cultural character, Human capital, Environment and natural hazards,Global appeal
Among the top 15 U.S cities, NYC, D.C & Chicago lead the global competitiveness rankings followed by Boston & SF. MC is at #71.
Economic Strength?-As far as GDP growth and job growth, Chicago is the weakest of the Top 5 MSAs and CSAs.
Apart from that, once again I am left to wonder why financial organizations get such hard ons from ranking cities based on their own criteria and then forcing the rest of us to go along with what they believe is importance.
The study & research by The Economist already suggested how ridiculous your
statement was. LA might have a large GDP but its still less important than Chicago & other "real" cities on the global scale. The truth hurts, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Pretty funny, you thinking Chicago is a "big boy" next to Los Angeles. Dream a dream, kid. When the Los Angeles CSA tops $1 trillion in GDP sometime this decade, for your sanity, I suggest you finally concede that it's the #2 city in the country. Just a suggestion.
"Real" cities? Like the ones that have white collar institutions that trade on goods that are manufactured in other cities/regions across the country? That's "real" to you? Do you have any idea how easily these financial institutions can move if needed (see: 9/11). Now try moving a port. Not so easy, eh? You see financial rankings and treat them like they encompass EVERYTHING that makes for a name brand global city, and you're way off. LA passed Chicago in the 80s. Economically, culturally, everything.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 10-09-2012 at 01:11 AM..
"Real" cities? Like the ones that have white collar institutions that trade on goods that are manufactured in other cities/regions across the country? That's "real" to you? Do you have any idea how easily these financial institutions can move if needed (see: 9/11). Now try moving a port. Not so easy, eh? You see financial rankings and treat them like they encompass EVERYTHING that makes for a name brand global city, and you're way off. LA passed Chicago in the 80s. Economically, culturally, everything.
Sweet home Chicago! We made it onto the list of “The Most Influential Cities” in National Geographic’s December 2011 issue. Landing at number 6 on the 2010 Global Cities Index by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney, Chicago was one of three U.S. cities making the list of top 10 most influential cities in the world. The Index ranks cities based on their scores in five areas: political engagement, cultural experience, information exchange, human capital, and business activity. Out of those key areas, Chicago’s top trait is its human capital, which is not surprising considering our diverse culture and top university, meaning Northwestern University (alright, let’s include the University of Chicago as well). Chicago moved up two spots on the list since the 2008 Global Cities Index due to two of the key areas: business activity and cultural experience. Since 2008, Chicago has had “an increase in firms listed in the Fortune Global 500, more business conferences and a higher rank in air freight” and moved up 10 spots in the cultural experience dimension.
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.
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.
