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.
How exactly do you interpret from my post that I am suggesting that?
Well, you are essentially comparing Sacramento to Washington, which to me means you are comparing California to the United States as a whole.
From information I just found on GDP rankings (which may be inaccurate), California has roughly 13% of the U.S. GDP. In ANY comparison, is 13% of something truly comparable to 100% of something or even 87% of something?
According to the same GDP rankings I found, the U.S. has a GDP over 4 times larger than the 2nd ranked country (Japan). I think this strengthens Washington's argument as the 2nd most important U.S. city - it is the political center of the world's largest economy by far, and many key policy decisions in many areas - economics, defense, education, etc. - are made in Washington. (And no, I'm not just saying that because I work in DC; I personally think DC has a lot of government workers who aren't in touch with the practical realities of what's going in the U.S., but that's another story.) There are some issue areas that states don't even concern themselves with because those areas are federal/national level concerns, so even implying a state capital city - any state capital city - has similar importance to a national capital city is misguided. Heck, one could argue DC is the most important U.S. city. (I personally don't agree with that at all, but one could make a valid argument in that direction.)
For whatever it is worth, I voted for Los Angeles as #2. LA, Chicago, and Washington IMO are the only cities that can make a legitimate claim for #2 behind New York.
How exactly do you interpret from my post that I am suggesting that?
I'm simply stating that to say that DC is more important than LA is saying that Austin is more important than Dallas, that Sacramento is more important than San Francisco, that Tallahasee is more important than Tampa, that Harrisburg is more important than Pittsburgh and so on.
In that case, he's interpreting it correctly. If you're going to go out on a limb and say that a capital of a state can be on par with a capital of a country, then you're suggesting parity between a single state and a capital. Throwing in a state capital when we're talking about the capital of the nation either puts in that light or that you simply decided to throw in a statement irrelevant to the original quote.
If you're going to go out on a limb and say that a capital of a state can be on par with a capital of a country, then you're suggesting parity between a single state and a capital.
To say that Washington DC is more important than Los Angeles is to say that Sacramento is more important than San Francisco.
Its to say that Austin is more important than Dallas.
Its to say that Tallahassee is more important than Tampa or Orlando.
Its to say that Harrisburg is more important than Pittsburgh.
For that matter,
Your saying that Ottawa is more important than Montreal and Vancouver.
Well, you are essentially comparing Sacramento to Washington, which to me means you are comparing California to the United States as a whole.
From information I just found on GDP rankings (which may be inaccurate), California has roughly 13% of the U.S. GDP. In ANY comparison, is 13% of something truly comparable to 100% of something or even 87% of something?
According to the same GDP rankings I found, the U.S. has a GDP over 4 times larger than the 2nd ranked country (Japan). I think this strengthens Washington's argument as the 2nd most important U.S. city - it is the political center of the world's largest economy by far, and many key policy decisions in many areas - economics, defense, education, etc. - are made in Washington. (And no, I'm not just saying that because I work in DC; I personally think DC has a lot of government workers who aren't in touch with the practical realities of what's going in the U.S., but that's another story.) There are some issue areas that states don't even concern themselves with because those areas are federal/national level concerns, so even implying a state capital city - any state capital city - has similar importance to a national capital city is misguided. Heck, one could argue DC is the most important U.S. city. (I personally don't agree with that at all, but one could make a valid argument in that direction.)
For whatever it is worth, I voted for Los Angeles as #2. LA, Chicago, and Washington IMO are the only cities that can make a legitimate claim for #2 behind New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
In that case, he's interpreting it correctly. If you're going to go out on a limb and say that a capital of a state can be on par with a capital of a country, then you're suggesting parity between a single state and a capital. Throwing in a state capital when we're talking about the capital of the nation either puts in that light or that you simply decided to throw in a statement irrelevant to the original quote.
No, 18Montclair is just pointing out that a city being a capital doesn't have THAT much to do with it's importance. Aside from politics, Sacramento is obviously not as important overall as SF is. Harrisburg is not as important overall as Pittsburgh is....Salem isn't as important as Portland is, Albany is not as important as NYC is, etc, etc.
So, it goes without saying that though it's the nation's capital, DC doesn't necessarily get a spot in the top 3 just because of it's political importance. There's the whole package to consider....Also, If you took all the government buildings, white house, president and all the pother politicians, and moved them to Mobile, Alabama, then would Mobile suddenly be in the top 3? I don't think so...the government will serve it's purpose where ever it's headquartered, and it'll still affect everyone the same, but it doesn't have that much bearing on the role of it's "host city."
That's not to say DC isn't important...i believe it probably belongs in the top 5 for sure. It's just that using the argument that DC should be in the top 3 because it's the nation's capital, or that it should beat out SF or Boston or Houston JUST because it's the nation's capital doesn't really make sense. The top 3 are:
NYC, LA and Chicago. After that is where the debate begins, as far as I'm concerned...
No, 18Montclair is just pointing out that a city being a capital doesn't have THAT much to do with it's importance. Aside from politics, Sacramento is obviously not as important overall as SF is.
No, Im comparing Sacramento's ROLE in California to DCs role in America.
Which essentially are the same.
The same save for the magnitudes of differences in size, scope, and influence? The role DC plays in each state can be considered on par or greater than that of the state government within the state, and then there's the added role it plays representing the sum of all states. Your statement is either misguided or irrelevant to the argument since you're steamrolling these massive differences. Scale and scope make massive differences--it's what puts the Silicon Valley above the numerous Silicon Forests, Prairies, Alleys, etc. or Hollywood above the numerous cities that have a soundstage, rental house, and broadcast stations. Some small town in Arkansas (nothing against Arkansas) that boasts a sushi place, a taqueria, and not one, not two, but three(!) Chinese buffets does not get the sweepstakes for ethnic cuisine offerings simply because it has ethnic cuisine or has the most ethnic cuisine for its local area.
In response to rah, political power and influence is certainly not the sole determinant--but when its of the magnitude that it plays in DC, the rest of the nation, and the rest of the world, then there is something to be said. A state capital's power is relatively small in comparison to both DC and to the other cities within the union or larger cities in the same state (California in particular is somewhat devolved since its Supreme Court is actually in SF which is certainly not Sacramento or the Sacramento metro). Additionally, the presence of such huge institutions in DC supports a huge number of allied/auxillary industries (tourism, law firms, defense industry, NGOs, media especially journalism, etc.) to an extent which no state capital can do.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-08-2009 at 02:46 PM..
The same save for the magnitudes of differences in size, scope, and influence? The role DC plays in each state can be considered on par or greater than that of the state government within the state
And Sacramento actually has a bigger role in every county in CA than their own county govts do.
So by your logic, because of the state government's reach into every county in California, Sacramento is therefore more important than San Francisco. Good luck with that.
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.
