London vs New York City (to move, tickets, golf course)
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.
Geneva and Vienna also house massive UN complexes, but it means very little to honest, whilst in terms of stock markets the Chinese will eventually become the biggest stock market.
London is home to numerous embassies, is a capital city and is home to the UK Government, in respect of the US these functions are carried out in Washington DC and not NYC.
NYC is not even politically the most influential city in the US never mind the world. As for the UN does anyone listen to it, as even the host country the US refuses to ratify a lot of UN legislation.
Okay, guys like Majurius, once again, the stock market is only one component of the entire financial system and it is by far overshadowed by insurance and bonds. By far.
Bamford, do you realize the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington? To a significant extent, they are the same people, or they know each other. The relative distance between New York and Washington is about the same as that between Downing Street and the City. Now some wiseass will do the math, but that's not the point.
New York is so powerful that there has been a tacit ban on a president coming from New York since Franklin Roosevelt (they even amended the Constitution) and I do not expect that tacit ban to be lifted anytime soon, e.g. New York elects laughable governors. Why? But they dominate Treasury and the Fed and the bond market and the money-center banks and investment banks and hedge funds and ... and ... and ... (worth mentioning in passing also the stock market). So what do they need a powerful governor up in Albany for?
Anyway, once again, the two cities, New York and London, have been engaged in a symbiotic relationship for some 400 years now (long before Washington came into existence), and for the most part mutually beneficial.
The real question is whether it will last another 100, 200, 300, 400?
Okay, guys like Majurius, once again, the stock market is only one component of the entire financial system and it is by far overshadowed by insurance and bonds. By far.
I agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
Bamford, do you realize the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington? To a significant extent, they are the same people, or they know each other. The relative distance between New York and Washington is about the same as that between Downing Street and the City. Now some wiseass will do the math, but that's not the point.
That may be so but as a city NYC is not the home to Government as say London is in relation to Whitehall nor is NYC a city full of embassies like London. Embassies tend to be in capital cities such as London and Washington DC. It should also not be forgotten that London is only 2 hours from Paris on the train and even less in respect of the EU Capital that is Brussels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
]
New York is so powerful that there has been a tacit ban on a president coming from New York since Franklin Roosevelt (they even amended the Constitution) and I do not expect that tacit ban to be lifted anytime soon, e.g. New York elects laughable governors. Why? But they dominate Treasury and the Fed and the bond market and the money-center banks and investment banks and hedge funds and ... and ... and ... (worth mentioning in passing also the stock market). So what do they need a powerful governor up in Albany for?
London and especially the City also dominate the financial sector both in the UK and indeed Europe. London is also a very powerful and influential city in terms of finance and political influence and retains strong links to the Commonwealth, the Atlantic Alliance and also Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
Anyway, once again, the two cities, New York and London, have been engaged in a symbiotic relationship for some 400 years now (long before Washington came into existence), and for the most part mutually beneficial.
The real question is whether it will last another 100, 200, 300, 400?
The political power base, the executive in terms of Congress, the US Judiciary in relation to the Supreme Court and the President all based in Washington DC and not NYC. The same is true of Government Departments, the Pentagon for instance is close to Washington and not NYC in the same way the Ministry of Defence, Treasury and other UK Departments are to be found in Whitehall in London.
As for London it has over 2,000 years of history has survived fire, plague and wars and will no doubt go on making history in future centuries, as I am sure NYC will.
Geneva and Vienna also house massive UN complexes, but it means very little to honest, whilst in terms of stock markets the Chinese will eventually become the biggest stock market.
London is home to numerous embassies, is a capital city and is home to the UK Government, in respect of the US these functions are carried out in Washington DC and not NYC.
NYC is not even politically the most influential city in the US never mind the world. As for the UN does anyone listen to it, as even the host country the US refuses to ratify a lot of UN legislation.
After D.C. NYC probably has the second most political influence of any city, nevermind that it's not a capital of anything, besides trade capital of the world where some of the wealthiest and most influential stock brokers, hedge fund managers, and business tycoons call home, the very people who buy power in Congress. As dirty as it is, NYC has a lot of political influence in this country, second to D.C. of course.
After D.C. NYC probably has the second most political influence of any city, nevermind that it's not a capital of anything, besides trade capital of the world where some of the wealthiest and most influential stock brokers, hedge fund managers, and business tycoons call home, the very people who buy power in Congress. As dirty as it is, NYC has a lot of political influence in this country, second to D.C. of course.
Just want to ask in a non-confrontational way. When were you last in New York?
This year
Why when was the last time you were in London???
London is full of some of the richest people on earth from bankers and businessmen through to media tycoons through to celebrities and even international royalty.
Duly noted although doesn't really matter, as in terms of sports stadiums NYC doesn't come close to London.
Ah, so. I'm still not quite clear on how London's sports stadiums are supposed to be better. You were listing stadia by capacity, so I assumed you were using that as some kind of rubric. You did a listing of stadia capacity for NYC, but didn't do the same for London. I did take a look at a few of the London ones, but I didn't see any appreciably large difference in capacity. O2 Arena was at 20K which on the smaller side compared to the NYC stadia you've listed. The courts used for Wimbledon have pretty small seating capacities with the main court at 15K (which is what the size of the smaller court for the US Open is going to be). The Royal Albert Hall is just shy of 6K. Is there something I'm missing here?
Geneva and Vienna also house massive UN complexes, but it means very little to honest, whilst in terms of stock markets the Chinese will eventually become the biggest stock market.
London is home to numerous embassies, is a capital city and is home to the UK Government, in respect of the US these functions are carried out in Washington DC and not NYC.
NYC is not even politically the most influential city in the US never mind the world. As for the UN does anyone listen to it, as even the host country the US refuses to ratify a lot of UN legislation.
So true. The US is such a massively larger, more populous and more powerful country than the UK, with even a higher per capita GDP (nominal or PPP), that it would be pretty untenable for it to have the kind of singular primate city with nearly all eggs in one basket. I think with that, it's fine being the second most politically influential city in the US, because the amount of political influence the US yields is substantially so much greater than smaller and less politically powerful countries such as the UK. I think at this point, it's pretty much just China and the collective bargaining of the EU and its member states that are within the same tier (though pretty evidently with the US wielding a bit more clout), so being the second city in that tier is pretty good.
The UN isn't a binding dictatorship, but it's certainly an important political entity. And it's likely the Chinese will eventually have the biggest stock exchanges at some point, but that still seems quite a while away in the future and their stock exchanges are actually a lot more spread out among the cities (Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shanghai). NYC has the two largest stock exchanges in both the US and the world and both of them being substantially larger than any individual one in China and with the largest being larger than all of the ones in China combined. However, it's looking fairly likely that London's will be smaller than both Hong Kong and Shanghai's exchanges, respectively, very soon since all three are fairly similar in size.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-21-2014 at 10:36 AM..
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.