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.
At this point, the BRICS nations are far more important than the EU and the UK as far as growth potential for the US and overall.
I am not yet convinced that the BRICS nations are capable of being as stable as the West but we shall see.
Growth potential, yes. There are a lot of low-hanging fruit for them whereas that isn't true for virtually all of the constituent EU nations. However, that's not really what I was addressing. It doesn't look like any of the BRICS (an odd, forced clumping of very disparate countries), the EU, or the constituent countries of the EU are going to become the kind of hegemonic force that the US became in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's dissolution or during the height of the British Empire/Pax Britannica. There are simply too many other major and regional powers coming up for there to be a "the Century of _____ " for any country is the point.
Growth potential, yes. There are a lot of low-hanging fruit for them whereas that isn't true for virtually all of the constituent EU nations. However, that's not really what I was addressing. It doesn't look like any of the BRICS (an odd, forced clumping of very disparate countries), the EU, or the constituent countries of the EU are going to become the kind of hegemonic force that the US became in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's dissolution or during the height of the British Empire/Pax Britannica. There are simply too many other major and regional powers coming up for there to be a "the Century of _____ " for any country is the point.
I agree, regardless as to what country ascends past the US(if ever), it is clearly not going to be as overwhelmingly prominent the US was/is now. New York is a city the world has flocked to and continues to flock to--the same fever pitch immigration is not happening in Mumbai or Sao Paulo or Beijing such as what we've seen historically in NYC and LA.
These five have some arguable facet(s) for why they would be the most powerful city in the world. That, of course, doesn't mean that they are overwhelmingly more powerful or notable than all other cities.
I don't understand why people mention London. London is an important city, but hardly the most powerful city. They have some power in Europe, but outside Europe they are insiginificant.
New York City is the clear winner if you talk about business, Hong Kong is number 2 because it has a lot of power in the east. If they collapse, then they will seriously harm the world markets.
In terms of political power, DC is number 1, Beijing is number 2.
I don't understand why people mention London. London is an important city, but hardly the most powerful city. They have some power in Europe, but outside Europe they are insiginificant.
New York City is the clear winner if you talk about business, Hong Kong is number 2 because it has a lot of power in the east. If they collapse, then they will seriously harm the world markets.
In terms of political power, DC is number 1, Beijing is number 2.
London is an important global financial center and not just for Europe. I think you can combine that with some of the clout as a cultural, educational and political center (not the most powerful center in any of those three, but it fares pretty well in all three).
Neither do many others here. It's not a concept that's easily understood unless you have some knowledge or experience in financial services where global interconnections are an everyday issue.
Suffice to say it isn't a transient thing but to do with timezones (and to a lesser degree heritage) -- the more the balance of power is shared across the world, and the more global trade there is the more London becomes important.
As developing economies now become a force to be reckoned with, the balance of power is no longer as concentrated as it was in the west -- exactly the conditions under which London will thrive.
Last edited by Hightower72; 06-27-2014 at 01:36 AM..
These five have some arguable facet(s) for why they would be the most powerful city in the world. That, of course, doesn't mean that they are overwhelmingly more powerful or notable than all other cities.
I think it's a question of which city overshadows the others the most.
New York and London basically share the same area of influence(not only physical area but as far as finance, their interests overlap) but New York overshadows London in almost every conceivable way.
On the other hand, New York does not overshadow Beijing because Beijing controls a completely different MASSIVE physical and economic area. Plus Beijing is the de facto capital of BRICS since China just dwarfs the other economies in that group.
Tokyo is NOT overshadowed by either Beijing or New York because it commands it's own massive economy and sovereign nation that is one of the principal innovation and manufacturing centers of the world.
So if we look at the World.
The West: New York is the principal city of the West.
BRICS: Beijing makes the strongest case for being the capital of BRICS
Japan: Tokyo
That still leaves Latin America, The Middle East, South East Asia and Africa but there are other cities in the other regions I have mentioned that are more powerful than their most powerful so for now I'll stick to my top 3:
1 New York
2 Beijing
I am comfortable at this point with saying Tokyo is 3rd.
London and New York don't share the same areas of influence.
New York's general operations are far more domestic oriented than that of London, which is more international. This was exhibited earlier this year, when the Shanghai Pudong Development Bank opened their first and only overseas office. The choice was between New York and London, with London being selected for being the more international center:
Shanghai Pudong Development Bank launched a representative office in London on Wednesday, the first overseas office for the 20-year-old Chinese bank.
Currently, SPD Bank's presence is a representative office, which seeks to analyze Europe's financial environment and find a good location to establish a European subsidiary or branch.
"In finding a suitable location, we consider many factors, including legal environment, market barrier to entry, return on investment, room for future growth and proximity to global financial centers," said Gao Xia, SPD's chief representative in London.
Gao said the bank chose London in which to establish the office because the city's financial industry is relatively international, and its time difference to China is less than in New York.
"Although New York and London are big important financial centers, about 50 percent of the financial services transactions in New York serve its domestic market, whereas in London 90 percent of transactions are for international business," Gao said.
That's irrelevant. The fact that 90% of London's financial transactions are international is merely reflection of how weak it's domestic market is. It's unlikely that 90% of London's financial transactions amount to a greater sum of daily activity than 50% of New York given New York tops London in more sectors of the financial services industry. I'm sure Singapore also has a higher percentage than New York, but that doesnt mean Singapore is therefore more 'powerful' to the world than New York.
There's a big difference between London and New York in terms of its place domestically and this has bearing on why London should be considered a contender alongside New York City. New York City, domestically, contends with a lot of other large US cities to various degrees in different fields. The most obvious is DC, but also Boston, the Bay Area, Chicago, LA, Houston, DFW, Atlanta, and Philadelphia. None of these are as prominent as NYC is overall, not by a long shot, but they all have carved out substantial sectors for themselves that can compete or best NYC. Meanwhile, London, especially going by the same kind of expansive definition of metros as the US allows (which would put areas like Cambridge and Oxford within London's reach just as New Haven and Princeton are within NYC's) is the preeminent city within its nation by a very long shot (obviously one that is less powerful and just over a fifth of the population of the US, but one with no challengers on nearly any field domestically and a country that is still powerful and significant on the world stage).
A similar argument could be made for Paris being included in this in that it is the preeminent city in the francophonie with no challengers and in a realm with a far less contenders than the anglosphere which, while far more dominant, has several major cities within a good four or five developed and wealthy nations.
There is simply no simple catchall answer to this question and any city given is going to have holes in the argument. I think what is obvious is that NYC and London (as well as Tokyo, Paris, Beijing, and DC) are on the short list of cities that could be considered most powerful but only while keeping in mind that any "power" they have is minuscule compared to the world at large.
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.
