Most Powerful City in the World? (entertainment, capital, financial)
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.
Fortunately for London, this thread is all a matter of opinion.
Because in real life, it's statistically impossible for London to be the 'Most Powerful' city in the world. Most powerful city 'in the UK' is more accurate.
Just like it's more accurate to say San Francisco is the most powerful city "in the Bay area" Monty? Seriously I'm starting to think you were spurned by a Londoner and still can't come to terms with it. Little else would explain your dislike of Britain and your pathetic ferreting for negatives to support your futile cause.
Just like it's more accurate to say San Francisco is the most powerful city "in the Bay area" Monty? Seriously I'm starting to think you were spurned by a Londoner and still can't come to terms with it. Little else would explain your dislike of Britain and your pathetic ferreting for negatives to support your futile cause.
You mean a person that refuses to go along with your collective London fondling shouldnt be allowed to voice their dissent and back it up with actual stats?
After doing extensive research using official UK govt data and comparing it to official US govt data, I have come to some conclusions.
1. Nearly every ranking not based on data alone is flawed unless they divulge from the beginning that their findings are the results of a mere survey an not grounded in facts.
2. London is highly overrated when measured against New York in just about every comparison that deals exclusively with size and not just population. NY has a far greater number of multi-billion dollar corporations HQed there. NY manages trillions more dollars worth of assets under management. NY has the highest concentration of educated persons in the west, the largest number of foreigners in the world and the largest city level GDP in the west-by far.
3. London relies on a largely false image of being powerful to make up for it's lack of actual importance.
4. As cities in developing nations progress, London's decline in importance will accelerate.
You mean a person that refuses to go along with your collective London fondling shouldnt be allowed to voice their dissent and back it up with actual stats?
After doing extensive research using official UK govt data and comparing it to official US govt data, I have come to some conclusions.
1. Nearly every ranking not based on data alone is flawed unless they divulge from the beginning that their findings are the results of a mere survey an not grounded in facts.
2. London is highly overrated when measured against New York in just about every comparison that deals exclusively with size and not just population. NY has a far greater number of multi-billion dollar corporations HQed there. NY manages trillions more dollars worth of assets under management. NY has the highest concentration of educated persons in the west, the largest number of foreigners in the world and the largest city level GDP in the west-by far.
3. London relies on a largely false image of being powerful to make up for it's lack of actual importance.
4. As cities in developing nations progress, London's decline in importance will accelerate.
This is a self-refuting statement. Indeed, it helpfully serves to refute the remainder of your entire post.
Someone else pointed out the difference between data and meta-data in a previous post. Let me expand upon that here:
Appealing to primary data is fine, but you are doing more than that in your own reasoning. You appeal to your own standards in the weighting, exclusion and inclusion of individual metrics as part of evaluating this primary data. (I won't reiterate the intrinsic methodological flaws in your own way of doing things - others have more than adequately covered this).
If PricewaterhouseCoopers does this, you call it "fluff" and "opinion". Yet if you do it, it is somehow magically exempt from scrutiny?
In technical terms, your statement is what is referred to as a positivistic claim - most commonly espoused by those who have a limited or naive understanding of science and reason. To explain this point in greater detail:
1. It is incoherent to claim that anything besides primary data is relevant in measuring power when the very method by which we define power (weighting, exclusion and inclusion of individual metrics) requires operations that go beyond primary data.
2. The very proposition that "only direct data is acceptable information" is a proposition that cannot be justified by "direct data" alone, so it is a meaningless proposition according to its own criterion.
3. Any statement of the type: "X is the most powerful city because direct data shows it has most Y", is meaningless unless the meaningfulness of "Y" can be justified in the context of "power". Justification of this type can only come from inferences (inductions and abductions) that your criterion disqualifies as "irrelevant".
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 07-03-2014 at 04:40 AM..
I am sick to death of explaining to Monty that NYC's GDP covers it's vast metro area and if London used the Greater South East region it would have a similar GDP.
As for HQ's and skills, London actually comes out top, and even has more US Banks than NYC and NYC does not have the largest number of foreigners in the world nor is it the most educated or cultured city in the world.
London thrives off global trade and is a leading money market and banking centre with the largest inter Banking market in the world, the largest Foreign Exchange in the world, the largest derivatives market in the world, the largest insurance market in the world and is the worlds most international financial centre. London is home to more international company HQ's and international banks than any other city and does a lot of international trading.
NYC's success relies far more heavily on domestic US Business in relation to corporate finance and securities, New York's real strengths are in relation to the NYSE/NASDAQ which list a lot of Domestic US Companies.
In terms of the future, I can see London remaining a very attractive place for international business, we have a long history of trading with countries such as India and China, and have even set aside the Royal Docks specifically to meet Chinese and Asian growth.
Whilst in terms of international stock markets, it is the Chinese and other such emerging economies who might well overtake NYC in terms of international significance.
London on the other hand will trade with China just as it does with the US and in terms of International Markets. Indeed London was trading with countries such as China and India before the US was even a country and back when NYC was largely green fields. Furthermore London has survived and thrived for over 2,000 years, has met with adversity head on before.
It should however be noted that London is currently enjoying boom times and is growing both economically and physically and if anything is becoming more connected to the world and more important to the global economy.
It's NYC that should worry, as that's the city which relies on Domestic Markets rather than International Markets at a time when major Chinese and BRIC Nation companies are becoming ever more important and trade is ever more multinational. The Chinese and Emerging countries are increasingly overtaking US Companies and it's only a question of time until China overtakes the US Domestic Market that NYC relies so heavily upon.
London on the other hand is far more international and doesn't rely on domestic markets, indeed London will trade with Chinese companies just as it trades with US Companies and will host Chinese Companies and Markets in London such as the Yuan reflecting London's position as a Global Market as opposed to a Domestic one.
4. As cities in developing nations progress, London's decline in importance will accelerate.
That's a bizarre statement, considering that outward-looking London is considered far more important in the developing world than the more insular looking New York. As the developing nations rise, they in turn solidify London's position as the more powerful international center.
Consider the multitude of rising oil and energy firms in Africa, which constitute the largest companies on the continent, that overwhelmingly list on the London Stock Exchange. Consider that a rising China decided to locate its offshore Yuan hub in London, with the city also the becoming pre-eminent host for the international operations of rising Chinese firms. Consider that London is the preferred investment destination of the BRICS, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Consider that London is the hub of global Islamic finance. Consider that American companies generally conduct their EMEA operations from London. Consider that organizations are increasingly relocating to London as it provides greater access to emerging markets, it goes on. London's prominence is inextricably tied to the developing world and emerging markets.
5. The UK is too small an economic market, more importantly the UKs fading growth potential is too small to really allow London to be as prominent as it's image implies.
So there are many concrete of reasons why it doesnt even make statistical sense to say London is the 'most powerful city in the world' and it can't even be forecast to be the most powerful-there are too many factors that ding London.
What London is, is a hub perhaps. A gathering place for specific groups and industries and make no mistake, London ultimately does have power to a certain degree.
But it's not even plausibly in the same league as New York unless we make it about fluffy, non essential criteria.
5. The UK is too small an economic market, more importantly the UKs fading growth potential is too small to really allow London to be as prominent as it's image implies.
London is an International Marketplace, it doesn't merely rely on domestic markets. It historically always been at the centre of trade from the Far East, Africa, Australia/NZ, The Americas and indeed Europe. London't growth is actually increasing and not declining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
So there are many concrete of reasons why it doesnt even make statistical sense to say London is the 'most powerful city in the world' and it can't even be forecast to be the most powerful-there are too many factors that ding London.
What London is, is a hub perhaps. A gathering place for specific groups and industries and make no mistake, London ultimately does have power to a certain degree.
But it's not even plausibly in the same league as New York unless we make it about fluffy, non essential criteria.
London as a global trading city is up there with NYC. It's also a very powerful political city and is home to superb educational and cultural institutions and in many respects is above NYC.
And it's amazing that despite all the domestic competition...
Quote:
Top 10 US corporations by market cap(2 Jul 2014):
1 Apple $563.7 billion-SAN FRANCISCO
2 Exxon Mobil $436.2 billion-DALLAS
3 Google $398.5 billion-SAN FRANCISCO
4 Microsoft $346.1 billion-SEATTLE
5 Berkshire Hathaway $306.4 billion-OMAHA
6 Johnson & Johnson $299.5 billion-NEW YORK
7 Wells Fargo $277.4 billion-SAN FRANCISCO
8 General Electric $266.8 billion-NEW YORK
9 Chevron $247.9 billion-SAN FRANCISCO
10 Wal Mart $243.8 billion-FAYETTEVILLE, AR
New York still is by far the most important economic city region in the US, if not world.
London is an International Marketplace, it doesn't merely rely on domestic markets. It historically always been at the centre of trade from the Far East, Africa, Australia/NZ, The Americas and indeed Europe. London't growth is actually increasing and not declining.
A point that has to be stressed. When giving their reasons behind choosing London as their international base ahead of New York, the Shanghai Pudong Bank mentioned that "50% of the financial services transactions in New York serve its domestic market, whereas in London 90% of transactions are for international business."
The point is driven home by recent data from New York based Real Capital Analytics (RCA), which finds London to be the top city for office investment this year to date. The telling point is the massive amount of cross-border investment into London, which dwarfs that of any other city:
Whether it's international travel, international business, international investment (etc), London is the leading city. Globally the most important international center precisely due to its international nature and stature.
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.
