The more important city: Washington, DC VS Los Angeles (highest, ranking, market)

[Lifeshadower]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

I'm sorry but I am getting sick and tired of this whole "we have 4 other cities to compete with in our region thing". You guys need to pick a side on it, lol. Is it a gift or a curse?

Next, what are you talking about, how the hell how the most powerful government rake in more international travelers?

I am not talking about political importance only, I made this thread, I left the criteria vague to discuss it all, but all you guys want to do is say "we are the capital of the most advanced country in the world" what the hell does that mean to the other 6 billion people who don't live in the USA?

Are they supposed to look at it and go like "oh my mom told me about it, I heard it was some utopia". How does that make people around the world invest in property there? How does that make people set up companies there?

Heck how did that make automobile companies set up plants there?

Theres more than one way for a city to be important to the world. You don't have to be a capital to be so. Why is Shanghai more important than Beijing?

It's not a one way street where you say, "but but but we're the capital" and think it's over. It's two ways. How can you say New York City can be more important but dismiss any case for Los Angeles?

You have any idea how many people follow media industries that were inspired by Los Angeles's film industry, how profitable they are, and how influential they are?
Can you show me a survery that says more people in the world know of what goes down in Washington DC over Hollywood? Hollywood is an easy and lowly median for you people, you will bash it but not recognize how influential it is.

Instead of posting with your insights and expecting people to actually agree with you, why don't you people look things up to support your case? Instead of the typical "but but but we're the capital..." yeah I know, I don't have to be Sherlock Holmes lol, to know that.

All I ever see from you people is the same thing "our location limits us, our location makes us the best line up of cities, our location this, our density that..." get over it, this is NOT about New York City. Please keep this to Washington DC & Los Angeles only.

(settles down- done with rant)

Me and like 2 other people here have posted stats and information to even support our case, are we debating in good faith? Are we being fair and reasonable?

With all due respect. Are we debating here in good faith?

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

They're not just museums and monuments, it literally is the world's largest collection of art, science, and history, records and monuments to so many of our achievements, that is culture. I really don't think that's anything like saying LA has beaches and mountains.

Maybe we see culture differently cause of our backgrounds. In Europe, we consider architecture and monuments culture. Is the Colosseum not culture? Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Kremlin, Wieliczka Salt Mine, St. Peters Basilica, the Reichstag, Brandenburg Gate, Roman aqueducts, Stonehenge, or what about the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China, and on and on and on. What makes American monuments and architecture less important? Less representative of culture? People all over the world recognize the National Mall and it's monuments too. I don't understand how you can argue that museums, the greatest ones in the world at that, monuments, and architecture, are not culture. Culture is a strong point for me too, and I think DC is unparalleled in America.

"Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States and the seat of its three branches of government, has a collection of free, public museums unparalleled in size and scope throughout the history of mankind, and the lion's share of the nation's most treasured monuments and memorials. The vistas on the National Mall between the Capitol, Washington Monument, White House, and Lincoln Memorial are famous throughout the world as icons of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation." Washington, D.C. - Wikitravel

You almost make it sound like DC would attract no tourists, I'm sure it's behind LA, I'm also sure it's one of the top tourist destinations in the world. I think most people around the world at least know what DC is, same as LA.

Anyway, I don't think DC needs anything other than politics. Why are we arguing about culture, LA being more well know to a Mongolian farmer doesn't make it a more important city, it makes it a more well known one. DC is the city that decides if bombs will be dropped on them, if we can trade with them, how our country interacts with theirs.

Why is LA always farther ahead of DC on lists, because they're based mostly or completely on economics. Try a list based on cultural institutions or political power. Why is LAX way ahead for travel, why is LA the place for immigrants? It's all economy, economy, economy. Economy that grew the city and brought the cultural diversity to it that found opportunity there, and that continues to bring business and more diversity. More diverse people come for opportunities, to join their enclaves, for both. LA destroys DC in economy and in demographics, that still doesn't make it the more important city.

If you're asking how the city is perceived around the world, you say DC isn't on the average Asian's radar, well I'd say DC is on the average European's. But forget that for a second, neither one of us can say what the majority of people in one part of the world or another think, but what city does Moscow look to, Beijing, London, Berlin, it's not LA, it's DC.

LA threatens Arizona with a boycott, DC threatens Moscow with a nuclear holocaust. LA could damage Arizona's economy, DC could destroy the world.

Originally Posted by OmShahi

I think the way you view culture and the way I do is different.

cul·ture   [kuhl-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2.
that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3.
a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
4.
development or improvement of the mind by education or training.
5.
the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
6.
Anthropology . the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
7.
Biology .
a.
the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria, or of tissues, for scientific study, medicinal use, etc.
b.
the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
8.
the act or practice of cultivating the soil; tillage.
9.
the raising of plants or animals, esp. with a view to their improvement.
10.
the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.

None of those scream at architecture being classified as cultural things. But that's just my opinion.



That is the same as saying the Aztech's and Inca's and their connection with Mantazuma's castle. The cultural way of their architecture derived from their lifestyle. No? But what would make Washington DC more real than that? Nothing, both were created by human hands. Architecture is subjective and goes with how you view it. One can view the former World Trade Center as culture and American ingenuity.

I think architecture is plainly subjective.





We have established that it is the capital of our country I think a billion times, just like we have established that they lag behind Los Angeles economically.





You're proving my point the fact is that even you said it yourself, Los Angeles does get more international travelers, does it not?

Whether it is economically or not, does not make a difference. I set the criteria for overall importance, and more people visiting it does prove just that. Even if one more person wen there over Washington DC, that would make Los Angeles more important by one persons perspective.

And why are we talking about culture? Because it is not a one way street, you cannot just keep saying "it's the nations capital" for it, a city has to be represented by a cosmopolitan crowd for it to feel more worldly. And Los Angeles excels at that, more worldly/cosmopolitan = more important.
Los Angeles being a haven for immigrants does show it's importance in something that is a global contributor.

You should look to my last post and see the statistics of how it is the largest community for so many different types of people. It is one of the largest cities in the Spanish speaking world.





Then you can explain to me why maybe what Manila can do when trade and regulations stop if Los Angeles were to drop off the map.

Maybe what happened to all their immigrants in Los Angeles? They just somehow disappeared, affected families. That is a connection, what one person has with another based off location. Washington DC does not have enough of that.

How about trade with the Pacific Realm? How about the depiction of American life through media, you know the same media that channels politics from Washington DC.

Or maybe how one of the largest mega cities in the world just somehow fell off the map and all of it's relevance is okay to be replaced?

You people do not understand this, if Washington DC disappeared yes, for us that would be chaotic and tragic. But why would the world care?

Did the world stop when Pakistani political leaders were killed? No it did not. And don't even give me that, "we are more important as a country thing" because would people in Romania care if something happened directly to Washington DC? How about Los Angeles? The answer is no for both.

They would have some sorrow for their large loss in community in those cities (mainly Los Angeles since that's what they excel at large populations).

But their lives would go on.

So basically what we have covered here is that yes, Los Angeles gets more international visitors despite Washington DC also getting quite a lot as well. But that doesn't change anything, more visitors = more people perceive it as important in a way.

The idea isn't even the fact that Los Angeles is more important, but how many of you will even admit that it is on par with Washington DC in importance.

And once again, would cities like Shanghai, Frankfurt, Rio De Janeiro, Milan, Mumbai, Singapore have more in common with Washington DC or Los Angeles? Those cities are not capitals to their nation (besides Singapore), and they are also economic hubs, and entertainment hubs.

It's not all just political relevance, there is more to being interconnected in the world than just that.

Maybe one of you can actually explain to me why this happens to be the case on global importance:


And I am keeping that picture there in every post until someone takes the initiative to prove how that picture with those stats should be entirely irrelevant to me to perceive Los Angeles are the slightly more important global city.

And yes, once again, I made this thread, I never said "hey establish Washington DC's political reign over the world and end it" this is about everything, culture, politics, trade, economy, everything. So no writing anything off.

But I'm not arrogant and debate obsessed enough to admit I was wrong. I will give you your props, nice call on the "we may view culture differently from our backgrounds" that might essentially be the reason why we're actually on the opposing side right now. And you're right, we do view it differently, entirely. The world is different, Europeans and Asians have differences. You guys seek political stability, Asians seek economic stability. I am Asian!!!
So I am Team Los Angeles!

Anyways, I am bulking up on Part II of my post right now. A little bored so I am out for a few hours (maybe- my hands hurt with all the typing), but we'll have to see about it.

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

~I think that definition of culture backs up my using the museums as representative of it for DC, which I thought you said weren't, but maybe you just meant architecture. But isn't architecture art? And isn't it an extension of culture? If it wasn't wouldn't the Chinese have built villas or step pyramids, or the English have built Japanese style castles? Even if architecture isn't art, that's subjective, it's most definitely an extension of culture. And outside of architecture, monuments (like the Washington monument or the Vietnam memorial) to me, are the symbolic and real manifestations of a society's beliefs and values and shared memories, their culture.

~That quote was just to show that DC is recognized around the world, and it backed up me saying that it had the greatest collection of museums in the world, and even history, so I was just backing up my culture argument too.

~"Even if one more person went there over Washington DC, that would make Los Angeles more important by one persons perspective." I think that's another problem here. For me, more people visit it/know it, does not equal, it's more important. It is the economy that built LA and made/makes it the destination it is. DC can't match LA in economics or tourism, it's strengths lie elsewhere, mainly politics. If you wanna talk about culture, well we can split it, LA dominates in "people culture", demographics and the people and their traditions it contains, but DC dominates in "artistic/historic/scientific, and monument" culture. And while DC isn't as cosmopolitan as LA, it still is very cosmopolitan.

~Yeah, Manila might economically die, or 15 million people may disappear and that would effect people and the world, but the world would still go on, just like if DC disappeared. What would happen to the world if it's economic powerhouses were suddenly crippled, would they just be replaced? Yeah, I think they would actually. WWI destroyed the economies and in fact whole nations that were the the rulers of the world at the time, the Russian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, all wiped from the world stage and even off the map. The French Empire and British Empires were almost completely bankrupt. countries like the US and Japan simply rose higher to fill the space. Then the Great Depression happened, and after WWII which devastated the world even more, it simply changed and rearranged again. Even today, to some people it looks like the US could go down and China, Russia, Brazil, and India would step into the power vacuum, don't bother commenting on that one I'm just making a point lol. All I'm saying here is, could the world go on if DC were suddenly gone, yes. But it also could if LA was suddenly gone too, it's gone on after much bigger losses.

If you just wanted certain people to admit LA was even on par with DC, I don't think you'll get that from whoever you wanted cause some people are just stubborn, or dumb, or ignorant, or both. I don't need to admit anything, I know LA is on DC's level and higher in many fields, but DC has it's own winning strengths too.

I was actually thinking about that pic when I made my point about economy. Most lists including the ones that that list itself is based on, are about economic power. GaWC includes politics and culture to an extent, but it still counts things like gdp and number of corporations higher. LA will always win in a battle of economics, DC can't match it and so LA is way more important in that respect, just like DC is way more important in politics.

~~"And Los Angeles excels at that, more worldly/cosmopolitan = more important...Los Angeles gets more international visitors despite Washington DC also getting quite a lot as well. But that doesn't change anything, more visitors = more people perceive it as important in a way." That seemed to be the core of your argument to me, like the main point. You're asking what city is more well known to the people of the world in a way. Well we can stop arguing right here then, cause I agree with you. If that's how we're defining the more important city here, then by that criteria, LA wins. LA is more well known around the world, and it has more of a cultural impact on people's lives. But for myself, DC is the more important city. It derives it's power from what it is, even if people don't know a thing about DC, or if it can be replaced in a heartbeat, as the capital of the most powerful country on Earth it still has a huge impact on people's lives around the world whether they know it or not, and it can destroy that world too. That's part of what makes it personally more important to me.

Who's really more important, the man who constantly assures you you're safe and protected and you love him for it, or the unseen man working behind the scenes to protect you. It's not a perfect analogy, I had a hard time trying to work one out, but it kinda explains my point of view a lil bit. LA is in everyone's face and recognizable, it's influence on your life is easy to see, Washington sits back and few people ever really see the power and influence it has on their lives.

That pretty much sums it up.

It's great, because both of you guys are little kiddies This gives me hope for the future of America.

As a resident of Los Angeles, I'll chime in when I say I don't think they're very comparable at all. They're important in different things (DC in politics obviously, LA for entertainment and ports). We aren't talking about the difference between your small toe on your left foot and your lungs, but rather asking whether the heart or the brain is more important? Try to live without either one and see the quality of life you'll have.

Both of these cities play a HUGE part in the United States. If one or the other just happened to dissapear, the US would take a hit. Don't delude yourself otherwise.

That's the problem with so many City-Data threads. Everything has to be a zero sum game where "if X has A, then Y is totally absent of A" Just because one city is important doesn't mean another isn't. There's too much looking at the trees without seeing how it impacts the forest.

I hate the saying "its like comparing apples and oranges" because frankly, I compare apples and oranges all the time. However, when the object of comparison isn't clearly defined (what does importance mean?), then it becomes a useless exercise to see who can scream louder.

1000th post FTW!

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

~I think that definition of culture backs up my using the museums as representative of it for DC, which I thought you said weren't, but maybe you just meant architecture. But isn't architecture art? And isn't it an extension of culture? If it wasn't wouldn't the Chinese have built villas or step pyramids, or the English have built Japanese style castles? Even if architecture isn't art, that's subjective, it's most definitely an extension of culture. And outside of architecture, monuments (like the Washington monument or the Vietnam memorial) to me, are the symbolic and real manifestations of a society's beliefs and values and shared memories, their culture.

So be it, lol. We'll play it your way. I still think it's more of an architectural feat above a cultural feat. I mean I see architecture that CAN leave a mark on society culturally like maybe the Great wall of China. You know why?

Because it divided their country in half, to keep one side from invading another. It changed the way people live. It made it so that way people were more cautious, and more alert. That's what the addition of that did. It created shifts to people on lookout, it affected their daily routine and job. That is a cultural impact, "hey grandpa what was your job when you were my age" reply would be "I used to have the honor of protecting China from invasion as a guard on the Great Wall". It would instill possibly responsibility in his grandchild if he told him. It affected the way he live, no ordinary job, could die at any time.

I agree architecture is an extension of culture but it depends how.

I personally don't see how in modern times the Lincoln Monument would have the same affect as the Great Wall story, like I cannot even imagine how a conversation about that goes.

Like maybe you can tell me a story on that if you can find one? If not then too bad, such high hopes.

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

~That quote was just to show that DC is recognized around the world, and it backed up me saying that it had the greatest collection of museums in the world, and even history, so I was just backing up my culture argument too.

See above for the culture argument, LOL Good job.

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

~"Even if one more person went there over Washington DC, that would make Los Angeles more important by one persons perspective." I think that's another problem here. For me, more people visit it/know it, does not equal, it's more important. It is the economy that built LA and made/makes it the destination it is. DC can't match LA in economics or tourism, it's strengths lie elsewhere, mainly politics. If you wanna talk about culture, well we can split it, LA dominates in "people culture", demographics and the people and their traditions it contains, but DC dominates in "artistic/historic/scientific, and monument" culture. And while DC isn't as cosmopolitan as LA, it still is very cosmopolitan.

Yes, by that perspective it does make it more important than Washington DC. You are catching on!

See, I am not as friendly to this, I have lived in two cities that have NOT marketed themselves well enough to attract people or businesses. And I am talking about Chicago. As much of a Chicago lover I am, I have to say, tough luck, it is the city's fault.

Paris for a capital city does well. So does Beijing, London, Berlin, Madrid, Rome. They market themselves. Washington DC doesn't that is their fault!

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

~Yeah, Manila might economically die, or 15 million people may disappear and that would effect people and the world, but the world would still go on, just like if DC disappeared. What would happen to the world if it's economic powerhouses were suddenly crippled, would they just be replaced? Yeah, I think they would actually. WWI destroyed the economies and in fact whole nations that were the the rulers of the world at the time, the Russian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, all wiped from the world stage and even off the map. The French Empire and British Empires were almost completely bankrupt. countries like the US and Japan simply rose higher to fill the space. Then the Great Depression happened, and after WWII which devastated the world even more, it simply changed and rearranged again. Even today, to some people it looks like the US could go down and China, Russia, Brazil, and India would step into the power vacuum, don't bother commenting on that one I'm just making a point lol. All I'm saying here is, could the world go on if DC were suddenly gone, yes. But it also could if LA was suddenly gone too, it's gone on after much bigger losses.

People do not realize there is a 30 year wait period before anyone surpasses USA. Look at growth and GDP for reference. Yes we're not growing as fast as before, but we are still too linked. We go down, trust me the whole financial world goes down, the trade world would be imbalanced, etc...

Yes, hypothetically it can happen, but that is hypothetical. Mostly wars, we have an uncertain future. Lol, want to make predictions about the world in 2030? I will do it if you do. This should be fun.

Anyways Los Angeles, has a good 800 billion stronghold to the overall GDP nearly what, 1/15th of the US economy for one metropolitan region. That is pretty impressive, we would have to replace so many industries. If Washington DC were hit with something, relocation can always happen to political offices. But then again, you would lose some of your argument if the architectural culture were wiped out. Political offices, our leaders are replaceable, our capital by history is too. But once again, I have not ever seen the complete destruction of an American city and a replacement before. So I am not going to go there.

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

If you just wanted certain people to admit LA was even on par with DC, I don't think you'll get that from whoever you wanted cause some people are just stubborn, or dumb, or ignorant, or both. I don't need to admit anything, I know LA is on DC's level and higher in many fields, but DC has it's own winning strengths too.

I was actually thinking about that pic when I made my point about economy. Most lists including the ones that that list itself is based on, are about economic power. GaWC includes politics and culture to an extent, but it still counts things like gdp and number of corporations higher. LA will always win in a battle of economics, DC can't match it and so LA is way more important in that respect, just like DC is way more important in politics.

I don't want people to admit to things if they don't want too. I am not going to force anyone. I want to make sure we are here and debating in good faith (not you- but to everyone else here). So to the others here, are we debating in good faith? Or will my question be left dead yet again?

That is not just GaWC represented in that picture, there are like 5 other studies there as well.
And economy is not the only classification. If it was then yes Los Angeles would win, but then again how can Los Angeles win for their criteria on political influence to Washington DC?

There are other criteria's they used to decipher the important cities other than politics and economy. Airport was one, billionaires another, and many others. Once again that is Washington DC's fault for not marketing itself.
It's fine but it proves my point, one did go out of it's way to market itself and that's why one is more important than the other.

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

~~"And Los Angeles excels at that, more worldly/cosmopolitan = more important...Los Angeles gets more international visitors despite Washington DC also getting quite a lot as well. But that doesn't change anything, more visitors = more people perceive it as important in a way." That seemed to be the core of your argument to me, like the main point. You're asking what city is more well known to the people of the world in a way. Well we can stop arguing right here then, cause I agree with you. If that's how we're defining the more important city here, then by that criteria, LA wins. LA is more well known around the world, and it has more of a cultural impact on people's lives. But for myself, DC is the more important city. It derives it's power from what it is, even if people don't know a thing about DC, or if it can be replaced in a heartbeat, as the capital of the most powerful country on Earth it still has a huge impact on people's lives around the world whether they know it or not, and it can destroy that world too. That's part of what makes it personally more important to me.

Technically yes. Just like culture derived from architecture and politics were the core revolutions to your argument. Bravo! We figured each others methods out. Now what? I guess it's time to dissect it.

I see Washington DC as less important. Representatives and senators and lobbyists end up there from other cities and states. Not all of them live there.

Washington DC in a way is America's downtown for politics, (god those commute hours must suck). But the city can be replaced and moved. I can't say the same for Los Angeles, what one city in America today will take over all of Los Angeles's industries? Chicago was home to Hollywood before they moved to Los Angeles, maybe they are a contender for that, maybe not.

Point is though, relevance in my whole argument is that yes, Washington DC does not market itself at all. It is not anyone's fault to be honest besides theirs. And that's true, right?

Los Angeles does get more international visitors because it does what it needs to do it. It's a competition, which city can get more people, the economy thrives off of it.
That is why those beaches, and mountains in Los Angeles thrive over those museums and Monuments in Washington DC. (No offense anyone) Because Washington DC does not market itself adequately enough.

By the way, those mountains and beaches reflect Los Angeles's culture. Ask someone who lives on them, maybe their lifestyle is different because of it's presence. So yes architecturally Washington DC has the edge, no doubt, but Los Angeles still rakes in more visitors thus it's more important, IMHO. But yes, you're right no point in debating that when it's crystal clear.

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

Who's really more important, the man who constantly assures you you're safe and protected and you love him for it, or the unseen man working behind the scenes to protect you. It's not a perfect analogy, I had a hard time trying to work one out, but it kinda explains my point of view a lil bit. LA is in everyone's face and recognizable, it's influence on your life is easy to see, Washington sits back and few people ever really see the power and influence it has on their lives.

Oh I did not realize my father was here! Normally he is the one I can rely on for protection from harm.

Anyways yes politically Washington DC is our cover for the people in the USA. Economically IMHO Los Angeles is not only to it's state and country, but also the world in trade regulations, and other sectors. If you look at the world GDP of all combined nations, Los Angeles does get a slightly larger chunk of credit over Washington DC!

Economically, I think 17 million people are directly affected by Los Angeles. And politically too.

But this response in itself is a mock, this one was just for jokes. The real conversation ended in the last segment I quoted you on. I just like to rub it in.


By the way, the man? I didn't know these cities were people, LOL.

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

I still back my point, you can't just remove the politics from DC. They could be removed, but they are there now. Anyone arguing it doesn't count needs to deal with that. There are examples of cities (even countries) rising to take others places like that throughout history, but without digging too deep, take the fall of Athens and the rise of Rome as the center of the Western world. That's more broad, but the point is it happened. History has plenty examples of say huge port cities being destroyed and losing their prominence only for a neighbor or competitor to take their place.

History also has huge roles where capitals have been moved. During war time they call it "Forward Capitals" that was the effect in Brazil actually. Even the confederacy applied that rule.
It was a more strategic move.

I think we can just agree to disagree, I know you're a well thought out person. My posts won't convince you, and yours won't convince me either.

I think we can agree we both make good points, but this is why, it comes to a draw. I'll let other people take a swing at this, maybe they can do a better job than us!

And to anyone else who wants to take a swing at this too and break it down and disprove Los Angeles's relevance, be my guest that's what this thread is about:


Seriously enjoy!

And in good sportsmanship, you did a really good job defending your case. I kind of got sloppy with this whole response, hard to concentrate with so much going on elsewhere. But I tried!

Originally Posted by Lifeshadower

That pretty much sums it up.

It's great, because both of you guys are little kiddies This gives me hope for the future of America.

As a resident of Los Angeles, I'll chime in when I say I don't think they're very comparable at all. They're important in different things (DC in politics obviously, LA for entertainment and ports). We aren't talking about the difference between your small toe on your left foot and your lungs, but rather asking whether the heart or the brain is more important? Try to live without either one and see the quality of life you'll have.

Both of these cities play a HUGE part in the United States. If one or the other just happened to dissapear, the US would take a hit. Don't delude yourself otherwise.

That's the problem with so many City-Data threads. Everything has to be a zero sum game where "if X has A, then Y is totally absent of A" Just because one city is important doesn't mean another isn't. There's too much looking at the trees without seeing how it impacts the forest.

I hate the saying "its like comparing apples and oranges" because frankly, I compare apples and oranges all the time. However, when the object of comparison isn't clearly defined (what does importance mean?), then it becomes a useless exercise to see who can scream louder.

1000th post FTW!

Kiddies, you're only 9 months older than me son!

Congratulations home boy on your 1000th post! Want to get drinks and celebrate?!?!?! I am down for that!

Oh and remember everyone, "LA PWNS!"

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

In a way - Boston used to be the largest city and epicenter of trade during colonial times before NYC rose to prominence and took over that role.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading all these details about DC and LA. Most reasonable people will agree that both of these are very prominent American cities. Which one is more important in the grand scheme of things may ultimately be a matter of what you personally value and prefer. Washington politics, or Hollywood movies? :-)

HEY! I watch a lot of movies okay!

But no really, there's quite a lot outside of that as well that Washington DC and maybe no other city can replicate.

What long posts, finally seems to be coming to an end!

Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y

Don't the big three(nywallst-chicago-LA) pull the most strings in Washington anyway? The politics in Washington acts like a puppet for those cities. In my opinion whats important is the economy. LA contributes more than DC economically. Ny and LA are Americas Pitbulls when it comes to raw dollars of metro areas.

Yes KONY! Completely agree.

If I would list our most powerful cities I would do it like this:

1. New York City

2a. Los Angeles
2b. Chicago (it's not as marketed as the two above, but it beats LA out in plenty of things, but loses out in plenty too)

3. Washington DC

To be honest, it seems like Chicago & Los Angeles have a big gap between them, but the real gap is between New York City and any second city. Just way to massive. Washington DC, IMHO can't beat out any of the big "mega cities".

[K.O.N.Y]

Don't the big three(nywallst-chicago-LA) pull the most strings in Washington anyway? The politics in Washington acts like a puppet for those cities. In my opinion whats important is the economy. LA contributes more than DC economically. Ny and LA are Americas Pitbulls when it comes to raw dollars of metro areas.

[missRoxyhart]

Originally Posted by OmShahi

I think we can just agree to disagree, I know you're a well thought out person. My posts won't convince you, and yours won't convince me either.

I think we can agree we both make good points, but this is why, it comes to a draw. I'll let other people take a swing at this, maybe they can do a better job than us!

And to anyone else who wants to take a swing at this too and break it down and disprove Los Angeles's relevance, be my guest that's what this thread is about:


Seriously enjoy!

And in good sportsmanship, you did a really good job defending your case. I kind of got sloppy with this whole response, hard to concentrate with so much going on elsewhere. But I tried!



Kiddies, you're only 9 months older than me son!

Congratulations home boy on your 1000th post! Want to get drinks and celebrate?!?!?! I am down for that!

Oh and remember everyone, "LA PWNS!"

Thank god lol, I'm getting tired, literally, I'm falling asleep. I felt pretty much done and talked out with my last post lol. I knew we'd never convince each other, but it's always nice to see someone else's point of view. It doesn't matter if the response was sloppy, we already knew where we stood lol. Til next we meet in battle, hopefully as allies, lol good night everyone.

[the resident09]

No city without an NFL franchise will ever be "more important" than DC! lol

[TheJetSet]

You guys seem to be forgetting one of the most important talking points.

People always want to say that Washington, D.C. and its metro is dependent on the Federal government, well so is Los Angeles and to a large part than most other cities, in fact it owes D.C. a large thanks for where it has been.

The aerospace industry played a huge role in LA's development with companies like Northrup Gruman (who left for DC) and other tech companies that propelled its status, in fact 28 percent of the manufacturing jobs in southern Cali was aerospace. D.C. helped create that educated workforce before LA allowed itself to be inundated by illegal immigrants.

There's also all the NIH funding the Universities get in SoCal and through out Cali that fuel Biotech/Tech growth and research.

Who do you think fueled the growth of that? That's right D.C. not like they had to either.

There's also many military installations, departmental agencies from Health and Human Services, drugs that have to get approved by the FDA before they're sold.

And as for New York, people seem to have short term memory. Who just bailed out all those financial companies that make up New York's strongest industry and continues to have their hand stuck up their arse? After the bailouts people started calling D.C. the financial capital.

[Wilshire81182]

Depends on the area of impact IMO.
In most areas it would be LA (culturally, entertainment wise, ethnically, pure GDP, etc), but you cannot deny politically and globally there are areas that DC has a stronger impact in.

[TheJetSet]

Also LA is not more diverse than D.C. its highly skewed to hispanic.

[TheJetSet]

Another thing since D.C. funds so much in Cali what has Cali funded in D.C. and its area that equals the same?