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.
This seems like the same logic that gave rise to the notion that tech stocks will continually rise and home prices will never decline.
Granted, it's unlikely that government employment will ever collapse. But, DC (the city) is very reliant on the Federal government, and the related lobbyist, trade associations, media bureaus, and think tanks.
The city doesn't really have a reputation for private sector entrepreneurship/invocation. DC has never really made a push to diversify into traditional “big city” areas: finance, (non-political) media, corporate HQs, health care, tech companies.
But Washington, DC was design to be dependent upon the Government... its a Government City always has been and always will... that was the whole plan remember?? and Thanx to the Federal Government DC doesn't really need much of anything else and its damn near recession Proof as we speak... The Government pretty much catters to its Capitol because its they're home too, I guess thats why its the #1 most HATTED CITY in America
DC has never really made a push to diversify into traditional “big city” areas: finance, (non-political) media, corporate HQs, health care, tech companies.
Perhaps DC proper hasn't diversified as much, but the DC region is very much a technology and biosciences hub, ranking only behind areas like the Bay Area and Boston. There is a great deal of money flowing through tech and bioscience incubators, labs and institutions throughout suburban Maryland and NoVa.
DC is not, and likely never will be, a finance or corporate hub. But I don't think it has to be one for the economy to continue to hum along. It won't necessarily go like gangbusters as it has over the last decade, but barring catastrophe you're also unlikely to see it contract substantially.
and for the record you only wish DC was more like Brasilia when in all actuality NY is London, but DC is Paris (The Capitol)
I think you can make a credible case for DC being 1st or 2nd.
But, objectively you would have to agree that DC is the Ottawa or Brasilia of the US. Granted being capital of the US carries more weight internationally, but the relationship to the respective nation is the same. The city's argument to power rides entirely on it being home to the federal government. As a commercial and cultural hubs, LA and Chicago, maybe even SF top it.
To argue for DC being 1st or 2nd, logically, you would have to also argue that Brasilia is Brazil’s most important city.
DC's a step above Brasilia because the US is a far more powerful and populous nation and DC isn't as new or isolated as Brasilia is (keep in mind that Brasilia is only fifty years old).
Also, I have no idea what DMV is trying to say with his Brasilia comment. He seems confused.
DC's a step above Brasilia because the US is a far more powerful and populous nation and DC isn't as new or isolated as Brasilia is (keep in mind that Brasilia is only fifty years old).
Also, I have no idea what DMV is trying to say with his Brasilia comment. He seems confused.
I agree DC is a more influential and larger city for the reasons you cities.
My point, was that:
Brasilia is to Rio and Sao Paulo what DC is to NY,LA.
Both are national capitals that are much smaller than other cities in their country. If the argument has to do with the population or size of the local economy, NY, LA, Chi all outweigh DC. Just as Rio/Sau Paulo both top Brasilia.
The argument is that DC is the most powerful because it is home to the president, congress, supreme court, treasury, central bank, military, state, cia, fbi, and all of the various domestic agencies.
The same can all be said for Brazilia. Yes, Brazil isn't a superpower, but Sao Paulo is an world financial center like NY.
I think it is plausable that (DC) Brasilia is the most powerful city in (US)Brasil.
DC's a step above Brasilia because the US is a far more powerful and populous nation and DC isn't as new or isolated as Brasilia is (keep in mind that Brasilia is only fifty years old).
Also, I have no idea what DMV is trying to say with his Brasilia comment. He seems confused.
Oh I agree that head-to-head DC is far, far ahead of Brasilia...my point was that cities like London and Paris are the capitol of their country because they're most important (and probably because there is no other city that has world influence). Cities like Washington and Brasilia were created in order to be the center of the government to look over other parts of the country...they weren't intended to become the center of that country.
As Caymon mentioned, both the US and Brasil have several population centers. These capitols are meant to look after those areas, not themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caymon83
The argument is that DC is the most powerful because it is home to the president, congress, supreme court, treasury, central bank, military, state, cia, fbi, and all of the various domestic agencies.
This made me think of (yet another) an analogy: What is the most important part of a game, the players or the referees?
Note: I want to let everyone know I don't dislike Washington DC. I think it's a fantastic city and love to visit. Hell, I wouldn't even mind living there. I think it would be a great place to live. It's probably my fourth or fifth favorite city (behind Chi, NYC, Bos, and then maybe Philly). My problem was that while other areas of the country are suffering, the Washington DC MSA is one of the fastest growing metros in the country.
To borrow from the stupid analogy I just made...it's almost like a referee has been presiding over a game and watched a QB throw the football...instead of looking for penalties, etc., he's intercepted the pass and is now running it back for a pick-6.
To borrow from the stupid analogy I just made...it's almost like a referee has been presiding over a game and watched a QB throw the football...instead of looking for penalties, etc., he's intercepted the pass and is now running it back for a pick-6.
I'm pretty sure that was a WWE storyline once...the "Evil Referee" angle.
But Washington, DC was design to be dependent upon the Government... its a Government City always has been and always will... that was the whole plan remember?? and Thanx to the Federal Government DC doesn't really need much of anything else and its damn near recession Proof as we speak... The Government pretty much catters to its Capitol because its they're home too, I guess thats why its the #1 most HATTED CITY in America
Tougher times are ahead for DC, as the Federal Government is looking to reign in spending and the Defense department announced budget cuts for the next few years. Unlike the "regional" DC recession in the mid-1990s caused by the last major government budget cuts, the DC area has greatly diversified its economy with private sector jobs so I don't think it'll be as bad as 15 years ago.
Hopefully this will lead local governments to bring in more companies with little to no ties to government to further diversify the regional economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caymon83
I agree DC is a more influential and larger city for the reasons you cities.
My point, was that:
Brasilia is to Rio and Sao Paulo what DC is to NY,LA.
Both are national capitals that are much smaller than other cities in their country. If the argument has to do with the population or size of the local economy, NY, LA, Chi all outweigh DC. Just as Rio/Sau Paulo both top Brasilia.
The argument is that DC is the most powerful because it is home to the president, congress, supreme court, treasury, central bank, military, state, cia, fbi, and all of the various domestic agencies.
The same can all be said for Brazilia. Yes, Brazil isn't a superpower, but Sao Paulo is an world financial center like NY.
I think it is plausable that (DC) Brasilia is the most powerful city in (US)Brasil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Oh I agree that head-to-head DC is far, far ahead of Brasilia...my point was that cities like London and Paris are the capitol of their country because they're most important (and probably because there is no other city that has world influence). Cities like Washington and Brasilia were created in order to be the center of the government to look over other parts of the country...they weren't intended to become the center of that country.
Well DC and Brasilia were created in much different times than the other world class capitals such as London, Paris, Tokyo, Rome, etc.
Those cities all had the benefits of becoming renown during times of absolute monarchies/oligarchies/military dictatorships. What did the English and French kings do when they wanted to centralize their power over the country? They forced all the wealthy nobles away from their estates and to physically live inside the capital for much of the year. That forced much of the economic and social activity to be fixated in that one area.
The same happened under the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan. While Kyoto had ceremonial power with the Emperors, the military commanders of the shoguns forced all the wealth of the country to be fixated around their base of Edo (Tokyo).
How much wealth and beauty did the Romans plunder during their Empire and during the times when the Vatican controlled the Papal States? Moscow under the Muscovite Tsars and Tartars?
Americans would be pretty mad to say the least if our government forced the entire wealth of the country onto the capital (which would also centralize social and cultural activities), wouldn't you say? Have all corporate headquarters be based in DC. Lift the Statue of Liberty into the Chesapeake. Different times, different times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
To borrow from the stupid analogy I just made...it's almost like a referee has been presiding over a game and watched a QB throw the football...instead of looking for penalties, etc., he's intercepted the pass and is now running it back for a pick-6.
What London, Paris, Tokyo, etc did was like having the referee not only running back for a pick-6, but giving himself 14 gazillion points for it.
What the American founding fathers and early leaders did was separate finances and government (dispute over having a national bank, creation of Federal Reserve instead of total government control, etc.) which is like not allowing the players to referee themselves.
Last edited by tenken627; 01-04-2011 at 02:55 PM..
LA: Media, aerospace industry
Chicago: Finance, transportation hub
DC: Federal government
SF: Stuff
Boston: Healthcare, biotech
Houston: Oil, energy
IMO it is a tie between DC, LA, and Chicago and I would give an advantage to LA and Chicago because DC is riding off the Government and that is really all the city has to show for.
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.
