# How long can NYC stay on top?



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

Am I interested in your choice? Or the 'westerns'? Brazil is the 3rd country with more whites in the world (90 to 100 million, 55% of the pop.), only the US and Russia have more. All of them live the western 'culture'. They wouldnt want a 'Hong Kong' world capital. I wanted to see white brazilians see your statement. They would laugh.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

shosho said:


> Am I interested in your choice? Or the 'westerns'? Brazil is the 3rd country with more whites in the world (90 to 100 million, 55% of the pop.), only the US and Russia have more. All of them live the western 'culture'. They wouldnt want a 'Hong Kong' world capital. I wanted to see white brazilians see your statement. They would laugh.



what's the western culture?do you think french admire a lot american culture? :sleepy:

do you think Brazil can be a member of anlgo-saxon? 

why US always try to prevent Germany from getting a perminant seat of security counsil of UN?


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

NYC is the capital of the world for now(like 20 years)


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

Repeating what I mentioned. Answer.



shosho said:


> Oh yeah.. I didnt see Argentina, for example, in your list. Why isnt it Western? For the population (97% european descendent) and just a look at Buenos Aires, it's quite clear for me. So..? :lol: Ridiculous statement your is.


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

no,shosho,you can't classify nations according to ethnic groups,that's fucking ludicrous.


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

tiger said:


> what's the western culture?do you think french admire a lot american culture? :sleepy:
> 
> do you think Brazil can be a member of anlgo-saxon?
> 
> why US always try to prevent Germany from getting a perminant seat of security counsil of UN?


There are only 2 cities founded by English and American (yea, americans that scaped from the American Civil War) immigrants in Brazil. Londrina (little London) and Americana (American), in south Brazil. As you see, the 'anglo' are a ignorable group here. Germans are a bigger group, with lots of cities, and consiredable % of the pop. But no, Brazil cant be anglo-saxon. The biggest % of the white pop is from italian and portuguese immigrants.


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

tiger said:


> no,shosho,you can't classify nations according to ethnic groups,that's fucking ludicrous.


Well, then according to your 'concept of Western', Brazil aint it. That's it. :lol: Your concept is that Western is only for developed, rite? So the other whites in the world live what culture? Aborigen? :doh:


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

Londrina, south Brazil:


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

shosho said:


> Well, then according to your 'concept of Western', Brazil aint it. That's it. :lol: Your concept is that Western is only for developed, rite? So the other whites in the world live what culture? Aborigen? :doh:


i don't wanna continue this discussion,it's free for you to think yourself as a WESTERN,it's free for Russian to consider themselves not as westerns

BTW,this word has been confused.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

shosho said:


> I don't agree with asians that keep saying one of these cities [Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Chonging, Qindao, Lhasa, Colombo, Kuala Lumpur, Karachi, Mumbai, Islamabad, Chennai, Jakarta, Bali, Phuket, Dhaka, Rangoon, etc etc] (yea, irony) will be the next 'world capital'. Only if for you, asian friends. Even the 3 first being developed, rich, nice places, they're very different culturally, ethnically, the living way, even with all this globalization. It's hard to find westerns (but yea, they exist) wanting to live in the east, even in the developed countries. I think it won't match, you get it? I don't know, the west is more liberal, worry about different values, etc. A great part of traditional eastern values are still tighted there, which in my opinion wont match. And there is another thing.. I can't see the west to let it ownself to loose extreme importance, for example, in the world economy to the east. Anyway, this is my opinion.. different world, different culture. I think there will have to be then the "capital" (even this term is wrong, but was the guy that started this thread that used it) of the west and the "capital" of the east.


Ever heard of a little thing called a paragraph?


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

NYC will be ontop forever :jk:


----------



## 29A (Jan 19, 2005)

shosho said:


> Oh yeah.. I didnt see Argentina, for example, in your list. Why isnt it Western? For the population (97% european descendent) and just a look at Buenos Aires, it's quite clear for me. So..? :lol: Ridiculous statement your is.


^^WTF?
Ahhh man!!! Another racist prick who thinks he is superior, but actually having an IQ of maybe 10. What you are doing will not get you anywhere you asshole, and dont tell me you were having a "constructive" discussion. If you want to continue spreading that stench :fart: of hatred, then go ahead. Makes not difference to me, as these threads were designed to keep scumbags like you out of threads that have INTELLECTUALS engaged in CONSTRUCTIVE discussions.


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

29A said:


> ^^WTF?
> Ahhh man!!! Another racist prick who thinks he is superior, but actually having an IQ of maybe 10. What you are doing will not get you anywhere you asshole, and dont tell me you were having a "constructive" discussion. If you want to continue spreading that stench :fart: of hatred, then go ahead. Makes not difference to me, as these threads were designed to keep scumbags like you out of threads that have INTELLECTUALS engaged in CONSTRUCTIVE discussions.


Who said anything racist here, jerk? Look who got an IQ of maybe 10. Maybe you should read everything again, and again, and again, until your brain assimilate it. I was having a constructive discussion until tiger appeared with his stupid statements. Btw, I was just saying that Argentina was formed by european immigrants (in its case, mainly spanish and italian), like Canada and Australia was, so ofcourse it has to be Western. But people ignore it. Fine, ignore it, but they are. That was an example.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

shosho said:


> I don't agree with asians that keep saying one of these cities [Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Chonging, Qindao, Lhasa, Colombo, Kuala Lumpur, Karachi, Mumbai, Islamabad, Chennai, Jakarta, Bali, Phuket, Dhaka, Rangoon, etc etc] (yea, irony) will be the next 'world capital'. Only if for you, asian friends. Even the 3 first being developed, rich, nice places, they're very different culturally, ethnically, the living way, even with all this globalization. It's hard to find westerns (but yea, they exist) wanting to live in the east, even in the developed countries. I think it won't match, you get it? I don't know, the west is more liberal, worry about different values, etc. A great part of traditional eastern values are still tighted there, which in my opinion wont match. And there is another thing.. I can't see the west to let it ownself to loose extreme importance, for example, in the world economy to the east. Anyway, this is my opinion.. different world, different culture. I think there will have to be then the "capital" (even this term is wrong, but was the guy that started this thread that used it) of the west and the "capital" of the east.


you seem to hold a belief that world cultures are static. have you ever learnt or read anything about history?


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

Bombay Boy said:


> you seem to hold a belief that world cultures are static. have you ever learnt or read anything about history?


Read everything again. I know globalization is everywhere, and that the eastern culture got more 'westernized', BUT it's not a big thing yet. It already happened in economy, consumist capitalist society (even some americanized, europenized, etc), BUT it's not like that yet. It's clear that traditional values are still tighted to the eastern society, and that wont change for a while.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

whats your definition of 'while'? and why is western society the only one likely to lead to a world capital? i find many parts of asia a whole more liberal than say parts of america. did you know shanghai used to be more liberal than london?

india went from the land of the kamasutra to a sexually traditional society within a few decades with the introduction of victorian (western?) mores. societies can change quite fast if there is a sufficient catalyst


----------



## tkr (Apr 3, 2005)

Bombay Boy said:


> whats your definition of 'while'? and why is western society the only one likely to lead to a world capital? i find many parts of asia a whole more liberal than say parts of america. did you know shanghai used to be more liberal than london?
> 
> india went from the land of the kamasutra to a sexually traditional society within a few decades with the introduction of victorian (western?) mores. societies can change quite fast if there is a sufficient catalyst


You say it.
It's not me who is saying that only the west can have a world capital. The east can, but it's not happening and probably won't, in my opinion. Even Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, which are 'developed' doesnt see an influx of westerns there. And who moved to the western big cities were the easterns! Even Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo have more than a million of easterns (japanese, chinese, koreans). The opposite almost does not happen.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

you might have a point about tokyo due to its homogenous population and difficult language its not an easy place to shift to. but you are also ignoring the fact that most of these places also have extremely strict immigration and naturalisation laws, its not like western europe or the us where a person can get citizenship relatively easily

for a place to get immigrants you need two basic things. high quality of living with good prospects of a job and also a relatively easy immigration process. once a city has these two things in place you will get immigrants from everywhere that is not as well off. 

on the other hand how many people of japanese origin have left japan after 1980? a person from a rich western country also is not likely to shift to a city that might be equally rich but with a different culture. why should he?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> NYC, London and Tokyo are the undisputed Big 3 world cities; Paris is very close behind in 4th place.


I agree, but I'd put Paris on par with the big 3.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

shosho said:


> Am I interested in your choice? Or the 'westerns'? Brazil is the 3rd country with more whites in the world (90 to 100 million, 55% of the pop.), only the US and Russia have more. All of them live the western 'culture'. They wouldnt want a 'Hong Kong' world capital. I wanted to see white brazilians see your statement. They would laugh.


Actually Brazil is more like 30% white. My boss and a friend at work were both born in Brazil. My boss is white and my friend is mixed(his great grand father from his mom's side was mulatto). My boss said that there are states in Brazil where people are mostly either mestizo, indian, mullato, or black, almost no white people. But then there are states in the Southeast where the majority of people are definitely white, with a sizeable mixed and black population. He also mentioned that he read something in Brazilian newspaper 15 years ago that said Brazil's white population was around 50 million and declining. Of course no one will ever know the exact figures. My boss said that Southeast Brazil is totally a first world region trapped in a third world country.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

I mentioned in a previous post that much of what makes NYC tick is that it relates to itself and expects others to relate to it as "The World's Greatest City". New York probably is more interested in its "relative position" vis-a-vis other cities than any city in the world. Its very essence is based on dominance.....and there would be no reason to "endure" the hardships of New York if the pay off wasn't the fact that you were in the center of the universe.

So New York constantly has to "stay on top".

Part of staying on top is redevelopment and growth. The city's population is astounding and through constant immigration, New York is one of the few US cities that is assured constant growth. The city is larger than our second (LA) and third (Chgo) largest cities combined.

In addition to a growing population, the world's greatest city/center of the universe always has to build upward. Along with symbolism and the right to rebuild property, the lofty heights of Freedom Tower is a desire to see lower Manhattan stay competive with Midtown and cntinue to rise.

The failed Jets stadium on the west side was also looked as a spearhead to bring the Midtown business section west to the riverfront. Even without the Jets, such projects are still on the board. A growing Manhattan, with real estate prices going through the stratosphere, has finally pressured the outer boroughs to grow in a way that could easily be looked at creating a Greater Manhattan. No question that downtown Bkyn and the East River waterfront in Queens are being drawn in to Manhattan in a way that the Jersey City skyline is already, across the Hudson.

So where is this all going? This endless building? This endless excesses? Could the time come when the "World's Greatest City" will offer no view of sky from the tip of Manhattan to the southern reaches of Central Park....unless you look straight up?

I wouldn't want to bet against it. In New York's constant rush to stay a-top, to be the trend setter and the center of commerce, culture, diversity, could it be creating an environment for itself that is more geared for a city than the people who live within it? Could New York end up killing the goose than laid the golden egg?


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

Peshu said:


> Well if i wanted to i could find positive quotes made about many cities from many people.What exactly does this proove?I re-iterate.No city at this point in time has the importance of New York.In the future things could well be different.


Well to be perfectly honest I find Nelson Mandela saying "there is no city like London" a lot more impressive than you saying it about NYC seeing as you have a reputation for trolling and he doesn't... I'd also say that a person who has suffered through Apartheid in the way he has saying London is the most diverse city in the world should be listened to.


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

Yes, Toronto may be more diverse, percentage wise, but it has less than one third the population of NYC, so our ethnic communities dwarf Toronto's. Any music fan will tell you that Manchester is more well known than Toronto. Even Montreal is where it's at right now, look at the Arcade Fire.


----------



## ch1le (Jun 2, 2004)

TrippLA said:


> READ BELOW. MANCHESTER ISN'T ON LIST FOR HIGHER LEVEL OF WORLD CLASS.
> 
> The Alpha (most influential) world cities were divided into two sub-ranks:
> 
> ...



what the f is that?
That list is done by an 8 year old
Where is, Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius LOL 

Tallinn gets more tourists then Beta cities like Stockholm  Tell me, how Prague got so high? Tourism, we are next


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

ch1le said:


> what the f is that?
> That list is done by an 8 year old
> Where is, Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius LOL
> 
> Tallinn gets more tourists then Beta cities like Stockholm  Tell me, how Prague got so high? Tourism, we are next


You just to be jealous with this list but list is fact.


----------



## ch1le (Jun 2, 2004)

cry me a river, the list is missing important european union capitals  its errored.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

ch1le said:


> cry me a river, the list is missing important european union capitals  its errored.


Who cares? Some part of European isn't important though.


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

ch1le said:


> what the f is that?
> That list is done by an 8 year old
> Where is, Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius LOL
> 
> Tallinn gets more tourists then Beta cities like Stockholm  Tell me, how Prague got so high? Tourism, we are next


that list doesn't deal with tourism otherwise vegas, orlando and branson (missouri) would be on that list but the list only rates economic, financial and political power.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

jmancuso said:


> that list doesn't deal with tourism otherwise vegas, orlando and branson (missouri) would be on that list but the list only rates economic, financial and political power.


You're right.


----------



## JRQ (Feb 27, 2004)

JayeTheOnly said:


> That is an ignorent thought that many westeners share.



Learn how to spell words and phrases correctly before you *attempt* to say something condescending towards Westerners.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

yes new york city will always remain on top because its the center of finance, stock exchange, and every country has a community in NYC, (even if toronto is "multicultural its smaller)

then again i never was to NYC


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

shosho said:


> You say it.
> It's not me who is saying that only the west can have a world capital. The east can, but it's not happening and probably won't, in my opinion. Even Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, which are 'developed' doesnt see an influx of westerns there. And who moved to the western big cities were the easterns! Even Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo have more than a million of easterns (japanese, chinese, koreans). The opposite almost does not happen.


Most Asian countries have strict immigration policies due to a number of reasons, already overcrowded cities, population that is unwilling to accept immigrants. it's hard for a foreign-born qualified professional to get citizenship of Korea or Japan. What you can contribute to the society simply doesnt matter, what matters is your blood, you are entitled to the citizenship only 1) one of your parents is a citizen 2) you are married to a citizen of this country.

and many Asian countries dont allow dual citizenship, it makes the matter even worse.


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

Sen said:


> Most Asian countries have strict immigration policies due to a number of reasons, already overcrowded cities, population that is unwilling to accept immigrants. it's hard for a foreign-born qualified professional to get citizenship of Korea or Japan. What you can contribute to the society simply doesnt matter, what matters is your blood, you are entitled to the citizenship only 1) one of your parents is a citizen 2) you are married to a citizen of this country.
> 
> and many Asian countries dont allow dual citizenship, it makes the matter even worse.


NYC represents everything to the opposite of what you describe this paragraph. From its very beginning, NYC has been a meritocracy, open to everyone from everywhere who is willing to give the "American dream" a shot. This, above all else, is what makes New York the greatest city in the eyes of so many.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

A42251 said:


> NYC represents everything to the opposite of what you describe this paragraph. From its very beginning, NYC has been a meritocracy, open to everyone from everywhere who is willing to give the "American dream" a shot. This, above all else, is what makes New York the greatest city in the eyes of so many.


It's also what makes London the greatest city in the eyes of so many others.


----------



## JRQ (Feb 27, 2004)

Get over yourself


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

EarlyBird said:


> Well to be perfectly honest I find Nelson Mandela saying "there is no city like London" a lot more impressive than you saying it about NYC seeing as you have a reputation for trolling and he doesn't... I'd also say that a person who has suffered through Apartheid in the way he has saying London is the most diverse city in the world should be listened to.



And are we supposed to listen to you?A person who is ridiculous enough to mention his beloved Manchester in the same breath as N.Y. Talk about being brainwashed.


----------



## JRQ (Feb 27, 2004)

A42251 said:


> This, above all else, is what makes New York the greatest city in the *eyes of so many.*






EarlyBird said:


> It's also what makes London the greatest city in the eyes of *so many others.*


Can you just shut-up for once? London, in your mind is constantly better in every aspect, and it's funny to sit back and watch you make a fool of youself.
It's not true, nor will it ever be true. They are each better in certain aspects, which anyone with common sense knows this.


----------



## Ning (Jul 18, 2004)

NYC is the capital of the world by far.
London is the capital of UK (of the british commonwealth at best). It's the capital of the world only for the Brits living in the past and celebrating 200 year old victories.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

JRQ said:


> Can you just shut-up for once? London, in your mind is constantly better in every aspect, and it's funny to sit back and watch you make a fool of youself.
> It's not true, nor will it ever be true. They are each better in certain aspects, which anyone with common sense knows this.


Sitback=Sitredneck
EarlyBird=Earlyredneck

Just like said thing in San Diego vs. Birmingham thread :jk:


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

^^ Absolutely spot on. :yes:


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> How can you back that up, though? Seeing as how India makes up about half of the commonwealth, maybe we should ask some of them. I know it's dumb, but I did a Google search of Indian websites:
> New York: 739,000.
> London: 328,000
> 
> Bam!


You did what? Ever thought that many of those hits might be related to New York State? Bam!


----------



## JRQ (Feb 27, 2004)

It's quite funny watching EarlyBird try to act like an adult; it's just not possible for you, sorry. Now leave us alone, and let the people with at least half a brain talk, which is everyone except you.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Some, but hardly any. 10% maybe?
Here's with "New York City" instead--even though most people call it plain "New York".
New York City: 289,000

Dang--NYC kicks London's butt on the internet!


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

Global hits:
"New York City" = 51,900,000
"London" = 179,000,000

Bam!


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Some, but hardly any. 10% maybe?
> Here's with "New York City" instead--even though most people call it plain "New York".
> New York City: 289,000
> 
> Dang--NYC kicks London's butt on the internet!


Remember, you have to put your search term in quotes, otherwise it searches for any page containing all three terms so "the new city of york" would return a match for New York City, but not for "New York City".


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

But nobody calls it "New York City"! 

Global(with quotes):
New York: 331,000,000
London: 178,000,000

Of the 10 results on the New York search, all 10 were relating to New York CITY. Bam. 

Do you like Google, earlybird? It's traded on the New York based Nasdaq. Sha-bam!


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

"New York" NY = 81,100,000
"London" UK = 89,600,000

Bam!


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> But nobody calls it "New York City"!
> 
> Global(with quotes):
> New York: 331,000,000
> ...


That includes links for New York state. See my query above which includes all pages that reference "New York" and "NY" the state compared to pages referencing "London" and "UK". Bam!  And yes, lots of people DO call it "New York City". That's where NYC came from ffs!


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

are you guys shittin' me? are you really gaging which city is better by how many google hits they get???

if that's the case, paris hilton is better than either city.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

jmancuso said:


> are you guys shittin' me? are you really gaging which city is better by how many google hits they get???
> 
> if that's the case, paris hilton is better than either city.


She gets 3,870,000.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

"london" United-kingdom=21,600,000
"New York" United-States=85,100,000

Boom! ..wait, no..BAM!


----------



## Ning (Jul 18, 2004)

stop kids.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> "london" United-kingdom=21,600,000
> "New York" United-States=85,100,000
> 
> Boom! ..wait, no..BAM!


But "New York" United-States includes New York state again. Are you really so stupid you can't work out which queries include the state and which don't? My query blocked off all New York state results, blocked off all London, Ontario results, etc. It was the fairest one so far and had London in the lead. Deal with it.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> That includes links for New York state. See my query above which includes all pages that reference "New York" and "NY" the state compared to pages referencing "London" and "UK". Bam!  And yes, lots of people DO call it "New York City". That's where NYC came from ffs!


Oh, come on. That's damn impressive for New York--Very few people actually specify it as being in "New York State" on the internet. When you say "New York", it's implied that you are referring to the city.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Oh, come on. That's damn impressive for New York--Very few people actually specify it as being in "New York State" on the internet. When you say "New York", it's implied that you are referring to the city.


That's why I put "New York" NY and "London" UK! :| It searched for all pages that mentiond "New York" the city and NY the state so that pages only referencing "New York" (i.e. that could be the state) were ignored. The London one searched for all pages mentioning "London" and UK to block London, Ontario, etc. If you search for "New York" you'll get a match for pages even if what they actually say is "New York State".


----------



## JRQ (Feb 27, 2004)

I'm completely fed up of EarlyBird and his complete Bull Shit posted here, and in every other thread. You're nothing but a moron who would argue until you're blue in the face, even if you're totally outnumbered and 110% incorrect. New York is the leading city, in the world. Need I mention that I like London moreso than New York. I've supported London in many threads, but you have gone to far, and on my last nerve. Sometimes I wish there was a portal through the monitor where I could just punch some much-needed sense into your fat, empty head.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

When I put in "New York", of the first 20 results--2 of them refer to something that applies to the entire state of New York. That's 10%. Deduct that 10% off, and New York is still way in the lead. 



EarlyBird said:


> That's why I put "New York" NY and "London" UK! :| It searched for all pages that mentiond "New York" the city and NY the state so that pages only referencing "New York" (i.e. that could be the state) were ignored. The London one searched for all pages mentioning "London" and UK to block London, Ontario, etc. If you search for "New York" you'll get a match for pages even if what they actually say is "New York State".


I know, but by doing that you made the results unfair--when people mention New York (the city), they normally don't mention the state.

_Bam_


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

JRQ said:


> I'm completely fed up of EarlyBird and his complete Bull Shit posted here, and in every other thread. You're nothing but a moron who would argue until you're blue in the face, even if you're totally outnumbered and 110% incorrect. New York is the leading city, in the world. Need I mention that I like London moreso than New York. I've supported London in many threads, but you have gone to far, and on my last nerve. Sometimes I wish there was a portal through the monitor where I could just punch some much-needed sense into your fat, empty head.


There is no way on all this earth NYC is more important than London. Maybe in some respects, but not overall. Maybe you need to leave the US and go out into the wider world. NYC has minimal impact on my life, just as London probably has minimal impact on yours.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> When I put in "New York", of the first 20 results--2 of them refer to something that applies to the entire state of New York. That's 10%. Deduct that 10% off, and New York is still way in the lead.


The thing is that Google works on a page ranking system. The most linked to pages will be about New York city so as you go down the list a higher percentage will relate to the state. That's how the system works.




pottebaum said:


> I know, but by doing that you made the results unfair--when people mention New York (the city), they normally don't mention the state.
> 
> _Bam_


Yes they do, in fact it's a well known phrase. "New York, New York, so good they named her twice".

The simple fact is that the city of London is as written about (and more visited) than the city of New York and you don't seem to be able to handle it.


----------



## JRQ (Feb 27, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> There is no way on all this earth NYC is more important than London. Maybe in some respects, but not overall. Maybe you need to leave the US and go out into the wider world. NYC has minimal impact on my life, just as London probably has minimal impact on yours.



I made that assumption pages back.

And yes, New York is more important than London.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> No they aren't!
> I'll go on: What's the biggest movie in the UK right now, earlybird? War of the World's--it's distributed by Dreamworks which is owned by NYC based Viacom. The city is home to Bloomberg, Fortune, Forbes, Dow Jones. Most of the big American television networks are based in New York, and American television (despite the UK being the largest program-FORMAT exporter) seems to have much more leverage over-seas. How about music? The world's 4 big labels are:
> 
> Universal: New York
> ...


You forget that the BBC (the world's biggest broadcaster in terms of viewers/listeners) isn't included in that because it's a public institution. It doesn't have shareholders and it doesn't make a profit. Sky (the world's biggest broadcaster in terms of channels broadcast) is based in London. Reuters (the world's largest independent media agency) is based in London. As you said, EMI is based in London. You'll also find that the European base for most US media companies is in London, whereas most of ours in the US are based in LA. Also, how much does this truly matter? We can't measure the massive impact of the many behind the scenes productions companies. It's amazing how many US films these days are produced in LA or in London because of the expertise both cities have in these fields. London seems to do both production and distribution whereas NYC mainly focuses on distribution.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

JRQ said:


> I needed a good laugh today....Thanks .


Try checking the city out. Everything I need is available here, but I just find it more beautiful and more liveable than the big four.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

earlybird said:


> Reuters (the world's largest independent media agency) is based in London


Actually, the Associated Press (based in New York) claims to be the largest. 


earlybird said:


> Sky (the world's biggest broadcaster in terms of channels broadcast) is based in London.


But British Sky Broadcasting is controlled by the News Corporation (and American company traded on the NYSE).



earlybird said:


> It's amazing how many US films these days are produced in LA or in London because of the expertise both cities have in these fields.


When you're talking about influence, the productions ownership is more important. Either way, while London is a major production center, it's in no way in the same league as LA. Several other cities play a huge part in American movie production, it's not just LA and (to a much, much lesser extent) London. 
As for distribution, New York aces London--there's no point in arguing about it.
EDIT: I should've also mentioned that EMI Music Publishing is headquartered in New York City.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Actually, the Associated Press (based in New York) claims to be the largest.


Reuters also claims to be the largest. As I said, media is as big in London as it is in NYC.



pottebaum said:


> But British Sky Broadcasting is controlled by the News Corporation (and American company traded on the NYSE).


Irrelevant. They don't exercise control over Sky. Sky have their own board. I'd say that, whilst a part of Newscorp, Newscorp minus it's media agencies is pretty small and meaningless. Sky is the media agency, not Newscorp.



pottebaum said:


> When you're talking about influence, the productions ownership is more important. Either way, while London is a major production center, it's in no way in the same league as LA. Several other cities play a huge part in American movie production, it's not just LA and (to a much, much lesser extent) London.
> As for distribution, New York aces London--there's no point in arguing about it.


I never said London was ahead of LA for production. Nor did I say London was ahead of NYC for distribution. It's simply a fact that overall in terms of production AND distribution NYC and London are probably about the same. It really is quite simple.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Oh, God. We're going to be arguing about this all day. :lol:
I still stand by what I said, though--New York has more important media companies, and it's influence through television, music, literature is present all around the world. 
2/4 of the world's big four record labels are based in New York--and another one is owned by New York's Time Warner. London based EMI has its music publishing company in New York.
New York is home to America's largest television networks--American television seems to be more popular worldwide.
New York is home to several massive publishing firms; Scholastic, Random House, Hearst, etc.
The city is home to a large portion of the companies that own and distribute many of the world's most famous movies; Time Warner, Universal, Viacom(which owns DreamWorks), etc.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

Some of New York's largest media companies might be more important overall than some of London's largest (though I think BBC trumps all), but you have to also take into account the many, many smaller independents and the many recording studios (including those used to make dozens of Hollywood movies every year). I can bet that every single New York media company makes use of London media companies regularly, either as a source for stories, for technical expertise (special effects, studio work, etc.), for financial backing (as they did with ITV for "The Contender" for example) or for media partnerships (lots of HBO "productions", such as "Rome" for example, are actually produced by the BBC).

Maybe we should stop arguing about this as it's obvious neither of us is going to achieve what we want from it.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

EarlyBird said:


> London is the world's largest currency market, trading nearly 100 times as much in volume every day as is traded on NYSE and Nasdaq combined if I remember rightly. *It's by far and away the biggest financial market, unless you give more weight to shares than currency transactions.*


The currency exchange markets are by far NOT the biggest. Risk management is. And London is not the world capital of that.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Which city is most involved with risk management?


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

pottebaum said:


> ^Which city is most involved with risk management?


Chicago.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

Rail Claimore said:


> The currency exchange markets are by far NOT the biggest. Risk management is. And London is not the world capital of that.


I think you'll find that in terms of trade volume the currency market is the largest type of financial market by a long, long, long, long way. Please research more in future.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

^I think you're the one that needs to do some research.

http://www.cme.com/about/ins/caag/FacFigu2803.html

^That's just ONE of Chicago's exchanges.

Why not bring up some sources for London's numbers (which I'm not that inclined to doubt).


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

Rail Claimore said:


> ^I think you're the one that needs to do some research.
> 
> http://www.cme.com/about/ins/caag/FacFigu2803.html
> 
> ...


http://fxtrade.oanda.com/currency_trading/fxmarket.shtml



> In terms of trading volume, *daily FX turnover exceeds $1.5 trillion US dollars* (source: Bank of International Settlements).





> The major dealing centers today are: *London (with over 50% of the market)*, followed by New York, Tokyo, Zurich, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Singapore, Paris and Sydney.


Now by my calculations that it a daily trading volume in London of over $750 billion. That compares to the NYSE which has daily trade volumes of around $30 billion.


----------



## dom (Sep 11, 2002)

In terms of hedge funds London is the main centre. 

For most of the financial markets London is bigger than New York. For pensions they are roughly the same. The stock markets in New York are far larger than London's but for international share trading London is bigger. 

For metals the IME in London is the main centre. The price of gold is 'fixed' in London every day. 

For oil trading the IPE (London) and NYMEX (New York) are the two main markets. 

For futures trading Chicago and Eurex (Frankfurt/Zurich) are the main centres. 

For bond trading London is the main centre (LIBOR).

Most of the big investment banks have their HQs in NY but a lot of their international stuff is done out of London. 

London has more bank hqs than any other city. Also I remember reading that London had more American bank offices than New York (for different companies that is not individual offices).

For international bank lending London is the main centre. For example when New York needed bonds for its subway it turned to Deutsche Bank's office in London for the work. 

To be honest both are overall roughly the same in finance, New York is the control centre and London does most of the international stuff, but New York is ahead in business. Still in terms of media London is more important than you might think, Granted News International is HQd in NYC but their offices in London are massive. Also 1 and a half of the 3 biggest oil companies are HQd in London (BP and Shell Transport and Trading). In HSBC (#2), RBS (#5), Barclays (around #9/10), Lloyds TSB (around #9/10) and HBOS (around #12) London houses 5 of the world's top 12 banks by market capitalisation.

Also that New York has built loads of skyscrapers and London has built groundscrapers can skew peoples opinions tremendously. People seem to forget that skyscrapers were impossible to build in London until around 30 years ago due to London clay. The Natwest Tower was the first - it required the longest continuous concrete pour of any office building apparantly. This has since been passed but exemplifies the past difficulties of building tall in London. Lots of NGOs are based in London as well.

Both cities are great to be honest, I regard them as the 2 leading cities in the West. Certainly the 2 leading cities in the English speaking world. Both can be proud of that accolade


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

EarlyBird said:


> I was joking about Manchester, you clown. No wonder people mock you so much if you can't even spot a joke. But then again I wasn't asking you to listen to me was I? I was asking you to listen to a well-respected South African saying London is the most diverse city in the world.


I can spot a joke.But you mentioning Manchester a thousand times starts to look a bit ridiculous.Like your arguement now with London being more important then New York.I mean get real.Or otherwise i'm going to have to staert calling you cuckoobird. :cheers:


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

EarlyBird said:


> That's because you live in the US. I find that in Commonwealth countries more people tend to regard London as "capital of the world" rather than NYC, except possibly Canada. The Commonwealth accounts for around 2.5 billion people.



THat is a load of crap.I've been to other places such as Australia and they too tend to think of New York as the capital of the world.So does every body else for that matter.And why is a person a troll because he states the obvious?In reality it's you who is a bit of a nutter thinking what nobody else does.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

sorry Earlybird, i think most people on earth think NYC is the world capital if there is ever one. not London. the mass is ignorant and they are not properly educated about "stock market" or "currency exchange" or "fiancial importance", they only know USA is the most powerful, hence NYC is the world capital.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

I truly do believe that NY edges out London as a world capital...This is not just American boosterism!


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Nobody ever talks about world capital, and it is such a meaningfull coment anyways, wether one prefers London or New York or whatever else is only up to personal choice


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Two points:

1. in this incredibly diverse planet of ours, isn't it sheer arogance to believe there really is *one* city that dominates above all others?

2. If you do, in fact, preceive New York as the world's number one city, a good percentage of that special status eminates from the sheer power of the United States today. The 20th century was America's century. As an American, I hardly believe that will be true for the 21st. The technological advances going on in India and China, among other places, the evolution of the former Soviet block as an economic power to be dealt with, a Latin America we have not yet heard from, and the fact that the American people have lost much of their edge (not a surprising fact in light of the consumer comforts that have become such hallmarks of American society) promise a much less American-led world. If you don't believe we're losing our edge and becoming soft, try to explain all those high tech positions in the US (including the medical field) that are being filled by Asians, where people are driven to get a thorough education in technological fields and will sacrifice anything to make it happen. Technological advances can reduce the time of a society like Rome being on top in eras past to something far shorter and more fleeting. Since New York's fortune's are tied to those of the US, that should give the Big Apple some degree of trepidation.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

No one I know calls New York te capital of earth other then Yanks and their media. Simply to boost their importance and I think that people like Peshu and his friends probably believe them simply because they are thick as anything.

Tokyo, London, New York... None of these cities have the edge over one.


----------

