The Capital of the World!

[dogscarletnyc 0]

Originally posted by: DuskTrooper

Originally posted by: dogscarletnyc AAK you have no taste.quote>

Said the guy who likes Kappa Mikey...quote>

so...  its a cartoon I like. Like Homestar runner. I ment by he has no taste in Citys DT.

[Resender 18]

werll we have a higher power

its called the European Commision

[johnwinston 3]

New York City, no doubt !

I read somewhere on this thread that Lagos is the capital o Nigeria, it's not anymore ! It is ABUJA !

[AAK 1]

You're right. I have no taste in cities and I'm proud. I'm not stuck-up and selective on these things. I go by what I feel. I love New York. I don't know how I could live anywhere else, but look at the skyline. You've got many pretty buildings, but when you see them together, you've got a big mess. I can understand and respect anyone else's opinion, so don't bother arguing. Making the New York the capital of the world just doesn't seem fitting visually. Culturally, perhaps, since it's such a huge melting pot.

I think we should stop this thread in favor of a more specific question like "Which city is the most poweful financially in the world?". That way all the people that have been pulling contradictory facts from different places can have still have fun fighting eachother without going off-topic.

[spacenuteskimo 0]

     Wow, this thread is already pretty big!  I also added a few new cities that were formerly requested.

     As for myself, if I wanted to choose a world capital (which I don't, just think of the ethnic diversity, in say, the judical system...) I would have to pick New York City.  Compared to other cities, it was built rather recently, but it's still one of the world's city superpowers...

     And, I also disagree on building a capital city from scratch?  Why build one that would cost billions, if not trillions of dollars when there are so many mature cities that could take the role?

     Matthew

[Uumke 0]

well, if we look at economy, the US trade balance was negative, and the EU trade balance positive.

So that means EU exports more then they import, and the US imports more then they export.

It's so difficult to choose a city.

I'll keep my mind on the Hague, even if it's not a big city. I don't think population is the most important, neither economy.

[pikatchoum 2]

Originally posted by: callagrafx London has been historically the Capital City of the World, in the days of the Empire. Everyone is forgetting London sets the standard time for the rest of the World, as the Prime Meridien bisects Greenwich (hence Greenwich Mean Time). It is one of the most important financial trading centres and has been long before New York was even a shanty town. If population was your only yardstick, NYC would not come anywhre near as it has only the 13th largest population (Mumbai has the most).

I agree with Tonks, pointless thread, ripe for incineration.

And Krio, I really think you need to research your facts before you post...NYC and London really don't have bombs going off every week...maybe you were thinking Beirut and Baghdad?quote>

 

Paris has also been the Capital of the world (Napoleon,Charlemagne)...Rome also (Roman Empire).So what you say means nothing.

Before the Greenwich Meridien, people used the Paris Meridien so that means nothing too.

I dont think it could be a capital for the world.

Anyway, i think New York is the most apropriate cityto be the world capital. That don't mean it's the best city.

[sanantonio 0]

I still say the moon.

[Dark_Element 0]

New York City.......beats everything else by far.

[MaybeMemories06 0]

I agree with what a number of people have said so far. NYC would definitely fit as capital of the world. However, I'm biased and it has been my dream for years that any world capital would be placed in Las Vegas. Then we would get the needed infrastructure and everything that the casinos wont let us have

[MikeO 0]

Mmmm, this thread is a bit silly.

For one thing, there will never be one capital of the world. We're all too proud to let that happen.

I recommend that we have three capitals: New York City, London and Tokyo. They are after all the most 'powerful' cities on the planet (Sometimes called the three command centres of the world economy) (You could argue for Paris as well, but I don't think it matches London on all fronts, for example, more dollars and euros are traded in London everyday than in any other place on earth). 

And really, a stock market crash in any of those cities would affect the world on a massive scale.

Those three cities really form a chain across the world, linking North America to Europe to Asia, and from them going to the smaller cities of the world. 

As for the EU vs USA thing. That's also very silly. For one thing, the USA is only a country and the EU is many countries. HOWEVER, if the member states stop arguing and swallow their pride and get on the road to a proper constitution and become one sovereign nation (Probably centuries away), it would become the most powerful 'state' on Earth.

The reason for the EU still not pulling ahead of the USA in economic terms is because the EU is still growing and the eastern states have ALOT of work to do before they reach the economic level of the western members. Alot of those states are barely out of the cold war, you have to remember. If they did reach the same level of economic development as the western nations however, there is no doubt that the EU's economic output would dwarf the USAs, Chinas, Indias in terms of GDP, PPP, etc. 

There are many books on the dreamt of European SUPERSTATE (Or Hyperpower), I haven't read any of them though.

And this post really isn't meant as a 'HAHA MY COUNTRY IS BETTER THAN YOURS I WIN SOMEHOW BECAUSE I WAS BORN HERE' sort of thing. 

Question: That list of largest metro areas isn't really well clued up on London, is it? Why doesn't it count the London Metropolitan Area? It does with NYC and others, so why limit London to Greater London? It'd be ranked 9th if it did, at 13.945mil.

[lestatdl1 0]

Why does city size (population, economy, physical geography) equate to being a "capital?" Many US state capitals are not the largest city in that state (Albany - NY, Sacramento - CA, etc.)

This would be a more interesting poll if we first defined what makes a good capital city. For a world capital, some qualities I'd include: neutrality, security, a modern transportation network (there will be lots of international travel), available space (for many, many new "world government" buildings), credibility (i.e. some meaningful reason for this site being chosen, be it history, location, etc.), moderate year-round climate (i.e. no: "sorry, we can't meet right now - there's a blizzard / tsunami / sand storm."), a free press (the world needs to know what the world capital is doing), and modern utilities, facilities, and legal system (obviously).

[PhilsCafe 8]

Actually, Sacramento was chosen because it was an economically booming city back then... but I agree with you in the point that size shouldn't matter, neither should economy. But that's hypothetical because we don't need a World Capital .

[MrFingers 0]

NEW YORK HANDS DOWN

[MrFingers 0]

Anything else is a biased choice.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

As is that, as it has not been posted with any evidance to support the post, also posted in all caps and double posted

[MrFingers 0]

lol, well to be honest the only two cities which I'm qualified to judge between are new york and london.

i'd imagine that the vast majority of people aren't qualified to judge at all because they will obviously hold prejudices.

new york, because it is beautiful, center of the western world, extremely diverse, financial capital, hosts of the UN, the largest city of the most prosperous country in the world by a country mile on both counts, etc etc etc.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

It could be judged that 31% of the worlds money passes through London on a daily basus More than New York and Tokyo Combined, and its the centre of the Commonwealth.

[lrfox 2]

Well, this is quite a silly topic, but i'll have some imagination for now....

I say if you wanna do capitals, you have to have it separated into an odd number, 3 or 5 to work right. sort of a "Balance of Power." If it were 3, i'd say New York, London, Tokyo. 3 completely different sections of the world, 3 totally different cultures. if it were 5, I'd say NYC, London, Tokyo, Sydney and the 5th spot is a toss-up between 3 cities- Buenos Aires, Johannasburg, or Shanghai. THis represents all differnt regions and gets rid of the bias and unfairness of one world capital.

But obviously this is totally silly.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

To be honest this whole thread is silly lol, read my posts on page 1

[MrFingers 0]

yeah this thread is highly subjective

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: MikeO

The reason for the EU still not pulling ahead of the USA in economic terms is because the EU is still growing and the eastern states have ALOT of work to do before they reach the economic level of the western members. Alot of those states are barely out of the cold war, you have to remember. If they did reach the same level of economic development as the western nations however, there is no doubt that the EU's economic output would dwarf the USAs, Chinas, Indias in terms of GDP, PPP, etc. 

quote>

sorry for the double post but I couldn't resist this.  actually that is not the reason the EU's GDP is slightly less than the US's, there are plenty of under developed places in america too and the EU has 50% more population.  the real reason?  three-fold;

1 - energy taxation.  The EU governments are very fond of using the price mechanism to bring down energy consumption to meet environmental demands/quotas.  this seriously damages the economy and, in conjunction with point 2, explains why the average european worker is 30% less productive than his american counterpart.

2 - work ethic.  In the EU social status is determined largely through character qualities, that is to say others admire those who are socially adept above anything else.  In america, your social status is determined by your wealth almost entirely.  This has been true in america ever since it was first colonised, but europe's has changed in the last century.  The result is that americans do on the whole work harder than europeans.  this is general, but important.

3 - the welfare state.  In the EU, governments are expected to have a moral obligation to support people who cannot hack it.  this is rampant and dampens the economy almost as much as the energy taxation, present germany is an extreme, but this is all over the EU.  In america, those who cannot swim, sink.  It is up to you to support yourself, this environment is much healthier and more darwinian.  It is always ironic to me when I hear a european make the joke about taking the safety labels off american products and "letting the problem sort itself out".

each country in europe has its own set of issues, but these three are uniformly big problems and largely the reason why the european economy lags the american one.  not to worry though, america has its own problems too.  really serious ones at that.

[Aamir. 0]

Originally posted by: Charles Rodulfo @Resender

But does the EU have a higher power like the president?

That is the biggest difference, EU is a group of nations. US is a group of states (which is treated as a province) that forms one nation.

@mancoolman

That's not being neutral, having it in Canada favors Canada. It has to be in a neutral country for it to be stable.

@callagrafx

yeah, you're right, people in this thread were misled to think that what we are trying to find here... it's actually "W" LOL!quote>

How could you say Canada isn't neautral? Sure the country as a whole isn't neutral doesn't mean the every single place isn't neutral, even though in every single thread i'd been against the city I'd pick Vancouver (change my vote for NY please ). Surronded by mountains means it completly neutral, a lot of economic power (1.9 million people) and was also ranked the best city to live in, sure it might be unknown, but when I was young I was stupid enough to think Toronto was the capital. O'Canada!

(Calgary isn't a bad idea either).

[jvlm.123 0]

As some people have said, it should be on an artificial island (they're doing it in Dubai, so why not?) where the Equator and Prime Meridian meet. And be called "W" (as callagrafx said...)...!

[Charles Rodulfo 0]

@Aamir.

I would like to clear that neutrality is not affected by land barriers. It is a cultural boundary issue. You wouldn't want Vancouver to be attacked by an evil entity would you? I like Vancouver, I don't want it targeted by all sorts of world powers. Switzerland is one of the best examples. Canada has been known to side with the US and UK, the Swiss have been known to be neutral in all known wars involving its neighbors.

@jvlm.123

I still think "W" would be the best capital of the World! oh, and a Dubai-like capital would be nice, people from almost all nations would live there and would be bias because everyone is represented. go "W" oh, and It should control all of the military! LOL!~

*I couldn't help it, I like this senseless thread!

Take Care,

Charles

[MrFingers 0]

the Swiss imported train loads of gold rings and teeth from the Nazis and melted it down into ingots for them. those rings and teeth came from victims of concentration camps, that's hardly neutral. Switzerland doesn't need to get militarily involved because it has mandatory army training for all males and it's a mountainous region, any invading army would be screwed. that's why they are neutral, apathy - they don't need to fight if they don't want to because noone will attack them.

[Aamir. 0]

Is there an actual Centre of the World?.

If so then it must be Kiribati or that place under Lagos, Indonesia, Mount Kenya or the Amazon river, The world is round therefore it has not centre.

Edit: Since it's all about neutral countries, why not pick Gothenburg, Sweden? It's preety, it's neutral, it definantly has more Economic power then Geneva or Zurich (Population: 487,200 and 879,000 in the metropolian area).

[paperboy15 4]

I'll say anywhere but New York City. HA!

[JackStraw 19]

AWorld Capital?????? Just the thought of that scares the hell out of me !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PhilsCafe 8]

Originally posted by: MrFingers the Swiss imported train loads of gold rings and teeth from the Nazis and melted it down into ingots for them. those rings and teeth came from victims of concentration camps, that's hardly neutral. Switzerland doesn't need to get militarily involved because it has mandatory army training for all males and it's a mountainous region, any invading army would be screwed. that's why they are neutral, apathy - they don't need to fight if they don't want to because noone will attack them.quote>

Hmm... and your statement is based on what source?

---deleted by myself---

EDIT: Don't get me started... We really shouldn't debate about WWII, that's a highly hot topic and could end up in some kind of flaming.