Pages

  • Sharebar

An interesting hypothetical came up in discussions at work today.. which city would be considered the capital of the world? I bet most monkeys here would be biased toward saying NYC is the world's capital, but let's not forget a capital city is by no means defined as being the largest or most active city of a nation, think of Washington DC, Canberra, Ottawa, etc. Capitals are generally administrative centers charged with hosting the seat of Government. With that in mind, where would you pinpoint to be the bastion of unified global political power?

In my opinion it would have to be Geneva, home to a few of the most important international organisations such as the United Nations, WTO, WHO, Red Cross, among others. According to different sources there are between 170 and 300 NGOs with their headquarters or local offices in Geneva. Geographically Geneva is also quite close to both Eastern and Western Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and arguably the East coast of the US. Politically, Switzerland itself is a very neutral country. If the US is the schoolyard bully, and China is the class nerd, Switzerland would have to be the high achiever - the passive guy who gets along well with everyone and is generally quite good at everything. When a fight breaks out in the playground, Switzerland is the guy in the corner brokering bets on the outcome.

As a disclaimer I do live in Switzerland so I be might be a little biased myself, but I would be interested to hear a case for any other cities that would be in the running for Earth's capital, if God forbid, we ever had to choose..

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (109)

  • Bullet-Tooth Tony's picture

    Weird thoughts, but I would nominate Hong Kong, NYC, London and probably Geneva too.

    Given the shit show that is Europe, I cannot nominate any place in the currency union.

    Money and finance have control, so go with the financial hubs.

    Singapore, Tokyo could also be on the list.

  • mudkipz's picture

    peinvestor2012:

    Weird thoughts, but I would nominate Hong Kong, NYC, London and probably Geneva too.


    Given the shit show that is Europe, I cannot nominate any place in the currency union.


    Money and finance have control, so go with the financial hubs.


    Singapore, Tokyo could also be on the list.

    This is true - spot on

    "so i herd u liek mudkipz" - sum kid
    "I'd watergun the **** outta that." - Kassad

  • victory39's picture

    Don't forget Greece. Power is where the money is, and all our money is there...

    Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose.

  • victory39's picture

    But actually, London would be on the top of my list. Then any of the cities listed by peinvestor2012.

    Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose.

  • Edmundo Braverman's picture

    Not really even a contest, even by the "seat of power" measurement. Not only is NYC the financial capital of the world (and money makes the world go round), but it's also the home of the UN, which is more or less the governing body of the planet. There are other great cities to be sure, most countries have at least one, but New York reigns supreme on the world stage. And I don't even like NYC.

  • Bullet-Tooth Tony's picture

    victory39:

    Don't forget Greece. Power is where the money is, and all our money is there...

    You must be German...

  • Kassad's picture

    Edmundo Braverman:

    Not really even a contest, even by the "seat of power" measurement. Not only is NYC the financial capital of the world (and money makes the world go round), but it's also the home of the UN, which is more or less the governing body of the planet. There are other great cities to be sure, most countries have at least one, but New York reigns supreme on the world stage. And I don't even like NYC.

    +1, except that I do like NYC and I do live in NYC lol

    Equities are for chumps.

  • diverse_kanga's picture

    peinvestor2012:

    Weird thoughts, but I would nominate Hong Kong, NYC, London and probably Geneva too.

    Given the shit show that is Europe, I cannot nominate any place in the currency union.

    Money and finance have control, so go with the financial hubs.

    Singapore, Tokyo could also be on the list.

    I get your point that money = power, and to a degree this holds true, but in this case I would contend that the world's major financial hubs have no chance to become the world's capital city. If you scroll through history, you will find that in many cases, excluding the far-leftist and totalitarian examples in Eastern Europe and Africa, the location of the capital is determined primarily by compromise. Washington DC was a compromise between the southern slave-holding economic interests and the northern states requirements for war reparations. Canberra was built from scratch exactly halfway between Sydney and Melbourne. Ottawa was close to the boundary of Ontario and Quebec..

    To put it bluntly most of Asia and the Middle East would never allow a US city to become the world's capital due to historical grudges. China would never submit to a symbolic US world figurehead. London could find it difficult to convince a post-colonial world neo-imperialism wasn't back on the agenda. I doubt the patriotic types in the US would ever allow Hong Kong or its former monarchist overlords to gain the title. Or maybe the world's memory is short, I don't know.

    Tokyo you say? And you thought Europe was a shit show..

    Singapore is a legitimate contender - fairly centrally located, legitimate financial hub, benign player in global politics, but still plenty of social issues to be resolved before it could be considered the model city for a unified world..

  • heister's picture

    Its Washington DC. With out a question, when you have the ability to destroy the entire world you run the world.

    Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

    Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • SilvioBerlusconi's picture

    Agree with Diverse Kanga. I think it's no surprise on a board largely full of Americans (myself included) that New York shows up as the answer. If you went practically anywhere else in the world, you'd get much different answers.

    I think that, from a pragmatic standpoint, if a de facto world capital had to be picked it would have to be in a nation known for being largely neutral and a mediator in global issues. Also, the city would need to be renown for being predominately a center of political and cultural activity; lot's of pissed off leftists would come out of the woodwork if a financial capital was chosen.

    Diverse Kanga's choice of Geneva's probably the best. Switzerland is a historic "mediator" state and Geneva itself already is pretty significant on the international relations scene. The fact that the UN is in New York is just a reflection of the times that the UN was set up in; had it been any later it would have undoubtedly been HQ'd in Geneva (or somewhere else outside the US).

    "Yes. Money has been a little bit tight lately, but at the end of my life, when I'm sitting on my yacht, am I gonna be thinking about how much money I have? No. I'm gonna be thinking about how many friends I have and my children and my comedy albums."

  • Bullet-Tooth Tony's picture

    SilvioBerlusconi:

    Agree with Diverse Kanga. I think it's no surprise on a board largely full of Americans (myself included) that New York shows up as the answer. If you went practically anywhere else in the world, you'd get much different answers.

    Hence why this is a purely hypothetical, unrealistic question.

  • Stryfe's picture

    heister:

    Its Washington DC. With out a question, when you have the ability to destroy the entire world you run the world.

    By that rational Moscow would be tied with DC.

  • Truuce's picture

    Your approach is a little narrow-minded; it seems like you're using the construct of 'unified global political power' to justify it as the capital. Based on that regard alone Brussels (home of the EU, NATO, several multinational orgs and corps) would be a contender but again I think that's a little simplistic. What about socio-economic, political, cultural, and even topographic considerations? I read a bit of Sassen's works for some sociology class early in college and she has an interesting view of what constitutes global cities, with the accompanying breakdown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

    It's not just about one aspect of the city (politics) that your hypothetical capital would represent - although that is usually representative of the definition of 'capital' - because those organizations don't have any true authority and the major ones are too scattered. Sassen labels NYC and London as alpha++ because of how all the factors above work in cohesion to in effect posit global influence.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

  • Bullet-Tooth Tony's picture

    StryfeDSP:

    heister:

    Its Washington DC. With out a question, when you have the ability to destroy the entire world you run the world.

    By that rational Moscow would be tied with DC.

    Disagree. This isn't 1975.

  • diverse_kanga's picture

    Truce:

    Your approach is a little narrow-minded; it seems like you're using the construct of 'unified global political power' to justify it as the capital. Based on that regard alone Belgium (home of the EU, NATO, several multinational orgs and corps) would be a contender but again I think that's a little simplistic. What about socio-economic, political, cultural, and even topographic considerations? I read a bit of Sassen's works for some sociology class early in college and she has an interesting view of what constitutes global cities, with the accompanying breakdown: (search Wikipedia for Global_city)

    It's not just about one aspect of the city (politics) that the capital represents - although that is usually representative of the definition of 'capital' - because those organizations don't have any true authority and the major ones are too scattered. Sassen labels NYC and London as alpha++ because of how all the factors above work in cohesion to in effect posit global influence.

    Of course there are a myriad of factors as to what constitutes a global city, but this isn't meant to be a thesis, it was more of a water cooler discussion over a pure hypothetical, the question being not which is the.world's most influential city, rather which city would have least problems being accepted by the international community as a representative global capital?

    Brussels is another good suggestion.

  • In reply to diverse_kanga
    Edmundo Braverman's picture

    OMFG, Brussels? You are aware that Belgium has been operating without a government for the past couple years, right? They can't govern monks and farmers but they're gonna be the beacon of light upon the hill for the whole world? Now I know you're trolling.

  • SilvioBerlusconi's picture

    streetwannabe:

    Au contraire

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/...

    Lol @ France with barely any warheads but nearly ALL of them deployed (highest % by far). Classic France trying to keep up that global relevance!

    "Yes. Money has been a little bit tight lately, but at the end of my life, when I'm sitting on my yacht, am I gonna be thinking about how much money I have? No. I'm gonna be thinking about how many friends I have and my children and my comedy albums."

  • DCDepository's picture

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.

  • slayer's picture

    diverse_kanga:

    An interesting hypothetical came up in discussions at work today.. which city would be considered the capital of the world? I bet most monkeys here would be biased toward saying NYC is the world's capital, but let's not forget a capital city is by no means defined as being the largest or most active city of a nation, think of Washington DC, Canberra, Ottawa, etc. Capitals are generally administrative centers charged with hosting the seat of Government. With that in mind, where would you pinpoint to be the bastion of unified global political power?

    In my opinion it would have to be Geneva, home to a few of the most important international organisations such as the United Nations, WTO, WHO, Red Cross, among others. According to different sources there are between 170 and 300 NGOs with their headquarters or local offices in Geneva. Geographically Geneva is also quite close to both Eastern and Western Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and arguably the East coast of the US. Politically, Switzerland itself is a very neutral country. If the US is the schoolyard bully, and China is the class nerd, Switzerland would have to be the high achiever - the passive guy who gets along well with everyone and is generally quite good at everything. When a fight breaks out in the playground, Switzerland is the guy in the corner brokering bets on the outcome.

    As a disclaimer I do live in Switzerland so I be might be a little biased myself, but I would be interested to hear a case for any other cities that would be in the running for Earth's capital, if God forbid, we ever had to choose..

    wtf the UN headquarters are in new york LOL

  • Thurnis Haley's picture

    Clearly New York. The thing Europeans hate the most is to give America any credit for anything. But they know they need America and since they need America they need NYC.

  • leveredarb's picture

    DCDepository:

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.


    The most influential in the history of the world? The American arrogance is strong in this one. Rome was much more influential for much longer periods and had vastly more land under their control, as did Britain
  • above_and_beyond's picture

    leveredarb:

    DCDepository:

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.

    The most influential in the history of the world? The American arrogance is strong in this one. Rome was much more influential for much longer periods and had vastly more land under their control, as did Britain

    Thank you..

  • DCDepository's picture

    leveredarb:

    DCDepository:

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.

    The most influential in the history of the world? The American arrogance is strong in this one. Rome was much more influential for much longer periods and had vastly more land under their control, as did Britain

    This is entirely wrong. Rome had more nation-states under them, but half the planet was nearly entirely unknown to the Roman Empire. If land is the only measure of empire, the United States could control the entirety of the Americas, Europe, the island nations, Africa and much of Asia with its military. Modern empires aren't maintained through land--we don't have an agrarian society anymore. It's completely idiotic to measure modern empires with land territory. Heck, the U.S. conquered Japan and Germany and didn't take their land even though the U.S. could have.

    Here's the basic truth--you know who President Obama is. Most Americans don't know who Prime Minister [insert name] is because it doesn't matter.

    The U.S. is the leader in:

    1) Military might
    2) Economic influence
    3) Political influence
    4) Science
    5) Technology
    6) Business
    7) Language
    8) Culture/pop culture
    9) Currency
    10) Athletics
    11) Higher education

    The above is simply fact. If your opinion differs then your opinion is objectively wrong. Even with Barack Obama, America's worst President in a century, the U.S. is still the leader in nearly everything.

    EDIT: at Rome's apex, it had 2.5 million square miles under its control. U.S. territory is 3.79 million square miles. The British Empire had many times the amount of land at its apex, but again, that is agrarian empires vs. modern non-agrarian empires.

  • Thurnis Haley's picture

    leveredarb:

    DCDepository:

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.

    The most influential in the history of the world? The American arrogance is strong in this one. Rome was much more influential for much longer periods and had vastly more land under their control, as did Britain

    Britain at its height definitely gives America a run for its money, but no way does Rome even come close to either unless you think that Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East is the entire world.

  • leveredarb's picture

    I am not going to argue with a nut job fundamentalist. Just fwiw the Roman Empire was 25% of total world pop at the time

  • Crassus's picture

    Answer is NYC, obviously

    above_and_beyond:

    leveredarb:
    DCDepository:

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.

    The most influential in the history of the world? The American arrogance is strong in this one. Rome was much more influential for much longer periods and had vastly more land under their control, as did Britain

    Thank you..

    You determine the influence of a country by measuring the amount of land it controls? That's a pretty flawed methodology you've got there

  • In reply to Crassus
    Kassad's picture

    I think that saying the US is the most influential and blah blah whatever in all of history is a pretty flawed statement, period.

    The first thing I thought of was the Mongol empire. Then I looked something up and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

    By percentage of world population as part of their empire (aka people living within their legal/military/economic boundary), plenty of institutions have been more far-reaching than the US.

    DCD, you are a very zealous individual if you think that the US is nearly as powerful as you think.

    The fact is that the US has assumed it's current position through circumstance, not by being the best or most powerful nation. We have seas that protect our borders, neighbors that have been economically incapable of waging war against us for the past 200 years, and a vast trove of natural resources that to this day holds massive amounts of undiscovered bounty.

    The Chinese empire has been around, in both war- and peace-time, for some 5000 years. The Russian empire has existed for at least 1100 years, depending on how you define it. We've been here for a measly 237 years. You have no idea what could kill us tomorrow or of what could prolong our nation's existence. The fact that we even exist, at this height of power, is a statistical miracle given the histories and fates of past empires.

    If you think that US influence has propagated throughout the world for any other reason than economic circumstance, whereby the logic is "hey, they've got the money/oil/trees/whatever else we need, better just not fuck with them," then you're simply wrong. People in other countries aren't often fond of the US, and when you travel and get that "foreigner" reaction from people, it's not nearly as much of a good thing as it seems.

    Let's break some of this shit down:

    1. Military: this is a consequence of circumstance. The US has been at war since its inception, and the only reason we won wars on this continent was because of our geographic placement. Not only that, but as communism - which we later decided was a bad thing - was born in Eurasia, we stood by and did nothing. We were 3 years late to WW1 and years late to WW2 as well. We failed miserably in Korea(fixed: we didn't, read below), got demolished by VC and NVA forces in Vietnam, drawn into a conflict that we didn't even win in Afghanistan against a fucking terrorist network (which we're now "negotiating" with), made no reasonable change in Iraq, and we're now chillin waiting for the next conflict to pop.

    We don't win wars - we engage in conflicts to protect our interests. The wars we have "won" were because of our massive geographic advantage or dramatic late entrance, which often allowed us time to develop superior weapons (aka nuclear weaponry? lol wut?) and go in to fight weakened opponents. We don't dunk, we catch alley-oops. Our technology and insane military hardware doesn't mean shit else except that we're more economical in terms of lives lost in war versus "progress" made in any such conflict. We do NOT "control" shit with our military - if half the world decided to invade us tomorrow, we'd have a pretty big existential crisis on our hands.

    2 - 6: We have money so people choose not to fuck with us. I would hardly tout any of this as any sort of grand accomplishment.

    7. Language: so the British Empire did no work in this? They didn't conquer half the civilized planet and force the English language onto them? We didn't simply separate ourselves and stick with the language since we had no time or reason to speak another language? You're saying that if the French or Spanish had kept the NA region, we wouldn't just as easily be speaking French or Spanish?

    8. Culture: a complete joke. Go to China and ask someone who Snoop Dogg is. Our "cultural influence" is the result of our massive corporations expanding to other countries in an effort to make more money. People don't fiend over everything we shit out just because it's American. People in other countries aspire to be like THEIR pop culture icons and idols, not ours. It simply doesn't work that way.

    9. Currency: so the Yen, Euro, and RMB are suddenly non-factors? You define being the "leader" in currency as being the reserve currency holder? How about you look up the inception of Bretton-Woods in pre-WW2 days and how the USD reserve actually came to happen in the 60's and 70's? This is a matter of circumstance, again, and could easily be gone 50 years from now (some say it could be far less than that). And are you aware of the massive amount of money that we owe to the rest of the world? It's not as easy as "we're the best in currency," (whatever that means).

    10. Athletics: Nobody plays American football outside of America, basketball is just becoming popular and since it is an American sport, I'm glad that we're the best at it. We also have some of the best-fed and most well-trained athletes, again in thanks to our economy which allows us the money to spend on entertainment. We still have no contender for a legitimate soccer team or, ironically, a rugby team. I'm not a sports enthusiast to the extent that I could delve into everything, but I do keep up in a few things and I know that US teams, while we don't often suck, we're definitely not the "best" at everything.

    11. Higher education: what do you mean to say with this? That we have a system in place to put our kids through school? Great. We're still not the "best." Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index . And aside from that, I can't begin to describe the numerous arguments on this site and elsewhere about how our educational system is a laggard compared to that of other nations.

    The fact of the matter is that you make some sweeping generalizations that make you sound like an overzealous teenager. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about this topic, at least know when and how to invoke the "haha we're better than everyone" card.

    All that shit said, I still say New York, however not because any of this nationalistic garbage. NYC is simply the hub of mostly everything that has global reach. Economics and financial markets converge here, which should be a requirement for candidate cities, a fair amount of global political dealing happens here, and many cultural movements are conceived here as well.

    Candidate cities also include Hong Kong, Tokyo, London, and any other city that acts as a hub for many facets of life. I wouldn't count Singapore since it isn't as big a cultural origination center as other cities in the APAC region.

    Equities are for chumps.

  • In reply to DCDepository
    Kassad's picture

    DCDepository:

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.

    I motion to start a WSO fundraiser intended to buy DCD a Discovery Channel subscription.

    Equities are for chumps.

  • SilvioBerlusconi's picture

    You're definitely right Kassad on almost everything you said, with the very notable exception of saying we "failed miserably" in korea. I don't know where you get that idea from considering that S. Korea exists (and thrives) because of the protection, both past and present, of the US military.

    "Yes. Money has been a little bit tight lately, but at the end of my life, when I'm sitting on my yacht, am I gonna be thinking about how much money I have? No. I'm gonna be thinking about how many friends I have and my children and my comedy albums."

  • Kassad's picture

    SilvioBerlusconi:

    You're definitely right Kassad on almost everything you said, with the very notable exception of saying we "failed miserably" in korea. I don't know where you get that idea from considering that S. Korea exists (and thrives) because of the protection, both past and present, of the US military.

    Yes, you're right - I threw it in there as I hastily typed out as many high-cost conflicts as I could think. It was certainly more costly for both Korean nations, which is the perspective I usually have when thinking about the War.

    Equities are for chumps.

  • Going Concern's picture

    Obviously not Noo Yawk, since it's a dump.

    "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

    "Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent."

  • ummagumma's picture

    So much stuff has already been said, I want to contribute with this:

    EDIT: I can't post a link because I'm a noob and the admins are scared I post some porn shit, but really, y'all would love my porn shit. Anyhow, just google "GaWC alpha cities" and you should find the thing I wanted to refer to. Or go for "Global city" on Wiki.

    I really like how they try to find an equilibrium between financial, military, political, religious, etc. power. Of course LDN and NYC turn out to be the top cities.

  • Navy Blue's picture

    According to your definition of capital it is probably Geneva. But the red cross and other NGO's and even the UN are irrelevant in international affairs compared to other organisations, governments etc.. Not to mention switzerland which may have reputation and soft power but it is an irrelevant country. I buy DCDepository arguments.

  • Mitt Romney's picture

    How is this even a fucking contest?
    New York, hands down

    I'm not concerned with the very poor
    -Mitt Romney

  • Mitt Romney's picture

    .

    I'm not concerned with the very poor
    -Mitt Romney

  • Mitt Romney's picture

    Kassad:

    DCDepository:

    The United States is the most relevant nation in the history of Earth. It's the most politically, culturally, economically and scientifically influential nation in the history of mankind. Its empire is not that of land but of influence. Its military is more dominant than Rome's at Rome's height. English is the world's lingua franca. The U.S. dollar, at least as of now, is still the de facto reserve currency. America's space program is the most advanced in the world. The U.S. has, by far, the best and most influential universities on the planet. Hollywood reaches and influences mankind from Beijing to remote islands. U.S. corporations, such as Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobile, Verizon, IBM, etc. are completely dominant in their industries. The U.S. Olympic team is, collectively, the best in the world. The UN is headquartered in NYC and the U.S. has veto power at the UN. The U.S. effectively runs NATO--history's largest, richest and most dominant military alliance--like a dictatorship. NYC is one of 2 or 3 financial capitals of the world.

    No serious discussion about a "world capital" can be had without NYC or Washington, D.C. being the top 2 contenders. And if you live in other parts of the world and have a different opinion then your opinion is simply wrong.

    Geneva? Please. There are more influential organizations in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. than in all of Switzerland. Switzerland is where rich Americans go to avoid taxes.

    I motion to start a WSO fundraiser intended to buy DCD a Discovery Channel subscription.

    top lel

    I'm not concerned with the very poor
    -Mitt Romney

  • klaasv's picture

    I would've guessed most people would say New York, but I think that is and will never be the capital. It isn't even the capital of the US and for a reason. The world's capital in the US would anger a lot of nations. The only nation I can think of that is most acceptable for a lot of countries would be Switzerland resulting in either Basel or Geneva as possible capitals. Also a lot of money is still held in Switzerland.

  • diverse_kanga's picture

    Mitt Romney:

    How is this even a fucking contest?

    New York, hands down

    Because the 'fucking contest' isn't about which city is the most influential in the world. Already the UN cops heat because many countries disagree with the HQ being located on US soil. Can you imagine the uproar if the capital of the world was designated as such?

    It absolutely has to be located somewhere neutral, else the basic concept of a world capital is fatally flawed, i.e, not the US, not China, not Russia, not the UK, not Germany, etc etc.

  • heister's picture

    To the victor goes the spoils. I.e. who ever invades and claims all major countries in the future will get to name the capital

    Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

    Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • prospie's picture

    Edmundo Braverman:

    Not really even a contest, even by the "seat of power" measurement. Not only is NYC the financial capital of the world (and money makes the world go round), but it's also the home of the UN, which is more or less the governing body of the planet. There are other great cities to be sure, most countries have at least one, but New York reigns supreme on the world stage. And I don't even like NYC.

    this. Geneva? Tokyo? laughable.
  • In reply to diverse_kanga
    jaciems's picture

    taking what you said into account, Geneva makes the most sense but at the moment, the defacto capital is def New York

    "And the last thing, how much do you charge for a career consultation and would you accept a check?"

  • In reply to DCDepository
    jaciems's picture

    so much fail and ignorance in this post...Americans are leaders in language? lol...

    "And the last thing, how much do you charge for a career consultation and would you accept a check?"

  • Cheespuffs's picture

    Capital city does not equal most powerful or influential city, which is what some monkeys here have hinted at before. I would nominate New York for the most powerful and influential city; however, for capital? Please... a global capital has to be relatively neutral in the eyes of the world and New York is anything but.

  • pacman007's picture

    HOUston

    "Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a Champion" - Muhammad Ali

  • streetwannabe's picture

    Agree with Cheesepuffs. If it were a legitimate "capital of the world", it would need to compromise between Western, Eastern, Oriental, etc ideals. Not just pander to the Western ideology of power, money, influence.

    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Pages