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..
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
I second that. Singapore would have to be my first choice. esp. given favorable tax policy.
Don't forget Greece. Power is where the money is, and all our money is there...
But actually, London would be on the top of my list. Then any of the cities listed by peinvestor2012.
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.
London or New York. The Economist's sister magazine "Intelligent Life" had an article on this.
London edges NY by 1 point, 22 to 21, according to the "Parker Scale".
http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/john-parker/what-capital-w…
You must be German...
+1, except that I do like NYC and I do live in NYC lol
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..
Its Washington DC. With out a question, when you have the ability to destroy the entire world you run the world.
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).
Hence why this is a purely hypothetical, unrealistic question.
By that rational Moscow would be tied with DC.
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.
Disagree. This isn't 1975.
Au contraire http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/06/daily-chart
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.
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.
No offense, but check your references. Belgium has had a government since 2011. Before that, the old government continued to lead the country while politicians tried to form a new one.
Lol @ France with barely any warheads but nearly ALL of them deployed (highest % by far). Classic France trying to keep up that global relevance!
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.
wtf the UN headquarters are in new york LOL
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.
Thank you..
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.
so much fail and ignorance in this post...Americans are leaders in language? lol...
Health care anyone?
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.
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
delete
delete
Answer is NYC, obviously
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
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:
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
While I think DCD is perhaps being a bit hyperbolic, I think you are overstating a couple of these things. American Culture might not be ingrained in every single literal corner of the planet, but it definitely covers the planet to a greater extent than anyone else's culture, with the possible exception of Britain's go-to-fashion contribution: the suit. There is a reason American movies and music gross so much overseas, its because people in other countries are consuming them. People in Iran watch almost exclusively American TV shows. We certainly aren't watching Iranian TV.
Even if the reason people watch them is because we're rich, it doesn't change the fact that they watch them. You think the Ostrogoths wanted to be Roman Citizens out of the kindness of their hearts? They wanted to be Romans cause the Romans were prosperous.
I think you vastly understate the strength of the U.S. Military. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the difference between counterinsurgency and a traditional war. Your arguments here are like arguing the Romans were weak because the Jews kept rebelling. Or the Mongols sucked because the Rus eventually overthrew them.
In an actual conventional war (the gulf war) the US defeated what was at the time the 4th largest military in the world and only sustained 190 KIA from enemy action. That's pretty ridiculous. Sure it was a Coalition but an Empire gets to count their allies too.
People thought Britain's rule that its Navy had to be twice as big as the next two largest Navy's combined was ridiculous. The amount of aircraft carriers we have compared to the rest of the world makes this rule seem light by comparison.
And as for the idea that the rest of the world all attacking us at once could defeated us: This may or may not be true (assuming you ignore the ICBMs we would send crashing onto everyone's head) but you have to make ridiculous assumptions to get there. The chance of every country in the world attacking us at once is similar to every province in the Roman Empire rebelling at once. Theoretically possible, but never going to happen and not really relevant to the question of how strong the U.S. is. Besides, people are going to have a tough time landing troops on our shores when the greatest air force in history destroys every boat or transport plane within 500 miles of our shoreline. You can chalk that up to good geography but guess what, the Romans and Mongols benefited from that too, and the British benefited more than anyone from their geography.
No one's beating the US in a war, not right now at least.
As for Capital of the world, I think probably London.
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.
Obviously not Noo Yawk, since it's a dump.
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.
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.
How is this even a fucking contest? New York, hands down
.
top lel
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.
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.
taking what you said into account, Geneva makes the most sense but at the moment, the defacto capital is def New York
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
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.
HOUston
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.
http://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/dfedfc4c-8a62-4162-90e5-2a3f14…
It probably has to be in an "irrelevant" country though to compromise between the world powers like US, China, Russia, France, UK etc. Look at what nationality the past Secretary-Generals of the United Nations have been. South Korea, Ghana, Egypt, Peru, Austria, Myanmar, Sweden, Norway. None of these are the largest and influential countries in the world. South Korea is probably the most high profile one of the bunch.
Why Tokyo? Its an enormous city but Japan is pretty insular and not very international for a rich industrialized, nation.
Discovery Channel might be a little too advanced though, might be better to start with something a little more manageable like Sesame Street.
I think the episode with Edward Snowden pretty much shows that the US are not as mighty as you think. Neither Russia, some Latin American countries nor China give a fuck about what they say. All nations might be tied together through international trade and stuff, but I highly doubt Russia, China, or the Middle East will ever accept an American city as the world's capital. The construct of a world capital is quite abstract and nearly impossible to implement anyway.
And don't get me wrong, I lived in the US for quite some time and really loved it there, including the people I met. I made some awesome friends back then and had an amazing time. But it's that kind of attitude that you are showing in your post that makes people think wrong of the US.
Two last things, the world doesn't speak American it speaks English and talking about the US as a cultural leader is ridiculous. Have you heard about the UNESCO World Heritage list? http://whc.unesco.org/en/list Furthermore, there are countries with histories and cultures that are dating back several thousand years, I think it's extremely arrogant to describe the US as the cultural leader, whatever that means. Unless you're calling Hollywood productions like Transformers or Lady Gaga songs "culture". In that case, you're spot on.
What "should" be is a different story, but the de facto center of the world is currently Washington DC. More decisions concerning money and power, and the shape of the world in general are made there than anywhere else. If it became a conversation of what 'should be', I don't think there should be a capital outside of the UN forum, the idea of executive functions being consolidated on a global level doesn't sit right with me.
keep in mind that above and beyond is a european
Watching our movies and listeninig to our songs doesn't define the culture of countries with thousands of years of history....Amurrica needs to hop off its own penis...we're not that important.
The vast ignorance in this post is breathtaking. I literally don't even know where to begin so I'll just start with the list.
The most influential and powerful nations in history have ALL been to a certain degree a matter of circumstance. The fact that the U.S. has a ton of natural resources is attributable to the concept of Manifest Destiny, which was the idea that Americans should dominate the land in North America. That's one part chance, one part proactive empire building.
1
The U.S. military is, by far, the most dominant military force in the world. The only 2 nations that have ever come close in total and utter dominance of military power would be the British at their peak and the Romans. One could perhaps argue Mongolia, but then in terms of land mass, Mongolia couldn't really threaten Europe or the Americas. The U.S. spends more on armed forces than most of the rest of the world combined. We've won every single war we've fought, including 2 world wars, other than Vietnam (the Korean War and War of 1812 were draws). That's not a bad record. The British at their height couldn't say that. Finally, the U.S. is the leader of a military alliance of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world. How you could argue that the U.S. isn't the world's dominant military force is utterly laughable.
2-6. It doesn't matter why people don't "fuck with us"--being wealthy and influential is part of an EMPIRE.
7. Language. It doesn't matter why English is the dominant language--it is the dominant second language of the world. The British contributed mightily to it, yes. So did the U.S. with the creation of the United Nations (the brainchild of President Woodrow Wilson). The Germans are the dominant economic power of Europe and yet English is the lingua franca of Europe--that's because of the economic might of the United States, not the UK.
8. Is this some sort of a joke? U.S. pop culture is dominant throughout the world. You keep making these idiotic arguments that, "Well, the U.S. is dominant here because of xxxx". Again, it doesn't matter the WHY. It matters the WHAT. It doesn't matter WHY Hollywood movies see international success and why Chinese movies never leave their nation. When discussing cultural dominance, it's the WHAT. Hollywood movies and American music are on every TV screen on planet Earth. This isn't a matter of opinion.
9 currency. Again, your argument is totally absurd. You're saying that yes, the U.S. Dollar is the world's reserve currency, but it happened as a matter of chance. Again, the WHY is not relevant to the WHAT.
10 Athletics. The U.S. has the world's most dominant Olympics team with the exception of the Chinese slave laborers. China and the U.S. are 1A and 1B at the Olympics. That's the only way of measuring athletics since these are sports that everyone plays. Most of the top 50 wealthiest athletic franchises are U.S. sports franchises (although I believe Manchester United is #1).
11. Higher Education. Again, is this a joke? Pretty much every ranking system in the world is dominated by U.S. universities. This isn't even a matter of argument. Everyone knows the top U.S. universities are considered the best in the world.
This is basically the sum of your arguments--"Yes, you're right about everything, but there's a reason behind each item, and each thing happens to be a matter of circumstance". Ok, so the U.S. is the world's dominant military, economic, political, and cultural super power by a matter of circumstance and chance. Ok, I agree with that to some extent, but it's not relevant. For the most part, you said you agree with me and then gave me the happenstance behind which the U.S. rose to power. Congrats...?
There is a really simple answer to this: there is no "capital of the world" and there likely won't be in the foreseeable future. It doesn't matter that the US has military might or has their hands in everyone's pot. It is nothing like the Roman or British Empire in terms of the actual power and influence it exerts.
If you HAD to call a city the capital of the world, that would have to go to NYC. It exerts the most influence of any city in the world. That said, if NYC does something that Moscow or Beijing doesn't like, either one of those cities (and the countries they control) can wreak havoc on NYC or the world.
There isn't a global capital; however, there are numerous cities which can and do exert global controls. The two main things that need to be taken into account are political influence (includes both diplomatic and military influence) and economic influence (whether publicly or privately exerted). The "global capitals" if you will include (in no particular order):
-DC (mainly political and public economic influence, strong private economic influence, too) -Zurich (mainly private economic influence, some political influence though it's usually as mediator) -NYC (everything) -London (mainly private economic influence and strong political influence, despite economy it's helping keep Europe afloat) -Paris (mainly private economic influence) -Hong Kong (mainly private economic influence) -Tokyo (mainly private economic influence) -Singapore (mainly private economic influence) -Sydney (mainly private economic influence) -Toronto (may seem somewhat out of place, but definitely deserves a spot - strong, private economic influence, decent political influence) -Beijing (mainly political influence, strong economic influence) -Moscow (mainly political influence, strong economic influence)
Honorable mentions that I can think of: LA (economic), Mumbai (economic), Istanbul (economic/political), Jakarta (economic), Manila (economic), Sao Paolo (economic), Shanghai (economic), Tehran (political)
With question its Zug, CH
It is the headquarters for more the 29,000 companies including giants such as Glencore, Rothschild, J&J, and Tata.
lmao
Maybe Delaware too then?
This is just demonstrably wrong. The Roman language--Latin--wasn't even the popular language of the day among the elite (Greek was). Rome didn't even know about 2 continents (North and South America) and had no influence at all over them. Roman religion even lost out to some random Jewish cult--Christianity. Granted, the Roman Empire was a long-lived empire, but in the last 70 years (and largely attributable to technology) there has been no other country in history so influential in every aspect of society (politics, economics, culture, language, military, science/technology, education, etc.). Not even at Rome's height.
And again, while Britain had an amazing empire, it was an agrarian empire, not comparable to a 21st century "empire". Rome is the only comparable empire to the American empire. While I'm a huge consumer of Roman history (and it was an amazing history), Rome's dominance was largely based off of its government and military might and not the dynamism of its people. Hollywood, Harvard, McDonald's, Google, Apple, the U.S. Constitution, etc. are what make the U.S. influential outside of simple military dominance.
That escalated quickly.
No Chicago love?
Delaware is a state not a city, but A for effort
Just for the record, all of you need to look up the actual definition of "empire", because I don't think that the US has ever been classified as such.
Haha, yeah I was going to say Wilmington, but wasn't sure if anyone would get that.
You're just mad because you weren't invited.
I think the fact that there is so much debate about what the world's capital is within this small online community reflects how impossible it would be for such a city to be designated out of any major metropolitan area.
Therefore a compromise is necessary so that a city is picked that offends nobody and can easily operate in political neutrality. I would say that Nuku'Alofa in the island nation of Tonga would be a good choice. I don't believe anybody but the Samoans have issues with the Tongans so it would be a good compromise for everybody. Not to mention it's in the South Pacific which is really nice, offers a variety of water sports, and has very nice weather all year round. Does New York offer any of those? No! /discussion
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Nobody hates Canada except Canadians. Nobody in Canada cares about Saskatchewan.
Ultimate compromise.
Thinking about it more, that was probably a bad way to put it. There are some major differences between then and now (the main two being communication and transportation). When you put them into the context of the times they existed during, I think Rome was stronger than the US. Yes it was more government/military-centric, but that's the way it was back then. Rome had the ability to do a lot of things that the US did not because Rome was an empire and the US is a democratic republic.
I wish I could explain my thoughts in more detail, but that'd be a lot of typing and time I don't have heheh.
The only time a world capital would matter is if Earth was contacted by extraterrestrials and Earth became more of a nation-state (think Star Trek). I would assume Earth's capital would be located in the world's most powerful nation that has, ya know, a legit space program.
New York, London, Tokyo...all else way behind. And no America is not even close to the most powerful country in the history of the world...the roman empire spanned half the known world in its day.
Given this board's biases Im surprised nobody has said Houston is the capital of the world yet.
Napoleon's France would have to be up there too I think.
Brussels is the "Washington DC" of the EU. European Commission, Council, Parliament (with Strasbourg, though), along with that you've got hundreds/thousands Lobbying groups and NGOs. + NATO HQs.
Canton,Ohio
Wow, I've been over this in like a half dozen posts in this thread. The United States has more land mass than Rome at its apex (and North and South America in 30 AD were known to those in the Americas...) and you're talking about land mass during a pre-industrial age where agrarian culture was dominant and therefore land mass and river access was important. Comparing Rome's empire to the so-called American empire is like apples and oranges. Rome had little cultural, political or economic influence on the vast majority of the world, unlike the U.S. which has cultural, political, technological, economic, scientific and academic influence on nearly the entire world.
And to say that America is not even close to the most powerful county in world history is like saying is vernacularly foolish. At worst the U.S. would place a close 3rd.
NYC by far.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/h__uutzcQXc?feature=player_detailpage
I don't know why you guys are bringing up ancient civilization, we aren't talking of whole nations, the man simply asked, "Which city would hypothetically be the capital of the world?" NYC is by far the most definite answer. NYC is the financial, and cultural capital of the world.
Militarily, the fact that we cannot defeat a group of third world tribes in afghanistan might indicate that we are somewhat less then the most powerful nation in the history of mankind in that category. Culturally, I do not think that multinational companies succesfully getting chinese people to buy Justin Beiber records and similar products en masse really constitutes any form of national power.
I would say we could have at least had this conversation in 1990 as the soviet Union was collapsing...at that time the average person in much of the World aspired to what they believed were american values, our military appeared invincible, and economically we were in a very good position. Now we are in massive debt to the World, our military has been run ragged by a series of absurd and unsuccessful imperial wars, and the values that were previously admired (mostly our respect for individual freedoms) have in large part disappeared.
This was pointed out by another poster, but discounting U.S. military might because subduing Afghani rebels has been extremely difficult would be like saying Rome was not militarily dominant because it was dealing with constant rebellion from the Jewish people in Jerusalem. It would be like calling the British empire weak because its American colonies successfully rebelled. Putting forth what you are putting forth is embarrassingly limited in its historical context.
The point remains that the U.S. is completely culturally, politically, scientifically, academically, militarily and economically dominant. No one nation, including Britain and Rome at their apex, has ever so influential on a global scale. Even during the British Empire's height the lingua franca was, well, FRENCH...
I came back to this thread expecting some serious carnage. It delivered lol.
@DCD, you still don't get the point, so there's no point in arguing with you.
@pacman007, Ip Man was fucking bananas lol. Go check out this Korean flick, "The Man from Nowhere." I think it's "Ajeossi" in Korean.
@Angus, compromise is a good point, and SG might have to be it in that case, but I'm afraid compromise doesn't drive much in this world.
My edited list for world capital based on convergence of financial and economic markets, political centralization, and cultural significance:
I would like to mention somewhere in Asia, but they frankly don't have a political center I can think of that compares to London, much less to NYC.
NYC, London, Hong Kong, Singapore would be my top four.
If "compromise" is what you want, Singapore might be it.
By almost any other definition? Forget it. Take it from me, fellers.
Dubai.
Ok guys we all know the only real capital is...VEGAS.
While I really want to agree, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the biggest casinos are in Macau.
Hah, his career suffered death by bunga bunga. hahaha
I watch Korean movies and no I am not Korean or any kind of Oriental. Have you seen the Ip Man? It's a Chinese movie, shit is bonkers.
Yes Macau does have bigger casino, but I think Vegas has the better culture. I mean its basically a city of sin. Macau seems like a nice city, but I don't know if the lifestyle is as crazy as Vegas. Haven't been to Macau, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Dude, why are you passing judgement on a city you've never been to? Vegas has culture? It's the fakest fucking city in the US. Don't get me wrong, I love Vegas but it does NOT have culture. Maybe we have different definitions of "culture".
That's fair. Though I've never been to Macau either, but if they have those nice girls that 'love you long time'...
Moscow for sure. 1 reason - rapidly developing economy 2 reason - huge potential for growth 3 reason - amazinly kind people 4 reason - the most beautiful women in the whole world (girls run the world :) )
Everyone knows that the most beautiful women in the world are exotic hybrids, such as half Italian, half Venezuelan, half Thai. That's the main reason why picking a capital of the world is so challenging.
Ea est neque est vel. Numquam eveniet voluptas dolor vel perferendis tempore.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et alias voluptatem ad reiciendis occaecati vero numquam. Sequi quo illo nisi. Sit id eum voluptate accusantium dolor maxime harum. Est et ipsam perspiciatis magni.
Ut illo repellat et voluptatum repellat et at. Magni eum et eveniet facilis tenetur earum. Quia autem ab quibusdam soluta. Consequatur rerum dolores et et dolorem.
Voluptatum ipsa et aut iste quis dolorum pariatur. Alias tempora doloremque aperiam quia. Ex nihil sint sit eius sed beatae beatae voluptas. Corrupti cum harum sit perspiciatis perferendis neque ad. Ipsam itaque repudiandae odit cumque eaque harum ipsam. Voluptas dolorem quia nihil non eveniet rem soluta.
Harum quam unde asperiores assumenda in qui. Tempore et eum sequi optio culpa.
Quisquam reiciendis necessitatibus assumenda qui. Sit rerum vel sed voluptate. Quae qui perferendis qui illum magni. Officia nesciunt expedita ullam molestias aut voluptatem nobis. Iste inventore animi ut aliquid iste eum. Esse perferendis quia alias laborum deleniti necessitatibus ut qui.
Perspiciatis laudantium cumque quia tempora quidem fuga. Ea doloribus provident ut ipsum esse ipsum magnam. Velit veritatis aut quam excepturi ut quaerat. Veniam ipsa debitis qui ut et voluptas tenetur. Sequi ipsum ut officiis. Est minus et vero maxime iste voluptate.
Dignissimos iusto ad veniam ut. Enim consectetur occaecati quas. Provident sunt aut est ut. Laboriosam quia molestias rerum nulla exercitationem. Vero modi accusamus dolores quos. Velit omnis adipisci cumque consequatur. Neque excepturi dolore amet sit nesciunt nobis.
Dolorum qui suscipit odio officiis sed inventore. Eius accusamus et sunt quasi. Consequuntur tenetur debitis exercitationem error et officia non.
Nisi nisi expedita et omnis et. Id veritatis laborum consequatur debitis aut amet hic. Est voluptatem laborum inventore quo nam. Voluptas facilis nisi perferendis debitis temporibus esse sed. Sed sit molestiae pariatur quasi non. Odit est deleniti aliquid harum repellendus.
Earum autem expedita fugiat ut sit. Praesentium dolorem assumenda qui.
Ut quis illo optio quae ut consequatur quis. Quasi veritatis expedita laborum qui saepe. Tenetur ipsa dolorem necessitatibus voluptas facilis aut. Aut quia consectetur iure eos. Natus consectetur nisi ipsum voluptatibus voluptatibus esse.
Nemo nostrum facere quod quasi est culpa. Voluptatem vitae recusandae dolore facere. Facilis distinctio dignissimos maiores provident odio. Dolorum est omnis inventore.
Excepturi expedita inventore voluptas delectus. Vero sed quod iure nihil. Architecto rem rerum consectetur repellendus. Quam ut enim aspernatur ipsum. Iste amet sed facilis et.
Blanditiis omnis soluta aliquid labore ratione unde. Cumque placeat tempore adipisci. Non enim laudantium commodi enim voluptas id eveniet.
Minus quia qui et sapiente qui. Consequuntur fugiat quos corrupti voluptas. Pariatur aut in occaecati natus soluta.