NYC is a massive political arena, and if Mamdani has a successful administration, and his policies work, then it is a valid proof of concept of Socialist/Progressive Policies.
The New York Stock Exchange does not prove New York is uniquely strong. New York benefits from hosting it, but the power comes from the global market, not from the location.
It is just a place where companies come to trade. The success belongs to the businesses and investors, not the building or the city.
The exchange is digital now, so the trades could happen anywhere with fast internet. If the NYSE moved to another city, the same companies and money would follow.
Again…New York benefits from hosting it, but the power comes from the global market, not from the location.
The distinction you’re making between the “real” city and the things that happen to be hosted there isn’t real. This same line of reasoning can be used to declare literally any place irrelevant in any context. For example Beijing is irrelevant to the world, it’s only influential because that’s where the Chinese capital happens to be hosted. It’s silly. New York’s global influence comes from the sum of all of the things that just happen to be hosted there, just like anywhere else important.
If a plate of spaghetti is what people want, the kitchen it came from is just a container. You can move the same recipe to a different kitchen and the dish still satisfies the same hunger. The restaurant does not create the value. The spaghetti does.
In the same way, the power of markets and industries does not depend on New York. The companies, the capital, the investors, and the trades are the real substance. They could operate successfully in another city because the value is generated by the economic activity itself, not by the street address. The spaghetti is what feeds people. The kitchen is replaceable.
You’re still using the same weak analogy. This dubious logic can be used to deny the importance of literally any location on earth.
In the same way, the power of markets and industries does not depend on New York. The companies, the capital, the investors, and the trades are the real substance. They could operate successfully in another city
So why don’t they? Answer the question. I’m sure many other places would want to be the financial capital or the world. Why aren’t they?
Financial centers are not holy ground. They are habits that formed because of historical momentum, not because the soil under Wall Street produces capital.
London used to be the unquestioned financial center of the world. Before that, Amsterdam. Before that, Venice. None of those cities lost intelligence or charm. The center moved because technology and incentives changed.
The New York Stock Exchange is a brand name. The actual computers executing trades sit in New Jersey. A huge amount of financial work has already shifted to cities like London, Hong Kong, Singapore, and to digital platforms that do not care what city they are in. People stay in New York because of existing connections and infrastructure. That is convenience, not destiny.
Claiming New York is inherently responsible for the success of global finance is like saying the Oscars create good movies because the awards happen in Los Angeles. If the event moved to Cleveland tomorrow, the films would still be made by filmmakers, not sidewalks.
Has anybody ever told you you’re head is up your own ass? This is all great stuff for a poetic writing class but there isn’t even a hint of a coherent argument in this.
Financial centers are not holy ground. They are habits that formed because of historical momentum, not because the soil under Wall Street produces capital.
Cool, and irrelevant.
London used to be the unquestioned financial center of the world. Before that, Amsterdam. Before that, Venice. None of those cities lost intelligence or charm. The center moved because technology and incentives changed.
True, and also irrelevant.
Claiming New York is inherently responsible
Explain what this means in this context. Clearly. Bonus points for considering the very obvious first-order implications of what you’re saying.
The exchange is digital now, so the trades could happen anywhere with fast internet. If the NYSE moved to another city, the same companies and money would follow.
this shows an extreme misunderstanding of how a large stock exchange works
this isn’t just “fast internet”… this is significant amounts of dedicated fibre being run to offices and data centres as close as possible to the building, microwave links, and a whooooole lot of systems being build specifically around known latencies and locations
I’m confused how this is getting news attention. NYC is irrelevant to the world. It’s its own bubble.
They make nothing, no one stays there beyond a decade, and their political influence is inconsequential.
I mean one more nye performance by j lo in their trashy time square and ill poop your pants.
Now go get.spaghetti
NYC is a massive political arena, and if Mamdani has a successful administration, and his policies work, then it is a valid proof of concept of Socialist/Progressive Policies.
And nothing terrifies them more.
New York City is, and has been for a very long time, one of the most iconic and influential cities in the world.
Ok define the influence and what it gets ny or the usa.
Cultural powerhouse?
Yeah, its not like the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ is located in NYC or anything…
or the fucking UN
The New York Stock Exchange does not prove New York is uniquely strong. New York benefits from hosting it, but the power comes from the global market, not from the location.
It is just a place where companies come to trade. The success belongs to the businesses and investors, not the building or the city.
The exchange is digital now, so the trades could happen anywhere with fast internet. If the NYSE moved to another city, the same companies and money would follow.
Again…New York benefits from hosting it, but the power comes from the global market, not from the location.
The distinction you’re making between the “real” city and the things that happen to be hosted there isn’t real. This same line of reasoning can be used to declare literally any place irrelevant in any context. For example Beijing is irrelevant to the world, it’s only influential because that’s where the Chinese capital happens to be hosted. It’s silly. New York’s global influence comes from the sum of all of the things that just happen to be hosted there, just like anywhere else important.
If a plate of spaghetti is what people want, the kitchen it came from is just a container. You can move the same recipe to a different kitchen and the dish still satisfies the same hunger. The restaurant does not create the value. The spaghetti does.
In the same way, the power of markets and industries does not depend on New York. The companies, the capital, the investors, and the trades are the real substance. They could operate successfully in another city because the value is generated by the economic activity itself, not by the street address. The spaghetti is what feeds people. The kitchen is replaceable.
You’re still using the same weak analogy. This dubious logic can be used to deny the importance of literally any location on earth.
So why don’t they? Answer the question. I’m sure many other places would want to be the financial capital or the world. Why aren’t they?
Financial centers are not holy ground. They are habits that formed because of historical momentum, not because the soil under Wall Street produces capital.
London used to be the unquestioned financial center of the world. Before that, Amsterdam. Before that, Venice. None of those cities lost intelligence or charm. The center moved because technology and incentives changed.
The New York Stock Exchange is a brand name. The actual computers executing trades sit in New Jersey. A huge amount of financial work has already shifted to cities like London, Hong Kong, Singapore, and to digital platforms that do not care what city they are in. People stay in New York because of existing connections and infrastructure. That is convenience, not destiny.
Claiming New York is inherently responsible for the success of global finance is like saying the Oscars create good movies because the awards happen in Los Angeles. If the event moved to Cleveland tomorrow, the films would still be made by filmmakers, not sidewalks.
Now make an argument worth arguing against.
Has anybody ever told you you’re head is up your own ass? This is all great stuff for a poetic writing class but there isn’t even a hint of a coherent argument in this.
Cool, and irrelevant.
True, and also irrelevant.
Explain what this means in this context. Clearly. Bonus points for considering the very obvious first-order implications of what you’re saying.
Your entire reply boils down to feelings instead of facts. Zero evidence, zero logic, just noise.
If you want to debate, bring an argument instead of a tantrum. Right now you are just a bowl spaghetti w/o sauce n cheese.
this shows an extreme misunderstanding of how a large stock exchange works
this isn’t just “fast internet”… this is significant amounts of dedicated fibre being run to offices and data centres as close as possible to the building, microwave links, and a whooooole lot of systems being build specifically around known latencies and locations
NY is very important in the world of politics. They gave us Donald Trump, Rudy Gulliani, Mike Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo…
That’s a small argument bro. Where were the Wright Brothers and einstein born? Surely it should give us more like them.
Except it doesnt. Where a person’s story begins is step one.
Millions of people in New York do not achieve that level of national prominence. The place alone doesn’t guarantee it.
You’re right. It also gave us people like Epstein, Diddy, and Harvey Weinstein.
And where are you based in?
An east coast city for which I dont get bragadocious.
no; you just tear other people down when you see them getting something you don’t have