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.
Your entire argument can be used to show that no cities (except I guess mining towns?) have inherent importance and you have made no attempt to address this obvious implication of what you’re saying. You still won’t define what the hell you mean inherent importance anyways, and I can only assume that’s because you can’t without it sounding ridiculous.
That’s not a flaw in my point, that’s the whole point. No city has inherent importance, least of all New York. It’s a monument to self-congratulation — a place that mistakes its own noise for relevance. When the money dries up or people move on, it’ll be just another overbuilt relic.
You keep demanding some mystical definition of “inherent importance” because you need it to exist, not because it does.
Your just a silly plate of spaghetti at this point and a last word freak.
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.
Your entire argument can be used to show that no cities (except I guess mining towns?) have inherent importance and you have made no attempt to address this obvious implication of what you’re saying. You still won’t define what the hell you mean inherent importance anyways, and I can only assume that’s because you can’t without it sounding ridiculous.
That’s not a flaw in my point, that’s the whole point. No city has inherent importance, least of all New York. It’s a monument to self-congratulation — a place that mistakes its own noise for relevance. When the money dries up or people move on, it’ll be just another overbuilt relic.
You keep demanding some mystical definition of “inherent importance” because you need it to exist, not because it does.
Your just a silly plate of spaghetti at this point and a last word freak.