Poll: Capital City of Earth

[Khada]

anywhere in iceland

 

[Zepren]

Watch as everyone just shouts out the names of their own... EDINBURGH!

I think dublin, there is no city i want to represent us more then dublin.

 

[Baconmonster723]

New York City seems an intelligent option in my opinion. Second largest city in the world. Over 800 languages are spoken in New York City. The UN is housed within the city limits. It is perhaps the most impressive city in the US, one of the likely superpowers to play a large part in world unification. And finally, it contains many symbols that throughout it's history hold more significance to more cultures than most other symbols in the world (i.e. Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island).

Another city I would say makes sense is Jerusalem. A city in turmoil for thousands of years deserves a little peace and quiet. Plus then we could stop hearing the world religions bicker over who deserves it more.

However, I believe the best option would be to create another city to simply serve this specific purpose. No city in existance is truly equipped to handle the significance of ruling the entire world.

 

[kurtzy23]

The Moon because no country owns it so no wars will start over which country can house the capital city of the world

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

Airstrip One.

 

[aHuman]

the City of Babel.
b/c we're all gibbering morons. I mean humans

 

[Thespian]

London.

It's on an island and at one point it they did try to unite the earth. Also, I don't want it in my country.

"Unite", eh? Not the word I'd use.

 

[Towels]

I'll assume we get an entire country set up for the capital city. Like What Australia did for Canberra or Italy did for the Vatican. Make a country filled with pretty much the U.N. That's what they should do, its not what they will, its what they should though...

And for another place to add, why the hell not create an island for this place? We can make them now, why not for the capital?

I agree in that a neutral area should be picked for a capital. As for where, why not a Space Station? Hopefully we'll have a fully functional one by the time this Global Capital concept is a fiesable political reality. I think that a united, global seat of government easily accesable to space would be necessary for Interstellar commerce.

 

[Towels]

London.

It's on an island and at one point it they did try to unite the earth. Also, I don't want it in my country.

"Unite", eh? Not the word I'd use.

Yeah, like how they United the States.

Haha just kidding UK. I've got nothing but love for you.

 

[WolfThomas]

None of those cities, we should create a new city that will float above the surface of the earth constantly moving all over the world. When it comes to your country/state, you can take a free shuttle to see it.

 

[Viptorian]

You have no idea how the Federal Reserve works, do you?

Yes I acutally do. The FR loans money to the government in exchange for bonds which gather interest (not sure what the going rate is so we shall say 15% for arguments sake). Every dollar in circulation cost the government $1.15. Were does that 15 cents to pay the loan back come from? From the Federal Reserve of course since they have a monopoly on the dollar making business. Which means another dollar taken out raising it to $2.30 and so on. The government had to arrange a way to pay it back, and they did. Income tax was born to pay their debt. Part of your paycheck is literally going into the pockets of these bankers, all because the politicians had no honor and let themselves be bribed.
Note that the US Constitution says congress has the right to coin money. Coins have real value since they are made of something of value. Before the gold siezure in the 1930's (I am fairly certain it happened in the 30's, I know it was sometime during the Great Depression), the dollars were backed by gold so they had value. You could trade dollars in on gold. Nowadays they are as worthless as monopoly money. They have value beause we say it does. You can print as much stamped paper as you want, but you can't make more gold.

Incorrect.

First off, the ending of Gold Standard was in the 1970s, under President Nixon. To boot, you can not print as much money as you want, because this lowers the value of the existing dollars (called inflation). Ask post-war Germany or present day Tanzania (edit: I meant Zimbabwe) how hyper-inflation works out. It's a damn disaster.

Technically, dollars are not worth nothing; they are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. If something has "explicit backing," such as treasury bonds (those are the bonds you were thinking about) or GNMA bonds (Ginnie Mae is the only US Agency with explicit backing, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently have 'implicit' backing, as the US now owns them, for the time being), it is backed by "full faith and credit." This means that the US government will use its taxing and money-printing capabilities to ensure that the owner will have money when they call for payment of the bond.

Now then. The basic function Fed is to set and change monetary policy by increasing or decreasing the money supply by either raising or lowering the interest rate, or by changing the amount of cash that banks are required to have on hand. The affects the rate at which banks lend money to each other. The Fed also lends money to the banks if they need it. All of this has the effect of changing how money is loaned out the the consumer. If interest rates are low, consumers get loans at lower rates, typically. The current problem is that with basement-level rates (federal funds is .25%, discount is .75%, and the prime rate is 3.25%), banks still aren't lending as much because of political uncertainty (amongst other things), this the Federal Reserve has taken unusual steps to try to stabilize the economy, such has buying a crapload of bonds. Some say that the steps they are taking are not really allowed, but that remains to be determined - they did it, so...

Anyway, it is entirely different from what you were thinking, but I don't even remember why I brought it up. Oh well.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

I don't think London would be a good idea. Too many aliens around there. Same with Cardiff, not that anyone would pick that place.

I vote it be put on an artificial island in the ocean somewhere. Less chance of regional dominance, then.

 

[adakias]

I voted Tokyo, but only because it's the biggest.
... It is the biggest, right?

 

[floppylobster]

London.

It's on an island and at one point it they did try to unite the earth. Also, I don't want it in my country.

"Unite", eh? Not the word I'd use.

But do you really think the world could be united any other way?

 

[Thespian]

But do you really think the world could be united any other way?

I think that whatever violently imposing your culture upon everyone else for the inflation of both ego and economy achieves can't really be called "United".

 

[Oodleew]

America because we founded the united nations

No, you didn't solely found the UN, you played a part in it.

Why not Geneva?

 

[floppylobster]

But do you really think the world could be united any other way?

I think that whatever violently imposing your culture upon everyone else for the inflation of both ego and economy achieves can't really be called "United".

I agree. I'm just being a realist cynical about our chances at achieving a united world.

 

[Wintermoot]

a new city that will be build on Antartica called: Metropolis

 

[TheTim]

Mexico City..... PFFFFT jk

i'd have to say New York or Berlin.

 

[Sandernista]

Chicago

Mainly because of our upright and honest politicians!