81–90 of 126 posts
https://www.greektownbaltimore.org/what-the-difference-betwe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Corporation is a local council, it collects the bins and operates one primary school. Is that all it runs? > There's always this misconception that it's some sort of lawless wild west. I don't view it that way. > I assure you every company in the world would be based there! How many financial companies in the world are based there?
> How many financial companies in the world are based there? Many, for sure. Plenty more are headquartered in Canary Wharf, which is not in the City but in Tower Hamlets. These include Barclays, HSBC and Citigroup.
Those firms have been accused--indirectly--of money laundering. If they're engaged in that vice, it's plausible to me they would add the additional vice of protecting it from scrutiny. I.e. engaging in "secrecy." It need not collude with the government to do so, but if it did it would hardly be the first time business and government colluded under a veil of secrecy.
As for what the actual City of London Corporation runs, since you didn't answer the question, I'll answer it for you. In addition to collecting bins and operating one school, it also runs a police department.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many financial companies in the world are based there? Many, for sure. Plenty more are headquartered in Canary Wharf, which is not in the City but in Tower Hamlets. These include Barclays, HSBC and Citigroup.
That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is "most". The City has the largest number of financial firms, the largest share of office space, and the largest share of trading volume and assets under management. It's home to the Bank of England and the London Stock Exchange, and will be home to HSBC when it finishes its move there from Canary Wharf. Those firms have been accused--indirectly--of money laundering. I…
>it also runs a police department.
As do many other regions of the country. There's nothing surprising or sinister about this. There isn't any connection between this administrative fact and money laundering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article we're all commenting on is talking about the City of London in the sense of the geographic area administered by the City of London Corporation. The article you linked to is talking about the shenanigans of the UK's financial sector (mostly concentrated in the City of London). The UK financial sector is regulated by the FCA. Corporations headquartered in the City of London are subject to English law just l…
The article title includes "the secret City of London." Without clarification, it's left to readers to decide what that means. It could mean its government actively maintains a cloak of secrecy, it could just mean that it's not well known, say, to Americans, or it could mean something in between. The latter pole--that it's not well known, say, to Americans--has been established in this thread. What I'm trying to do i…
Generally speaking the etiquette on HN is to at least pretend that you've read the article. I've rarely seen someone so audaciously using the fact that they didn't read the article as a defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How many financial companies in the world are based there? Many, for sure. Plenty more are headquartered in Canary Wharf, which is not in the City but in Tower Hamlets. These include Barclays, HSBC and Citigroup.
That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is "most". The City has the largest number of financial firms, the largest share of office space, and the largest share of trading volume and assets under management. It's home to the Bank of England and the London Stock Exchange, and will be home to HSBC when it finishes its move there from Canary Wharf. Those firms have been accused--indirectly--of money laundering. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sensible, but unfortunately, that's not how it was going to work in NYC. Any car entering the zone below 60th would be covered, regardless of residency. Taxis, ride shares, deliveries, etc., were all covered as well. The area in NYC was little more than a new tax on residents, disguised as congestion pricing. I'd personally have little problem with a fee that made carve-outs for the people who actually live here (and…
You’re just wrong. I live in NYC right next to the congestion zone and it would affect me greatly. I also have lived temporarily in London with a car. They’re very much similar plans. You clearly don’t like the NYC one which is fine, but that wasn’t the topic. As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things. Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highw…
> As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things.
Any fee on car traffic in the zone that does not exclude residents, is de facto, a tax on residents. Even if you never ever ever take a taxi or ride in a car, the billion dollars in projected annual revenues don't just magically disappear because they're being paid by the people who deliver the goods you need for daily existence, the businesses where you shop, or the services you utilize. They get passed down to you, in the form of higher prices.
This is basic economics.
> Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.
You're arguing about something I didn't say and isn't relevant to my arugment, so I'm not sure how I'm "factually wrong".
Yes, the west side highway and the FDR were exempted. Regardless, if your destination was inside the congestion zone, or you ended up driving there to get somewhere else, you were going to be charged the fee. But I don't care if you can travel upstate from Brooklyn. I live in Manhattan, not upstate. My argument is about people living here.
Not incidentally, when you say "or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate" that's some incredibly slippery wording, because, in fact, that's the only direction you can go from the Brooklyn bridge without incurring a fee. Per the MTA [1]:
> Vehicles can travel from the FDR Drive to the Brooklyn Bridge, and from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR Drive northbound without hitting the street grid and so will not be tolled. Vehicles traveling from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR southbound, however, will be tolled, as that connection includes hitting the grid at Pearl Street.
I’m probably being overly pedantic but it’s not a secret
Interesting anecdote: the city of Baltimore, MD, USA is administratively distinct from the County of Baltimore, MD. The area is collectively referred to as Baltimore, but the county has no jurisdiction within the city. [1] https://www.greektownbaltimore.org/what-the-difference-betwe...
Basically the default behavior is that the state is a bigger government than the county and overrides everything, county bigger than city, city bigger than something smaller.
But non-default behavior is codified to make it the reverse.
Either its directly codified in state law or state constitution, or there is a symbioses for the state to maintain collective support and order.
Rules for rulers applies here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not well known in America. Recent conversations on congestion surcharges in NYC regularly confused the charges in City of London (miniscule) with London as a whole (huge), and then tried to draw the comparison to the now-canceled charges in NYC, which would have affected more than half of Manhattan, and a large portion of the most significant commercial areas of NYC. People are either being completely disingenuo…
The London congestion charge is a much larger area than the City https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestio...
The point I am making is that Americans use the naming confusion to draw the fundamentally misleading comparison.