Are brands more powerful than governments?

Question

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by a member of the Barcelona Forum, 2004.

To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/15403.page

Answer 1

Brands that control media are a lot more powerful than the governments themselves. The governments actions are mostly seen through the media, so what the media puts out is what we see. And what we see is what we "know". The entire reaction to "terrorism" has been entirely shaped by the media and the people controlling it.
The following is an article from the author of "Welcome to the USSA: Corruption in the Government and Media" Written by Ryan Dawson.

Why does the media lie?
Well the major networks are all owned by different corporations.

These corporations have vested interest in the largest umbrella corporation on earth, the Military industrial complex, or one might say the industries involved in weapons manufacturing, reconstruction, energy, ect everything that has a pay check tied to the allocation of money to the military. Corporations have "Boards of Directors" However the same people may serve on multiple "Board of Directors." and they do as I will explain.

For Example CBS is owned by Viacom so is MTV, VH1, and Nickelodeon. It's not just the news but the sitcoms and such as well that are part of the propaganda. Viacom is owned by Sumner Redstone. (origninally Murray Rothstein)

CNN is owned by AOL-TimeWarner. Waner Brothers is owned by Gerald Levin.

ABC is owned by Disney. Disney is owned by Michael Eisner.

Fox is owned by the Rupert Murdoch News Corporation.

Members of the Board of Directors of these corporations sit on the BOD of the weapons manufactures and mega companies like Texaco, Chevron, Boeing, Lockheed, Citigroup, Rockwell Automation, Chase, Worldcom, and JP Morgan, Haliburton etc.

Some are even in the government.

For Example Texco/Chevron merges with Unocal who got the largest and first no-bid contracts from Afghanistan. The Secretary of State, Condi Rice was (is?) on the Board of Directors for Texaco/Chevron.

Lets look at some of this mess.

BOEING:
John H. Biggs sits on the board of directors for both Boeing and JP Morgan and Chase. How nice to direct both a company and two banks.

John E. Bryson is on the BOD with Boeing and also He is a director of The Walt Disney Company, who owns ABC.

Linda Z. Cook the CEO of Shell is also on the BOD of Boeing.

More on Boeing here: http://www.boeing.com/corp_gov/board_directors.html
disgusting isn't it.

Lockheed:
Lockheed is comprised of mainly ex-military and x-government employees in the defense industry. They got caught in the 70s financing the right-wing party the LDP in Jpaan who has open connections ot the Yakuza the Mafia times 100. Check out the Kodama Lackheed scandal. They paid this mobster Kodama of the Yamaguchi-gume Yakuza wing (the largest one) 2 million in 1976 dollars to swing contracts for Lockheed. It's a well known scandal in Japan as it was so disgraceful that 1)the Japanese government is full of mafia and 2) they got money from the very same company that built the planes that dropped the atomic bombs.

More here:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/gang/yakuza/3.html

I will let you look up the rest on your own. Needless to say they are all one happy corporate killing family. Nothing makes them more money than warfare. And nothing is currently a larger cash cow than the Zionist occupation of Palestine which also has the financing of super right wing Christian churches who get the benefit of air time from the networks for preaching the message that is best for the warmongers and investing their money into their stocks. More on that whole mess and the iron triangle etc: http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=658

Multi national corporations run our press and governement. They tie back to the privately owned central banks. long story short the MSM is full of ****.

And nothing is covered with more of a bias than the occupation of Palestine. THE KEY ISSUE. Watch a long film on that here: http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1716 or a short film: http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=2736

911 was a spring board for these on going wars. You already know why the press wont touch it. So WHO do you think took part in 911??? My answer: http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388

-More from "Ry" Here: http://www.rys2sense.com

Answer 2

There are lots of very extensive answers put forward already, I'd just add these few thoughts. Look at the powerful players in the tobacco and drinks industry, their extensive advertising, sponsorship and various promotional campaigns, their vast budgets but in western democracies especially they are being brought to compliance and restrictions because of the risks their products pose both by way of direct health risks e.g. cancer or cirrhosis, and anti social consequences so called binge drinking, drink driving, drink related violence. Whilst public opinion is a major driving force for change it is ultimately governments who pass legislation to deny the brands the path they would otherwise often chose to take. And the ultimate power of a government is that no government ( parliament ) is bound by its predecessors or can bind its successor. The same independence of thought is also true of dictatorships whilst they last. In the UK a present example of brand power and influence is the debate on the governments proposals to allow so called 'super casino's'. There is much evidence to suggest, and which the government concedes,that there will be an increase of addictive gambling. The gaming industry will be expected to pay a contribution into gamblers treatment programs. The brands are therefore only as powerful as the government will let them be and any future government could reverse the process. Brands may appear and are powerful but government expediency, tolerance and continued acceptance is the oxygen they they need to survive.

Answer 3

You mean, are Brand Names more powerfull then Governments right?

Well, in some cases yes, in other cases no. Depends where you go, who's in the government, what type of government, and if that government has been currupted yet or not, or how much that government has been currupted. Also depends on the "popularity" of that brand at that given time and place.

But mostly it isn't the brand that has the real power, that's just an image like an "idea", it's really the corperation behind it.
;-)

Answer 4

My opinion is Brands are the most powerful and no government can ever be more popular, strong or influential than a brand is.... except if your are living in a communist country, but now a days even there brands speak!
Capitalists rule the world although we like to think we elected the Government !

Answer 5

With all the free trade agreements, tax breaks, lobbying for the removal or weakening of regulations, etc., brands (or corporations) are certainly challenging the power of governments.

In the U.S., many business leaders talk about having a partnership with government. Although that sounds nice and flowery, the entire concept undermines democracy. Partners are seen as equals, where one cannot hold sway over the other. Since people in a democracy have a voice in government, but hold little or no voice in corporations' decisions, the power of the people's government is nullified.

People will argue that citizens can vote with their dollars on the economic side, but that allows wealthy people more votes (since they have more dollars) -- something that contradicts the very nature of our democracy, which ensures that every person gets only one vote, regardless of wealth.

With regulations being weakened and/or removed regularly, often for economic competitiveness and political reasons, governments around the world are handing over their power to corporations. If trends continue, brands will be more powerful than governments... in the very near future.

Answer 6

AhHAA! You see something that is going on in this world that few other people see.There are few countries in this world worth as much as Microsoft. Bill Gates could have thumbed his nose at the American justice system and taken his business elsewhere but no, he negotiated not as a man being sued but as the leader of a powerful entity that depended on the United States for some of its support. He is a nation onto himself and he conducts himself in a civil manor which is also why he still tops out Forbes magazine. Bill is only one of many new small nations coming into their own. Our daily lives are being effected more by corporations and less by government. Don't believe me? What kind of car do you drive?

Be interesting to see where this goes.

Answer 7

An answer to this question relies on a definition of power. Is power the ability to appeal to the masses; the ability to impact upon world economy and an iconic power that sees the "m" of McDonalds being a more recognisable symbol than the crucifix -and Coca Cola's ability to redefine Christmas - then brands are indeed more powerful.

However, if we are talking about the control needed to bring about systematic change that will impact on the future of a nation; the ability to inspire community or individuality; the ability to destroy or build alliances across borders - then governments are more powerful.

I sense that the premise of the question comes from the belief that the masses are gullible to the influence of the super-companies. I understand the concern expressed but I question the pessimism that sees the dis-enfranchising of the person on the street.

Answer 8

Brands? You mean corporations, moguls, old money, the boys club, etc. etc. etc. Government has long ago sold out. They might have had the power at some point, but eventually the student surpassed his master and took over. Government, is all about collusion, and everyone has a back to scratch or azz to kiss.

Money is power and governments are just pawns in the overall picture. However they are accountable to the public and even "brands" can't afford to alienate the public. Hey, we might just wise up and catch on and wouldn't that be a kick in the azz.

Answer 9

Of course not. Just look at all of the fashionistas in any communist country. Unless dressing like a peasant is some sort of new fad that I am not aware of, I would have to conclude that Gap and Abercrombie and Fitch have yet to smother China and North Korea in their clothes...

Brands are only powerful amongst themselves. This is seen in Pepsi vs Coca Cola, or Nike vs Reebok. It's never been Reebok vs America lol.. Besides, any government in any country in the world has the power to put restrictions or controls on any business entity that it wants to, or to levy fines on them..or to shut them down entirely.

This question should be rewritten as "Are lobbyist's more powerful than a democratic government?" Another version would be "Why elect anybody when they will just be influenced by lobbying anyways?"

Answer 10

I will say they are not. Yes they have tremendous sway and can influence but to be more powerful might be a little deceiving. Each government has to be taken separately. Governments do have the power to decrease the power of a brand through many different laws. Personally i do not know a definite answer to that question but do believe the ultimate power does lye with the governments.

Answer 11

Absolutely money makes the world go round, if you can possible imagine who is involved with whom and which company is linked to what, then you quickly see that they finance a lot of what the governments do, how could the president of the US of A have an election campaign like they always do without powerful brands behind him, and how does he then repay the favour? Same in any other country.