Apr 2, 2007 4:46:34 PM cite

people give government power and government give brands power so really niether have the most power the public do, but its more a question of what they do with this power and also what we do or in most cases don't do with ours.

by Muggy

Sep 11, 2006 2:53:39 AM cite

The problem is that Brands (Large Corporations) and Governments opperate is diferent areas. Corporations are ruled strictly by Profit. Governments are ruled by the will of the people to regulate and protect. Corporations are regulated by Governments, even though they attempt to influence those regulations. Both have a function, and in their place each is more powerful than the other.

by thedoc

Sep 10, 2006 3:52:26 AM cite

Brands have much more influence and influence many more people than governments. For Example, take the typical life of a kid. At low ages you have to wear certain shoes and clothes to be accepted by your "gang", "group" or whatever. You have to drink certain drinks. You have to smoke a special brand of cigarettes to be hip. At that age, no kid is interested in politics, but mobile phones, clothes, playstations and so on. And its not about functionality, but brands. Getting older does not encurage the young teenagers or adolecents to be automatically interested in what the government does. They are still aware of brands. Most people get interested in politics when coming to university. Thats the time, when most young people start to think about whats wrong or right. What needs to be changed. What needs to be done. Take the protest against Coca Cola for example. The Protest started at some university and then started to spread out. Or take the protest against Hitler in the third Reich. Most activists where students. This does not say, that non-studieing people dont have no interest in politics. But take a look at what newpapers (I wouldnt really call them newspapers, like Bild, Sun, etc) are read by people working at construction sites for example. So maybe at a certain age the people get aware of brands not beeing so importaint. That its not the car you are driving, not the beer you drink nor the jeans you wear, but you yourself as an individuum who counts. But only a few get this far.

by wtp

Sep 9, 2006 3:06:12 PM cite

they can move easier to another continent by selling,buing,hire/firering ... compared with governments who needs to make wars for this.

by shybyte

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: Yes, of course. (It’s a globalization time. It’s a big concern have big power, because they have big big money. But I think it is a ratio, it is a process, and when people who working at concern begin change your mind, go to a new level in consciousness, begin thinking, because in concern are working simple people. They must think and must do something to change politic from concerns. We need a lot of power, a lot of initiative to change the politic of concern. ) I has been born in Siberia for example, and my country is Russia. Now we have changed the political system, because it used to be socialistic country and now it is a capitalistic one, and it is developing itself according to principles of any other capitalistic country in the world. It’s a globalization time, big concerns exercise considerable power. They practically control politicians, because economical resources, fuel are concentrated in hands of concerns, which influence politics, because people and government become corrupt too. It is possible to buy everything. I think, the only way out of it would be the change of our self-reflection. We have to change our self-reflection; otherwise we would end in chaos and destructiveness.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Abbas Beydoun: Yes, brands can be more powerful than governments in many times, which means that the brands themselves are like independent states.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: Recently some countries are trying to develop brands to identify their own identity or their own symbols that identify their main issues. And in a way, it is trying to [recuperate] or the make the commercial products as a way to sell their values as if they were products and I think that governments have a more obligational duty to defend their own values, but at the same time they have to know who they are. Sometimes this economic power takes over the values of a country and that’s why countries have to really try to get their own, to go deep into the soul of their culture to know what, but it identifies them deeply.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Many, many governments are ruled by the brands. The whole economy of the nation is based on what the brands can bring into the land. And thus the whole system becomes governed by those powerful brands. You cannot do anything without those brands limiting the expandability, limiting the capacity of the people to be self-sufficient. You can see that in the oil and gas industry, you can see that in the soft drink industry, you can see that in the footwear industry and many other consumer products, which are really governed by those individual brands. So you and I, we don’t have the kind of freedom we dreamt we had.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: I don't think that brands are more powerful than governments. I think the question asks a very important - raises a very important concern which has to do with the role of brands, the role of corporations in our world. And while increasingly there's an awareness of the role of these powers in particular to transcend the boundaries of nations, to transcend the boundaries of states, I think it's very important to remember and take account of the fact that states continue to play a very important role in decisions about making war and conducting wars and in policing the boundaries of dissent. Also, in policing movements and resistance of sexual change, and if necessary, repressing them. So, the question of the power of brands gets at the concern of the role of these transnational actors which increasingly are seeking to uproot themselves from the state, but in the end we find that they actually still very much depend on the state. And even if corporations and brands aspire to be global, fine, they either have to rely on a state to protect them; they rely on states to act in their interest in terms of regulation and taxing, and so on. But also, we find that brands find ways of localizing their behavior in order to appeal to the particularities that still exist within this global system. So, their loyalties are quite shifting indeed. So, the other issue that I think the question raises that's important to come back to is the way in which image in our society is being used to sell something that masks the underlying relation of production in our society, in our world, and how brands are seeking – as Naomi Klein in particular has pointed out – to mask the role of labor in the global economy.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Brands are more powerful than the government because they have [inaudible] of the world.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I think it depends if we see ourselves as consumers or citizens. Because if we are consumers, we will have basically brands be far more powerful. But if we are citizens of this world, we will be building governments that represent the aspirations of the people.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think brands, they can mean corporate powers, corporate structures. And so a brand can be some very powerful corporation, whether something like Xerox or Boeing or whatever the name may be, Volvo. They vary all across the planet. Corporations are extremely powerful and brands therefore carry that corporate signature of corporate power and money and influence. And we know that certain corporations and brand names are enormous, in the billions of dollars, in their worth and their command of funds and influence on the planet. And in this respect, from the monetary point of view of budgets, obviously, some of the great corporations of brands are far more powerful in that respect than many governments. The smaller governments in particular. So that in this respect, brands in terms of the money and funds and influence in the media and on a global scale can and are in this respect more powerful than certain governments. And this is a deep question that we have to look at in terms of understanding the forces on the planet, forces of globalization and to understand the question of balance and whether, for example, NGOs, non-governmental organizations, can come forth and marshal alliance powers to really counterbalance the profound, powerful economic forces that brand names can command, especially in the way the media works and the marketplaces works. So we have deep question to think about concerning the power of brands versus government, but also regarding the interest of human beings and people and citizens all around the planet. So this is an excellent question to begin this deep dialog.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: If by this question you mean corporations that create the brands, I would say that we have to look at the interlocking connection between corporate interests and governments. The distinction between the two increasingly is becoming less and less ascertainable as the interests converge with each other. So ultimately the concern becomes will the corporate interests ultimately dominate and control governments? Historically, governments have been the arena within which morality, justice, ethics have been regulating, regulating body, and corporations have as their interest profit. So therefore we have to see the connection between these two interests, and are corporations ultimately more powerful than governments? I feel that there is an increasing incursion of corporate interests that have a controlling interest in government and that is what we need to be careful about. If by this question you mean brand names, the power of corporations to use public relations firms to mobilize the public sector, I would say that their ability to express themselves in ways that can mobilize people oftentimes seems to be more effective than government's ability.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Brands are more powerful than governments. Brands are like a stamp, a code of arms that a corporation has. Brands have the corporation, brands are controlled by corporations. They are the stamp of the corporation. And our governments nowadays are somewhat controlled by the corporation. Corporation has taken the rights of personhood, yet they are not stallion in the carnival for their actions. Flags have become the brands of the government, stripes are barcode, and the stars are the product. And governments need to return to their original purpose of governing that what’s needs to be governed and not representing the rights of the corporations. Governments are controlled by these corporations, through greed and power. Government should represent the people in which live in their lands. It is unfortunate that it is come to a place where these governments are controlled by greed and consumption. What a question?

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Benson Venegas: Unfortunately, this is truth. The world is owned and controlled by multinational corporation. People perception is also part of this idea that people think that brands deliver immediate benefits while government take time to satisfy their needs. So this perception is part of the situation where created - a general situation where people think that government is more power – corporation I’m sorry is more powerful than government. I think at this point we need to create possibilities where we can try and get a balance of power between brands and government as well.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Beverly Schwartz: I think that brands can influence governments and brands do not have to be only products; they can be labels. And when labels are branded, they can do much harm or much good. But brands do not influence policy in a direct way, the way governments do. Their power is different and it is hard to compare the power that a label has to the power that a political process, negative or positive, has on the world. Brands do influence people and they influence behavior. Governments influence people and they influence behavior. They do so very differently. And for the most part, they do so for different ends.

by Beverly Schwartz