Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: I think sometimes they are because in Africa, for example, or the Third World there's very, powerful companies influenced dictators and support them in denying knowledge to people and even support them in [first ] propaganda, and I think such companies should be stopped. But I also think it depends on a leader. If it's a good leader working for truth, for fairness, I think such a company would not have a chance. And at the end you find that elections will not be taking place in a country and then at the end it could even be dangerous if this company divide the political elite. And then everything becomes about not leadership, but about money and then these companies could even have a chance in destroying our Earth because that means they can use anything, any resource they want, for example, clean water, that you even find that you have no clean water.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: If we consider how huge international affiliated groups use advertising media and the entire advertising industry in order to make a difference when we purchase, let's say washing powder, let's say cosmetic products, thus products that basically are not really of interest for the well-being and the general welfare of mankind; if we consider how many billions of dollars are spent for advertising media and the entire industry to produce brand name products that are of no economic use, that basically are nothing but wasted energy, then we are often tempted to think that brands are more powerful than governments. In fact nowadays there are different international affiliated groups that dispose of a greater financial volume than the gross national product of entire states, of the so called peripheral states, such as African states or Latinamerican states. Thus indeed we have to think about the fact whether the enormous amount of money that is spent for the producing and advertising of brand name products is not just wasted energy. It is alarming that governments often have to bow to the interests and the imperative of the economy as represented by the international affiliated groups. Of course there are also signs of hope, I am thinking of the initiative of the United Nations, social responsibility.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Cornel West: Well, it depends on how you define -- how on the one hand governments still have a monopoly on the instrumentalities of violence; therefore, they can still go to war and produce war. Brands are in many ways, of course, metaphor for multinational corporate forces; and they certainly are powerful in regard to shaping the lives of everyday people. So brands do, in fact, have tremendous power embodied in capital and embodied in the clout of corporations. But governments still remain important in terms of being those institutions that are able to both go to war and thereby end up killing people, murdering people. So, we don’t want to downplay the power of either the public’s fear when we talk about government nor the private sector when you talk about multinational corporations. It’s not a question of either/or. It’s a question of both/and in terms of trying to ensure that multinational corporations are accountable to everyday people, working people and that governments remain accountable, regarding its citizens even as of definitions of citizenship changing all the time, with of course new ways of migrations here in Germany, with the Turks and Kurds, in France with so many Muslim brothers and sisters or in the stage with my own fellow, Mexican, Latin American brothers and sisters. Corporations on the one hand and governments on the other must be accountable.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: Government, I believe that government is more powerful than brands. However, the moment that the government are paid in favor of those who are doing the brands, then it become the other way around where brands become powerful. Another thing, the moment that the governments are indebted to corporations who owns those brands, then it will come and it will become the other way around where brands will become more powerful than governments. That’s totally from the perspective of indigenous people. And we have seen governments, especially in the Third World countries becoming – being controlled by brands and those are the things the government should maintain their identity and integrity as they are mandated for it.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Yes, I think so, as long as many of these companies that represent these brands or have budgets that exceed by many times the budgets of many, many governments in the world, of course, they are more powerful. They can buy their ways in the societies, and they can very often decide also the agenda and that’s in these countries. So, yes, there are many governments in the world that have less power than the brands. So, in this sense I feel like one really has to think how to regulate this, how to allow these multinational companies to still do what they do but without really invading the serenity of different countries, and instead of exploiting these countries, regulate their relationships so they actually contribute to the countries that they are into and/or that they in and operating in. I feel that’s a big challenge and I don’t think this is an issue that only each government within their own countries can solve, that’s one level of tackling the issue, but I feel like this is a global problem, somewhere global and we have to agree what are the rights and the limits of these multinational companies.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara: It’s being like this because brands already come with a capitalist connotation which is therefore exploratory.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: I think that they are making a – there’s a confusion of terms between recognition and power. That's the fault here. I think that there’s a confusion of terms between recognition and power. More people probably recognize Ronald McDonald than they do the name Jacques Chirac or Angela Merkel, but Ronald McDonald doesn’t have an army or a state behind him.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: The question of whether brands are more powerful than governments reflects the concern obviously with corporations in the world, with companies that brand their products. And the first thing that comes to my mind is that 51 percent of the organizations, most powerful organizations on the earth now are actually corporations rather than governments. So, at face value I would have to say that the corporations have become more powerful than the governments are now. The particular question of branding is interesting, especially when you think of young people, who through MTV and other Internet advertising and all kinds of things like that, probably spent more time and attention on brand names than they do perhaps of the statements made by their own governments. I don’t know whether that’s true around the world. I am an American, and certainly branding is been very important to my own grandchildren, as they go through high school, especially girls care a lot, but probably boys now too the same. In any case, the deeper question is about why so much power is in hands of corporations rather than governments. And, this has to do with the fact that economics has such great power in the world today. And, the kind of economics that we are doing are based on a system in which corporations have to account every 90 days to their shareholders for profits. And this is a situation in which it's very difficult for a CEO to be accountable to the planet and to the people of the planet. We talk about, in business now a days a triple bottom-line, where we are suppose to be accounting for profits planet and people; in other words, social accountability of corporations and also accountability to the ecosystems. My time is up on this question.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Ervin Laszlo: If you mean by brands the major corporations then they certainly are. They are more powerful in regards to innovating and implementing. Governments are more powerful in terms of regulating and trying to recreate a balance.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru: Yes. The brands are more powerful than governments. But I don’t think that’s the way it should be. It unfortunately increasingly becomes the issue because many of the companies that are controlling the world are people who have the control of manufacturing company, the private sectors, and therefore, they are using the wealth that they do have. The medical, pharmaceuticals, the companies that are developing all the products that we are using in the world, the drinks, anything that is manufactured for the world consumption are the people who hold the power. And although they don’t come openly to show their power, they actually use the people in the ruling class to control the world. And for them to be able to be a master the world, they must actually sell the brands. And for those brands to sell, they must be allowed by the government. And therefore, the governments have no powers. Their powers become less when they have to incorporate the interests of the corporate sector, the private sector that want to amass the wealth. And that’s a problem. Because the brands are means to accumulate wealth. And that’s a problem. Many people have to secure their own living by being paid so little by the private sector the people who own companies. And even as they complain the governments don’t listen because if they listen then the companies will withdraw from their countries. In that way, it becomes difficult for the government to negotiate with the brands and brands therefore controls. If you look at the brands, it is the identities of corporate sector.

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Fernando Solanas:

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Fred Matser: Well, I think it is important to first address what power is. I think many questions are around the issue of power. Power, first of all, is I think in time and space something that resides in each of us, and we can use our power in a functional or a dysfunctional way. That is to say one can use it in harmony with the cyclical evolutionary laws of nature, or when we can use it against these laws. So, if the question is, are brands more powerful than governments, I think it's more the issue of what are the players in the brands aiming at. Brands are often represented, are representation of companies. And governments, both governments as well as companies consist of people. And it's just their willingness in which way they really want to work together, to work together against or with one another. So, as you see, I am a little bit getting into it, making several mistakes. But, the bottom line for me is, as we see it now that the companies that, especially the multinational companies have a big hold over the media as well and the governments do. And it really depends on the situation, in which case one is more powerful than the other one. Of course, many of the players in the companies have a bigger, have an advantage over the governments because they are often much more trained in using the psychology in order to get the attention of people and in that sense are more powerful.

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: Apparently yes. But this is due to the fact that the affiliated groups, whose brands are meant in this context, infiltrate their representatives into governments and those people then represent the interests of the profit - oriented societies, instead of representing the interests of the countries and the peoples whose names they mention every day.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: Well, I guess there are many people like me there we don’t understand so much why this kind of matter, probably perhaps because I am an artist. But how much I know, many times there are the brands they decide who will be our governments and they depend on us no question about. To have control of this kind of situation, we speak about democrat systems a lot, but in this case also the meaning of democracy depend of one, all of one of us. After we see the results, for instance, of an election, we the people elect, I don’t see the -- as the moment to discover what are the result. We must do the process of day to day to build the result, for instance, of an election and to learn to follow the process of development of our society.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: Yeah. The brands for me I will refer to multinational companies and TNCs, transnational companies, from my own perspective, sometimes these brands become too powerful especially when we look at their relationship with Third World countries. They control the economy, they control the technology, they also control most of the economic sectors of the country. And, at the end of the day, they end up sort of dictating almost everything. And, in most countries like in developing countries -- in Africa, for example countries such as Zimbabwe, Mozambique, South Africa and Malawi, they will end up even with growing support and withdrawing their effort. So, the problem is that sometimes that too actually even compromise the way in which governments should work. Governments are forced to do what they don’t want to do because corporate worlds or the corporate world industry threatens to withdraw their service, and in that case that will compromise the whole system and in this case they become too powerful than governments. But, at the same time, governments also have got the power to control through their policies. But, their main problem is that they don’t have the economic muscle to control that and even their policies might be abused by these financial heavyweights. So, it is really a real real problem.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: I think so. It seems to be so, brands are cutting across continents. For people, brands relate to their needs. The governments often are unable to do that. But the only thing is whether the brands are meeting the real needs is a question. If the brands are able to provide answers to the real needs of people then they will become yet more powerful. I do not know the brands are able to stay on. If they are able to stay on, it shows they are able to address the needs of the consumers. So, it is also possible for some of these brands not to be there when they are unable to relate with the users. The brands are expanding, expanding to regions beyond on that what we see as nations, as cultures.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: Yes. If we identify brands with economic power, we could really say that today’s economic power is more powerful than governments. Brands lead to simplification of the problem. We are overflowed with information and people depend on this simplification. They can be controlled by introducing to them something what they already know. That’s flattening and it leads to great difficulties. The questions that the society and the governments pose are too abstract. They have nothing to do with everyday life and that’s why are not comprehensible to the people who are used to this simplification. We must once again start to point out the issues in a more complicated form, in order they start thinking themselves and making their own decisions in their favour. And that is being hindered. To a certain extent, economic power is an enslavement of the people by simply making them ignorant.

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that brands are powerful than the government.

by Harry Wu