What is Blue Sun really??? by SouthernSlayer

FIREFLYFANS.NET CENTRAL

What is Blue Sun really???

POSTED BY: SOUTHERNSLAYER
UPDATED: Saturday, January 10, 2004 10:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6302
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:29 AM

SOUTHERNSLAYER

Hi Browncoats. Just wondering if any of you can tell me what blue sun is? Thanks.

P.s Fox sucks!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:43 AM

BRTICK

a company in the firelfy universe. possibly with secret sinister motives and ties to The Alliance.

Keep Flying!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:01 AM

JOHNNYREB

I don't know about "secret, sinister ties to the Alliance," but I know they make foodstuffs and softdrinks in the 'verse. On the Official site, there was a Blue Sun ad that had a girl smiling big and enjoying a Blue Sun out of a "cola-can." It was the same ad that was playing on the vid-screen that Jayne used to reach his Alliance contact.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:27 AM

TRAGICSTORY

The Blue Sun is also an exclusive "Gentleman's Club" in Utah. Maybe you've seen thier ad?

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:25 AM

LEGALBEGAL

Blue Sun is their version of Wal-Mart and they are like the real Wal-Mart trying to gain controll of the universe.

Nothing sinister about they are simply a profit machine. I was waiting to see Blue Suns showing up on the small border worlds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:20 PM

SOUTHERNSLAYER

Thanks for such a quick response guys. Im an official pb orphan and so far I like it here. I guess this is my new home now, so you may be seeing posts from my from time to time, please don't be to surprised or offended if there not all that Fox friendly. Anyway thanks again for the quick and welcoming responce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:23 PM

SERENITYVALLEY

Actually Tim or somebody said that there IS some big secret about Blue Sun. It's on one of those interviews on the official fox FF site.

http://www.simple-assault.com/Firefly.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:26 PM

KAYTHRYN

Wasn't the two-by-two-hands-of-blue guys space ship on Ariel called the blue sun ship?

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:11 PM

MELEAUX

In another thread on Rivers odd behavior it was noted that Jayne was wearing a blue sun t-shirt when she cut him with the knife and the labels on the cans of food that she peels off had blue sun on them so I gather that there is something weird going on...like wal-mart :wink;

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 1:51 PM

TEELABROWN

Sometimes, you people are too suspicious. But, hey, I see no problem in that.

............................................................................................
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Keep flyin', and remember, THEY can't take the sky from US!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 8:58 PM

DYAIRVATREE

You know looking at this shows ideology wich seems to be that to much power in too few hands is always a bad thing that leads to repression , such as the obvious anti-big government message and pro-local govenment message. It really wouldn't suprise me if the show had gone on if it didn't also develop an anti-corperate message as well, seeing how this show seems to look at the consolidation of power.

So to make a long story less long I definitely think the people who made the Blue Sun,hands of blue,"He looks better in red.",removing blue sun labels from cans connection are on to something.

And considering the way corperate and federal power have come to control just about every aspect of our lives on some level this show could be considered down-right subversive to the powers that be. So maybe the Fox executives weren't so stupid after all maybe they got Firefly all too well and that was the problem wich caused it to be so badly and intentionally mishandled in the first place. They were just looking for an excuse to cancel it.

Hows that for suspicious!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2003 12:38 AM

HUITZIL

god i'm so dense - the cans, the shirt! there's a bit on the dvd talkaboutybits that says if the show were to continue you'd find out more about the blue sun corporation, showing logo and voice over the twobytwo guys implying clear connections.

I reckon that they're developed from the coca cola company, and are experimenting on the effects of advertising on the human brain.

___________
the turtle and the wolf are natural enemies

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2003 1:54 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by dyairvatree:
You know looking at this shows ideology wich seems to be that to much power in too few hands is always a bad thing that leads to repression , such as the obvious anti-big government message and pro-local govenment message. It really wouldn't suprise me if the show had gone on if it didn't also develop an anti-corperate message as well, seeing how this show seems to look at the consolidation of power.

So to make a long story less long I definitely think the people who made the Blue Sun,hands of blue,"He looks better in red.",removing blue sun labels from cans connection are on to something.

And considering the way corperate and federal power have come to control just about every aspect of our lives on some level this show could be considered down-right subversive to the powers that be. So maybe the Fox executives weren't so stupid after all maybe they got Firefly all too well and that was the problem wich caused it to be so badly and intentionally mishandled in the first place. They were just looking for an excuse to cancel it.

Hows that for suspicious!

Not bad, but it ignores some very important points.

Corporations are not governments. Their mode of power is radically different. Governments operate by coercion. Do what you are told, (or rather don't do what you are told not to) or else. They have the gun, the gavel, the goal and the gallows to back up their "request".

Corporations, at least in the free market, are not so free. Do what we say, or else, well, go work for someone else? Start your own business, whatever. Corporations only work if they are able to persuade customers to buy their products. And can only do that by offering a benefit to their customers that exceeds the benefits offered by their competitors.

If you don't buy McDonald's, there is nothing in the world they can do to make you buy their burgers. They can't even camp on your doorstep and beg you, "Please, please buy oru burgers, Please!" as that would violate many harrasment laws and regulations.

Corporations are responsible to 3 groups. You have suppliers, (which include suppliers of labor, i.e workers) you have investors, and you have customers. All of these factions want the most for the least. Workers want higher pay for less work. Investors want higher profits for less capital, and customers want lower prices on the finished goods. Since profit is the difference between cost and price, we see that while investors and suppliers push prices up, customers push it back down. And balancing these three disparate groups can be very tricky. But since corporation are prevented (both legally and practically) from using force and fraud, all they have left is persuasion to convince these different groups to work, supply, invest and buy of their own free will.

Governments don't have to worry about that as much. In democracies, all the government has to worry about is actual voters. Not those who could but don't, but those who actually vote. Which is why groups like AARP have such influence, either politicians vote the way they want, or find themselves out of a job.

In more authoritarian regimes (which include any centralized economic system) all the government has to do is keep its security forces happy. Military or secret police. The rest don't matter nearly as much, and if they are unhappy, as long as they are disarmed, and unable to mount a revolution, who cares?

Now, when you get business and government together, that can create problems. But it is the only way to establish monopolies, corporations that can dictate what business you go in, and back it up with the force of law. Which means again, the gun, the gavel, the goal, and the gallows.

And then there is the philosophic problems that come with anti-corporate phobia. Since it is all voluntary, banning corporations would only work by banning free association of your populace. Banning them from getting together to produce goods and services that are desired by your populace. Think about it long enough, you see just how draconian, how authoritarian you have to be to ban corporations. And how bad that would be to your populace, and to any group that you require in order to proceed with such a plan.

I was struck by Minear's discussion of "Bushwacked" in the CFQ, about how they show two extremes. The utter chaos of the Reavers, and the total bureaucracy of the Alliance. How both are really bad ideas and uncondusive to a long, healthy and happy life.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 4, 2003 8:47 AM

KERNELM

I don't think any non-ultra-radical anti-corporate types actually advocate "banning corporations." Just like to see them not have so much power is all. And while I'm not as rabidly anti-corporate as, say, your average slashdotter, I think it's certainly true that the current everybody merge mentality along with all the corporate corruption (Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, etc) isn't doing anybody (other than the corporate executives) any favors.

Even Adam Smith realized an absolutely laissez faire economy wouldn't work. The last time the US came even close to such a market was the heyday of US Steel and Standard Oil. Today, the market isn't so free, but the controls are often placed in favor of the megacorps against smaller businesses. And don't get me started on gorram corporate subsidies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2003 12:29 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by KernelM:
I don't think any non-ultra-radical anti-corporate types actually advocate "banning corporations." Just like to see them not have so much power is all. And while I'm not as rabidly anti-corporate as, say, your average slashdotter, I think it's certainly true that the current everybody merge mentality along with all the corporate corruption (Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, etc) isn't doing anybody (other than the corporate executives) any favors.

Even Adam Smith realized an absolutely laissez faire economy wouldn't work. The last time the US came even close to such a market was the heyday of US Steel and Standard Oil. Today, the market isn't so free, but the controls are often placed in favor of the megacorps against smaller businesses. And don't get me started on gorram corporate subsidies.

Oh... you would find me in violent agreement concerning subsidies. Other than in cases of industries absolutely essential to national defense, subsidies are a very bad idea. And end up wrecking the free market.

The thing that struck me about Enron et.al. mess was how quickly the market reacted to the announcement of fraud. The market tanked, even companies that kept honest books and published honest financial statements took a major hit on thier stock prices.

Even without the intervention of the law, the market reacted by essentially telling those corporations to straighten up and fly right. Or else, their wealth would vanish overnight. And they did, by scrambling to get their books certified by an outside impartial agency, (not Andersen) and getting new laws in place, quickly, to tighten accounting practices. The corporate execs needed them, because the investors wanted them before doing business.

People operate on their perceptions of reality. Whether that perception is based on what you see, or just a gut feeling is irrelavant at this stage. If you even think I am a crook, you ain't gonna do business with me. And I have no way of stopping you from taking that action, (or inaction) Even if your perception is wrong, I am stuck with your refusal.

So the "power" a corporation weilds is rather illusionary. If Enron had any real power, they would not be bankrupt, their name scandalized in the minds of most Americans. They may have wealth, but that is only the result of them having provided something their customers want, in the past. If the customer does not buy, for whatever reason imaginable, too bad for the corporation.

Corporate executives do not operate in a vacuum. If the investors are not having a favor done for them, they ain't buying the stock. And as investors, usually they have the power to fire those executives. And in today's world, where almost everyone has a 401 k or some other investment plan, everyone is a stock holder. So who has the power?

The key ingredient for a free market, is the rule of law. Without that, fraudulent practices would go undiscovered, and unprosecuted, and there would be no faith in the market, or those corporations. Which means no investment, and no sales at the very least. And while the law may not prevent excesses, it can go a long way to minimizing the damage done by bad apples.

Also, it should be pointed out that upon the breakup of Standard Oil, has has happened in most of the trust breakups, Rockefeller saw his personal fortune quadruple almost overnight. The split up companies proved to be more valuable to the market than Standard Oil as a whole was.

Now, what does all this say about Blue Sun? It is quite odd that such a corporation should have the power to kidnap people, experiment on them, murder an entire security detachment at a hospital, without some form of government collusion. It very well may be that Blue Sun is innocent of what we suspect, that they simply supplied food and/or other products to the experiment, which was run by some government agency. River's attack on Jayne's T-shirt would be a natural association of Blue Sun, with the Blue Hand folk, but again, her perception may not be consistent with reality.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 5, 2003 1:09 AM

DYAIRVATREE

Howdy Drakon!

First off just so everyone knows I in no way support the banning of corporations. But I do support limiting their power through the application of our anti-trust laws. These are laws designed to prevent to much power getting into too few hands. It's interesting that Standard oil was brought up Standard oil once enjoyed a total monopoly of the U.S. oil market in the early twentieth century. It was broken up into many smaller pieces to protect the public from to much power in too few hands. Shell, Mobil,
Exxon,Texico, ect are all pieces of what was once Standard Oil. You may have noticed that many of these companies that were intentionally broken apart by the U.S. government in the early part of the 20th century have all started merging together
in the late 20th centuy early 21st century with blessing of the U.S. government.Yes Standard Oil is being reborn right before our eyes. Just ask the good folks at ChevronTexico.

So first off I support a freeze in all new mergers
and an end too all monopolies. The most obvious of
wich would be Microsoft.If you got the original Windows 98 you couldn't even shut it down but hell why should they test their own products to make sure they work. I mean what are you going to do buy the competors product. By what right do they control the P.C. market anyway.

Draken states that "Coperations are not governments" that would be true if it were not for the fact that Corperations control the U.S. government. You can't be elected to any major office in this country without massive corperate campain contributions. Look at who donated to the Bush campain and who got no bid contracts. Why did Clinton allow U.S. corporations to sell weapons secrets to the Chineese because of the public interest or the corperate interest? Why did Bush allow supper computer sales to China arguably the biggest long term threat U.S. security?

You can see the influence of corperations on government on television. It used to that media outlets were only given 8 minutes out of every hour to advertise by the FCC which is still the standard in Europe by the way. So to put this in Sci-Fi terms if you watch say an original Star Trek on DVD it's going about 52 minutes(if you watch it today on the sci-fi channel your seeing a highly edited version) if you were to watch Babylon 5 it's going to be 43 and half minutes. Now how did we end up losing all those minutes. It's because it's been slowly wittled away by corperate interests. I don't think it was the public that wanted this. Of course the mainstream news media never talks much about up comming rule changes before they happen why should they it might elicit public outrage and cause people to contact their representives and demand they stop the changes. That would be bad for bussiness.And of course the politicians are far more concerned about serving their corporate masters who fund their campaigns then serving the public interest.

Anyway I believe the only way out of our current corperate mess is campaign finance reform and strict enforcement of anti-trust laws. That at the very least would be a start.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 6, 2003 12:45 AM

DRAKON

Quote:
Originally posted by dyairvatree:
Howdy Drakon!

First off just so everyone knows I in no way support the banning of corporations. But I do support limiting their power through the application of our anti-trust laws.

It when the "Buts" come out that I get nervous. Before you try to fix a problem, you have to 1)determine if there really is a problem, and 2) make sure your solution will make things better, rather than worse than what you started with.

Like I said earlier, the power that corporations have is illusionary. You confuse capability with power, and it is an easy enough thing to do. Too often, and especially from political socialists, Marxist and their kinsmen, see no difference between persuasion and coercion, and assume that simply because someone has proven himself persuasive in one arena, he has power and control over far more.

Bill Gates, everyones favortie capitalist whipping boy, has a lot of money. But he actually has very little power. For all his money, he cannot simply take your car. (As one example) He can buy it, but the decision to sell it, for the price he offers, is still totally in your domain. He cannot simple take it. Your property is yours, not his, and the courts will back you up, instead of him.

It is the courts, the government that has the real power, the ability to do get people to do what it wants, regardless of their own feelings about the situation. The government is the one that can legally put a gun to your head and confiscate, or steal, your property. Bill Gates can't do that.

Persuasion is far harder than coercion. I'm not going to buy your product unless it does something for me that I want. Either it is useful to me, or it sits on the self. You, having already invested in its construction, have wasted your money. And you have no power to recoop your losses, until and unless I say so.

Quote:

So first off I support a freeze in all new mergers
and an end too all monopolies. The most obvious of
wich would be Microsoft.If you got the original Windows 98 you couldn't even shut it down but hell why should they test their own products to make sure they work. I mean what are you going to do buy the competors product. By what right do they control the P.C. market anyway.

, by what right do you demand that Bill sell pieces of his own company? By what means are you to compel him to do your bidding? You need a gun, first. And unless you want to go to jail for trying to steal from him, you need the courts to back you up.

There are a lot of problems with that word "monopoly", first off, its a scare word, and most folks have not thought through all the bad things that would occur if we eliminated all monopolies. If you own a house, or a car, you have a monopoly on that particular item. I cannot use your car, or live in your house, without your expressed permission. You really sure you want to get rid of "monopolies"?

And while on the subject of monopolies, you ignore unions. If your state has a closed shop, you either join the union, and pay dues to it, or else you work in some other state, (or another job). Whether you agree with the union leadership or not, you are stuck with them in a way that no corporation can or would demand. Yet for some reason, unions are seen as good as they siphon money from your paycheck, while the guys who actually give you a paycheck are seen as bad.

Then there is the entire issue of whether Microsoft even qualifies as a monopoly as you mean the term. Mac is still available, and Linux is free. Both compete with Windows. And yes, Windows is still ubiquiteous. Why? Because people of their own free will bought it. No one put a gun to anyone's head to buy Windows, nor keep it on thier computers after they bought it.

The Market decided that Windows would have the lion's share of the market, and Bill Gates was providing a product at a price that people wanted. It may be only about the network effect, (some thing become more valuable to an individual the more people have them, like telephones.) but that is enough. Yes, perhaps that technically speaking Macs and Linux are superior operating systems, but so what? You cannot force people to buy things they don't want.

And here is where the talk of monopolies really bother me, especially when it comes to Microsoft. It boils down to the simple fact you disagree with the majority opinion. And for that, you appear to be willing to take a gun, and force people to accept your ideas. Make no mistake about it, that is what the attacks on Microsoft is all about. Gates provides something a lot of folks want, at a price they are willing to pay. And to "correct" the error that the majority have made, you are willing to punish Microsoft.

A lot of this stems from a misunderstanding of basic economics, and believe me, I was right their with you at one point. Its not called the dismal science for nothing. But the more I look at economics, the more I see that such attacks are unwarrented, and that the proposed solutions are far worse than any excesses of a free market. While I may disagree with your choice of car, lifestyle, computer operating system, (or even agree) I recognize that simply because I disagree with your choice does not give me the right to force a change. To use coercion to "correct" your errors.

The "control" they exhibit in the computer market is again, illusionary. If folks don't want to buy, for whatever reason, the producer is screwed. He ain't going to get paid. He must respond to the market, or else see his competitor beat him, become more successful, and "eat his lunch." Adapt to the market or die, may sound Darwinian, and well, that is a fair cop, but its still better than any alternative proposed to date.

Quote:

Draken states that "Coperations are not governments" that would be true if it were not for the fact that Corperations control the U.S. government. You can't elected to any major office in this country without massive corperate campain contributions. Look at who donated to the Bush campain and who got no bid contracts. Why did Clinton allow U.S. corporations to sell weapons secrets to the Chineese because of the public interest or the corperate interest. Why did Bush allow supper computer sales to China arguably the biggest long term threat U.S. security?

Actually the majority of GOP money comes from small contributors, individuals and married couples. It is the Democrats that are taking large chunks of corporate money, as well as union and other collectivist organizations funds.

As to the "no bid" contracts, you really need to read that report instead of citing the headlines. Yes, Dell did get a contract for providing computers to Iraq worth about $500,000 dollars. And yes, over the years, Dell has contributed about 1.75 million dollars to the GOP. I am not sure what their contribution to the DNC is, but the point is, you don't spend 1.75 million to get a 500 thousand dollar contract. That is a loss, that is bad business.

But corporations will quite frequently give to both parties, because the government has such power on how corporations operate. The government can impose, or change, at whim, the rules that corporations operate under. And governments have guns, which means they can enforce their will without regard to the thinking of the corporation, its stockholders, its employees or its customers. So, considering the disparate power between government and a corporation, it seems wise to donate, and get some kind of "in" with whoever is in power.

You want to complain about campaign finance, well, you got a problem. The government has too much power, and as long as it does, then you are not going to get rid of the money. Changes that governments make can ruin a company, as well as an individual. It can impose some new regulation that would be prohibitively expensive for the company to comply with, mandate new technology that the company cannot afford.

Quote:

You can see the influence of corperations on government on television. And of course the politicians are far more concerned about serving their corporate masters who fund their campaigns then serving the public interest.

This assumes that the corporation is not interested in the public interest. This is false. The public, is in fact their customers, their investors and their employees. Or even themselves. So in essence, you are accusing corporations of being self destructive. That I don't see as too realistic.

Also there is another assumption at play here. That people are fundamentally stupid. That they are easily swayed by clever advertising, that even the slimiest candidate can get elected if only he has enough money behind him. I have seen far too many examples of the opposite, of well financed politicians and propositions (California has ballot propositions) that go to defeat by large numbers, to less funded alternatives.

As for television time, remember that such rules are imposed at the point of a gun. (Always remember that. Behind every law is a gun backing it up.) Television stations were finding they were not making enough money, and wanted to put more advertising on the screen. Now, they are seeing some of their key demographics, the folks advertisers want to talk to, simply not watching. So they still are not making enough money, and things will correct itself. (Of course with a lot of tv fair, is it really so bad they have 15 minutes worth of commercials during "Survivor"?)

The term "master" is quite telling. You appear to still see free markets as a continuation of the old Lord/peasant dichotomy, prevelant in the middle ages. Corporate master versus, what, slaves? Slaves do not have the right to simply walk off the job, strike, or do a lot of things that free people do.

This dichotomy died a long time ago, and it died as a direct result of corporation. In the early days of the Industrial revolution, there used to be laws about returning peasants and serfs to the lands they were bonded to. But factories in towns and cities needed the labor. And found the motivation for enforcement lacking. So essentially the peasants became free, as land owners found the factories offering better jobs and conditions (even as bad as they were at the time, they were far better than the alternative of living on the land of the local lord)

Marx, failing to recognize the fundamental change, saw the world divided between proletariat, and factory owners. He thought that the workers did all the work, and the factory owner got all the profits, never once seeing what it is that a factory or business owner does to earn his living.

Which is quite understandable, since the owner's primary job is to make decisions. Do we put the plant here, or over in the next town? Do we use this method or that. Do we hire this guy, or some other guy? Who does he buy raw material from? How does it get delivered, will the product even sell? Making decisions, and assuming risks are more mental than physical, yet without that coordination, that decision making and that risk assumption, the factory does not get build, staffed, supplied, nor does it make a product the public wants.

It takes money to build a factory, to buy supplies, to engineer a product, and work out the details of construction. Your engineers, your suppliers and your work force are not going to starve themselves to follow your dream. So, if you want it done, you are the one that has to put up the money, (Or, PERSUADE others to buy into your dream). They get paid whether you sell the product or not, and regardless of what you sell it for. If you are wrong, the workers may lose their job, but you are out far more in cash, and credibility.

And in a way, whether one is employed, or self employed, running a one man business, its really the same. The only difference is that an employee has one customer. The self employed and the corporation has more than one. You have to keep your boss happy, they have to keep far more folks happy. Stockholders, suppliers, consumers and employees. Free markets destroy class structures, because at its heart, it is a fractal system.

Quote:
Anyway I believe the only way out of our current corperate mess is campaign finance reform and strict enforcement of anti-trust laws. That at the very least would be a start.

Since the courts have ruled that contributing to a political party is free speech, you have two problems with this proposal. The first, as I mentioned earlier is that as long as Wastington has the power that it does, the ability to interfere in the operations of a business, regardless of the consequences of that interference, corporations are going to contribute to those candidates they like, and even those they don't. Campaign finance will only work if you limit the power of government.

And in light of your demand of more vigorous anti-trust work, I think you are arguing against yourself here. On the one hand, you want more control over corporations in the hands of government, and on the other, you want to limit government in order to achieve campaign finance.

The other problem I see as being more severe. You are calling for a limitation of political speech. You want corporations to stop giving to political campaigns, you are demanding that their voice be silent. You want to determine who may sell or buy to or from, whom. You want to dismantle freedom of association, along with freedom of speech. Sorry, this is a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.

There is a third problem in that the various anti-trust actions taken, rather than punish the "monopolists" have enriched them immensely. John Rockefeller saw his personal fortune quadruple overnight, when they broke up Standard Oil. The same thing happened to the stockholders of ATT when it got broken up, and there is every reason to think that should you succeed in breaking up Microsoft, Bill Gates will be crying all the way to the bank.

Perhaps 'want' is the wrong word. I am not quite sure what you want. I see that corporations worry you, and their wealth can be easily confused with power, capability with ability. It is an easy mistake to make, and one I keep seeing time and time again. But you do have to think about the likely consequences of your proposals, and look out for unintended consequences. They will bite you hard.

Personally, I am for free markets. Markets free from force and fraud. I see how it works a lot better than any alternative ever tried. I also see that that I don't want to buy Microsoft, or anything else, they can't stop me.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 9, 2004 10:12 AM

LADYJAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Like I said earlier, the power that corporations have is illusionary.

Yes, their power is very illusionary. This is why I support any type of education that keeps that illusion broken. I don't think the key to breaking down corporate power is through the law. I firmly believe that we need to teach young children how to see-through all forms of advertizing. In Canada, this is REQUIRED in their curriculum.

Myself, I tend to be on the immune side. I firmly believe that "all marketing is bullshit". But children haven't developed the cognitive abilities to see through it and by the time they are old enough to do so, the messages that have been imposed on them are much harder to break down.

Quote:
Persuasion is far harder than coercion.

Not so when you're talking about a Kindergarten class who is invited to McDonald's under the guise of an educational field trip, as my son's class was last year. (No, I didn't let him go.) Persuasion is VERY easy in circumstances like that. Corporations do NOT do these things in order to "reach out to the community" or to "give children an educational experience". They do it to reel them in young in order to have life-long customers. They have no concern for anything but next quarter's bottom line. We MUST start teaching our children that this is the only motivation they ever have.

--Kala

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 10, 2004 10:11 AM

JASONZZZ

I am going to have to put a big 'disagreement' stamp on all of this. There is no true power to begin with, so to argue that corporate power is 'illusionary' is odd. There are many many types of powers. It's never the type of power or how strong it is - it's the results of wielding it - whether it's individual power, corporate power, governmental power, consumer power.

In effect, illusionary power is strong, political and governmental power has recognized this and since the age of television has used the same type of imageries and marketing power to persuade you (really, you are the comsumer of these political goods) to think and feel differently. In reality, the situation is no different, the budgeting cycle is no different, how the government drones do their business is no different, but your perception is changed; and that's where the money is.

Perception makes reality.
Perception becomes reality.
Perception is reality.

All they have to sell you is an idea and there are plenty of drones out there who will readily buy it. The moment that you buy into the idea - it becomes your reality - and when enough people buy it... It becomes reality.

Market place: there are lots of talk about market place and how free exchange happens. Market place works only in very large scales. On smaller scales, there are always enough of a market to sustain your business - it just depends on how you define your business. Think of a hotdog cart proprietor, and he has only one hotdog cart and he only needs to sell a certain number of hotdogs to sustain that business. Will his market ever dry up, if the A and 13th street corner drys up or the custies in that locality becomes disenchanted, he can just move on to another location and establish another set of custies.
Granted the larger companies do not have the luxury to physically move customer sets, but something similar happens. They influence you to change your ways, buy another set of their products. The bodies didn't change, but it's a new customer set all the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE