In Reply to: Hard earned cash... posted by noddy_star on Tuesday, 6. September 2005 at 23:12 Bali Time:
A post on a forum vs a multi-million dollar per year ad campaign is "forcing opinions on someone"? It's a very tiny redressing of the balance of information. I say that instilling brand loyalty on a baby is forcing an opinion on someone too young to make a choice. But again, that's a result of the success of the marketing campaign of a company that has made vast amounts of money through exploiting workers in some of the poorest countries on Earth. A few years ago, huge protests gained these workers some small gains in salary and conditions. But more was spent on advertising that the problems had been "fixed" than was spent on improving the workers conditions. And that's just pointless, because if they'd used that advertising money to genuinely fix the problems, there would be no need for any protests.
If nobody protested the World Economic Forum, then there are billions of people who would never have known the damage this group of super-rich pricks have caused. Who else is going to tell us? Our governments? The mainstream media? The corporations?
Of course your salary can't provide for 4 billion starving people. But do you know whose can? The richest 1% of the world, who are the people I'm suggesting we don't keep giving money to, because they have a tendency not to share it with anyone. I'm not even suggesting we put rich people in the poor-house. But how much do they need? When individuals own more than entire countries, something has gone wrong.
And the idea that corporations are okay because they employ people is so fatally flawed... you may as well argue that it's lucky white people came to Australia and America because now the native people can claim welfare or work for the people who took their land. If you take everything and give a little bit back, it doesn't make things even.