NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering we get off topic in Macro class my teacher made the comment that the Head of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernacki is one of the top 10 most influential people in the world I thought about it and decided to actually make list.

The list starts from this, the worst catastrophe to happen on Earth is a global nuclear war that causes nuclear winter. So whoever has the nukes has the power.

So here we go:

1. George W. Bush- More nukes than everybody else plus a big economy.
2. Vladimir Putin- Second most amount of nukes.
3. Ben Bernacki- US economic collapse would lead to global nuclear war. If you doubt me ask Zalmay Khalilzad or Bearden.
4. Hu Jintao- China has 1/3 of the world population plus nukes.
5. Tony Blair- Strong economy, influence over a lot of the world (through the commonwealth) and nukes.
6. José Manuel Barroso- EU has one of the most powerful economies in the world with several nuclear nations as well. Knocked down for the EU being a confederacy.*
7. Manmohan Singh- Prime Minister for India. 1 billion people plus nukes.
8. Jacque Chirac- France has nukes there really isn't another reason.
9. Pervez Musharraf- Same with Pakistan.
Tie 10. Rodrigo Rato, Paul Wolfowitz- Both have massive loans that they could call in and lead to many desperate nations and multiple wars.

*I'm a bastard American I don't know much about the politics of the EU this might belong to another leader in the EU. Whoever is the most powerful is in this list.

5. Tony Blair- Strong economy, influence over a lot of the world (through the commonwealth) and nukes.

Tony Blair has about as much influence over the world as a dead tuna.

Tony Blair has about as much influence over the world as a dead tuna.

Depends how you define "influence".

Tony Blair has about as much influence over the world as a dead tuna.

Indeed. If someone wants to list the commonwealth as an 'influence', you might be better going with a royal. And I wouldn't even begin to mention the commonwealth as anything remotely influential or meaningful beyond some shared cultural traits.

6. José Manuel Barroso- EU has one of the most powerful economies in the world with several nuclear nations as well.
The EU certainly does occupy one of the top three economic positions in the world, but since the EU is merely an economic union, I would take him off of the list, because, as you basically said:
Whoever controls the nukes, controls.
So, bump in Chirac, because the French have quite a few nukes and he isn't afraid to use them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm).

Basing a list on "who has the nukes" seems a little weak to me. For instance, I'd say that Rob Walton is one of the most powerful people in the world. He's the CEO of Wal-Mart. Think he's got some stroke?

Max Barry, by threatening to close NS he could enlist an army of NSers to set loose upon the world.:eek:

Indeed. If someone wants to list the commonwealth as an 'influence', you might be better going with a royal. And I wouldn't even begin to mention the commonwealth as anything remotely influential or meaningful beyond some shared cultural traits.

But if you base it on other things. Britian usually plays a key role in diplomatic relations, it can also has some influence over americans foreign policy, despite the the general stereotype that Britian is just doing everything the USA tells it.

But if you base it on other things. Britian usually plays a key role in diplomatic relations, it can also has some influence over americans foreign policy, despite the the general stereotype that Britian is just doing everything the USA tells it.

That has nothing to do with the commonwealth. What influence Britain may have in American foreign policy might be as simple as America having a proxy diplomat with nations that won't deal with the US. The US is most certainly not a commonwealth nation, and speaking as a Canadian, we might not want to give up the monarchy anytime soon, but we really couldn't give a shit about the commonwealth.

Bill and Melinda Gates didn't make your list? While they're not likely to be tossing around nukes, they can be a powerful force for good. I'd put them in place of Chirac.


Incidentally, George Bush doesn't belong on your list at all. Replace that name with Karl Rove, and your list becomes closer to the truth.

Wait, Max Barry didn't make the list? This list is full of fail!

Max Barry, by threatening to close NS he could enlist an army of NSers to set loose upon the world.:eek:

Dangit! beat me :(

That has nothing to do with the commonwealth. What influence Britain may have in American foreign policy might be as simple as America having a proxy diplomat with nations that won't deal with the US. The US is most certainly not a commonwealth nation, and speaking as a Canadian, we might not want to give up the monarchy anytime soon, but we really couldn't give a shit about the commonwealth.

Hence why I said at the begging: "but if you base it on other things" i.e other then the commonwealth.

Basing a list on "who has the nukes" seems a little weak to me. For instance, I'd say that Rob Walton is one of the most powerful people in the world. He's the CEO of Wal-Mart. Think he's got some stroke?

I think he does however as powerful as his company is I don't think the collapse of Wal Mart could lead to a nuclear war definitely some bad stuff in America but Wal Mart isn't multinational yet and if it fell down another company could probably take its place. Wal Mart is not the only big box mart.

Beyond that nuclear war is always the worst impact because nukes lead to the end of humanity. The collapse of Wal Mart is not going to lead to the end of humanity.

Also I tried not to make the list too Amerocentric or else probably Rove, Rice and Cheney would have appeared because or their influence over Bush.

Hence why I said at the begging: "but if you base it on other things" i.e other then the commonwealth.

Okay, then yes, as leader of a permanent security council nation, of course he's going to have influence. Missed what you were getting at, my bad. :)

But if you base it on other things. Britian usually plays a key role in diplomatic relations, it can also has some influence over americans foreign policy, despite the the general stereotype that Britian is just doing everything the USA tells it.

I challenge you to name one thing Britain has changed American foreign policy over, that America wouldn't have done on its own in time.

But if you base it on other things. Britian usually plays a key role in diplomatic relations, it can also has some influence over americans foreign policy, despite the the general stereotype that Britian is just doing everything the USA tells it.

Since Suez, Britain has been the bitch of the US.

Considering we get off topic in Macro class my teacher made the comment that the Head of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernacki is one of the top 10 most influential people in the world I thought about it and decided to actually make list.

The list starts from this, the worst catastrophe to happen on Earth is a global nuclear war that causes nuclear winter. So whoever has the nukes has the power.

So here we go:

1. George W. Bush- More nukes than everybody else plus a big economy.
2. Vladimir Putin- Second most amount of nukes.
3. Ben Bernacki- US economic collapse would lead to global nuclear war. If you doubt me ask Zalmay Khalilzad or Bearden.
4. Hu Jintao- China has 1/3 of the world population plus nukes.
5. Tony Blair- Strong economy, influence over a lot of the world (through the commonwealth) and nukes.
6. José Manuel Barroso- EU has one of the most powerful economies in the world with several nuclear nations as well. Knocked down for the EU being a confederacy.*
7. Manmohan Singh- Prime Minister for India. 1 billion people plus nukes.
8. Jacque Chirac- France has nukes there really isn't another reason.
9. Pervez Musharraf- Same with Pakistan.
Tie 10. Rodrigo Rato, Paul Wolfowitz- Both have massive loans that they could call in and lead to many desperate nations and multiple wars.

*I'm a bastard American I don't know much about the politics of the EU this might belong to another leader in the EU. Whoever is the most powerful is in this list.

It would take a very unlikely series of very unlikely events to give Barroso enough power to warrant being higher than Chirac.

Chirac should be equal to Blair and without a doubt he should be higher than Barroso. With Britain's access to American military equipment not taken into account, France has a more nukes than Britain. Britain only recently passed France up in GDP, not to mention it only grew .7% faster than France last year...which is actually a pretty decent amount, but let's remember Britain also has domestic oil production and is English speaking so it has easier access to American markets(In terms of information and entertainment) and therefore this .7% has more to do with the slightly random factor of oil placement and external circumstances than better economic organization. But France is in much better Demographic shape, so, whatever. Sure, you can bring the Common Wealth into account...but how does that give Blair any more power? And besides, Chirac has much more influence over the EU than Blair does.

Russia has close to 5,000 more nukes than the USA.

Bill and Melinda Gates didn't make your list? While they're not likely to be tossing around nukes, they can be a powerful force for good. I'd put them in place of Chirac.


Incidentally, George Bush doesn't belong on your list at all. Replace that name with Karl Rove, and your list becomes closer to the truth.

Replace it with Cheney, more like. I think we overestimate just how smart and how powerful Rove really is.

I think he does however as powerful as his company is I don't think the collapse of Wal Mart could lead to a nuclear war definitely some bad stuff in America but Wal Mart isn't multinational yet and if it fell down another company could probably take its place. Wal Mart is not the only big box mart.

Beyond that nuclear war is always the worst impact because nukes lead to the end of humanity. The collapse of Wal Mart is not going to lead to the end of humanity.

Also I tried not to make the list too Amerocentric or else probably Rove, Rice and Cheney would have appeared because or their influence over Bush.

Wal-Mart's not multi-national, you say? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10838942/)
What operates in 44 countries, has 2,276 stores outside of the U.S., has more than 100,000 associates (their term for worker) in Mexico alone and does $56.3 billion in sales overseas? That $56.3 billion figure nearly matches the size of the U.S. sales of the Kroger Co., and they are the seventh-largest retail company in the world.

It is, of course, Wal-Mart. And now the accounting for 2005 is in — it increased its international 2005 business by 18.3 percent over 2004 and grew its international operating profits to nearly $3 billion.
If Wal-Mart collapsed, it would do major damage to multiple national economies in the short term. In the long term, those economies might be better off for it, but there would be some major short term pain.

Basing a list on "who has the nukes" seems a little weak to me. For instance, I'd say that Rob Walton is one of the most powerful people in the world. He's the CEO of Wal-Mart. Think he's got some stroke?
Seconded. Add Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to that list. Howard Stringer too.

If Wal-Mart collapsed, it would do major damage to multiple national economies in the short term. In the long term, those economies might be better off for it, but there would be some major short term pain.

I doubt it, actually. If anything, inflation would worsen, pushing down real wages even further and leaving poor communities worse off than they were before. Wal-Mart, for all its flaws, does provide a major benefit to lower-income consumers with its lower prices.

Tony Blair more influential than the Pope? Are you sure?

I doubt it, actually. If anything, inflation would worsen, pushing down real wages even further and leaving poor communities worse off than they were before. Wal-Mart, for all its flaws, does provide a major benefit to lower-income consumers with its lower prices.

I think it's a false benefit, though--those lower prices don't just pop out of thin air. Someone, somewhere is exploited to make those prices lower, and in Wal-Mart's case, you can pretty much look anywhere along the manufacturing and distribution chains and find them. Take wages, for example--in order for Wal-Mart to keep prices low and yet rake in the billions they do, they have to keep not only their own labor costs down, but the labor costs of everyone they buy from. More than one company has decided either to stop supplying Wal-Mart or never begin in the first place because of the pressure Wal-Mart puts on them to continue lowering their costs by slashing wages. And once you've ramped up production to supply Wal-Mart, it's hard to say no to them, because usually there's debt involved, and perhaps the very survival of the supplier.

Like I said--if Wal-Mart were to disappear, there would be significant short term pain, and I do mean significant. I'm not certain the long-term prospects would be all that bad, though. Cheaper isn't necessarily better. Neither is bigger.

Wal-Mart's not multi-national, you say? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10838942/)

If Wal-Mart collapsed, it would do major damage to multiple national economies in the short term. In the long term, those economies might be better off for it, but there would be some major short term pain.

I think I have to agree with Milchama here...
Wal-Mart is huge in the US but in other countries local corporations can take it's place

eg. Zellers in Canada was very successful before the arrival of Wal-Mart

eg. Zellers in Canada was very successful before the arrival of Wal-Mart

Other companies could/would take Wal Marts place eventually but that wouldn't ease the short term stress. A monopoly like that falling out would have a detrimental affect on the economies of all the countries it was present in. Although as it was said that would be short term.

To respond to people who think others should be on the list:

Max Barry- That was a bad omission on my part. We'll put him in at number 11.

The Pope/Bill Gates- You're ignoring my framework for the whole nuclear war outweighs all thing. As notable as those two individuals are neither have them have a red button they can push to make the world end. That's way Ban Ki-moon isn't on this list eventhough he is head of the UN.

Movement along the list: Yeh I think I might have put Barroso a bit too high on the list. But I'm not moving Chirac any higher until I see a French military victory (which judging by their history won't happen for awhile).

I think I have to agree with Milchama here...
Wal-Mart is huge in the US but in other countries local corporations can take it's place

eg. Zellers in Canada was very successful before the arrival of Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart is far more ubiquitous than you might imagine--just because there's not a Wal-Mart brand store in other parts of the world doesn't mean they're not there. In fact, the only place they're really suffered a setback worldwide was in Germany--they bought a grocery chain and had their asses handed to them and pulled out of the country--but that's the exception, not the rule. For instance, I believe the chain Asda is now owned by Wal-Mart.

Is there a case for Rupert Murdoch?

To those who mentioned Rob Walton-isn't he the guy who created Wal-Mart as a company that saves money by having few, if any, middle men? If so, he's long dead. Bone cancer and all.

Is there a case for Rupert Murdoch?
There certainly could be. His influence in the US has waned recently, as I think he overplayed his hand with Fox News, but his influence is still powerful.
To those who mentioned Rob Walton-isn't he the guy who created Wal-Mart as a company that saves money by having few, if any, middle men? If so, he's long dead. Bone cancer and all.
No--that was Sam. Rob is his son and current CEO of Wal-Mart.

I challenge you to name one thing Britain has changed American foreign policy over, that America wouldn't have done on its own in time.

Well, you managed to convince Eisenhower that Mossadegh was supported by Commies, after Truman had told you to fuck off...all so you could get your oil fields back.

We all know how well that turned out...

Wal-Mart is far more ubiquitous than you might imagine--just because there's not a Wal-Mart brand store in other parts of the world doesn't mean they're not there. In fact, the only place they're really suffered a setback worldwide was in Germany--they bought a grocery chain and had their asses handed to them and pulled out of the country--but that's the exception, not the rule. For instance, I believe the chain Asda is now owned by Wal-Mart.

To my knowledge, they don't have a presence here.

The list starts from this, the worst catastrophe to happen on Earth is a global nuclear war that causes nuclear winter. So whoever has the nukes has the power.
Being able to kill yourself and everyone around you only counts as power if you're crazy/stupid enough to actually do it, and there hasn't been someone that far out there in power since JFK bit the dust.
On the other hand, Rupert Murdoch controls news distributers, think tanks and pundits around the world from his top secret underground bunker deep in the Australian outback. So that's got to count for something.
I'm sure there are others, but I'm too lazy to think right now.

But I'm not moving Chirac any higher until I see a French military victory (which judging by their history won't happen for awhile).LOL
since you are not going to move him.. I shall make my own list:

first 5 spots are easy: nukes + veto power.
____________________________________________
#1 Bush (or the next US pres) ..soon to be replaced

#2 Hu Jintao

#3 Chirac (or the next)

#4 Blair

#5 Putin

#6 Rupert Murdoch
____________________________________________
(Last 4 spots are tied)

#7 Sumner Redstone
#8 Donald Newhouse
#9 Robert Parsons.
#10 Robert Iger
____________________________________________
#11 Manmohan Singh
#12 House of Saud Ruler
____________________________________________

technically Blair and Chirac should be tied.. I did not take into consideration the Bush-sidekick ways of Blair.
The tiebreaker is for the actual French influence in EU geopolitics.

José Manuel Barroso??? Barroso has as much influence over the world as a dead tuna :D
original line by Philosophy

The list starts from this, the worst catastrophe to happen on Earth is a global nuclear war that causes nuclear winter. So whoever has the nukes has the power.
Being able to kill yourself and everyone around you only counts as power if you're crazy/stupid enough to actually do it, and there hasn't been someone that far out there in power since JFK bit the dust.
On the other hand, Rupert Murdoch controls news distributers, think tanks and pundits around the world from his top secret underground bunker deep in the Australian outback. So that's got to count for something.
I'm sure there are others, but I'm too lazy to think right now.

Batman. Where the fuck is Batman on that list? He has more power than Blair, any day.

I'm thinking that if we put it in terms of countries then Blair and Chirac would drop off the list as I'm not sure people would feel Britain and France are in the top 10.

So...

US - thus Bush
Russia - thus Putin (he does control gas to Europe right now in addition to his nukes)
China - thus Hu Jintao

Then...

Bernanke (I'm wondering if the head of a JP Morgan or similar, or alternatively a George Soros/Warren Buffet here)

Bill Gates - just that MS has such dominance in terms of computers (Google has influence but users could too easily switch to better if better came along - i prefer ask.com myself and I think MSN Live search has strong potential)

Manhoman Singh/Pervez Musharraf (apologies for spelling if wrong but rationale is that these 2 could bring the world into war, with nukes, fairly easily)

Rupert Murdoch

The House of Saud - head of at least - controlling your resources will rule your world

Li Ka Shing - owns Panama Canal and huge amounts of shipping, hence distribution

Final spot goes to....ammm....YOU (i.e. internet users, message board participants, bloggers) - I quite liked the TIME rationale

EDIT - oh yes, and Batman pwns all naturally

You're all forgetting Gerard de Ridefort, current Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.

Basing a list on "who has the nukes" seems a little weak to me. For instance, I'd say that Rob Walton is one of the most powerful people in the world. He's the CEO of Wal-Mart. Think he's got some stroke?
And despite all the money Wal-Mart makes and all the customers it serves, it must yield to the government of even the tiniest state when it comes down to it.

Governments can use force on people, companies can't (at least under normal circumstances).

Though if by "powerful" you mean whose decision affects the lives of most people, then you could put a few business leaders there, yes.

In fact, the only place they're really suffered a setback worldwide was in Germany--they bought a grocery chain and had their asses handed to them and pulled out of the country--but that's the exception, not the rule.
Actually, that had a pretty simple reason: They got into direct price competition with Aldi.

And no one (and I mean no one) can compete with Aldi and Lidl on prices. For the products they stock they have a buying power over their suppliers 20 (!) times as much as that of Wal-Mart.

Is there a case for Rupert Murdoch?
yup.
A small metal one that we weigh down with rocks and dump in the middle of the Alantic.
If only we could convince him to get in it!

Sorta relevant: Fortune 500 has a new list for this year of the biggest companies in the world. Wal-Mart's on top again, overtaking Exxon Mobil.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/full_list/index.html

Sorta relevant: Fortune 500 has a new list for this year of the biggest companies in the world. Wal-Mart's on top again, overtaking Exxon Mobil.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/full_list/index.html

S'only American companies to be pedantic

S'only American companies to be pedantic
True. There'll be a few more big oil firms there, Toyota and Daimler maybe, and Gazprom.

To my knowledge, they don't have a presence here.

According to the google, they were looking into it last summer and currently hold a small slice of Woolworths, though nothing like controlling interest. Give them time.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Ban Ki Moon, our de facto ceremonial World President?

The Doorman at the Savoy or the Chairman of the Membership commitee of the Reform Club

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Ban Ki Moon, our de facto ceremonial World President?

Maybe because he's just that--ceremonial?

I think that Oprah Winfry belongs on the list. She is the richest woman ion American (and the world?) and has influence in many other countries. Just think of all the people that she has helped out who own her a favor. She is currently managing many schools for children in Africa. If Oprah wanted to take over the world, she'd have a lot of support, I think. Those schools could begin brainwashing kids to become ninja warriors.... wait, didn't I receive that issue once....


OH! And don't forget the guys that own google and U-Tube. They could pretty much control the information accessable to the world, if they wanted to.

I'd say Bill Gates also plays a role in "one of the powerful people in the world" category.

He is the richest man in the world and has control over those who uses his softwares. Where would we be without Microsoft?

He is also spending his fortune in AIDS research. Once he finds the cure, his networth will be doubled. He's a billionaire for christ sake.

He can buy a land equilvalent to the size of Mexico and build his small army and nukes in order to become Bush number two.

That's my two cents.

LOL

#1 Bush (or the next US pres) ..soon to be replaced

#2 Hu Jintao

#3 Chirac (or the next)

#4 Blair

#5 Putin

#6 Rupert Murdoch
____________________________________________
(Last 4 spots are tied)

#7 Sumner Redstone
#8 Donald Newhouse
#9 Robert Parsons.
#10 Robert Iger
____________________________________________
#11 Manmohan Singh
#12 House of Saud Ruler
____________________________________________

technically Blair and Chirac should be tied.. I did not take into consideration the Bush-sidekick ways of Blair.
The tiebreaker is for the actual French influence in EU geopolitics.

Totally didn't think about the House of Saud ruler. That's a good one, I think he might kick off Wolfowitz. You talk about media moguls, but they only control media in the US not across the entire world. You could make the case for the head of Sky, BBC, etc. with that logic.


[QUOTE=Barringtonia;12552716]

US - thus Bush
Russia - thus Putin (he does control gas to Europe right now in addition to his nukes)
China - thus Hu Jintao

Then...

Bernanke (I'm wondering if the head of a JP Morgan or similar, or alternatively a George Soros/Warren Buffet here)

Bill Gates - just that MS has such dominance in terms of computers (Google has influence but users could too easily switch to better if better came along - i prefer ask.com myself and I think MSN Live search has strong potential)

Manhoman Singh/Pervez Musharraf (apologies for spelling if wrong but rationale is that these 2 could bring the world into war, with nukes, fairly easily)

Rupert Murdoch

The House of Saud - head of at least - controlling your resources will rule your world

Li Ka Shing - owns Panama Canal and huge amounts of shipping, hence distribution

Final spot goes to....ammm....YOU (i.e. internet users, message board participants, bloggers) - I quite liked the TIME rationale


First off I think you're wrong about getting rid of Blair and Chirac they still have nukes and thus are powerful. And they still matter diplomatically just look at the US invasion of Iraq to prove that point.

Gates- He has competitors, if his product becomes absolute crap then Mac or some other company would take his place.

You- While I thank you for making me one of the most powerful people in the world there are others who probably are more important than internet bloggers.

Rest not similar- Didn't think about that Panama Canal, if that gets shut off then oh dear would be bad stuff happen. He probably could go in for Barroso.

8. Jacque Chirac- France has nukes there really isn't another reason.



Why is France even on your list. Even if they have nukes they would struggle to fight their way out of a paper bag.

*coughs*...errr wheres the hoff?

plus tony blaire doesnt have any influence over his own government nowadays yet alone the world!

*coughs*...errr wheres the hoff?

plus tony blair doesnt have any influence over his own government nowadays yet alone the world!

Tony Blair is the leader of what is a very powerful nation. Without Britain there would be no America or come to think of it internet. A British bloke invented that. What would the world be without Americans and internet?

Tony Blair is the leader of what is a very powerful nation. Without Britain there would be no America or come to think of it internet. A British bloke invented that. What would the world be without Americans and internet?


yeah i agree britains pretty much the best thing since sliced bread...i jst dont think tonys that powerful seeing as his leadership is coming to an end and all, that said they are about to spend 20 billion on some new nukes...which is nice

yeah i agree britains pretty much the best thing since sliced bread...i jst dont think tonys that powerful seeing as his leadership is coming to an end and all, that said they are about to spend 20 billion on some new nukes...which is nice

I agree i quite like that, makes me feel all safe.

I agree i quite like that, makes me feel all safe.

yeah if your gonna trust anyone with nuclear capabilities its gotta be the brits

yeah i agree britains pretty much the best thing since sliced bread...i jst dont think tonys that powerful seeing as his leadership is coming to an end and all, that said they are about to spend 20 billion on some new nukes...which is nice
Why? You only need to use one to ensure the death of you country.

yeah if your gonna trust anyone with nuclear capabilities its gotta be the brits

Rather us Brits than Iranians

You're missing Bill Gates.

You're missing Bill Gates.It was agreed that since he does not have nukes, he is no more powerful than you or me.

Unless you have nukes too.

I think he might kick off Wolfowitz. actually.. his own staff migth be able to kick him out.. Cos he hired his Girlfriend..
I agree that Wolfi is a VIP.. but if your own staff can kick you out.. you do not belong in this league

You talk about media moguls, but they only control media in the US not across the entire world. You could make the case for the head of Sky, BBC, etc. with that logic.If Murdoch owned all the Aussie+British+Canadian media.. he migth still not belong in the List..
His "influence" comes from been able to somewhat bend the American public opinion..
The 3 American branches of Power.. and all the Corporations (including WallMart, Exxon and Microsoft) have to pay attention to the American public opinion.
The thing is.. the US is currently the sole economic+military super power in the World.

Let me give you an example.. if the US media starts repeting every week "Vista sucks".. Bill Gates will come out.. and say he is Sorry.. and go back to the drawing board.. Even if he thinks Vista is great.

Totally didn't think about the House of Saud ruler. That's a good one.. thanks.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Tony Blair is the leader of what is a very powerful nation. Without Britain there would be no America or come to think of it internet. A British bloke invented that. What would the world be without Americans and internet?

Nope. Tim Berners-Lee invented the worldwide web, not the internet. The former is merely a subset of the latter.

You talk about media moguls, but they only control media in the US not across the entire world. You could make the case for the head of Sky, BBC, etc. with that logic.

Amm, so that would be Rupert Murdoch.

He also owns Star TV in Asia among countless newspapers around the world.

You- While I thank you for making me one of the most powerful people in the world there are others who probably are more important than internet bloggers.

There was a good article the other day on some online newspaper (probably Murdoch-owned though more likely The Guardian, IHT or WSJ given my reading habits) about bloggers in Egypt calling out the hypocrisy of their leaders so effectively that people are being jailed. Yet the blogging continues.

EDIT: It was the Economist (yay me) but here's (http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1176524988119&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062620)a readable online copy

This is happening around the world.

We often concentrate on political effects of blogging, the calling out of politician facts for example, but the more important role of blogs is simply making contact with 'other' people. It's the freedom to express your opinion with different-minded people from North America, South America, the sub-continent, Europe, Australasia and Africa (apologies to those in Antarctica) and all from different ethnic backgrounds.

I think message boards are extremely influential as, even on blogs, the real debate happens on the comment sections. Blogs live off their readers. YOU.

Look at the range and variety of people and views on NS, look at the topics discussed. Previously, even if you lived in an international city such as London/New York etc, you were limited to local TV and newspapers followed by discussions among your like-minded peers. This was not overly conducive to greater understanding of humanity.

We wonder at some of the views expressed on these boards, marvelling that people can still hold outdated opinions or assert old wives tales as fact in this day and age, but these are the genuine views of a large majority of people, even among the reasonably educated echelons of the Internet community (you have to be able to write to contribute to the Internet let alone have a computer).

The more dissemination of opposing viewpoints, the more debate we have with people from around the world, from different social strata, different beliefs, even if only English literate people to start with (NS is mostly English-written, aside from that infernal Dutch thread), makes for a hugely important step in our history.

History is about communication and distribution - great leaps in society and consequent wars ensue as that communication and distribution cross previous set cultural boundaries and thus shape our world.

YOU are important, taking part in the most important communication revolution that has such illustrious predecessors as the horse, the wheel, the ship, the printing press, the train, the telephone, radio, TV and satellite.

Feel the importance of YOU you should.

According to the google, they were looking into it last summer and currently hold a small slice of Woolworths, though nothing like controlling interest. Give them time.

They better fucking not. I work for Woolworths.

In England id say the most important company is TESCO's. They own around 50% of our food market. And with a company controlling something so important as that I mean wow. "£1 in every £8 spent in shops is spent in Tesco's"

Is Tesco's Taking Over ? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4183965.stm)

Tony Blair has about as much influence over the world as a dead tuna.

Same goes for Barroso and the EU Commission, because the European Council can veto the Commission.

I think that Osama Bin Laden and the Pope could be in the top 10. Bin Laden because he's the flag-bearer of islamic fundamentalism; the Pope because he's the leader of the single largest religious gerarchy (Islam hasn't a pyramidal gerarchical structure, Catholicism has).

Just a little note, China is home to approximetley 20% of the population (1.3 billion divided by 6.6 billion), not 33% like you suggest.