Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Chris Maxfield cmaxfiel@****.org.au
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 15:17:40 +1000
At 09:20 1/05/99 -0400, Airwasp@***.com wrote:
>
>World." For this the UCAS government is beginning, in my games at least, to
>formulate an appeal to the Supreme Court to establish a alteration to the
>Shiawese Decision. The alteration is that if a extraterritorial

Cannot the UCAS government just pass legislation revoking the Shiawase
decision?

<< snip legal case >>

In the dystopian future of SR, I have no doubts that the megacorps can
manipulate, inveigle or remove those Supreme Court justices and evidence not
favorable to the corps' interests. Which may give rise to some shadowrunning
jobs: We've had the Corp War - now we'll have the Court War!

>Considering there are at least three nuclear reactors in there, the blast
>from the explosion would devestate a good portion of the area around it,
>destroying Seattle, sending shockwaves down into the San Andreas fault, and
>not to mention that the nation of Salish-Shidhe will also take the brunt of
>the explosion too. In the meantime, within the Arcology there are a lot of

This is the uniquely SR situation where fusion reactors can go bang. :-(

>people (estimated at over 90,000) trapped within the Arcology, a lot of them
>citizens of the UCAS, who are now having their basic human rights to be
>violated, and the government is going to come to their aid in any way, shape
>or form they can. By making the ammendments to the Shiawese Decision, it

But human rights external to the UCAS (extraterritoriality) is a political
issue not a legal issue, is it not?

>Should the megacorporations mount a fight to prevent this ammendment, then
>the UCAS Attorney General would make a simple statement of, "Since you have
>decided to fight this decision out, I am asking the Court consider the action
>of setting up a live broadcast of the proceedings of this case to the Net and
>to require that a channel on all trid cable companies to carry the
>proceedings live and unedited to prevent the manipulation of the facts as
>they happen within the Court to the remainder of the World."

Personally, I think that the only ones who'd watch the long, dry court
proceedings would be about two student lawyers and three bored guards. However,
the broadcasting of the court proceedings would allow the Corp's lawyers, the
best that money can buy, the opportunity to play to the audience. (More
shadowruns, too.) They'll be able to present fact and law that portrays the
Corp's case as reasonable and necessary while demonstrating the logical, legal
and factual errors in the government's case. (They're lawyers, they'll find
them.) In the end, the Supreme Court will make a decision - but enough fact,
law, smoke and BS will have been presented so that any decision will be
justifiable - the broadcasting will have prevented nothing.

>The Corporate Court would back down as the performing of this action would
>mean that their repuations in the eyes of the people of the world, and of
>it's own employees would be shattered, and they would no longer be trusted
>anymore. And if they are no longer trusted, then their bottom line, their
>beloved profit margin is going to be hurt.

Ah no. The spin-doctors would change this to CC's heroic defence of the rights
and profits of shareholders and employees, and the noble defence of stability
and justice for the rest of the world. In the end, if they must, a trade off
between public trust and extraterritoriality would see the profit margin
preserved by the second, not the first. People, other businesses and
governments must buy from the Corps - what choice do they have?

>Dunkhelzahn did not die to simply create the Dragonheart, as he had achieved
>something which only John F. Kennedy had ever truely achieved in this
>continent before him, the love and adoration of the people, and their trust
>above all else. Had he chosen to, he could have survived the attempt on his
>life, let's face it, he was a Great Dragon, and they just don't let
>themselves get bumped off everyday. The simple act of the creation of the
>Dragonheart was not his only weapon that was created that day, in comparison,
>the other weapon he made was far more powerful than the Dragonheart itself.
>In his death he caused the people of the UCAS, and of the world to grieve for
>someone who cared for them, and showed it, in his speeches, in his actions,
>in his desire to run for the Presidency of the UCAS. He wanted only the best
>for his people of the nation and world that he calls home. His weapon won't
>be felt immediately in the world, it is going to take some time for the
>current generation of youth to grow up with someone they can idealize and
>worship as a hero, whom they believed made a difference and was taken away
>from them by a cold, cruel world. They will realize that even one person,
>dragon or not, is capable of making changes to the world, and all they have
>to do is believe that they can.

This is one of those situations where we foreigners don't quite understand the
American soul. To most of us, JFK was a manipulative womanizer who brought the
US to the brink of nuclear war, started the Vietnam fiasco and totally stuffed
up Cuba. To the Americans, he seems to be a martyred saint.

We played Dunky this way. To some characters he was the redeemer, to others he
was an alien monster following some incomprehensible monstrous agenda, to most
he was just one more bizarre/scary/fun blip on the weird-shit-o-meter. The
Dragonheart itself and what Dunky did to create it will only ever be a myth
known to some and believed by few, and a fact known to very few. Its need and
its creation is just too far beyond the every day physical world.

<< snip Michael's story >>

I wish you all the best Michael.



Chris
Message no. 2
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 17:46:13 +1000
> >World." For this the UCAS government is beginning, in my games at least,
to
> >formulate an appeal to the Supreme Court to establish a alteration to the
> >Shiawese Decision. The alteration is that if a extraterritorial
>
> Cannot the UCAS government just pass legislation revoking the Shiawase
> decision?

Ok, I missed the start of this...

No, the UCAS Government cannot revoke the Shiawase Decision. Or rather,
they can, but that will only succeed in hurting the government for no gain.
Extraterritoriality means that the land the corps now own is no longer a
part of the UCAS. Therefore, UCAS laws, or the revoking of UCAS laws has no
effect on that land.

To give a clear example that everyone will understand, the British Empire
granted independence to the USA. The UK can revoke that particular
law/ruling/whatever if they like, which in theory claims the USA back as
part of the Commonwealth, under direct control of the UK. Fine, on paper it
might even work. But somehow I don't see the USA humbly accepting and
giving over the government, military, economy or anything else to the UK.
End result: The UK looks like a complete idiot, and gained nothing.

Same thing with the Shiawase Decision.

> >World." For this the UCAS government is beginning, in my games at least,
to
> >formulate an appeal to the Supreme Court to establish a alteration to the
> >Shiawese Decision. The alteration is that if a extraterritorial

The same thing applies here - any alterations to the law will look great on
paper, but the corps probably wouldn't care a whit. What's done is done,
and it's far too late to be an indian giver now.

---

However, what both of these COULD achieve is future extraterritoriality
claims. If the law was changed so no further claims of extraterritoriality
could be made, then the government would keep what's left of it's land,
which is a good thing for them.

As a sidenote, a similar thing has happened before. During the middle ages
and later some people left their estates and wealth to the church when they
died. Such a case meant that the land no longer belonged to the crown. The
crown could no longer impose taxes on that land, could no longer demand food
or men of the estate in times of hardship, etc. There in itself is one
reason why the Catholic Church is one of the world's wealthiest
organisations. I'm still not sure how the situation was resolved, however.

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts
can be counted" - Albert Einstein
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 3
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 07:07:41 EDT
In a message dated 5/2/99 1:18:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
cmaxfiel@****.org.au writes:

> Cannot the UCAS government just pass legislation revoking the Shiawase
> decision?

Actually, here's the tricky bit: YES, since that decision was not made in a
UCAS court. <g>

The UCAS is a different entity from the US, or from it's other "parent,"
Canada.

But it owuld bee seen for what it is: underhanded, shady, and semilegal at
best. <g>

Not to mention, all those "anonymous campaign contributions" would dry up. LoL

Sean
GM Pax
gmpax@***.com
ICQ 18582108
Message no. 4
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 07:55:49 -0400
Slipspeed wrote:

> No, the UCAS Government cannot revoke the Shiawase Decision. Or rather,
> they can, but that will only succeed in hurting the government for no gain.
> Extraterritoriality means that the land the corps now own is no longer a
> part of the UCAS. Therefore, UCAS laws, or the revoking of UCAS laws has no
> effect on that land.

It is the Shiawase Decision that allows Corporate
Extraterritoriality. If the decision is overturned at a later date,
the corps lose the extraterritoriality. Granted, this would be a big
loss for the UCAS gov't, but it is within their rights. If the UCAS
tried this, one of several things might occur. The corp. could pull
all it's assets from UCAS soil, including all it's jobs. A corp.
might agree with the decision then turn around and offer a contract to
"police" their own property and agree to work with local law
enforcement. Or a corp. may attempt to fight the decision which could
become very ugly.

>
> To give a clear example that everyone will understand, the British Empire
> granted independence to the USA. The UK can revoke that particular
> law/ruling/whatever if they like, which in theory claims the USA back as
> part of the Commonwealth, under direct control of the UK. Fine, on paper it
> might even work. But somehow I don't see the USA humbly accepting and
> giving over the government, military, economy or anything else to the UK.
> End result: The UK looks like a complete idiot, and gained nothing.

While a good example, this is not exactly analogous. Corps were
granted extraterritoriality, Americans fought for independence. It
was not granted until we had beaten the British government. If those
that fought in the revolutionary war, had not; then America might be
like many other former colonies today.

>
> However, what both of these COULD achieve is future extraterritoriality
> claims. If the law was changed so no further claims of extraterritoriality
> could be made, then the government would keep what's left of it's land,
> which is a good thing for them.

This I agree could be a negotiated result of an attempt to overturn
extraterritoriality.

--
Iridios
"God does not roll dice"
-Albert Einstein
Message no. 5
From: AndMat3@***.com AndMat3@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 09:27:58 EDT
In a message dated 5/2/99 3:41:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
atreloar@*********.com writes:

> To give a clear example that everyone will understand, the British Empire
> granted independence to the USA. The UK can revoke that particular
> law/ruling/whatever if they like, which in theory claims the USA back as
> part of the Commonwealth, under direct control of the UK. Fine, on paper
it
> might even work. But somehow I don't see the USA humbly accepting and
> giving over the government, military, economy or anything else to the UK.
> End result: The UK looks like a complete idiot, and gained nothing.

Unless the UCAS was willing to enforce their will - by force. let's say that
some
nutty UCAS President decides to dust off "Mainifest Destiny" or the "Monroe

Doctrine"... and uses this as a justification to re-take corporate land.
needless
to say, I can see no good purpose for this. the corps would respond with
(a) physical force, (b) economic force and (c) advertising force. and (i
think)
they would at least win in the "court of public opinion".

andy
Message no. 6
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 01:43:17 +1000
> It is the Shiawase Decision that allows Corporate
> Extraterritoriality. If the decision is overturned at a later date,
> the corps lose the extraterritoriality. Granted, this would be a big
> loss for the UCAS gov't, but it is within their rights. If the UCAS
> tried this, one of several things might occur. The corp. could pull
> all it's assets from UCAS soil, including all it's jobs. A corp.
> might agree with the decision then turn around and offer a contract to
> "police" their own property and agree to work with local law
> enforcement. Or a corp. may attempt to fight the decision which could
> become very ugly.

<snip>

> While a good example, this is not exactly analogous. Corps were
> granted extraterritoriality, Americans fought for independence. It
> was not granted until we had beaten the British government. If those
> that fought in the revolutionary war, had not; then America might be
> like many other former colonies today.

Ok, I may be wrong here, but the Shiawase Decision granting
extraterritoriality means that the piece of land in question is no longer a
part of the nation it used to be, in this case UCAS. Whether permanently or
not (some of the land might be under a condition similar to a lease, for
example), it's in effect a separate nation. Similar to the British granting
independence to the USA. Different methods, sure, but the same result. The
government can repeal the decision all it wants, but that land is no longer
under their control, and possibly never will be again. Extraterritoriality
CAN'T be lost because the government decides it doesn't like the idea
anymore. As I stated in my analogy, it's like the Britsh turning around and
claiming rights to the USA again. The only way to return that land to UCAS
control is to recover it via the traditional methods of diplomacy or force,
(military or economic).

Another thing that just came to mind... Even if it did work that the UCAS
could claim all that land back, then the corps could and would sue for costs
of developing the land that used to be theirs. If they no longer own the
land outright then their investment in their facilities is devalued. Think
Renraku is going to meekly handover the land their arcology is built on in
Seattle? And have to pay rates again, etc? I doubt it highly.

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts
can be counted" - Albert Einstein
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 7
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 11:19:02 -0500
>>For this the UCAS government is beginning, in my games at least, to
>>formulate an appeal to the Supreme Court to establish a alteration to
>>the Shiawese Decision.
>
>Cannot the UCAS government just pass legislation revoking the Shiawase
>decision?

It's not that easy, I don't reckon, and even if it were, it wouldn't
necessarily be broadcast to the world the way Mike later describes.

><< snip legal case >>
>
>In the dystopian future of SR, I have no doubts that the megacorps can
>manipulate, inveigle or remove those Supreme Court justices and evidence
>not favorable to the corps' interests. Which may give rise to some
>shadowrunning jobs: We've had the Corp War - now we'll have the Court War!

It's possible, I'm sure, but you take the pessimistic view that everyone in
a position of power is automatically corrupt. The number of people they'd
have to buy in order to remove a Supreme Court justice is impressive, even
by their standards, and if the UCAS government involves the Corporate Court
right from the start, it might not be able to happen.

Frankly, though I doubt I'll use it in my game, I kind of like this idea,
being a nationalist and a separatist at heart myself. I like the idea of a
national government once again flexing its muscles against the corps.

Maybe the dragon's death really was for something after all.

>>Considering there are at least three nuclear reactors in there, the
>>blast from the explosion would devestate a good portion of the area
>>around it, destroying Seattle, sending shockwaves down into the San
>>Andreas fault, and not to mention that the nation of Salish-Shidhe
>>will also take the brunt of the explosion too.
>
>This is the uniquely SR situation where fusion reactors can go bang. :-(

Big bang or not, if the reactors are damaged, there will be some sort of
shock wave, and I reckon the possible radiation leakage could be pretty
furious.

>Ah no. The spin-doctors would change this to CC's heroic defence
>of the rights and profits of shareholders and employees, and the
>noble defence of stability and justice for the rest of the world.
>In the end, if they must, a trade off between public trust and
>extraterritoriality would see the profit margin preserved by the
>second, not the first. People, other businesses and governments
>must buy from the Corps - what choice do they have?

Jesus, and they call *me* cynical....

The megacorps are not the only game in town anymore (and really, they
probably never were). There are smaller corporations out there who can do
it faster and cheaper, since they don't have the overhead of the megas. The
megas, in spite of their best efforts, don't own *everything*. People will
find a way to deal with things, and while it probably won't hurt the megas
as much as Mike thinks it will, the loss of public good will *will* affect
their bottom line and how they do business.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 8
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 12:43:59 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Slipspeed <atreloar@*********.com>
>
> Ok, I may be wrong here, but the Shiawase Decision granting
> extraterritoriality means that the piece of land in question is no longer
a
> part of the nation it used to be, in this case UCAS.

It's rather like an embassy. When a country dissolves diplomatic ties with
a country (US with Iran in 1979), the embassy's no longer _legally_ belong
to the people who they once did. In 1979, I believe the Marines wound up
having to basically hold the building while the diplomats were flown off
the roof.

If corprate extraterritoriality was lost, they would still be in control of
the land, and might actually bring the UCAS to terms about some of it (the
Arkology, especially). However, being effectively "in rebellion" would
give the UCAS a lot of options... including nationalization of their
holdings, the option to try and stop shipments coming into various
enclaves, and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
rubber bullets)

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 18-4-99
Message no. 9
From: Michael Orion Jackson orion@****.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 13:21:38 -0500 (CDT)
I've had a _little_ experience with constitutional law (don't ask how, I'm
a chem major, haha) here in the US. As it currently stands, as far as I
know, if the Supremes ("the ultimate arbiters of justice in this
country....or nine old ninnies in black muumuus, you decide") said "pi
equals 3.14 exactly, so there", the rest of us, congress and president
included, would just have to stick that in our collective pipes and smoke
it becuase as the balance of powers is currently set up, what they say,
goes. In a sense, they are to the legal structure of this country what
root is to a unix system in that, in a sense, they ARE the legal system,
with the ability to irrevocably change the system if they see fit. This
is why the justices as a whole tend to act Veeeeeerrrrrryyyy slowly and
carefully. Even the justice who I disagree with most, Scalia, writes very
well thought out decisions usually (I just disagree totally with him on a
philosophical level on almost any legal topic you'd care to name, haha).

So, re: congress or anybody else repealing the Shiawase Decision
in the US. Forget it. It _can't_ happen, due to the way the fundamental
framework of our government is constructed. (At least, as far as I
understand it.)

This ignores the precedent (set by Jefferson? I can't recall.) of
telling the Supremes, in essence, to go screw themselves. They don't have
an enforcement arm, they just tell everyone else what should happen. If
the executive branch doesn't want to enforce that, nothing happens (this
was re: abolishing slavery in the 1820's iirc). However, the chances of
this happening in the modern era are _astronomically_ small. Like the
chances of Dan Quayle revealing he has a 180 IQ or every congressperson
currently in office simultaneously coming out of the closet about being
gay and telling stories about their past-time of heroin usage and how they
financed their campaign by selling crack to toddlers...

So, that's the way it is _now_ in the _US_. What happens to this
structure in the future when the US becomes part of some new entity called
the UCAS, is anyone's guess. Maybe they rewrite the constitution so that
edicts of the SC can be appealed by a 2/3rds majority in both houses, like
a constitutional amendment today...

Actually, that brings up an interesting side point. What happens
to all the old US debts and responsiblities (like Social Security and gov.
bonds) when it no longer exists. The UCAS could technically say something
like "hey, wasn't us!" and the receipients/debt holders couldn't really do
jack squat about it.

As far as the law changeing in the UCAS and it not applying to the
corp territories and the analogy to the UK and US independence thing, I
don't think the analogy applies too well. The corps are powerful, yes,
but they lack the raw might of a nation. Their territories are spread out
and weakly defended (from the perspective of someone who has 30 armored
divisions on immeadiate stand by and another 50 on reserve). If the UCAS
said 'frog' in this respect, the corps would have to ask 'how high should
we jump?'. True, they could threaten to pull out, but the economic loss
from losing 80% of their NA customer base, in of it's own right probably
half of their revenue source, would be devastating. I don't see a corp
going through this just to avoid paying 15-20% taxes...

*****************Michael Orion Jackson******************
***********TAMS Class of 96/UT Class of 2000************
*********************Random Quote:**********************
*"Why me?" "Because you are in Natural Sciences,silly."*
********************************************************
Message no. 10
From: Kevin Dole kdole@***.vsc.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 18:39:40 EST5EDT
> Iridios <iridios@*********.com>
> enforcement. Or a corp. may attempt to fight the decision which could
> become very ugly.
<snip>
> While a good example, this is not exactly analogous. Corps were
> granted extraterritoriality, Americans fought for independence. It

A Corporate Revolution. It would be a bloodbath, but it would create
a lot of buisness.

Lots of small unit work. Lots of covert ops. Tactical magic. Tactical
decking. Nukes.

Oh, yeah, that could get interesting.
Kevin Dole \:|
kdole@***.vsc.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death, and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
Message no. 11
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 17:36:41 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Dole <kdole@***.vsc.edu>
>
> A Corporate Revolution. It would be a bloodbath, but it would create
> a lot of buisness.
>
> Lots of small unit work. Lots of covert ops. Tactical magic. Tactical
> decking. Nukes.

I think everyone is over-estimating the likelihood of nuclear weapons being
used, simply because neither side can afford. The UCAS would be using the
nuclear weapons on her own soil, on her own citizens, and corrupting the
land for a long time. While you might think the corps would be more
willing, they'd be using them on their customer base... and quite frankly,
I wouldn't buy from a company that launches nuclear weapons at their
customers.

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 2-5-99
Message no. 12
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 18:47:13 EDT
In a message dated 5/2/99 11:38:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
atreloar@*********.com writes:

> Another thing that just came to mind... Even if it did work that the UCAS
> could claim all that land back, then the corps could and would sue for
costs
> of developing the land that used to be theirs. If they no longer own the
> land outright then their investment in their facilities is devalued. Think
> Renraku is going to meekly handover the land their arcology is built on in
> Seattle? And have to pay rates again, etc? I doubt it highly.
>
> Slipspeed

There is a difference between saying it is no longer OWNED by teh
corporation, and saying the corporation no longer enjoys the benefits of
extraterritoriality.

If you reverse the Shiawase decision, the only REAL change is, the corporate
facilities are once more subject to the laws of the "host nation" ...
ownership does not change.

Sean
GM Pax
gmpax@***.com
ICQ 18582108
Message no. 13
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 18:53:43 EDT
In a message dated 5/2/99 2:22:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
orion@****.cc.utexas.edu writes:

> I've had a _little_ experience with constitutional law (don't ask how, I'm
> a chem major, haha) here in the US. As it currently stands, as far as I
> know, if the Supremes ("the ultimate arbiters of justice in this
> country....or nine old ninnies in black muumuus, you decide") said "pi
> equals 3.14 exactly, so there", the rest of us, congress and president
> included, would just have to stick that in our collective pipes and smoke
> it becuase as the balance of powers is currently set up, what they say,
> goes.

[ snip remainder of post ]

Um, those are some good points, really, but they are irrelevant. We are
_not_ talking about the United States of America; the Constitution as we know
it does not exist, legally. The UCAS is a wholly new and seperate Nation,
and would probably have different rules altogether.

Sean
GM Pax
gmpax@***.com
ICQ 18582108
Message no. 14
From: Demonnic Bloodbather demonnic@*********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 12:58:22 +1200
Nexx Many-Scars wrote:

> <snip>
> It's rather like an embassy. When a country dissolves diplomatic ties with
> a country (US with Iran in 1979), the embassy's no longer _legally_ belong
> to the people who they once did. In 1979, I believe the Marines wound up
> having to basically hold the building while the diplomats were flown off
> the roof.
>
> If corprate extraterritoriality was lost, they would still be in control of
> the land, and might actually bring the UCAS to terms about some of it (the
> Arkology, especially). However, being effectively "in rebellion" would
> give the UCAS a lot of options... including nationalization of their
> holdings, the option to try and stop shipments coming into various
> enclaves, and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
>

This might be true, but what if the megacorps decided that since they couldn't
have their extrateratoriality (sp???) they would fight for their independence?
With all the resources available to the corps, they could EASILY accomplish the
task of obliterating the governments which decided to revoke the Shiawase
decision. The only case in which I see it working is if EVERY nation revoked
the extraterritoriality of the corps at the same time. Then the corps might
have enough to go up against that they might just decide to bide their time.
Either way, shadowruns galore.


>
> You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
> due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
> rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
> alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
> had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
> the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
> rubber bullets)
>
>

Perhaps, but the corps have done illegal things in the past, why would THAT
stop them?


'Non Illegitimi Carborundum Est'
Demonnic
Message no. 15
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 21:02:23 -0400
Demonnic Bloodbather wrote:

> Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > It's rather like an embassy. When a country dissolves diplomatic ties with
> > a country (US with Iran in 1979), the embassy's no longer _legally_ belong
> > to the people who they once did. In 1979, I believe the Marines wound up
> > having to basically hold the building while the diplomats were flown off
> > the roof.
> >
> > If corprate extraterritoriality was lost, they would still be in control of
> > the land, and might actually bring the UCAS to terms about some of it (the
> > Arkology, especially). However, being effectively "in rebellion"
would
> > give the UCAS a lot of options... including nationalization of their
> > holdings, the option to try and stop shipments coming into various
> > enclaves, and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
> >
>
> This might be true, but what if the megacorps decided that since they couldn't
> have their extrateratoriality (sp???) they would fight for their independence?
> With all the resources available to the corps, they could EASILY accomplish the
> task of obliterating the governments which decided to revoke the Shiawase
> decision. The only case in which I see it working is if EVERY nation revoked
> the extraterritoriality of the corps at the same time. Then the corps might
> have enough to go up against that they might just decide to bide their time.
> Either way, shadowruns galore.
>
> >
> > You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
> > due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
> > rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
> > alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
> > had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
> > the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> > types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
> > rubber bullets)
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps, but the corps have done illegal things in the past, why would THAT
> stop them?
>
> 'Non Illegitimi Carborundum Est'
> Demonnic

Probably because the corps are extraterritorial, and the government can't do
anything about it. However, if the UCAS revoked the extraterritorality, then they
could prosecute corps for illegal actions taken. --
--Strago

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 16
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 20:55:10 -0700
Demonnic Bloodbather wrote:

> Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
> > You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
> > due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
> > rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
> > alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
> > had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
> > the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> > types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
> > rubber bullets)
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps, but the corps have done illegal things in the past, why would THAT
> stop them?

One very simple thing. With the loss of corporate extraterritoriality, UCAS law
enforcement and military personnel again have jurisdiction....Meaning, they can
*legally* go in and knock such things out, arrest the board of directors, etc.
Course, one question arises: Would the Supreme Court also overturn the Seretech
decision, which let the corps have private armies, essentially?

JCP
Message no. 17
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 19:55:16 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Demonnic Bloodbather <demonnic@*********.net>
>
> This might be true, but what if the megacorps decided that since they
couldn't
> have their extrateratoriality (sp???) they would fight for their
independence?
> With all the resources available to the corps, they could EASILY
accomplish the
> task of obliterating the governments which decided to revoke the Shiawase
> decision. The only case in which I see it working is if EVERY nation
revoked
> the extraterritoriality of the corps at the same time. Then the corps
might
> have enough to go up against that they might just decide to bide their
time.
> Either way, shadowruns galore.

I think you over-estimate the corps. Yes, they have armies, but most of
those are security forces. Also, I don't think all of them would
automatically fight this. Since the first attack would be aimed at
Renraku, the others would have an opprotunity to make their own ships
secure. Remember, this pretty much has to be based on the concept that the
corporations abused their extraterritoriality. Lone Star would likely
surive. Ares would likely survive. By helping the UCAS government, they
can get a good store of brownie points before anyone can challenge Shiawase
as it applies to them.

,
> > the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> > types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry
guns to
> > rubber bullets)

> Perhaps, but the corps have done illegal things in the past, why would
THAT
> stop them?

Sure, but right now, their security is unrestricted, because they're
extraterritorial. They want to put something in the IC that makes you hack
enemy systems, they can. They want to load things up with Black IC, they
can. And no one can do a damn thing about it, because they're Megacorps.
Sure, legal recourse won't mean much... but it will slow them down, and
force them to at least partially hide it.

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 2-5-99
Message no. 18
From: Demonnic Bloodbather demonnic@*********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 13:55:02 +1200
Nexx Many-Scars wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Demonnic Bloodbather <demonnic@*********.net>
> >
> > This might be true, but what if the megacorps decided that since they
> couldn't
> > have their extrateratoriality (sp???) they would fight for their
> independence?
> > With all the resources available to the corps, they could EASILY
> accomplish the
> > task of obliterating the governments which decided to revoke the Shiawase
> > decision. The only case in which I see it working is if EVERY nation
> revoked
> > the extraterritoriality of the corps at the same time. Then the corps
> might
> > have enough to go up against that they might just decide to bide their
> time.
> > Either way, shadowruns galore.
>
> I think you over-estimate the corps. Yes, they have armies, but most of
> those are security forces. Also, I don't think all of them would
> automatically fight this. Since the first attack would be aimed at
> Renraku, the others would have an opprotunity to make their own ships
> secure. Remember, this pretty much has to be based on the concept that the
> corporations abused their extraterritoriality. Lone Star would likely
> surive. Ares would likely survive. By helping the UCAS government, they
> can get a good store of brownie points before anyone can challenge Shiawase
> as it applies to them.
>

But could the UCAS revoke extraterritoriality for one corporation at a time? To
me, it seems like an all or nothing shot. And even if they CAN attack one corp
at a time regarding this, the other corps aren't just gonna accept it. If they
can do it to one corp, than it sets a precedent for doing it to the other corps
as well. It would also create an unfair advantage for the corps who didn't have
their extraterritoriality (I hate spelling that word) yanked in the beginning,
giving them an edge and creating the possibility for another Corp War... this
is all IMHO anyways, but that's how it looks to me

>
> ,
> > > the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> > > types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry
> guns to
> > > rubber bullets)
>
> > Perhaps, but the corps have done illegal things in the past, why would
> THAT
> > stop them?
>
> Sure, but right now, their security is unrestricted, because they're
> extraterritorial. They want to put something in the IC that makes you hack
> enemy systems, they can. They want to load things up with Black IC, they
> can. And no one can do a damn thing about it, because they're Megacorps.
> Sure, legal recourse won't mean much... but it will slow them down, and
> force them to at least partially hide it.

Or at the least resort more to Shadowrunners than they do now.


'Non Illegitimi Carborundum Est'
Message no. 19
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 20:55:40 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Demonnic Bloodbather <demonnic@*********.net>
>
> But could the UCAS revoke extraterritoriality for one corporation at a
time?

It depends on how the original decision was worded, and how the charges
were brought. IMHO, they would more than likely bring Renraku up on
charges of "gross negligence" and revoke the priveledge of operating
extraterritorially. OTOH, it could be worded so that they try to indict
all of them at once... but that would be a cast-iron bitch to prosecute,
and the prosecutors would need to fry at least one fish before the American
public would eat... Renraku, with the Arkology debacle, might as well have
buttered itself and sprinkled on dill seeds.

> Or at the least resort more to Shadowrunners than they do now.

Precisely. Shadowrunners are the ultimate in deniable assets. "We didn't
know Mr. Johnson used company funds to support industrial espionage! We
are appalled at his actions, and can provide you more proof of his
perifidy, all from these conviently kept journal entries..."

(Note to everyone: Don't keep a journal. If you ever get caught doing
something, you're gonna get it fed to you in little pieces)

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 2-5-99
Message no. 20
From: Jacob Engstrom skatta_av_radsla@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 21:24:45 -0500
Ok,
Regarding the Shiawase Decision being repealled.

Beyond corrupt judical and political decisons, relative military strengths,
and other matters, there is one overriding reason for the UCAS NOT to do
this.

Economics.

While the Megas and many of their Facilities are Extraterritorial, many of
the facilities and buisnesses they own AREN'T.
(See Corprate Shadowfiles) That means the people who work there and buy
things from there are UCAS citizens.
If the UCAS was to repeal the Shiawase Decision, the corps would simply
relocate all assets that they didn't want taxed, monitored, overseen, or
controled by the goverment out of the country. If you think this is
difficult, look at the history of the Automotive Idustry since 1970 or the
Modius Operendi of your average Corprate Raider today.
The Corps could also start doing things like raising prices within the UCAS,
downsizing in country assests, etc.

The UCAS would be far more hurt by the economic hit (which would affect
other non-megacorps as well) than the Megacorps. The UCAS would loose tax
revenue (income AND sales) for the non-extraterritorial income, sales,
property, etc.
The UCAS would lose favorable negotiation position when negotiating with the
Megas for services and contracts. Just imagine what the new negotiations for
new arms deals between the UCAS and ARES be like.

And just imagine the headache of trying to figure out the status of all the
Corprate Citizens. Are they now citizens of the UCAS? Do they owe back taxes
(this occured when we sized control of the phillipines, they paid back taxes
for 5 years prior), what about their property? What about prior actions that
may have been illegal?

No, the UCAS would lose far more than it would gain from that action.
The secession of Seattle from the UCAS (something like a city-nation) is far
more likely to happen.

Just my two nuyen,

Skatta av Radsla
Message no. 21
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 23:13:45 EDT
Please note, I kept the *personal* stuff out of this...

In a message dated 5/2/1999 12:18:49 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
cmaxfiel@****.org.au writes:

> >World." For this the UCAS government is beginning, in my games at least,
to
>
> >formulate an appeal to the Supreme Court to establish a alteration to the
> >Shiawese Decision. The alteration is that if a extraterritorial
>
> Cannot the UCAS government just pass legislation revoking the Shiawase
> decision?

Nope, and for the same reason the Supreme Court cannot simply revoke it's
previous decisions that it has made already.

> In the dystopian future of SR, I have no doubts that the megacorps can
> manipulate, inveigle or remove those Supreme Court justices and evidence
not
> favorable to the corps' interests. Which may give rise to some
> shadowrunning
> jobs: We've had the Corp War - now we'll have the Court War!

That is kind of the idea, yes.

> This is the uniquely SR situation where fusion reactors can go bang. :-(

Not necessarily, as Mike may or may not point out in a later post (he said he
might), the "hydrogen fuel" that could be created is also a potential
problem. Additionally, harmonic dissonation (gods, I hope I got that right)
is also a possibility, and the "fusion" reaction could create it's own havoc
when left unleashed/unchecked.

> But human rights external to the UCAS (extraterritoriality) is a political
> issue not a legal issue, is it not?

Absolutely, but it should also be remembered that Political Issues are solved
in Legal Boundaries, even if those boundaries are established in other places
than the home or affronted territory.

> Personally, I think that the only ones who'd watch the long, dry court
> proceedings would be about two student lawyers and three bored guards.

Possibly, but a lot of *anarchist types* (read as; runners, pirates,
mercenaries) would be paying close attention as well.

> However,
> the broadcasting of the court proceedings would allow the Corp's lawyers,
> the
> best that money can buy, the opportunity to play to the audience. (More
> shadowruns, too.) They'll be able to present fact and law that portrays the
> Corp's case as reasonable and necessary while demonstrating the logical,
> legal
> and factual errors in the government's case. (They're lawyers, they'll find
> them.) In the end, the Supreme Court will make a decision - but enough
fact,
> law, smoke and BS will have been presented so that any decision will be
> justifiable - the broadcasting will have prevented nothing.

Ah, but here's where part of the fun *might* occur. Lawyers go to the
bidders with the more impressive situation and money. And, although the
megacorps are *BIG*, please note they are now on scale *with* the bigger
superpowers. In other words, this isn't so cut/dry and either of you are
making it out to be.

> >The Corporate Court would back down as the performing of this action
would
> >mean that their repuations in the eyes of the people of the world, and of
> >it's own employees would be shattered, and they would no longer be
trusted
> >anymore. And if they are no longer trusted, then their bottom line,
their
> >beloved profit margin is going to be hurt.
>
> Ah no. The spin-doctors would change this to CC's heroic defence of the
> rights
> and profits of shareholders and employees, and the noble defence of
> stability
> and justice for the rest of the world. In the end, if they must, a trade
off
> between public trust and extraterritoriality would see the profit margin
> preserved by the second, not the first. People, other businesses and
> governments must buy from the Corps - what choice do they have?

Actually, NO Chris, this last part isn't correct. And also remember, that
the actions being suggested here create a "shaking" of the "Tree of World
Order". And this time, it's not just the corporations with the big
interests. It's *everyone* in a potential sense.

> This is one of those situations where we foreigners don't quite understand
> the
> American soul. To most of us, JFK was a manipulative womanizer who brought
> the
> US to the brink of nuclear war, started the Vietnam fiasco and totally
> stuffed
> up Cuba. To the Americans, he seems to be a martyred saint.

You are right Chris, it is something where you simply cannot probably relate.
To that end, I shall leave this. Call it "A Declaration of Divinity" if you
will. We all do, after all, create "God" in our own image (if we create
him/her/it at all).

> We played Dunky this way. To some characters he was the redeemer, to
others
> he
> was an alien monster following some incomprehensible monstrous agenda, to
> most
> he was just one more bizarre/scary/fun blip on the weird-shit-o-meter. The
> Dragonheart itself and what Dunky did to create it will only ever be a myth
> known to some and believed by few, and a fact known to very few. Its need
> and
> its creation is just too far beyond the every day physical world.

Maybe, maybe not. I wonder how everyone reacted when the "rift" in DC
vanished???

-K
Message no. 22
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 23:57:37 EDT
In a message dated 5/2/1999 7:54:35 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
demonnic@*********.net writes:

> > It's rather like an embassy. When a country dissolves diplomatic ties
with
> > a country (US with Iran in 1979), the embassy's no longer _legally_
belong
> > to the people who they once did. In 1979, I believe the Marines wound up
> > having to basically hold the building while the diplomats were flown off
> > the roof.
> > If corprate extraterritoriality was lost, they would still be in control
> of
> > the land, and might actually bring the UCAS to terms about some of it
(the
> > Arkology, especially). However, being effectively "in rebellion"
would
> > give the UCAS a lot of options... including nationalization of their
> > holdings, the option to try and stop shipments coming into various
> > enclaves, and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

this is one option, yes.

> This might be true, but what if the megacorps decided that since they
couldn'
> t
> have their extrateratoriality (sp???) they would fight for their
> independence?
> With all the resources available to the corps, they could EASILY
accomplish
> the
> task of obliterating the governments which decided to revoke the Shiawase
> decision. The only case in which I see it working is if EVERY nation
revoked
> the extraterritoriality of the corps at the same time. Then the corps might
> have enough to go up against that they might just decide to bide their
time.
> Either way, shadowruns galore.

Actually, no they couldn't. Imagine what one corp might negotiate with one
government for in order to try and stave what off. Imagine what one
government would negotiate with another government for in order to build up a
case of this type. It wouldn't take *all* of them, just one or two to start
a really cool scenario for the Shadowrun Universe to *play out*.

> > You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
> > due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
> > rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
> > alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
> > had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
> > the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> > types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns
> to
> > rubber bullets)
> Perhaps, but the corps have done illegal things in the past, why would THAT
> stop them?

Because this time, the government in question (at whatever level it will be
operating) is going to have permission to call in the Marines (or any other
heavy reinforcements) that it needs to get things going their way.

-K
Message no. 23
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 23:59:48 EDT
In a message dated 5/2/1999 8:08:17 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cpenta@*****.com writes:

>
> One very simple thing. With the loss of corporate extraterritoriality,
UCAS
> law
> enforcement and military personnel again have jurisdiction....Meaning,
they
> can
> *legally* go in and knock such things out, arrest the board of directors,
> etc.
> Course, one question arises: Would the Supreme Court also overturn the
> Seretech
> decision, which let the corps have private armies, essentially?

<K does a happy dance now that everyone seems to be thinking really
vindictively again...he likes the list like this...>

-K
Message no. 24
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:00:42 +0200
According to Nexx Many-Scars, at 17:36 on 2 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> I wouldn't buy from a company that launches nuclear weapons at their
> customers.

Oh, I don't know... "Buy our products. Or else." :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's just the dust and diesel of passing time.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 25
From: Chris Maxfield cmaxfiel@****.org.au
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 18:33:58 +1000
At 11:19 2/05/99 -0500, Patrick Goodman wrote:
>It's possible, I'm sure, but you take the pessimistic view that everyone in
>a position of power is automatically corrupt. The number of people they'd
>have to buy in order to remove a Supreme Court justice is impressive, even
>by their standards, and if the UCAS government involves the Corporate Court
>right from the start, it might not be able to happen.

I suppose it depends on just how dark you make your SR game. ;->

>Frankly, though I doubt I'll use it in my game, I kind of like this idea,
>being a nationalist and a separatist at heart myself. I like the idea of a
>national government once again flexing its muscles against the corps.

Absolutely. Out of game mode, I'd like to see the bastards brought low. :-)

>Big bang or not, if the reactors are damaged, there will be some sort of
>shock wave, and I reckon the possible radiation leakage could be pretty
>furious.

The plasma densities in any sort of realistic fusion technology is very low. If
it escaped, there'd barely be enough of a burp to rattle some leaves on the
nearby trees. As for radiation - what radiation? Sure, the containment vessel
will have been bombarded with enough neutrons to have become mildly radioactive
but that's all. Fusion reactors have none of the radioactivity hazards of
fission reactors. They're as close to a green technology as we'll get.

>Jesus, and they call *me* cynical....

Oops. I should have used more smilies. I was talking in my in-game storyline
mode there. I run my Shadowrun games in a dark, cyberpunk, dystopian future. My
own opinions are very different. <shrug & :-) >


Chris
Message no. 26
From: Chris Maxfield cmaxfiel@****.org.au
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 19:16:14 +1000
At 11:13 2/05/99 -0400, Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>> This is the uniquely SR situation where fusion reactors can go bang. :-(
>
>Not necessarily, as Mike may or may not point out in a later post (he said he
>might), the "hydrogen fuel" that could be created is also a potential
>problem. Additionally, harmonic dissonation (gods, I hope I got that right)
>is also a possibility, and the "fusion" reaction could create it's own havoc

>when left unleashed/unchecked.

Tritium is radioactive but not enough would be released in a fusion reactor
accident to cause any real problems though. Further, as a standard fuel,
tritium is created in fission reactors which sort of defeats the purpose of
having fusion reactors. :-) The problem with controlled nuclear fusion in a
reactor is to keeping it going. Leaving it unchecked means, at worse, the
fusion stops and the whole damned process must be restarted.

>Ah, but here's where part of the fun *might* occur. Lawyers go to the
>bidders with the more impressive situation and money. And, although the
>megacorps are *BIG*, please note they are now on scale *with* the bigger
>superpowers. In other words, this isn't so cut/dry and either of you are
>making it out to be.

I agree. I was playing the devil's advocated but forgetting the smilies.

>Actually, NO Chris, this last part isn't correct. And also remember, that
>the actions being suggested here create a "shaking" of the "Tree of
World
>Order". And this time, it's not just the corporations with the big
>interests. It's *everyone* in a potential sense.

Absolutely, but everyone has their own view of their self-interests and the
Corps' PR divisions could do a lot in shaping people's views of their
self-interests. As Jacob said, there're possible economic consequences to
repealing extraterritorialality and that tends to affect people where they are
very concerned - the wallet. ;-) Also, you're correct my last sentence was a
bit too overzealous, the megacorps are not monopolies.

>You are right Chris, it is something where you simply cannot probably relate.
> To that end, I shall leave this. Call it "A Declaration of Divinity" if
you
>will. We all do, after all, create "God" in our own image (if we create
>him/her/it at all).

Oh boy. My apologies. I did not mean for that paragraph to come across so
brutally. It was intended as a reference for the paragraph that followed about
people's views of Dunky. To those offended my deepest apologies. I should have:
- :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

>Maybe, maybe not. I wonder how everyone reacted when the "rift" in DC
>vanished???

Good question. Another X-files mystery? ;-) But it's gone and will rapidly fade
in public memory.

Chris
Message no. 27
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 08:51:27 -0400
At 01:43 PM 5/2/99 , Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Slipspeed <atreloar@*********.com>
>>
>> Ok, I may be wrong here, but the Shiawase Decision granting
>> extraterritoriality means that the piece of land in question is no longer
>a
>> part of the nation it used to be, in this case UCAS.
>
>It's rather like an embassy. When a country dissolves diplomatic ties with
>a country (US with Iran in 1979), the embassy's no longer _legally_ belong
>to the people who they once did. In 1979, I believe the Marines wound up
>having to basically hold the building while the diplomats were flown off
>the roof.

Right. And right now the Yugoslavian Embassy in the US has been closed
since they cut off diplomatic ties with us. So we are now in charge of that
land again. The same thing happened during World War II with Germany and
Japan. When you lose you ties, you lose the land.

>If corprate extraterritoriality was lost, they would still be in control of
>the land, and might actually bring the UCAS to terms about some of it (the
>Arkology, especially). However, being effectively "in rebellion" would
>give the UCAS a lot of options... including nationalization of their
>holdings, the option to try and stop shipments coming into various
>enclaves, and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

If ET was lost by the megacorps, the land would still be there's since they
legally bought it. However, at that point its not "Aresland", its back to
being part of the UCAS. That means that they are again responsible for
property taxes, income taxes, and fall under all applicable laws.

If one of the corps in question has a big problem with this,
nationalization does become an option. Think how many times it happened in
the 60's and 70's when a government changed hands to nationalistic or
comunist forms. It doesn't make the country popular for putting new
companies there, but it happened. Think what happens if Ares was
nationalized, for example. The majority of their holdings are in the UCAS.
If they were to be nationalized, they lose all of that part of their corp.
No moving it to a different country, no extracting all of the equipment
out, maybe not even being able to move all of the data out of there. That's
a big card for the government to hold.

>You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
>due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
>rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
>alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
>had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
>the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
>types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
>rubber bullets)

These are all of the things they would start to do if both of the ET laws
were struck down. Remember, part of their argument was that the government
was negligent in conducting its affairs. If it could be shown that the
megas were negligent, there could be basis for overturning. The Supreme
Court can overturn itself, and does so not infrequently. All that's needed
is a test case to bring it before the bench again. The UCAS writes a law
overturning it and the corps appeal it evenentually to the Supreme Court.
Then they either accept it or reject it.

And there is always the ultimate way to overturn the Court, rewrite the
rules. Make it a constitutional amendment. And all of those corp citizens
can't vote in those elections, can they? :)

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 28
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 08:24:36 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
> According to Nexx Many-Scars, at 17:36 on 2 May 99, the word on
> the street was...
>
> > I wouldn't buy from a company that launches nuclear weapons at their
> > customers.
>
> Oh, I don't know... "Buy our products. Or else." :)

Different situation. Then you gotta restrain me from burning a hole in my
checkbook.

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 2-5-99
Message no. 29
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 10:58:53 -0500
Iridios escribió:
>
> Slipspeed wrote:
>
> > No, the UCAS Government cannot revoke the Shiawase Decision. Or rather,
> > they can, but that will only succeed in hurting the government for no gain.
> > Extraterritoriality means that the land the corps now own is no longer a
> > part of the UCAS. Therefore, UCAS laws, or the revoking of UCAS laws has no
> > effect on that land.
>
> It is the Shiawase Decision that allows Corporate
> Extraterritoriality. If the decision is overturned at a later date,
> the corps lose the extraterritoriality. Granted, this would be a big
> loss for the UCAS gov't, but it is within their rights. If the UCAS
> tried this, one of several things might occur. The corp. could pull
> all it's assets from UCAS soil, including all it's jobs. A corp.
> might agree with the decision then turn around and offer a contract to
> "police" their own property and agree to work with local law
> enforcement. Or a corp. may attempt to fight the decision which could
> become very ugly.

The only thing that i can say is "Remember Ensenada?" It would be
interesting what would be the posicion of the Corporation court about
the subjet.
About the options, the firts seems not an option because the lost of
face (and many corps are Japanese lost of face means a lot thatīs the
point of the renraku problem). The second I donīt think that they acept
this with a smile, the third is my choise.


>
> >
> > To give a clear example that everyone will understand, the British Empire
> > granted independence to the USA. The UK can revoke that particular
> > law/ruling/whatever if they like, which in theory claims the USA back as
> > part of the Commonwealth, under direct control of the UK. Fine, on paper it
> > might even work. But somehow I don't see the USA humbly accepting and
> > giving over the government, military, economy or anything else to the UK.
> > End result: The UK looks like a complete idiot, and gained nothing.
>
> While a good example, this is not exactly analogous. Corps were
> granted extraterritoriality, Americans fought for independence. It
> was not granted until we had beaten the British government. If those
> that fought in the revolutionary war, had not; then America might be
> like many other former colonies today.

Corps also fight his independence, in his way, and if you ask me im not
so sure that the event that made the Shiawase Decision was a free
decision or only and accident of events.

>
> >
> > However, what both of these COULD achieve is future extraterritoriality
> > claims. If the law was changed so no further claims of extraterritoriality
> > could be made, then the government would keep what's left of it's land,
> > which is a good thing for them.
>
> This I agree could be a negotiated result of an attempt to overturn
> extraterritoriality.
>
Why negotiated when you know that you are going to win?

Ahuizotl
Message no. 30
From: Kate . liliths_childe@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 17:07:51 GMT
>>>However, what both of these COULD achieve is future
>>>extraterritoriality claims. If the law was changed so no further claims
>>>of extraterritoriality could be made, then the government would keep
>>>what's left of it's land, which is a good thing for them.

>>This I agree could be a negotiated result of an attempt to overturn
>>extraterritoriality.

>Why negotiated when you know that you are going to win?

Because you lose less resources when you don't have to
actually *take action* in a situation like this, and
since *total* victory is not an essential component of
the victory conditions, negotiating away points that
mean little to you is an effective management strategy.


when preserving resources is important to you, a


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 31
From: Kate . liliths_childe@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 17:04:35 GMT
>>>However, what both of these COULD achieve is future
>>>extraterritoriality claims. If the law was changed so no further claims
>>>of extraterritoriality could be made, then the government would keep
>>>what's left of it's land, which is a good thing for them.

>>This I agree could be a negotiated result of an attempt to overturn
>>extraterritoriality.

>Why negotiated when you know that you are going to win?

Because you lose less resources when you don't have to
actually *take action* in a situation like this, and
since *total* victory is not an essential component of
the victory conditions, negotiating away points that
mean little to you is an effective management strategy.

Kate, who does executive stuff for a living
when preserving resources is important to you, a


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 32
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 11:14:02 -0500
Chris Maxfield escribió:
>
> At 09:20 1/05/99 -0400, Airwasp@***.com wrote:
> >
> >World." For this the UCAS government is beginning, in my games at least, to
> >formulate an appeal to the Supreme Court to establish a alteration to the
> >Shiawese Decision. The alteration is that if a extraterritorial
>
> Cannot the UCAS government just pass legislation revoking the Shiawase
> decision?
>
> << snip legal case >>
>
> In the dystopian future of SR, I have no doubts that the megacorps can
> manipulate, inveigle or remove those Supreme Court justices and evidence not
> favorable to the corps' interests. Which may give rise to some shadowrunning
> jobs: We've had the Corp War - now we'll have the Court War!

I want to hear what the orbital said about this, when the Ensenada
strike, at least Aztlan have Aztechnology to his defence (i know i know
is the same but well), In the case of UCAS Everybody is hurt. I dont
whant to be in UCAS shoes.


> >Considering there are at least three nuclear reactors in there, the blast
> >from the explosion would devestate a good portion of the area around it,

Question OT the reactors are not cold reactors?


> >destroying Seattle, sending shockwaves down into the San Andreas fault, and
> >not to mention that the nation of Salish-Shidhe will also take the brunt of
> >the explosion too. In the meantime, within the Arcology there are a lot of
>
> This is the uniquely SR situation where fusion reactors can go bang. :-(
>
> >people (estimated at over 90,000) trapped within the Arcology, a lot of them
> >citizens of the UCAS, who are now having their basic human rights to be
> >violated, and the government is going to come to their aid in any way, shape
> >or form they can. By making the ammendments to the Shiawese Decision, it
>
> But human rights external to the UCAS (extraterritoriality) is a political
> issue not a legal issue, is it not?

I have i question: citizens of UCAS working for a corp are
a) part of the corp and then part of the extraterritory i mean Renraku
Citizen or
b) UCAS person visit Renraku (aka turist or foreinger)

>
> >Should the megacorporations mount a fight to prevent this ammendment, then
> >the UCAS Attorney General would make a simple statement of, "Since you have
> >decided to fight this decision out, I am asking the Court consider the action
> >of setting up a live broadcast of the proceedings of this case to the Net and
> >to require that a channel on all trid cable companies to carry the
> >proceedings live and unedited to prevent the manipulation of the facts as
> >they happen within the Court to the remainder of the World."
>
> Personally, I think that the only ones who'd watch the long, dry court
> proceedings would be about two student lawyers and three bored guards. However,
> the broadcasting of the court proceedings would allow the Corp's lawyers, the
> best that money can buy, the opportunity to play to the audience. (More
> shadowruns, too.) They'll be able to present fact and law that portrays the
> Corp's case as reasonable and necessary while demonstrating the logical, legal
> and factual errors in the government's case. (They're lawyers, they'll find
> them.) In the end, the Supreme Court will make a decision - but enough fact,
> law, smoke and BS will have been presented so that any decision will be
> justifiable - the broadcasting will have prevented nothing.
>

I think the same see OJ Simson and relatives.


> >The Corporate Court would back down as the performing of this action would
> >mean that their repuations in the eyes of the people of the world, and of

.....

stability
> and justice for the rest of the world. In the end, if they must, a trade off
> between public trust and extraterritoriality would see the profit margin
> preserved by the second, not the first. People, other businesses and
> governments must buy from the Corps - what choice do they have?
>
> >Dunkhelzahn did not die to simply create the Dragonheart, as he had achieved
> >something which only John F. Kennedy had ever truely achieved in this
......
> >from them by a cold, cruel world. They will realize that even one person,
> >dragon or not, is capable of making changes to the world, and all they have
> >to do is believe that they can.
>
> This is one of those situations where we foreigners don't quite understand the
> American soul.

Put me in the list.

>To most of us, JFK was a manipulative womanizer who brought the
> US to the brink of nuclear war, started the Vietnam fiasco and totally stuffed
> up Cuba. To the Americans, he seems to be a martyred saint.

Not only Americans there are Mexicans that think the same i i donīt have
a clue why. Because he better the way of politics with latino america,
what other course of action he could take after Cuba. In my shame my
Basic collage was named (Liceo President Kennedy) because this absurd.
Could any american explain me why?

> We played Dunky this way. To some characters he was the redeemer, to others he
> was an alien monster following some incomprehensible monstrous agenda, to most
> he was just one more bizarre/scary/fun blip on the weird-shit-o-meter. The
> Dragonheart itself and what Dunky did to create it will only ever be a myth
> known to some and believed by few, and a fact known to very few. Its need and
> its creation is just too far beyond the every day physical world.

I can quote the words of one of my players when the election begun
"remember is a dragon, do you tust a dragon?, the letani said "never
make a deal with a dragon"

>
> << snip Michael's story >>
>
> I wish you all the best Michael.

Michael remember you have friends even you never see them in RL. Even
the distance we can call us friends

> Chris


Ahuizotl
Message no. 33
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 11:37:04 -0500
Nexx Many-Scars escribió:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Slipspeed <atreloar@*********.com>
> >
> > Ok, I may be wrong here, but the Shiawase Decision granting
> > extraterritoriality means that the piece of land in question is no longer
.....
>
> If corprate extraterritoriality was lost, they would still be in control of
> the land, and might actually bring the UCAS to terms about some of it (the
> Arkology, especially). However, being effectively "in rebellion" would
> give the UCAS a lot of options... including nationalization of their
> holdings, the option to try and stop shipments coming into various
> enclaves, and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

And then UCAS going one-one with ALL the corporations hell of a enemy.
Nationalization of holdinga? see Aztlan? wana try chummer.
Stop shipments? who? with the use of the force? somebody correctme about
this but i dont think the UCAS army have the same side of the army of 3
megacorporations
complete legitimacy of the eyes of the world? chummer the media is in
the hands of the corps any question?


> You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
> due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
> rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
> alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
> had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
> the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
> rubber bullets)
>

UCAS is not long the USA, they dont have the power, just imaging a
cordinate corporation atack. The corporation can Block UCAS, to who is
going to have comerce with if the corps dont want. With CAS? Amazonia? I
dont remember other state with out corporation love relations. On the
other side you have a problem with Aztlan, Japan, CFS, the elf land
(coutesi of a lovely dragon) and a long ETC. In the economical and
militar my money is whit the corps


Of cource all of this is in IMHO

Ahuizotl
Message no. 34
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 13:36:01 -0400
At 12:37 PM 5/3/99 , Ahuizotl wrote:
>And then UCAS going one-one with ALL the corporations hell of a enemy.
>Nationalization of holdinga? see Aztlan? wana try chummer.

Not exactly the same situation. The Corporate Court ordered a strike
against Aztechnology holdings, not against Aztlan itself. Important
difference, since the CC has jurisdiction over companies, not countries.
The reason they attacked Aztechnology for nationalization is because there
is not much of a difference between the government of Aztlan and the
company Aztechnology. The government was told by the corp to nationalize
assets, so it was the company that was punished.

>Stop shipments? who? with the use of the force? somebody correctme about
>this but i dont think the UCAS army have the same side of the army of 3
>megacorporations

True, the UCAS army is not the size of the US army today, but it is an
army. Corp propaganda to the contrary, most corps have only security
forces, and light forces at that. Its not the Renraku army surrounding the
Arcology, its the UCAS army and Metroplex Guard. There's not enough of a
economic reason for a corp to have a standing army. They consume a lot of
resources and most of the time don't do much. Until the war comes around.

>complete legitimacy of the eyes of the world? chummer the media is in
>the hands of the corps any question?

Remember the corps are not monolithic either. If the UCAS repealed ET in
whatever way, which gets hurt more, Novatech and Ares, or the Japanacorps
and SK. Hell, Ares might encourage it on the assumption that he'll still
have a lot of clout and could screw over Cross Technologies. :)

And don't assume that the corps control all of the media either. Most,
sure, but the feeds from Tir, London, Quebec, etc would still be up and
would probably be much more open. Then there's always KSAF and their cohorts.

>> You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
>> due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
>> rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
>> alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
>> had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
>> the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
>> types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
>> rubber bullets)
>UCAS is not long the USA, they dont have the power, just imaging a
>cordinate corporation atack. The corporation can Block UCAS, to who is
>going to have comerce with if the corps dont want. With CAS? Amazonia? I
>dont remember other state with out corporation love relations. On the
>other side you have a problem with Aztlan, Japan, CFS, the elf land
>(coutesi of a lovely dragon) and a long ETC. In the economical and
>militar my money is whit the corps

Read the section in R:S about the Seattle meating of the corps and tell me
how coordinated they are. The corps are not monolithic, they each have
their own agendas. You think that Damien Knight or Lucius Cross or Richards
would hesitate to screw over another company to improve their own standings?

ET is not guaranteed. Look at the Tirs, or Aztlan for example. I know there
are some other cases out there too. And the UCAS isn't as big as the USA,
but it still has a good sized economy. The world can put an embargo on
Yugoslavia or Iraq today. They couldn't do it against France, or England.
The UCAS is too much of an interconnected part of the world economy. Now
I'm not saying that its likely that ET will be overturned, but it is more
possible than the corps would like to think. And while the ET decision
dominoed from the USA out to most of the world, the reverse could also be true.
>
>
>Of cource all of this is in IMHO

Right back in my opinion.

>Ahuizotl
>
>


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 35
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 12:33:56 -0500
"Kate ." escribió:
>
> >>>However, what both of these COULD achieve is future
> >>>extraterritoriality claims. If the law was changed so no further claims
> >>>of extraterritoriality could be made, then the government would keep
> >>>what's left of it's land, which is a good thing for them.
>
> >>This I agree could be a negotiated result of an attempt to overturn
> >>extraterritoriality.
>
> >Why negotiated when you know that you are going to win?
>
> Because you lose less resources when you don't have to
> actually *take action* in a situation like this, and
> since *total* victory is not an essential component of
> the victory conditions, negotiating away points that
> mean little to you is an effective management strategy.
>

Ok you have a huge point.
following this you could agrea a escenari like this?
We are taking about losing profile because of a country making his show.
Who i see it is like this, make a punishment ( a big one, Ensenada was a
prake.) against UCAS to work as and example to other countries to not
fool around. The cost benefit of this is inerent. Then negotiate. But
seat in the bigest chair.

a i forget a question
in this situation what points tou see with little mean?

> Kate, who does executive stuff for a living
> when preserving resources is important to you,
>
Ahuizotl
Message no. 36
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 14:32:07 -0400
Kate . wrote:

> >>>However, what both of these COULD achieve is future
> >>>extraterritoriality claims. If the law was changed so no further claims
> >>>of extraterritoriality could be made, then the government would keep
> >>>what's left of it's land, which is a good thing for them.
>
> >>This I agree could be a negotiated result of an attempt to overturn
> >>extraterritoriality.
>
> >Why negotiated when you know that you are going to win?
>
> Because you lose less resources when you don't have to
> actually *take action* in a situation like this, and
> since *total* victory is not an essential component of
> the victory conditions, negotiating away points that
> mean little to you is an effective management strategy.
>
> when preserving resources is important to you, a
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

The other reason is because you can NEVER KNOW you are going to win. There are
countless examples (see Vietnam and Afghanistan for two recent examples) of
governments getting beaten upon by villagers when they should have won. Not to
get OT, but ALL WAR is caused by BOTH sides (don't give me any "we were drawn
into the war" crap, it just doesn't cut the writings of the high mucky-mucks)
thinking that they will win. (OT: The Germans in WWI thought because they had
won most of the European wars in the 19th century they would "win" even though
they were fighting France, and Russia, I don't know the French reasons, the
Russians thought they would "win" because they had a large population, the
English thought they would "win" because they had the strongest navy in the
world, and the Austrians thought they would "win" because they had the Germans
and the Italians backing them up (I think. The Austrians have the strongest
case of "we were forced..." in that war).)
If one side doesn't want to fight, there will be no fight. That side will
negotiate its way into a paper bag if it is sure that, when push comes to
shove, it will lose.

--Strago

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-
Message no. 37
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:33:16 +0100
In article <372D1E1E.576AD9D3@*****.com>, Penta <cpenta@*****.com>
writes
>One very simple thing. With the loss of corporate extraterritoriality, UCAS law
>enforcement and military personnel again have jurisdiction....Meaning, they can
>*legally* go in and knock such things out, arrest the board of directors, etc.
>Course, one question arises: Would the Supreme Court also overturn the Seretech
>decision, which let the corps have private armies, essentially?

Seretech followed on from Shiawase - they have independent territory,
they're allowed armed forces to protect them. No Shiawase, no Seretech -
what they do on their own territory is their problem, but inside the
UCAS they abide by UCAS law. Which means, put down those machine guns,
guys, and as for the rocket launchers... ;)


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 38
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 16:22:15 -0400
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> In article <372D1E1E.576AD9D3@*****.com>, Penta <cpenta@*****.com>
> writes
> >One very simple thing. With the loss of corporate extraterritoriality, UCAS law
> >enforcement and military personnel again have jurisdiction....Meaning, they can
> >*legally* go in and knock such things out, arrest the board of directors, etc.
> >Course, one question arises: Would the Supreme Court also overturn the Seretech
> >decision, which let the corps have private armies, essentially?
>
> Seretech followed on from Shiawase - they have independent territory,
> they're allowed armed forces to protect them. No Shiawase, no Seretech -

Actually the Seretech decision preceded the Shiawase decision by two
years (1999 for Seretech, 2001 for Shiawase). pg.22 paragraph 2 SR2.
"In a landmark decision (US v. Seretech Corp. (1999)), the Supreme
Court upheld Seretech's right to maintain an armed force for the
protection of it's own personnel and property,... The case set a
precedent that led to the Shiawase Decision of 2001 (The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission v. The Shiawase Corp.),..."

--
Iridios
"God does not roll dice"
-Albert Einstein
Message no. 39
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 15:10:19 -0700
>Big bang or not, if the reactors are damaged, there will be some sort of
>shock wave, and I reckon the possible radiation leakage could be pretty
>furious.

A hot fusion reactor does not have much explosive potential. If it's an
inertial confinement setup, it won't explode period, at most a glass pellet
of deutrium hydride might burst. Rupture of a tokamak would vent a diffuse
stream of plasma which would quickly cool upon encountering the wall. A
Z-pinch setup might have some sort of chain release of capacitators, which
would be no more explosive than a transformer outage.

A cold fusion setup, provided such existed, would not provide much more
heat than a bunch of deuterium infused palladium cells getting hot. There
might be explosions (various cold fusion researchers have claimed such),
but it would be no more dangerous than a car battery.

The only radiation from a fusion reactor is the neutrons if using first
generation D-D or D-T fuel. More advanced fuels such as D-He3 or p-B11 are
aneutronic; most of the energy would be extracted from charged particles in
a magnetohydrodynamic process.

In any event, first generation radiation leakage would be insignificant;
second generation fusion radiation would be non-existent.

>(>) Texas 2-Step
> El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 40
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 18:20:28 EDT
In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:09:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

> Chris Maxfield escribió:
> > In the dystopian future of SR, I have no doubts that the megacorps can
> > manipulate, inveigle or remove those Supreme Court justices and evidence
> not
> > favorable to the corps' interests. Which may give rise to some
> shadowrunning
> > jobs: We've had the Corp War - now we'll have the Court War!
>
> I want to hear what the orbital said about this, when the Ensenada
> strike, at least Aztlan have Aztechnology to his defence (i know i know
> is the same but well), In the case of UCAS Everybody is hurt. I dont
> whant to be in UCAS shoes.

Actually, something that should be remembered, is that Aztlan and
Aztechnology are NOT the same, but they cofunction in their performance
records. One supports the other, and that grey area of accounting mayhem,
they pull off things no one else is able to, even the dragon (Lofwyr).

As for Ensenada...the more I look at that setup, the more I think that is an
example of mass fear/paranoia. I'm not saying there wasn't a right to be
afraid, as Aztlan/Aztechnology were definitely creating some powerful mayhem.
I am saying however, that the situation was taken advantage of by far too
many and far too quickly. Hell, Yamatetsu used the event and the things
surrounding those events in order to garner favor with the Corporate Court
(and it's affiliated members) and later "join the club."

> > >Considering there are at least three nuclear reactors in there, the
blast
> > >from the explosion would devestate a good portion of the area around it,
>
> Question OT the reactors are not cold reactors?

I'm not sure if "Cold" would be the correct term, but they don't really
qualify as "Hot" either. Something to remember here folks is that "Bubble
Fusion" is the option of choice in Shadowrun (Cyberpirates has given us this
better clarification for reactors of "smaller than city size").

> > But human rights external to the UCAS (extraterritoriality) is a
political
> > issue not a legal issue, is it not?
>
> I have i question: citizens of UCAS working for a corp are
> a) part of the corp and then part of the extraterritory i mean Renraku
> Citizen or
> b) UCAS person visit Renraku (aka turist or foreinger)

They can be either actually. I'm going to use the ARC situation in Seattle
as an example for this.

A) You are a citizen of the UCAS who works for the Renraku Corporation, and
you just so happen to actually "commute" to your office within the building.
Sure, there are likely subtle/strong pressures to get you fully join the
corporation, but you decide not to. As such, you retain your rights as a
UCAS citizen, and yet work in "a different boundary of regulation
(Nation/Megacorp). Your corporate ID would contain the information the
corporation needed/required to recognize your various legal/political
orientations. On that same notice, you would also need a formal method of
recognition for the UCAS, identifying you as one of it's official citizens
(most Drivers' Licenses can double for this). It should be noted however,
that your ID would also contain your birth records and/or passport
information.

Technically, this first option is used by people who cross the USA/Canadian
border for work now, or for those people that cross the USA/Mexican border.

B) You are a citizen of the Renraku Corporation (which *might* functionally
make you a citizen of Japan btw...as that is the location of their central
office) and commute to another Renraku site within the greater Seattle area
from your home in the ARC. You must traverse the political/legal territory
of a foreign body (Seattle being controlled/governed by the UCAS), and
therefore require an ID stating your working restrictions and the like. In
this case, this ID also functions as a Work or Travel Visa for the purposes
of crossing the territory required.

You don't actually have to have any other papers than this, as all your
information is now in one place, and any verification of your ID would only
have to reach Renraku Corporation.

> I think the same see OJ Simson and relatives.

Actually, since OJ, there have been a few interesting turns of events now in
the courts and people have gotten mighty miffed/upset.

> > >The Corporate Court would back down as the performing of this action
> would
> > >mean that their repuations in the eyes of the people of the world, and
of
>
> .....

I see the point you are trying to make...

> > This is one of those situations where we foreigners don't quite
understand
> the American soul.
>
> Put me in the list.

Okay, but be careful. I have recalled another example of this that has
*nothing* to do with America. Evita Peron of Argentine
fame/glory/disposition. Mention her name anywhere within Argentinian
boundaries and to my understanding, you are likely to cause anything from a
minor argument to an almost blissful prayer session to potential riots (I
know, I'm exaggerating on the first two ;-) ,j/k).

> >To most of us, JFK was a manipulative womanizer who brought the
> > US to the brink of nuclear war, started the Vietnam fiasco and totally
> stuffed
> > up Cuba. To the Americans, he seems to be a martyred saint.
>
> Not only Americans there are Mexicans that think the same i i donīt have
> a clue why. Because he better the way of politics with latino america,
> what other course of action he could take after Cuba. In my shame my
> Basic collage was named (Liceo President Kennedy) because this absurd.
> Could any american explain me why?

He had something that few people can comprehend very clearly. Charisma.
Powerful Charisma at that. Combine it with a powerful family
(money/power/media controls) and you have a formula for pure political
divinity.

> I can quote the words of one of my players when the election begun
> "remember is a dragon, do you tust a dragon?, the letani said "never
> make a deal with a dragon"

What an interesting phrase from such an interesting character choice....

> Michael remember you have friends even you never see them in RL. Even
> the distance we can call us friends
> Ahuizotl

Scarey, it takes' the Internet to create this effect. Ahuizotl, you have my
respects...

-K
Message no. 41
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 18:32:46 EDT
In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:10:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

> And then UCAS going one-one with ALL the corporations hell of a enemy.
> Nationalization of holdinga? see Aztlan?

What about it?

> wana try chummer.
> Stop shipments? who? with the use of the force? somebody correctme about
> this but i dont think the UCAS army have the same side of the army of 3
> megacorporations

Actually, this would depend entirely whom got involved. There is one other
minor detail here. For all their holdings, there are also some things they
(the megacorps) do not have. Can you figure it out? Remember, this is an
age where magic and domain are powerful forces....

> complete legitimacy of the eyes of the world? chummer the media is in
> the hands of the corps any question?

Actually, this isn't true either. Sure, they own most of it. But the
governments retain the rights (today and tomorrow) over the broadcasting
rights of their national airwaves. And, when all is said in done, all people
reading this should also recall that in all instances of Shadowrun's usage of
terminology, "Military" is still not something that every megacorp can claim
to have, let alone something as big as a nation.

> UCAS is not long the USA, they dont have the power, just imaging a
> cordinate corporation atack. The corporation can Block UCAS, to who is
> going to have comerce with if the corps dont want. With CAS? Amazonia? I
> dont remember other state with out corporation love relations. On the
> other side you have a problem with Aztlan, Japan, CFS, the elf land
> (coutesi of a lovely dragon) and a long ETC. In the economical and
> militar my money is whit the corps

Not mine ... relations are actually good to neutral with CAS (good), Amazonia
(neutral...whom btw would LOVE to toss a few cracks at Aztlan if they turn
too much attention away from them), England (who has no home-bound
megacorps), and the Hawaiian's (talk about a magical maelstrom should a real
fight begin there).

As for picking a fight with such a situation, should the fight reach
"physical stages", please remember that *many* nations in the world of SR are
NOT on the good graces of an even greater number of nations. Hell, imagine
what would happen should the Phillipines (as one example) suddenly start
getting even more help than they likely are now with regards to Japan (and
the various corporate influences there). Please recall if you can, that
Masaru (the great dragon) has major ties in and around the Americas still,
and that alone could augment the relational tensions at these levels.

Hell, now that I think of it...the Elven Nations would probably love nothing
more to throw some MAJOR levels of crap into this mess, as they also do NOT
have any megacorporate ties of their own. As such, if they can find a way to
gain even greater influences (via purely political arenas instead of both
political and corporate ones), then they would gladly get involved (even if
it was via subterfuge and double-play).

Give me more time, and I can probably create a bigger list than most people
might actually believe at first. Now that I think about it, there is a
vastly larger list that probably doesn't have to fall beg and tears at the
feet of the Megas...

And when all else fails...there is always terrorism...of which Nations are
far more experienced with than any corporation likely ever will be. Remember
folks, "Nations" often fall into religious boundaries (especially in the
middle-east, north africa and southern asia) as well.

> Of cource all of this is in IMHO

Of course, mine as well :) Hell, the other thing people are missing is the
"year" of Shadowrun with regards to SR3...add *that* tidbit to this potential
kind of situation and see what you can come up with.

-K
Message no. 42
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 18:36:17 EDT
In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:52:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

>
> a i forget a question
> in this situation what points tou see with little mean?
>
Okay, I'm going to ask you a strange question here. Resend me the entire
letter this was attached with. Keep your original statements in english, and
insert them in spanish. I am not quite certain I am following what you are
saying in this last sentence.

-K
Message no. 43
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 18:36:23 -0500
>>Jesus, and they call *me* cynical....
>
>Oops. I should have used more smilies.

Might have helped.

>I was talking in my in-game
>storyline mode there. I run my Shadowrun games in a dark, cyberpunk,
>dystopian future. My own opinions are very different. <shrug & :-) >

If you want things that dark, play CP2020. The reason I play Shadowrun is
that there's a f***ing ray of hope here and there amongst the darkness.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 44
From: Kate . liliths_childe@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 00:53:09 GMT
> > a i forget a question
> > in this situation what points tou see with little mean?
> >
>Okay, I'm going to ask you a strange question here. Resend me the entire
>letter this was attached with. Keep your original statements in english,
>and insert them in spanish. I am not quite certain I am following what you
>are saying in this last sentence.

He was asking me to reply. Originally, he posed the question
'why negotiate when you know you're going to win?' I responded
to the effect that fighting may drain resourses unnecessarily,
and that if 'total victory' were not required then one could
negotiate away things that mean little...

He wanted examples and/or a definition of "things that mean
little to one."

In truth, there are so many points of negotiation that I'm
not sure where to begin. I'm used to negotiating *cultural*
differences between units who already basically agree on
the direction, so I have little in the way of hostile
negotiation experience.

With that clarification, I'll leave it to those of you
with more desire to nit pick...

Hope that helps,

Kate, who tries to be helpful


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 45
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 23:19:13 EDT
In a message dated 5/3/1999 7:53:39 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
liliths_childe@*******.com writes:

>
> Kate, who tries to be helpful
>
And did a wonderful job of being so. Thank You

-K
Message no. 46
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:19:01 +0200
According to Sommers, at 13:36 on 3 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> >Stop shipments? who? with the use of the force? somebody correctme about
> >this but i dont think the UCAS army have the same side of the army of 3
> >megacorporations
>
> True, the UCAS army is not the size of the US army today, but it is an
> army. Corp propaganda to the contrary, most corps have only security
> forces, and light forces at that.

If you look in Corporate Shadowfiles, most megacorporations don't have
more than a token army.

Ares: Light Regiment
Aztechnology: Regiment (or larger)
Fuchi: Company
Mitsuhama: Company
Renraku: none
Shiawase: none
Saeder-Krupp: Battalion
Yamatetsu: none

Although mostly these are above-average in quality, they most likely
suffer from being a very small size for an army. This in turn means they
are either spread out across the globe protecting useful assets, or they
are away from the action when it starts and so have to be moved ASAP when
something does happen. It also means they won't have much hope going head-
to-head against the UCAS Army, which according to New Seattle consists of
five divisions. I'd assume that to mean the UCAS Army is at least 15 times
larger than Ares' military.

OTOH, corporate militaries can be quickly expanded with trained personnel
by calling up all security troops that can be spared. Sure, they don't
have full military training but they're better and quicker to bring into
action than completely new recruits.

> And don't assume that the corps control all of the media either. Most,
> sure, but the feeds from Tir, London, Quebec, etc would still be up and
> would probably be much more open. Then there's always KSAF and their cohorts.

As can be seen in Yugoslavia ATM, controlling the media means you're more
likely to win the war. If these reports about NATO bombing civilian buses
(whether by accident or on purpose doesn't really matter) keep up, pretty
soon NATO will find its people stopping to support the bombing because
"civilians are getting killed." Two more examples are the 1968 Tet
offensive -- a military victory for the US and its allies, but a
propaganda victory for the NLF, and that last one was what counted -- and
the end of the 1991 Gulf War, where allied forces were ordered to end the
war very soon after western TV screens showed the "Highway of Death" out
of Kuwait.

In SR this would be very similar. In a direct confrontation between a
nation and a megacorp, whoever can use the media best will probably win
the war even if they lose all the battles. I would suspect this to be the
megacorp, since they already have extensive PR and advertising assets they
could switch over to making war propaganda rather than commercials for
washing powders.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Another year and then you'll be happy.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 47
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 17:45:32 +0100
In article <19990503021801.44926.qmail@*******.com>, Jacob Engstrom
<skatta_av_radsla@*******.com> writes
>While the Megas and many of their Facilities are Extraterritorial, many of
>the facilities and buisnesses they own AREN'T.
>(See Corprate Shadowfiles) That means the people who work there and buy
>things from there are UCAS citizens.

>If the UCAS was to repeal the Shiawase Decision, the corps would simply
>relocate all assets that they didn't want taxed, monitored, overseen, or
>controled by the goverment out of the country.

...and lose that market share to home-grown competition, which moves in
to steal their lunch. The consumers still want Widget X, but now the
corporations have to import them (and likely pay swingeing import
duties), raising costs compared to home grown.

Maybe some megas decide the market's still worth having, especially if
some of the competition's leaving in a huff. Perhaps they parlay
accepting revocation of Shiawase, against favourable trade deals, tax
deals, whatever, and especially the abovementioned import duties to
further shackle their competition.

>If you think this is
>difficult, look at the history of the Automotive Idustry since 1970 or the
>Modius Operendi of your average Corprate Raider today.

The automobile industry's more a case study of how someone with lower
costs and better products can decimate a sluggish rival.

>The Corps could also start doing things like raising prices within the UCAS,
>downsizing in country assests, etc.

Raise prices? Lose market share. Think, today, if Intel decided it was
being harassed by the US Government and quadrupled the price of all its
products. What happens? The customers desert in droves to AMD, Cyrix et
al, who rub their hands in glee at this windfall.

Downsize assets? Sell plant, equipment and whatever, and someone in the
UCAS can buy it and set it to work. Destroy it? Well, there goes _that_
investment, to what end?


>The UCAS would be far more hurt by the economic hit (which would affect
>other non-megacorps as well) than the Megacorps. The UCAS would loose tax
>revenue (income AND sales) for the non-extraterritorial income, sales,
>property, etc.

The megacorps pull out of the market: smaller corporations, even other
megacorps, rush to fill it and profit from the opportunity.

>The UCAS would lose favorable negotiation position when negotiating with the
>Megas for services and contracts. Just imagine what the new negotiations for
>new arms deals between the UCAS and ARES be like.

The UCAS is still the biggest buyer: Ares need the UCAS more than the
UCAS needs Ares. So Ares are racking up the price on their jet
superfighters? The UCAS buys Fed-Boeing and Ares lose a big sale. Who's
hurting more?

>And just imagine the headache of trying to figure out the status of all the
>Corprate Citizens. Are they now citizens of the UCAS?

Yep.

>Do they owe back taxes
>(this occured when we sized control of the phillipines, they paid back taxes
>for 5 years prior),

Highly unlikely.

>what about their property?

Remains theirs, provided they can prove ownership.

>What about prior actions that
>may have been illegal?

Illegal by whose law? If they're wanted in the UCAS with extradition
warrants outstanding, life could get lively.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 48
From: Jacob Engstrom skatta_av_radsla@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:09:22 -0500
We come into this world knowing nothing but fear,
Covered in blood, naked and screaming.
The Fun doesn't have to end there.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
To: <shadowRN@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?


> In article <19990503021801.44926.qmail@*******.com>, Jacob Engstrom
> <skatta_av_radsla@*******.com> writes
> >While the Megas and many of their Facilities are Extraterritorial, many
of
> >the facilities and buisnesses they own AREN'T.
> >(See Corprate Shadowfiles) That means the people who work there and buy
> >things from there are UCAS citizens.
>
> >If the UCAS was to repeal the Shiawase Decision, the corps would simply
> >relocate all assets that they didn't want taxed, monitored, overseen, or
> >controled by the goverment out of the country.
>
> ...and lose that market share to home-grown competition, which moves in
> to steal their lunch. The consumers still want Widget X, but now the
> corporations have to import them (and likely pay swingeing import
> duties), raising costs compared to home grown.

Re-read the paragraph. If they don't mind the oversite of a given facility
They can leave it in place. And before the question comes up, yes, set up a
"Corprate Headquarters" of some sort in the UCAS to keep Domestic Corp
Rights
that just happens to be a front office shell for the real thing that is out
country.
Happens all the time now. Thus they can keep manufacturing and distribution,
but move other sensitive items (Labs, executive offices etc.)

> Maybe some megas decide the market's still worth having, especially if
> some of the competition's leaving in a huff. Perhaps they parlay
> accepting revocation of Shiawase, against favourable trade deals, tax
> deals, whatever, and especially the abovementioned import duties to
> further shackle their competition.

Why Parley when you can Win? Corps (espically the Megas) are long
term players. A small to medium hit (re-location fees, etc) for 2-3 quarters
that results in a continued long-term growth trend as the currently have
is much better than taking a long term crimp in the cash line, which is what
your parlay would get them.

> >The Corps could also start doing things like raising prices within the
UCAS,
> >downsizing in country assests, etc.
>
> Raise prices? Lose market share. Think, today, if Intel decided it was
> being harassed by the US Government and quadrupled the price of all its
> products. What happens? The customers desert in droves to AMD, Cyrix et
> al, who rub their hands in glee at this windfall.

Sir, Look at the modern oil companies. Don't know what area you live in,
but ever notice how gas goes up ALL AT ONCE? No matter what station?
The little guy can under cut the big by a cent or two a gallon, but the big
guy
can afford to "Temporaily discomfort his customer base", That happens to be
right out of the WalMart managemnt Training Manual, Then when you are
the first to put gas down, you are looked apon favorably.

> Downsize assets? Sell plant, equipment and whatever, and someone in the
> UCAS can buy it and set it to work. Destroy it? Well, there goes _that_
> investment, to what end?

Uh-huh, look at the automotive parts plants that have been downsized in the
last 15 years, look at the Taconite plants that have been shut down, look
at the manufacturing plants in Ohio that have been downsized., or the KMarts
that have closed. They are not open now and the jobs they repesented are
LOST.
Yes, small percentages have been bought and made profitable again, but most
haven't

You made the argument that the auto industry was the result of another
company
being able to do it cheaper. Well, this is a case of the people who are
doing it
BOTH better and cheaper (depending on item) Moving out of country.
Move to somewhere where land and taxes are lower, you can make up for
the loss due to shiping costs with lower operational costs. Why do you think
copanies today are going to Mexico?
>
> >The UCAS would be far more hurt by the economic hit (which would affect
> >other non-megacorps as well) than the Megacorps. The UCAS would loose tax
> >revenue (income AND sales) for the non-extraterritorial income, sales,
> >property, etc.
>
> The megacorps pull out of the market: smaller corporations, even other
> megacorps, rush to fill it and profit from the opportunity.

That would work except: when a mega pulls out, it as if you lost a major
section of
several industries simultaniously. Imagine if in the space of 1 quarter we
lost
Target, Daytons, Black&Decker, Cub Foods, Food Lion, Craftsman, Power
Buyers,
Bank America, Diamler-chrysler, Rockwell industries, Samy Goody, and
R.J.R.-Nabisco.
Thats what ONE mega leaving is. Yes the little guy can rush in and try to
make up for it,
but, especially when you factor in the Mega Corp control of the Banking
Industry (Corprate
Shadowfiles) Its gonna be on huge hit to the UCAS acconomy.
A Mega BY DEFINITION controls such a wide swath of the economy that it will
put a
country in a world of hurt.

> >The UCAS would lose favorable negotiation position when negotiating with
the
> >Megas for services and contracts. Just imagine what the new negotiations
for
> >new arms deals between the UCAS and ARES be like.
>
> The UCAS is still the biggest buyer: Ares need the UCAS more than the
> UCAS needs Ares. So Ares are racking up the price on their jet
> superfighters? The UCAS buys Fed-Boeing and Ares lose a big sale. Who's
> hurting more?

First of all, look how military contracts are awarded. Contrary to popular
belief
thay are not awarded to the lowest bidder. Often, it is often what company
has
a better relationship and more stock in the procurmant board's portfolio's.
IF price and quality were truly in the equation we would have the f-20
Tigershark today.
We would buy from ARES and we would gladly pay through the nose to do so.

>>What about property?
> Remains theirs, provided they can prove ownership.

Ah, and how do you prove that? Sounds much like the
scam the U.S. pulled on the Tories after the Revolutionary war.
"What, you don't have a deed recongnized by the goverment
that didn't exist until a month ago, even though you've owned the
property for the last 20 years? Sorry, we need to award it to this
gentleman who helped us finnace our war."
To the Victor go the spoils.


In short. Yes, the UCAS could "come back" from the loss, but not quickly and
there would be alot of economic suffering before they are out of the woods.
The mere threat to leave or even a biggining to pull out by 1 or 2 megas
would
get the gov to toe the line. No congress or president wants to be the one
sitting
when the economy hits the Toilet. George Bush learned that one the hard way.

Anyways,
Your points are good, but are not scaled in terms of how soon the fixes
could be
enacted vs. how soon the hurt comes on. The devaluation of the Dollar vs.
the NuYen
would happen within hours of the news of the pullout, that will have
reprocussons quickly.

Adam Smith was an Optimist.

Skatta av Radsla
Message no. 49
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Tue, 4 May 99 21:09:44 -0400
>> Downsize assets? Sell plant, equipment and whatever, and someone in the
>> UCAS can buy it and set it to work. Destroy it? Well, there goes _that_
>> investment, to what end?
>
>Uh-huh, look at the automotive parts plants that have been downsized in the
>last 15 years, look at the Taconite plants that have been shut down, look
>at the manufacturing plants in Ohio that have been downsized., or the KMarts
>that have closed. They are not open now and the jobs they repesented are
>LOST.
>Yes, small percentages have been bought and made profitable again, but most
>haven't
>
>You made the argument that the auto industry was the result of another
>company
>being able to do it cheaper. Well, this is a case of the people who are
>doing it
>BOTH better and cheaper (depending on item) Moving out of country.
>Move to somewhere where land and taxes are lower, you can make up for
>the loss due to shiping costs with lower operational costs. Why do you think
>copanies today are going to Mexico?
>>

Actually the overall costs of moving out of country are frequently
greater than the costs of staying. There are other reasons for doing it
than it is cheaper. Sometimes it is because it is simply impossible to
manufacture the product under the regulations of this country, other
times it is to limit liability (it's much harder to sue a company located
in another country) sometimes it really is cheaper even after transport
and import duties are calculated. Frequently though the company looses
money and just doesn't realize it or doesn't care. Why don't they realize
it? Well because of the way they are compartmentalized. There are hidden
costs that get accounted seperately and while the division and product in
question will show greater profits they take a hit elsewhere and these
increases are never connected with the move. Here is an opportunity for
many shadowruns too, Veep A has convinced Management that Mooving Complex
X To Guam will save money. Veep B realizes that this will decrease the
profitability of his division while increasing that of his rival, this
starts political infighting as both hire runners to discredit the other.
Why wouldn't they care? Politics is one reason, getting consessions
elsewhere may be more important than the slight loss of profit(get us the
mineral rights to this national park area and we'll get you several
thousand new jobs), the other is that they realize the hidden costs but
want them accounted differently. I'm not sure the reason but what
percentage of an item's cost things like labor take up matters to Wall
Street. So lowering labor costs at the cost of increased distribution may
help their ability to raise money through stocks or loans.

I don't really disagree with your points but I think you underestimate
the power a government can bring to bear on a corporation. Let the
company try to pull out with soldiers stationed outside their facility
and all of their employees passports revoked. Sure the company can say it
is pulled out and then the government can inform those employees that
they no longer work for company X but now work for company Y at the same
complex doing the same job for the same rate of pay, the only difference
is that company Y is not a multinational. Also if several (3 or 4) of the
larger and more powerful countries banded together then the corps would
have a real hard time retaining any more power than they have in the
90's.

Steve
Message no. 50
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 01:17:50 EDT
In a message dated 5/4/1999 7:05:01 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
skatta_av_radsla@*******.com writes:

>
> That would work except: when a mega pulls out, it as if you lost a major
> section of
> several industries simultaniously. Imagine if in the space of 1 quarter we
> lost
> Target, Daytons, Black&Decker, Cub Foods, Food Lion, Craftsman, Power
> Buyers,
> Bank America, Diamler-chrysler, Rockwell industries, Samy Goody, and
> R.J.R.-Nabisco.
> Thats what ONE mega leaving is.

I have just this to say. After comparing various notes of things, and giving
it to a stock comparisons' quote. I can gladly say, with all truth. You are
WAY OFF on your estimates. Daimler-Chrysler, Rockwell and R.J.R. Nabisco
combined *might* come close. But every other thing you've added are
subsidiaries of subsidiaries.

And as for naming all those things that close all at once (Target, etc...),
let me just add that in your part of the world perhaps this might be
happening. But here (in this section of Indiana, and anywhere in Indiana
further south of us for that matter), this is simply not the case.

-K
Message no. 51
From: Jacob Engstrom skatta_av_radsla@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 09:24:11 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.net>
To: Shadowrun List <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?

> Actually the overall costs of moving out of country are frequently
> greater than the costs of staying. There are other reasons for doing it
> than it is cheaper. Sometimes it is because it is simply impossible to
> manufacture the product under the regulations of this country, other
> times it is to limit liability (it's much harder to sue a company located
> in another country) sometimes it really is cheaper even after transport
> and import duties are calculated. Frequently though the company looses
> money and just doesn't realize it or doesn't care. Why don't they realize
> it? Well because of the way they are compartmentalized. There are hidden
> costs that get accounted seperately and while the division and product in
> question will show greater profits they take a hit elsewhere and these
> increases are never connected with the move. Here is an opportunity for
> many shadowruns too, Veep A has convinced Management that Mooving Complex
> X To Guam will save money. Veep B realizes that this will decrease the
> profitability of his division while increasing that of his rival, this
> starts political infighting as both hire runners to discredit the other.
> Why wouldn't they care? Politics is one reason, getting consessions
> elsewhere may be more important than the slight loss of profit(get us the
> mineral rights to this national park area and we'll get you several
> thousand new jobs), the other is that they realize the hidden costs but
> want them accounted differently. I'm not sure the reason but what
> percentage of an item's cost things like labor take up matters to Wall
> Street. So lowering labor costs at the cost of increased distribution may
> help their ability to raise money through stocks or loans.


Which is all included in my comentary. Not as sucinctly as you have.
Thank you by the way. The reasons you list are why so many companies,
espically industry, are pulling out to Mexico.
In relation to Mega's Pulling Out to get concessions (back down on this
repeal thing.....) is the whole point.


> I don't really disagree with your points but I think you underestimate
> the power a government can bring to bear on a corporation. Let the
> company try to pull out with soldiers stationed outside their facility
> and all of their employees passports revoked. Sure the company can say it
> is pulled out and then the government can inform those employees that
> they no longer work for company X but now work for company Y at the same
> complex doing the same job for the same rate of pay, the only difference
> is that company Y is not a multinational. Also if several (3 or 4) of the
> larger and more powerful countries banded together then the corps would
> have a real hard time retaining any more power than they have in the
> 90's.

Well, in order.
1) Mega's are Extraterritorial, so unless you repeal that first, stationing
Troops is an act of agression against a Foreign Goverment.
2)How quickly do you think the goverment could get this repealed? If it goes
via congress, the Corps will know for months in advance, and then there's
the "bought" politicans. If it goes through the Courts, well, until the case
is settled, the corps are still extrateritorial, thats if the courts can do
it at all. Under international law (like its worth much anyway...) our
country doesn't have jurisiction to prosecute another country, which is what
Mega's are. Seperate Political entities.
And do you think the the Mega's are not going to be gearing up to fight it
the moment they get the word? heck no, while the bill is waiting in the
house docket or pre-trial phase, the megas are moving the important stuff
and burying the bodies elsewhere. As well as starting the war for public
opinion.
3) And just where would the goverment get the money and management to run
the Company Y you propose? Goverment ownership? Thats one of the biggest
hotbuttons out there. Third Party? See my coments regarding about how big
and across how many sectors of the economy you are losing, they could work
something out, but not for a couple of months. And in the meantime what do
you tell the workers, who were briefed by the company that "We have to pull
out because of this, help us fight it and pay raises for everyone, if we do
leave, when the goverment caves and lets us back in, Stock options for all
you loyal citizens and employees." Thats a heck of alot of people applying
for unemployment all at once.
4) You are right the goverment CAN take action, the point is it WON'T. It
isn't in the best intrests of the country. The financial damage would be
horrendous (look at them scream at Greenspan now, and we are doing good).
The social damage (in terms of loss of jobs, lifestyle, taxing of social
safty nets, etc.) would also be horrific. So far, with the possible
exception of Renraku, no Mega has done enough to warrant the UCAS (note: all
comments are based upon the UCAS, but apply fairly well to other countries)
The political damage is also bad. Thats ALOT of lost campaign donations, as
well as lost tax revenue, trying to explain to your constiuancy why they
don't have jobs.... etc. Not to mention the Mega control of the banking
systems.

And when all this is said in done, you have one of two results.
1) Gov makes its play, Megas begin implamention, lots of shadowruns on
bothsides, Gov realizes its committing re-election suicide and backs down.
we go back to busness as usual the ring leaders of the repeal attempt are
punished, etc.
2) Gove makes its play, Megas begin sabre rattling, Gov hangs tight, megas
pull out, repeal is enacted, economy hits the drecker, lots of Pols lose
their jobs, Megas take a short term hit to the pocket book, some unrest
among the stockholders, Gov repeals the repeal, Megas come in as Saviors at
the country's Darkest Hour and maybe even get MORE concessions for coming
back, the guilty are punished, we go back to business as usual.

One must realize that why Mega's got to be the size they are and weild the
infulince they do, and are as profitable and invasive within economies as
they are is because they are Extraterritorial. They will fight like cornered
weasels to maintain that, except that the mouse has cornered the cat in this
case instead of the other way round.
BOTTOM LINE: Goverment (in the form of Pols) have far more to lose than gain
by pulling a stunt like this.

If you don't like this concept, have the Mega's do something SO horrendous
that the entire nation would be up in arms from the grass roots: Have a mega
nuke UCAS soil, suddenly Death camps of hundreds of people are discovered,
Mega's are testing the new version of thalidimide on pregnant women without
their knowledge. Just make it Large, it has to be.
Racisim, Elitism, and Manipulation won't do it, its gotta be BIG. P.T.
Barnum the heck out of it.

Anyways,
As much as I would love to claim that this is all fact, its still my opinion
with a hefty dose of fact mixed in.
Its all of your own games do what you want with them,

Skatta av Radsla
We come into this world knowing nothing but fear,
Covered in blood, naked and screaming.
The Fun doesn't have to end there.
Message no. 52
From: Jacob Engstrom skatta_av_radsla@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 09:36:22 -0500
.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ereskanti@***.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?


> In a message dated 5/4/1999 7:05:01 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> skatta_av_radsla@*******.com writes:
>
> >
> > That would work except: when a mega pulls out, it as if you lost a
major
> > section of
> > several industries simultaniously. Imagine if in the space of 1 quarter
we
> > lost
> > Target, Daytons, Black&Decker, Cub Foods, Food Lion, Craftsman, Power
> > Buyers,
> > Bank America, Diamler-chrysler, Rockwell industries, Samy Goody, and
> > R.J.R.-Nabisco.
> > Thats what ONE mega leaving is.
>
> I have just this to say. After comparing various notes of things, and
giving
> it to a stock comparisons' quote. I can gladly say, with all truth. You
are
> WAY OFF on your estimates. Daimler-Chrysler, Rockwell and R.J.R. Nabisco
> combined *might* come close. But every other thing you've added are
> subsidiaries of subsidiaries.

And what the heck do you think MEGAS ARE? They are superconglomerates
With huge numbers of subsidaries. They have their fingers in everything.
One mega is equal to and often greater than all of the companies I
mentioned
added together. In both worth, power, influance, and scope of markets and
sectors of the economy they cover. Look and see the listings in in Corprate
Shadowfiles. One Mega goes and you lose stuff across almost all sectors of
the
economy, not just one or a few like the cases above are. I am NOT way
off in the estimates.

> And as for naming all those things that close all at once (Target,
etc...),
> let me just add that in your part of the world perhaps this might be
> happening. But here (in this section of Indiana, and anywhere in Indiana
> further south of us for that matter), this is simply not the case.

I assume you mean them closing. If I am wrong, please correct me.
No they aren't up here. Booming in fact. I chose the ones I did to
give examples of maket penatration and sector influence.
While Taconite is going belly up up here, and the automotive industry has
been gradually down sizing since Regan's second term, most everything else
is going great.

Remember what Lee Iacoca said
(much as I hate to admitt the man was even partially right even in a
fictional setting.)
"What's good for Chrystler (or ARES, Novatech, Yamatetsu, etc) is good for
America (UCAS)>

Skatta av Radsla
We come into this world knowing nothing but fear,
Covered in blood, naked and screaming.
The Fun doesn't have to end there.
Message no. 53
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 10:52:36 -0400
At 10:36 AM 5/5/99 , Jacob Engstrom wrote:
>I assume you mean them closing. If I am wrong, please correct me.
>No they aren't up here. Booming in fact. I chose the ones I did to
>give examples of maket penatration and sector influence.
>While Taconite is going belly up up here, and the automotive industry has
>been gradually down sizing since Regan's second term, most everything else
>is going great.

Actually the car companies are doing a lot better now than they were in the
80's. Ford is up to record profits and total number of cars sold. Even GM
is doing a lot better than it was. And Daimler-Chrysler is chugging right
along too. Part of the reason is that they realized that they can't just
build a car and expect people to line up and buy it. In other words, it
doesn't matter how big they are, if the people don't buy their stuff
they're out of business. Think that they're doing great because of their
sales in Europe or South America? They're still losing money there, just
not as much.

Oh, and GM has just announced that they're building a new assembly plant up
here in Michigan. And a lot of other companies are looking into that too.
Lot of German companies are putting new plants here because they realized
that shipping the jobs down to Mexico wasn't the be-all-end-all solution to
cutting costs at the expense of production.

>Remember what Lee Iacoca said
>(much as I hate to admitt the man was even partially right even in a
>fictional setting.)
>"What's good for Chrystler (or ARES, Novatech, Yamatetsu, etc) is good for
>America (UCAS)>

And the reverse is also true. He said that because he was trying to get the
gov't to bail out the corp because they had been screwing up.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 54
From: Airwasp@***.com Airwasp@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:59:14 EDT
In a message dated 5/3/1999 11:44:54 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

> > It is the Shiawase Decision that allows Corporate
> > Extraterritoriality. If the decision is overturned at a later date,
> > the corps lose the extraterritoriality. Granted, this would be a big
> > loss for the UCAS gov't, but it is within their rights. If the UCAS
> > tried this, one of several things might occur. The corp. could pull
> > all it's assets from UCAS soil, including all it's jobs. A corp.
> > might agree with the decision then turn around and offer a contract to
> > "police" their own property and agree to work with local law
> > enforcement. Or a corp. may attempt to fight the decision which could
> > become very ugly.
>
> The only thing that i can say is "Remember Ensenada?" It would be
> interesting what would be the posicion of the Corporation court about
> the subjet.
> About the options, the firts seems not an option because the lost of
> face (and many corps are Japanese lost of face means a lot thatīs the
> point of the renraku problem). The second I donīt think that they acept
> this with a smile, the third is my choise.

My original intent in the first email was that the corporations could be held
liable for their actions, just like anyone else, for anything they did which
resulted in negligence or damage to the nation which surrounds them. In no
way did I contend that corporate extraterritoriality is being challenged,
only amended.

-Frankenstein
------Hrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Message no. 55
From: Airwasp@***.com Airwasp@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:06:10 EDT
In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:09:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

> > In the dystopian future of SR, I have no doubts that the megacorps can
> > manipulate, inveigle or remove those Supreme Court justices and evidence
> not
> > favorable to the corps' interests. Which may give rise to some
> shadowrunning
> > jobs: We've had the Corp War - now we'll have the Court War!
>
> I want to hear what the orbital said about this, when the Ensenada
> strike, at least Aztlan have Aztechnology to his defence (i know i know
> is the same but well), In the case of UCAS Everybody is hurt. I dont
> whant to be in UCAS shoes.
>
>
> > >Considering there are at least three nuclear reactors in there, the
blast
> > >from the explosion would devestate a good portion of the area around it,
>
> Question OT the reactors are not cold reactors?

The problem is not from the reactors themselves, it is from the chambers
which hold he byproduct of the reaction, and that is mostly hydrogen and
other explosive type materials (remember the movie Chain Reaction??).

> > >destroying Seattle, sending shockwaves down into the San Andreas fault,
> and
> > >not to mention that the nation of Salish-Shidhe will also take the
brunt
> of
> > >the explosion too. In the meantime, within the Arcology there are a
lot
> of
> >
> > This is the uniquely SR situation where fusion reactors can go bang. :-(
> >
> > >people (estimated at over 90,000) trapped within the Arcology, a lot of
> them
> > >citizens of the UCAS, who are now having their basic human rights to be
> > >violated, and the government is going to come to their aid in any way,
> shape
> > >or form they can. By making the ammendments to the Shiawese Decision,
it
> >
> > But human rights external to the UCAS (extraterritoriality) is a
political
> > issue not a legal issue, is it not?
>
> I have i question: citizens of UCAS working for a corp are
> a) part of the corp and then part of the extraterritory i mean Renraku
> Citizen or
> b) UCAS person visit Renraku (aka turist or foreinger)

A better question is this, exactly how much does America go overboard when
they feel that a citizen of their nation is being treated like carp, or
detained against their will by countries they don't really like?

-=-=-=-=-

> > >Dunkhelzahn did not die to simply create the Dragonheart, as he had
> achieved
> > >something which only John F. Kennedy had ever truely achieved in this
> ......
> > >from them by a cold, cruel world. They will realize that even one
person,
>
> > >dragon or not, is capable of making changes to the world, and all they
> have
> > >to do is believe that they can.
> >
> > This is one of those situations where we foreigners don't quite
understand
> the
> > American soul.
>
> Put me in the list.

Sorry, I don't really know how to explain it either.

-Mike
Message no. 56
From: Airwasp@***.com Airwasp@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:18:13 EDT
In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:10:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

> Nexx Many-Scars escribió:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Slipspeed <atreloar@*********.com>
> > >
> > > Ok, I may be wrong here, but the Shiawase Decision granting
> > > extraterritoriality means that the piece of land in question is no
> longer
> .....
> >
> > If corprate extraterritoriality was lost, they would still be in control
> of
> > the land, and might actually bring the UCAS to terms about some of it
(the
> > Arkology, especially). However, being effectively "in rebellion"
would
> > give the UCAS a lot of options... including nationalization of their
> > holdings, the option to try and stop shipments coming into various
> > enclaves, and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
>
> And then UCAS going one-one with ALL the corporations hell of a enemy.
> Nationalization of holdinga? see Aztlan? wana try chummer.
> Stop shipments? who? with the use of the force? somebody correctme about
> this but i dont think the UCAS army have the same side of the army of 3
> megacorporations
> complete legitimacy of the eyes of the world? chummer the media is in
> the hands of the corps any question?

Ah, there is a nifty phrase that comes from Star Trek, DS9, "War is not
profitable when you are on the front line." Even though the corps may decide
that blockading or worse to the UCAS, there will be other countries which
will come to their aid, like the CAS. Besides, the UCAS has a full military
with all the resources that it entails, and the corps do not.

Aztechnology has a trump card, they can have the nation of Aztlan declare
declared assets of Aztechnology as being official embassies and consulates
for Aztlan. Aztechnology could stand by and do nothing and the only thing
they'd do is take advantage of the situation.

> > You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
> > due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
> > rebellion, and therefor are under the realm of war, not civil law. Or,
> > alternatively, the UCAS could allow them to keep their facilities... they
> > had to buy them at some point, and the deeds would still stand. However,
> > the UCAS could also start trying to regulate things (like limiting the
> > types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns
> to
> > rubber bullets)
> >
>
> UCAS is not long the USA, they dont have the power, just imaging a
> cordinate corporation atack. The corporation can Block UCAS, to who is
> going to have comerce with if the corps dont want. With CAS? Amazonia? I
> dont remember other state with out corporation love relations. On the
> other side you have a problem with Aztlan, Japan, CFS, the elf land
> (coutesi of a lovely dragon) and a long ETC. In the economical and
> militar my money is whit the corps

The corporations may have militaries, but their size is small as they are not
profitable. And their military vessels may already be leased or under
contract to some nation or merc group or whomever and to free these vessels
up means that the contracts must be broken and the corps will have to pay
those people and entities back for breaking the contract. More cred wasted.

The other problem corps would have is that some of them have a lot of
citizens from that nation, in this case the UCAS. All of those employees
potentially become security risks now. As such resources must be diverted to
keep tabs on them. Their security clearances may be rescinded.

Oh, and how about this. What if the UCAS government authorized the purchase,
using some funds, to buy say 25% of Ares, and then drew up a contract with
Nadja Daviar for her 12% (IIRC) of Ares to gain a good controlling percentage
of the corporation? Heaven forbid they decide that they appeal to national
pride and ask that all UCAS citizens of all the megacorps proxy their shares
in all corporations to the UCAS, in return, the citizens of the UCAS gain tax
relief. Oh, let's go one step further, the UCAS has the Federal Bank move on
all of the UCAS creditors to the corps and buy up outstanding loans held by
all corps that are held within the nation of the UCAS?

Things could get pretty ugly when the UCAS representative comes barging in on
the corps, wanting into the board meeting and deciding exactly for what
measure to vote for.


> Of cource all of this is in IMHO
>
> Ahuizotl

I like your name, could you tell me what it means? Privately if you want to?

-Mike
Message no. 57
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 11:50:58 -0400
At 11:18 AM 5/5/99 , Airwasp@***.com wrote:
>Ah, there is a nifty phrase that comes from Star Trek, DS9, "War is not
>profitable when you are on the front line." Even though the corps may decide
>that blockading or worse to the UCAS, there will be other countries which
>will come to their aid, like the CAS. Besides, the UCAS has a full military
>with all the resources that it entails, and the corps do not.

Exactly. There are a lot of reasons why other countries might want to back
it up. And, even if the UCAS is not as big as the USA today it still has a
sizable economy. You don't juts blockade something like that and expect to
be able to keep up th ebottom line for a while. Assuming that some second
tier corps don't try to gobble up the business.

Glad to see that someone else recognizes the difference between corp and
country armies and resources.

>Aztechnology has a trump card, they can have the nation of Aztlan declare
>declared assets of Aztechnology as being official embassies and consulates
>for Aztlan. Aztechnology could stand by and do nothing and the only thing
>they'd do is take advantage of the situation.

Hadn't actually thought of that. They really don't have a lot of stuff in
other countries, except for the Seattle Pyramid, but I could see them
setting up the embassies like that. Evil thought!

>The corporations may have militaries, but their size is small as they are not
>profitable. And their military vessels may already be leased or under
>contract to some nation or merc group or whomever and to free these vessels
>up means that the contracts must be broken and the corps will have to pay
>those people and entities back for breaking the contract. More cred wasted.

Exactly. For the most part they don't have a reason to keep up militarties.
I'm sure that they have some navy power, but more for doing light escort
work against pirates than projection of force. You want to explain to the
shareholdes why you have a One Billion Nuyen carrier that costs 300 million
nuyen a year to operate floating around? Didn't think so. Same thing with
large airwings and ground troops. Sure they have some, but most of it will
be light special forces stuff and maybe a wing or two of aircraft for the
military companies. More than that isn't cost effective.

>The other problem corps would have is that some of them have a lot of
>citizens from that nation, in this case the UCAS. All of those employees
>potentially become security risks now. As such resources must be diverted to
>keep tabs on them. Their security clearances may be rescinded.

Yup. Can't worry about that UCAS patriot who decides to leak al of those
dirty secrets for God and country.

>Oh, and how about this. What if the UCAS government authorized the purchase,
>using some funds, to buy say 25% of Ares, and then drew up a contract with
>Nadja Daviar for her 12% (IIRC) of Ares to gain a good controlling percentage
>of the corporation? Heaven forbid they decide that they appeal to national
>pride and ask that all UCAS citizens of all the megacorps proxy their shares
>in all corporations to the UCAS, in return, the citizens of the UCAS gain tax
>relief. Oh, let's go one step further, the UCAS has the Federal Bank move on
>all of the UCAS creditors to the corps and buy up outstanding loans held by
>all corps that are held within the nation of the UCAS?
>
>Things could get pretty ugly when the UCAS representative comes barging in on
>the corps, wanting into the board meeting and deciding exactly for what
>measure to vote for.

Stretching it to come up with that much cash, but it could be done. Take SS
funds (or whatever else is available) and make the play for them. Even the
threat could do it. Easier for a country to buy its way onto the board of
directors through stock than the corp to get elected to gov't.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 58
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:55:39 -0500
You know what I find slightly humorous, and slightly sad, about this entire
thing? If the corps left the UCAS, the first thing most Americans wold
complain about would be that they're destroying the games (Football, Combat
Biker, Urban Brawl... most of these have Corp teams).

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 2-5-99
Message no. 59
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 17:18:09 -0700
Airwasp@***.com wrote:
<sniplots>

> Oh, and how about this. What if the UCAS government authorized the purchase,
> using some funds, to buy say 25% of Ares, and then drew up a contract with
> Nadja Daviar for her 12% (IIRC) of Ares to gain a good controlling percentage
> of the corporation? Heaven forbid they decide that they appeal to national
> pride and ask that all UCAS citizens of all the megacorps proxy their shares
> in all corporations to the UCAS, in return, the citizens of the UCAS gain tax
> relief. Oh, let's go one step further, the UCAS has the Federal Bank move on
> all of the UCAS creditors to the corps and buy up outstanding loans held by
> all corps that are held within the nation of the UCAS?
>
> Things could get pretty ugly when the UCAS representative comes barging in on
> the corps, wanting into the board meeting and deciding exactly for what
> measure to vote for.
>

<snip some more>

> -Mike

Cool idea. Though...is that even LEGAL? Is it constitutional for that matter???
For the gov't to sit on the board of a company, or own a controlling interest?

John
Message no. 60
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 16:41:57 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Penta <cpenta@*****.com>
>
> Cool idea. Though...is that even LEGAL? Is it constitutional for that
matter???
> For the gov't to sit on the board of a company, or own a controlling
interest?

Well, I don't think it's technically legal, but I suppose a private party
could either purchase the shares and consult with the government (conflict
of interests, but you could go under the table with this sort of thing...
getting "financial advice" from a friend who happens to be a high-placed
government official). Alternatively, members of Congress could get
together and form a "corporation" which bought stocks in other
corporations, and used their voting leverage to move things along. Likely
get brought up on ethics charges, but if the entire government is fighting
the corps, it won't amount to much.
Message no. 61
From: Dark Steel seattle2052@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 15:40:28 PDT
> Cool idea. Though...is that even LEGAL? Is it constitutional for that
>matter???
>For the gov't to sit on the board of a company, or own a controlling
>interest?
>
>John
>

After the LA. Purchase I would beleive that anything is possible so long as
it is politically fashionable.

Dark Steel
The guy who holds the knife to your conscience's throught.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 62
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 18:47:47 EDT
In a message dated 5/5/1999 9:18:40 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
skatta_av_radsla@*******.com writes:

> If you don't like this concept, have the Mega's do something SO horrendous
> that the entire nation would be up in arms from the grass roots: Have a
mega
> nuke UCAS soil, suddenly Death camps of hundreds of people are discovered,
> Mega's are testing the new version of thalidimide on pregnant women without
> their knowledge. Just make it Large, it has to be.
> Racisim, Elitism, and Manipulation won't do it, its gotta be BIG. P.T.
> Barnum the heck out of it.

To one end, regardless of your points (many of which are good, but not
complete either), this paragraph stood out the most. The corps, one in
particular, have already done so. And, just so it is known, placing troops
against a megacorporation, regardless of it's size, is NOT an act against a
foreign nation. "Extraterritoriality" is the term, not
"Nationalization".

-K
Message no. 63
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 18:55:41 EDT
In a message dated 5/5/1999 10:52:32 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:

> >Things could get pretty ugly when the UCAS representative comes barging in
> on
> >the corps, wanting into the board meeting and deciding exactly for what
> >measure to vote for.
>
> Stretching it to come up with that much cash, but it could be done.

Actually, not it's not. Wanna hear something scarey. An action available to
the President of the UCAS, as the functions of the Constitutions and BoR
charters have been retained from the USA, is for a presidential emergency
allocation or action to occur. It doesn't need ratified by anyone for 24
hours. Wanna see what happens when this action can take place as a funding
of monies?

> Take SS
> funds (or whatever else is available) and make the play for them. Even the
> threat could do it. Easier for a country to buy its way onto the board of
> directors through stock than the corp to get elected to gov't.

Actually, this is VERY VERY VERY true. And something I had not considered
fully either. For electoral problems to occur, would take no less than 1
week, even in the face of an emergency electoral call. Would take less than
24 hours for this to occur with regards to a government buying shares for any
corporation it chooses.

BTW folks, it does say that the Megacorps are NOT in charge of the major (ie;
Global) banks. In fact, they are part of those banking structures along with
governments.

-K
Message no. 64
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 18:57:51 EDT
In a message dated 5/5/1999 4:31:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cpenta@*****.com writes:

>
> Cool idea. Though...is that even LEGAL? Is it constitutional for that
> matter???
> For the gov't to sit on the board of a company, or own a controlling
> interest?
>
> John
VERY Legal in fact, especially in SR terms given the relationship differences
that exist currently. Nationalization of corporate properties occurs in many
forms in SR. And, just for a situational comparison. Nadja Davier = VP of
UCAS = Big Person in Charge of Draco Foundation (one of the near-to-really-is
Megas now).

-K
Message no. 65
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 19:04:59 -0400
Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 5/5/1999 10:52:32 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:
>
> > >Things could get pretty ugly when the UCAS representative comes barging in
> > on
> > >the corps, wanting into the board meeting and deciding exactly for what
> > >measure to vote for.
> >
> > Stretching it to come up with that much cash, but it could be done.
>
> Actually, not it's not. Wanna hear something scarey. An action available to
> the President of the UCAS, as the functions of the Constitutions and BoR
> charters have been retained from the USA, is for a presidential emergency
> allocation or action to occur. It doesn't need ratified by anyone for 24
> hours. Wanna see what happens when this action can take place as a funding
> of monies?
>
> > Take SS
> > funds (or whatever else is available) and make the play for them. Even the
> > threat could do it. Easier for a country to buy its way onto the board of
> > directors through stock than the corp to get elected to gov't.
>
> Actually, this is VERY VERY VERY true. And something I had not considered
> fully either. For electoral problems to occur, would take no less than 1
> week, even in the face of an emergency electoral call. Would take less than
> 24 hours for this to occur with regards to a government buying shares for any
> corporation it chooses.
>
> BTW folks, it does say that the Megacorps are NOT in charge of the major (ie;
> Global) banks. In fact, they are part of those banking structures along with
> governments.
>
> -K

This is some of the most evil thinking I've ever heard. Mind if I borrow it?

--
--Strago

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 66
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 99 19:22:07 -0400
>
>> I don't really disagree with your points but I think you underestimate
>> the power a government can bring to bear on a corporation. Let the
>> company try to pull out with soldiers stationed outside their facility
>> and all of their employees passports revoked. Sure the company can say it
>> is pulled out and then the government can inform those employees that
>> they no longer work for company X but now work for company Y at the same
>> complex doing the same job for the same rate of pay, the only difference
>> is that company Y is not a multinational. Also if several (3 or 4) of the
>> larger and more powerful countries banded together then the corps would
>> have a real hard time retaining any more power than they have in the
>> 90's.
>
>Well, in order.
>1) Mega's are Extraterritorial, so unless you repeal that first, stationing
>Troops is an act of agression against a Foreign Goverment.
>2)How quickly do you think the goverment could get this repealed? If it goes
>via congress, the Corps will know for months in advance, and then there's
>the "bought" politicans. If it goes through the Courts, well, until the case
>is settled, the corps are still extrateritorial, thats if the courts can do
>it at all. Under international law (like its worth much anyway...) our
>country doesn't have jurisiction to prosecute another country, which is what
>Mega's are. Seperate Political entities.

We don't? Tell that to Lybia, Panama, Iraq, Serbia, etc. Considering them
seperate political entities makes it easier to do just what I said. Just
declare war on that corp. In 24 hours it's over all corp facilities in
that country are occupied.

>3) And just where would the goverment get the money and management to run
>the Company Y you propose? Goverment ownership? Thats one of the biggest
>hotbuttons out there. Third Party? See my coments regarding about how big
>and across how many sectors of the economy you are losing, they could work
>something out, but not for a couple of months. And in the meantime what do
>you tell the workers, who were briefed by the company that "We have to pull
>out because of this, help us fight it and pay raises for everyone, if we do
>leave, when the goverment caves and lets us back in, Stock options for all
>you loyal citizens and employees." Thats a heck of alot of people applying
>for unemployment all at once.

They don't need any money, they can make money over it. I'm sure there
will be a local company of class AA or lower that would love to acquire
those assets for a dime on the dollar. This way the government even makes
money as the profits from the sale of those assets bolsters the economy
during the temporary disruption. The key is wether the Mega's put up a
united front or not. Saying that they would is not that easy some might
consider it in their personal best intrests to see the competitipon
hanging in the wind. Especially if the UCAS or other government isn't
trying to revoke extraterritoriality but merely modify it. Also if
necessary they can simply print money. this is a bad solution usually but
since it will be spent on a project that will turn a profit most of the
long term ill effects of this solution are mitigated or eliminated. As
for the employees? Simple, anyone who quits or leaves to go join the corp
in another country is guilty of treason.

Steve
Message no. 67
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 99 19:50:57 -0400
On 5/5/99 5:41 pm, Nexx Many-Scars said:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Penta <cpenta@*****.com>
>>
>> Cool idea. Though...is that even LEGAL? Is it constitutional for that
>matter???
>> For the gov't to sit on the board of a company, or own a controlling
>interest?
>
>Well, I don't think it's technically legal, but I suppose a private party
>could either purchase the shares and consult with the government (conflict
>of interests, but you could go under the table with this sort of thing...
>getting "financial advice" from a friend who happens to be a high-placed
>government official). Alternatively, members of Congress could get
>together and form a "corporation" which bought stocks in other
>corporations, and used their voting leverage to move things along. Likely
>get brought up on ethics charges, but if the entire government is fighting
>the corps, it won't amount to much.
>
>
>
>
Yes it is. Look at the Flying Tigers air transport company. For a long
time they were owned by the CIA. In the mid 80's they were sold to Fed
Ex. Also there is a defense contractor named Mitre that is pretty much
owned by the Air Foirce. There is also Lawrence Livermore Labs which is a
private company owned by the Government. The ultimate irony is that the
government owned the Mustang Ranch (a famous Brothel) in Vegas for
several years. The IRS Siezed it for tax evasion and then operated it
until they made enough profit to recover the missing taxes and then sold
it.

Steve
Message no. 68
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 19:49:28 EDT
In a message dated 5/5/1999 6:39:35 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
einan@*********.net writes:

> The ultimate irony is that the
> government owned the Mustang Ranch (a famous Brothel) in Vegas for
> several years. The IRS Siezed it for tax evasion and then operated it
> until they made enough profit to recover the missing taxes and then sold
> it.

Steve, I had completely forgotten about this one too. Thanks for the
memories of that previous read... ;)

-K
Message no. 69
From: Bruce gyro@********.co.za
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 09:22:59 +0200
-----Original Message-----
From: Ereskanti@***.com <Ereskanti@***.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: 06 May 1999 01:04
Subject: Re: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?


>In a message dated 5/5/1999 4:31:37 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>cpenta@*****.com writes:
>
>>
>> Cool idea. Though...is that even LEGAL? Is it constitutional for
that
>> matter???
>> For the gov't to sit on the board of a company, or own a
controlling
>> interest?
>>
>> John
>VERY Legal in fact, especially in SR terms given the relationship
differences
>that exist currently. Nationalization of corporate properties occurs
in many
>forms in SR. And, just for a situational comparison. Nadja Davier VP of
>UCAS = Big Person in Charge of Draco Foundation (one of the
near-to-really-is
>Megas now).
>
>-K

I was under the impression the Foundation was a non profit NGO.

If not, what do they produce/provide?

Thanks

- - BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>

<hard@****>
Message no. 70
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 21:51:01 +0200
According to Ereskanti@***.com, at 18:47 on 5 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> To one end, regardless of your points (many of which are good, but not
> complete either), this paragraph stood out the most. The corps, one in
> particular, have already done so. And, just so it is known, placing
> troops against a megacorporation, regardless of it's size, is NOT an
> act against a foreign nation. "Extraterritoriality" is the term, not
> "Nationalization".

Just a little note here: nationalization of a corporation means the
government -- whichever that is -- buys that corp and runs it (the
opposite is privatization: the government selling the corp or setting it
up to run itself). This has nothing to do with extraterritoriality
AFAICS...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Another year and then you'll be happy.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 71
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 00:03:12 +0100
In article <19990505000259.48527.qmail@*******.com>, Jacob Engstrom
<skatta_av_radsla@*******.com> writes
>From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
>> ...and lose that market share to home-grown competition, which moves in
>> to steal their lunch. The consumers still want Widget X, but now the
>> corporations have to import them (and likely pay swingeing import
>> duties), raising costs compared to home grown.
>
>Re-read the paragraph. If they don't mind the oversite of a given facility
>They can leave it in place. And before the question comes up, yes, set up a
>"Corprate Headquarters" of some sort in the UCAS to keep Domestic Corp
>Rights
> that just happens to be a front office shell for the real thing that is out
>country.
>Happens all the time now. Thus they can keep manufacturing and distribution,
>but move other sensitive items (Labs, executive offices etc.)

Manufacturing and distribution is where the revenue comes in, and where
it can be taxed. You do research in order to develop a better mousetrap:
but the reason you do it, is to mass-produce it and sell it to Joe Public.

And look at the upside of losing extraterritoriality - you're developing
bleeding-edge tech, for (among others) the UCAS military. Instead of
maintaining, training, equipping, feeding, clothing and providing pensions
for a security force (cost, cost and cost again) you can offload much or
most of that to the UCAS. "You want the lab secured, you pay for it and
_you_ police it, this is _your_ contract..."


>> Maybe some megas decide the market's still worth having, especially if
>> some of the competition's leaving in a huff. Perhaps they parlay
>> accepting revocation of Shiawase, against favourable trade deals, tax
>> deals, whatever, and especially the abovementioned import duties to
>> further shackle their competition.
>
>Why Parley when you can Win? Corps (espically the Megas) are long
>term players. A small to medium hit (re-location fees, etc) for 2-3 quarters
>that results in a continued long-term growth trend as the currently have
>is much better than taking a long term crimp in the cash line, which is what
>your parlay would get them.

Relocation is fine... in a world of guaranteed free trade with no customs
barriers and low tariffs.

If a megacorporation relocates a production facility out of the UCAS to,
say, Mazatlan, then the UCAS can't do much to stop them. But, you know,
there are reports of BTLs being smuggled in cargo containers through the
port facility at Mazatlan, and so every single container has to be checked
before it can clear customs. And there are only two customs inspectors
the UCAS deems qualified to do the work, and they're in St. Louis, and no,
they won't move, you have to ship every container to them if you want it
to enter the UCAS.

What are you going to do about _that_? Pull your facilities out? Can't, you
already did. Give up _more_ market share to your competitors? Threaten
the UCAS (and establish the principle that you're allowed to use violence
between extranational entities, a losing proposition for any corp?)

>> Raise prices? Lose market share. Think, today, if Intel decided it was
>> being harassed by the US Government and quadrupled the price of all its
>> products. What happens? The customers desert in droves to AMD, Cyrix et
>> al, who rub their hands in glee at this windfall.
>
>Sir, Look at the modern oil companies. Don't know what area you live in,
>but ever notice how gas goes up ALL AT ONCE? No matter what station?

No, not really. The driving force on fuel prices where I live is Government
taxation - we pay about $5 a gallon for gasolene/petrol round here. Guess
what? The fuel companies live with it and pay the duty. Some stations -
located out of the way with little competition - charge rather more,
others - where you have several in proximity - engage in price wars, and
some filling stations attached to large supermarkets sell fuel at cost in
order to suck custom away from other sites.

>The little guy can under cut the big by a cent or two a gallon, but the big
>guy
>can afford to "Temporaily discomfort his customer base", That happens to be
>right out of the WalMart managemnt Training Manual, Then when you are
>the first to put gas down, you are looked apon favorably.

The problem is... with eight superconglomerate megacorps even before
the Fuchi breakup, there is just too much competition for this to be a
viable tactic. No megacorporation is going to leave a competitor enjoying
a cosy monopoly in any area or market.

Think, too, of the flexibility that Matrix-based retail offers. In Britain
today, there are grumbles about the high cost of many items compared to
their price overseas. Already there's a sizeable 'grey market' for everything
from software to motorcycles, buying Kawasaki GPz500s cheap in (say)
Holland and selling them for profit in Britain while still undercutting the
"recommended retail price". That, too, will exert a powerful levelling
influence on prices and limit the freedom of megacorps (and anyone else)
to play such games.

Import duty remains a problem... but, at least in the UK, the current
policy is distinctly pro-competition. Provided Customs and Excise get their
cut (which they do on both legal and grey imports) they stay out of the
fight. Honda (UK) are currently taking a grey importer to court... mostly
out of embarrasment that he could sell new Honda motorcycles at a
comfortable profit and still easily undercut them.

>> Downsize assets? Sell plant, equipment and whatever, and someone in the
>> UCAS can buy it and set it to work. Destroy it? Well, there goes _that_
>> investment, to what end?
>
>Uh-huh, look at the automotive parts plants that have been downsized in the
>last 15 years, look at the Taconite plants that have been shut down, look
>at the manufacturing plants in Ohio that have been downsized., or the KMarts
>that have closed. They are not open now and the jobs they repesented are
>LOST.

Now, was that because their owners were engaged in a political argument
with the US Government, or was it because they were not profitable?

The two are totally different. Are you telling me an extranational, profit-
driven megacorp will keep a plant open for a day if it could make more
money elsewhere? But you're claiming a megacorporation will shut down an
otherwise profitable plant, laying off workers, losing their investment, as
a political gesture... and I don't see that happening. Now or in the future.

>You made the argument that the auto industry was the result of another
>company
>being able to do it cheaper. Well, this is a case of the people who are
>doing it
>BOTH better and cheaper (depending on item) Moving out of country.
>Move to somewhere where land and taxes are lower, you can make up for
>the loss due to shiping costs with lower operational costs. Why do you think
>copanies today are going to Mexico?

And what has that do do with closing profitable plants as part of a political
dispute? If the plant isn't making money, a megacorp would have shut it,
sold or scrapped what it could, and moved on already. If it _was_ making
money, losing it represents a cost.

>> The megacorps pull out of the market: smaller corporations, even other
>> megacorps, rush to fill it and profit from the opportunity.
>
>That would work except: when a mega pulls out, it as if you lost a major
>section of
>several industries simultaniously. Imagine if in the space of 1 quarter we
>lost
>Target, Daytons, Black&Decker, Cub Foods, Food Lion, Craftsman, Power
>Buyers,
>Bank America, Diamler-chrysler, Rockwell industries, Samy Goody, and
>R.J.R.-Nabisco.

Not familiar with all those brand names, but remember there are _eight_
megacorporations, and _many, many_ smaller businesses.

Think motorcycles. So, Honda (UK) pulls out of Britain? Well, gee, I
wouldn't have minded riding a Honda, but now I can only choose between
Aprilla, Cagiva, Bimota, BMW, Ducati, Harley-Davidson, Kawasaki,
Laverda, Moto Guzzi, Suzuki, Triumph, or Yamaha. Oh, the pain, oh, the
humanity, now how many people will be more than mildly irritated that
they can't buy a Honda-brand cycle through a legitimate dealership?

Hell, think cars, and remember not every megacorp is a major player in
every market - do you see the US or British economy collapsing because
you can't buy Yugos any more?

>Thats what ONE mega leaving is. Yes the little guy can rush in and try to
>make up for it,
>but, especially when you factor in the Mega Corp control of the Banking
>Industry (Corprate
>Shadowfiles)

The megacorporations _don't_ control the banks, either singly or together.
Read Corporate Shadowfiles properly.

Hell, if the megas _do_ control the banks and the megas try to use that,
then the UCAS just defaults on its debt and says its troops will shoot the
bailiffs. Blam, instant financial crisis that hurts the corps much more than
the UCAS.

"When you owe the bank five thousand pounds and refuse to pay, you
have a problem.
When you owe the bank five billion pounds and refuse to pay, _the bank_
has a problem."

Look how the IMF et al reacted to Russia defaulting last year, for
instance.


>A Mega BY DEFINITION controls such a wide swath of the economy that it will
>put a
>country in a world of hurt.

No, a megacorporation controls - at absolute max - 12.5% of the economy
(eight megas). Allowing for reality - public sector, non-megacorp activity -
and no one megacorporation controls more than maybe 5% of the
economy.

>> The UCAS is still the biggest buyer: Ares need the UCAS more than the
>> UCAS needs Ares. So Ares are racking up the price on their jet
>> superfighters? The UCAS buys Fed-Boeing and Ares lose a big sale. Who's
>> hurting more?
>
>First of all, look how military contracts are awarded. Contrary to popular
>belief
>thay are not awarded to the lowest bidder. Often, it is often what company
>has
>a better relationship and more stock in the procurmant board's portfolio's.

Note one oft-forgotten point about military procurement - who pays for
_development_ and thus who owns the end design.

That's right: the Ministry of Defence/DoD. _They_ retain full IPR on the
design, they have final say on any export deals, they're entitled to a levy
on any sales to other customers.

Don't like it? Don't bid for defence work. It's a free country...


>IF price and quality were truly in the equation we would have the f-20
>Tigershark today.
>We would buy from ARES and we would gladly pay through the nose to do so.

As a senior systems engineer, gainfully employed as a defence contractor,
I respectfully and politely point out that your position here pegs the FoS
meter.

The reason the F-20 Tigershark failed to sell was that it was developed as
a private venture by Northrop, in order to exploit a percieved gap in the
market caused by the Carter Administration's unwillingness to allow export
of the F-16 and F/A-18. An update of a small, austere daylight fighter
with severely limited growth room, it failed dismally in the export market
once the LWF competitors were unleashed under Reagan.

While the F-20 was a competent WVR aircraft, it lacked volume and fuel
fraction: it compared favourably to early-production F-16As, but had
nothing approaching their growth potential. Comparing a F-20 to a Block
52 F-16C is like comparing a MiG-17 to a F-4E Phantom in terms of
capability.

>In short. Yes, the UCAS could "come back" from the loss, but not quickly and
>there would be alot of economic suffering before they are out of the woods.
>The mere threat to leave or even a biggining to pull out by 1 or 2 megas
>would
>get the gov to toe the line.

Divide and conquer. With eight or more megacorporations and many more
smaller, but ruthlessly ambitious A and AA businesses to play with, the loss
of one or two players is neither crippling nor even particularly serious to a
major government.
>
>Anyways,
>Your points are good, but are not scaled in terms of how soon the fixes
>could be
>enacted vs. how soon the hurt comes on. The devaluation of the Dollar vs.
>the NuYen
>would happen within hours of the news of the pullout, that will have
>reprocussons quickly.

How about the crash in the megacorporation's stock, and the
repercussions _that_ would have? "They decided to get into a pissing
contest with the UCAS? Are they mad? Sell for what you can get! Buy
whoever's staying out of the fight!"

At best, that corporation's lost a chunk of market for a while. At worst,
it's mired itself in conflict, and war is _never_ profitable for the
participants. What does _this_ do to the megacorporation, its managers
(all likely to be holding share options and thus dependent on a stably rising
share price) and its shareholders (who, in extremis, are quite thoroughly
able to turn on the managers who got into the war and vote da bums out)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 72
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 09:32:14 +1000
Gurth writes:
> Just a little note here: nationalization of a corporation means the
> government -- whichever that is -- buys that corp and runs it (the
> opposite is privatization: the government selling the corp or setting it
> up to run itself). This has nothing to do with extraterritoriality
> AFAICS...

Hmm... "buys" the corp. Only if the owners of the corp are lucky.
Historically, nationalised companies have been paid zippo by the governments
that do it.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 73
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 00:31:21 +0100
In article <19990505141731.92699.qmail@*******.com>, Jacob Engstrom
<skatta_av_radsla@*******.com> writes
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.net>
>> I don't really disagree with your points but I think you underestimate
>> the power a government can bring to bear on a corporation. Let the
>> company try to pull out with soldiers stationed outside their facility
>> and all of their employees passports revoked. Sure the company can say it
>> is pulled out and then the government can inform those employees that
>> they no longer work for company X but now work for company Y at the same
>> complex doing the same job for the same rate of pay, the only difference
>> is that company Y is not a multinational. Also if several (3 or 4) of the
>> larger and more powerful countries banded together then the corps would
>> have a real hard time retaining any more power than they have in the
>> 90's.
>
>Well, in order.
>1) Mega's are Extraterritorial, so unless you repeal that first, stationing
>Troops is an act of agression against a Foreign Goverment.

Like bombing oil refineries in Novi Sad, or nerve gas plants in Iraq, or
attacking Pasdaran bases in the Straits of Hormuz, or hitting Libyan
missile boats and SAM sites and airfields, or invading Panama...

Gimme a break, the US does this all the time, so does Britain, it's not that
big a deal.

>2)How quickly do you think the goverment could get this repealed?

Executive Order, maybe? If a megacorp gets caught (again) doing
something really dangerous, like nuking central Chicago or letting a rogue
AI take over a huge extraterritorial enclave in Seattle, then if they're a
clear and present danger the NSC can just act on the spot.

In Britain, for sure, the executive branch can do what it likes in the short
term. It certainly has to _answer_ to Parliament, and can be handily slung
out by a vote of no confidence, but the Cabinet doesn't need to beg
permission.

>And do you think the the Mega's are not going to be gearing up to fight it
>the moment they get the word? heck no, while the bill is waiting in the
>house docket or pre-trial phase, the megas are moving the important stuff
>and burying the bodies elsewhere. As well as starting the war for public
>opinion.

Which is why, if it happened, it would happen _fast_ and be a fait
accompli.

>3) And just where would the goverment get the money and management to run
>the Company Y you propose? Goverment ownership? Thats one of the biggest
>hotbuttons out there. Third Party? See my coments regarding about how big
>and across how many sectors of the economy you are losing, they could work
>something out, but not for a couple of months.

Third Party - like, this factory's worth ten billion according to BigCo's
annual report, we've nationalised it and we're now selling it for one billion
provided the buyer accepts it's UCAS territory and liable for standard UCAS
corporate taxation et cetera...

Now, beat off the line of buyers with a stick while you evaluate their
offers.

>And in the meantime what do
>you tell the workers, who were briefed by the company that "We have to pull
>out because of this, help us fight it and pay raises for everyone, if we do
>leave, when the goverment caves and lets us back in, Stock options for all
>you loyal citizens and employees." Thats a heck of alot of people applying
>for unemployment all at once.

"Where's your social security history... you don't have one. What's your
National Insurance number... you were a Fuchi citizen. Well, ask them for
food and work at the emergency rates they were promising. Or take the
deal your new bosses offer. Your choice."

Extraterritoriality - the workers were never UCAS citizens in the first
place. If they were, then the corporation has much less leverage to start
with.

>4) You are right the goverment CAN take action, the point is it WON'T.

Oh, it _will_. Read Corporate Shadowfiles - governments _do_ act,
violently on occasion, against corporations that get too cocky.

>It
>isn't in the best intrests of the country.

And the megas are damn careful to keep it that way. It's a balancing act,
and if a corporation gets too arrogant in how it handles the "puny UCAS
government" it may suddenly find itself isolated, alone, being pummelled
by that "puny government" while its competitors scramble to take
advantage.

_That_ balance is what is too often forgotten in Shadowrun.

>The political damage is also bad. Thats ALOT of lost campaign donations,

Serious campaign finance limitations here in the UK.

>as
>well as lost tax revenue,

Extraterritorial company = no tax revenue to start with.

>trying to explain to your constiuancy why they
>don't have jobs....

Bragging to your constituents about how you're hammering the megacorp
that exported their jobs to Uzbekistan last year.

>etc. Not to mention the Mega control of the banking
>systems.

No, they don't - and even if they do, a nation defaulting on its debts is far
more of a headache. One reason the megas wouldn't want to touch
banking with a barge pole.

Think how huge the US debt is, wonder how in FASA's timeline it might
ever get any smaller, imagine having to be the fund manager explaining
why the interest payments on it had stopped coming in.


>And when all this is said in done, you have one of two results.
>1) Gov makes its play, Megas begin implamention, lots of shadowruns on
>bothsides, Gov realizes its committing re-election suicide and backs down.
>we go back to busness as usual the ring leaders of the repeal attempt are
>punished, etc.

>2) Gove makes its play, Megas begin sabre rattling, Gov hangs tight, megas
>pull out, repeal is enacted, economy hits the drecker, lots of Pols lose
>their jobs, Megas take a short term hit to the pocket book, some unrest
>among the stockholders, Gov repeals the repeal, Megas come in as Saviors at
>the country's Darkest Hour and maybe even get MORE concessions for coming
>back, the guilty are punished, we go back to business as usual.

3) Government makes its play against one mega, the megacorporation in
question (call it Yamaetsu) puts up a fight but is quickly crushed militarily
within the UCAS. It retreats and goes to the Corporate Court, moving for
a Court resolution to hammer the UCAS. The resolution is vetoed by one
of the megas (Ares, probably) which has been quietly promised first pick
of the newly-nationalised assets. During the delay, arguments and finger-
pointing, every business able to compete moves to take advantage of
Yamaetsu's disadvantage.

So, what can the Court promise anyone who goes along with the
resolution? Lose what they've gained... for what? Those that lost out will
side with Yamaetsu, those that won will side with Ares, meanwhile the
Court is still deadlocked. The UCAS is loudly promising that its reaction
was solely in response to "egregriously criminal" conduct by Yamaetsu...
and quietly offers generous terms to any corporations willing to abandon
extraterritoriality.

Emboldened by the UCAS example, other nations begin to follow suit...
while still others reinforce the doctrine of extraterritoriality within their
borders.


>One must realize that why Mega's got to be the size they are and weild the
>infulince they do, and are as profitable and invasive within economies as
>they are is because they are Extraterritorial.

No, that's merely one tool in their arsenal. If the cost of keeping it
outweighs the benefits of having it, they'll shed it in a second.

>BOTTOM LINE: Goverment (in the form of Pols) have far more to lose than gain
>by pulling a stunt like this.

In your opinion: I strongly differ.

>If you don't like this concept, have the Mega's do something SO horrendous
>that the entire nation would be up in arms from the grass roots: Have a mega
>nuke UCAS soil,

Done in Chicago.

>suddenly Death camps of hundreds of people are discovered,

Done many times in our campaign...

>Mega's are testing the new version of thalidimide on pregnant women without
>their knowledge.

Ditto.

>Just make it Large, it has to be.

Hey, pal, the megas have been _doing_ this all along! That's what being
extraterritorial lets them pull!

>As much as I would love to claim that this is all fact, its still my opinion
>with a hefty dose of fact mixed in.
>Its all of your own games do what you want with them,

Words to live by. We disagree on this, BFD, it's fun to argue about
different viewpoints. As long as you enjoy playing your version, you can't
be doing anything _that_ wrong...
>
--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 74
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 09:52:40 +1000
Paul J Adam writes:
> Extraterritoriality - the workers were never UCAS citizens in the first
> place. If they were, then the corporation has much less leverage to start
> with.

Not true... most megacorps workers are citizens of the country the facility
is based in. Only where large accommodation facilities (such as the
Arcology, or the Aztechnology Pyramid, and other corporate enclaves) are
available would corps bother with making their workers citizens.

While making them citizens gives corps the ability to pay them in scrip,
they actually have to provide all the facilities their employees need then.
That's a lot of hassle in most places.

Certainly, the execs would be citizens of the corp, but most of the average
joes would be citizens of the country the facility is at.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 75
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 18:54:42 -0500
On Tue, 4 May 1999 11:19:01 +0200 "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> writes:
<SNIP>
>If you look in Corporate Shadowfiles, most megacorporations don't have
>more than a token army.
>
> Ares: Light Regiment
<SNIP>

Now this is odd, considering big a part of the Bug City quarentine Ares'
personal army was supposed to have played. Then again, the book listed
their *official* army size. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel)
"Hello, my name is Stephen. This is Dick. He'll see if he has something
your size." -- Jug Ears

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 76
From: James Vaughan boss_dawg@***.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: 6 May 99 19:17:30 CDT
"Paul J. Adam" <Paul@********.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> And the megas are damn careful to keep it that way. It's a balancing act,
> and if a corporation gets too arrogant in how it handles the "puny UCAS
> government" it may suddenly find itself isolated, alone, being pummelled
> by that "puny government" while its competitors scramble to take
> advantage.
>
> _That_ balance is what is too often forgotten in Shadowrun.
>
> >The political damage is also bad. Thats ALOT of lost campaign donations,
>
> Serious campaign finance limitations here in the UK.
>
The UCAS is not the UK. If you assume the UCAS market share you assume the
UCAS governmental problems.
> Extraterritorial company = no tax revenue to start with.

No income tax from the company yes. What about sales tax, tax from the
distributers, or taxes from the megas non-extraterratorial subsidiaries.

> No, they don't - and even if they do, a nation defaulting on its debts is
far
> more of a headache. One reason the megas wouldn't want to touch
> banking with a barge pole.

Find someone to loan you more money after that. What would it do to the
government bond market? Very bad precedent.

> 3) Government makes its play against one mega, the megacorporation in
> question (call it Yamaetsu) puts up a fight but is quickly crushed
militarily
> within the UCAS. It retreats and goes to the Corporate Court, moving for
> a Court resolution to hammer the UCAS. The resolution is vetoed by one
> of the megas (Ares, probably) which has been quietly promised first pick
> of the newly-nationalised assets. During the delay, arguments and finger-
> pointing, every business able to compete moves to take advantage of
> Yamaetsu's disadvantage.
>
> So, what can the Court promise anyone who goes along with the
> resolution? Lose what they've gained... for what? Those that lost out will
> side with Yamaetsu, those that won will side with Ares, meanwhile the
> Court is still deadlocked. The UCAS is loudly promising that its reaction
> was solely in response to "egregriously criminal" conduct by Yamaetsu...
> and quietly offers generous terms to any corporations willing to abandon
> extraterritoriality.
>
> Emboldened by the UCAS example, other nations begin to follow suit...
> while still others reinforce the doctrine of extraterritoriality within
their
> borders.
>
You are assuming that the corps can't forsee something like that comming. What
can the court give them? How about the promise that it won't be them hung out
to dry next quarter.

Also the idea that people would go "They are taking on the UCAS! Are they
nuts?!" Just as many people would say "The UCAS is taking on Saeder-Krupp!!
Are they nuts?!" If you don't think so, just look at the progress of this
thread. If you assume no solidarity on the part of the corps what about
governments? What if the corps say to the CAS "Help us out and we'll move
this stuff into your back yard,". In addition the UCAS is not a superpower
anymore. That's Japans' job. And chummer the corps run Japan.

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Message no. 77
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:23:17 +1000
D. Ghost writes:
> >If you look in Corporate Shadowfiles, most megacorporations don't have
> >more than a token army.
> >
> > Ares: Light Regiment
> <SNIP>
>
> Now this is odd, considering big a part of the Bug City quarentine Ares'
> personal army was supposed to have played. Then again, the book listed
> their *official* army size. :)

Yes and now... The army size listed in CS is the size of their official
army, as you said. They use that to play in the Desert Wars, and for putting
out brush fires that affect Ares assets around the world.

In addition to that, they have their much larger security force. Then
there's Knight Errant and Hard Corps, their two private security companies.
Then there's the R&D military division.

All up, Ares could probably field, if push came to shove, a decent size Army
Corp, with decent air and naval support. However, that's about it. And if
shove came to punch, that Army Corp would be blown away by the armed forces
of a mid-size nation state. That's why corps don't play those games (except
for the special case of Aztlechnology)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 78
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 22:24:45 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
> megacorp, since they already have extensive PR and advertising assets
they
> could switch over to making war propaganda rather than commercials for
> washing powders.

String.

Nexx, being obscure
Message no. 79
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 23:31:35 EDT
In a message dated 5/6/1999 2:42:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gyro@********.co.za writes:

>
> I was under the impression the Foundation was a non profit NGO.
>
> If not, what do they produce/provide?

I'm going to guess heavily in "Services", but since I don't have Corporate
Download, I'm only guessing.

-K
Message no. 80
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:48:36 +0200
According to Robert Watkins, at 9:32 on 7 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> Hmm... "buys" the corp. Only if the owners of the corp are lucky.
> Historically, nationalised companies have been paid zippo by the governments
> that do it.

Well, yes, okay, that was a poor choice of words on my part.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Another year and then you'll be happy.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 81
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 08:50:10 -0400
At 05:19 AM 5/4/99 , Gurth wrote:
>OTOH, corporate militaries can be quickly expanded with trained personnel
>by calling up all security troops that can be spared. Sure, they don't
>have full military training but they're better and quicker to bring into
>action than completely new recruits.

Again, basing this on the UCAS, since I live in the US. The corps can only
draw from their security forces. A country can always call up the Reserves
or National Guard, which are several times the size of the security forces
of any corp. Hell, I just got made ineligible for the draft because of age,
if it ever came to that.

>> And don't assume that the corps control all of the media either. Most,
>> sure, but the feeds from Tir, London, Quebec, etc would still be up and
>> would probably be much more open. Then there's always KSAF and their
cohorts.
>
>As can be seen in Yugoslavia ATM, controlling the media means you're more
>likely to win the war. If these reports about NATO bombing civilian buses
>(whether by accident or on purpose doesn't really matter) keep up, pretty
>soon NATO will find its people stopping to support the bombing because
>"civilians are getting killed." Two more examples are the 1968 Tet
>offensive -- a military victory for the US and its allies, but a
>propaganda victory for the NLF, and that last one was what counted -- and
>the end of the 1991 Gulf War, where allied forces were ordered to end the
>war very soon after western TV screens showed the "Highway of Death" out
>of Kuwait.

Right now there has been some flack for attacks by NATO on civilian
targets. There haven't been very many, but one of the reasons there haven't
been more attacks on the Serbs is because the bombers are double checking
almost every target to make sure that tehy have confirmation. But sometimes
mistakes are going to happen.

There have been at least twice as many reports on the attacks by Serbs on
the Albanians. And its hard to call it a miustake when you're on the ground
shooting someone from a foor away. Except for Yugoslavia and Russia,
support has been pretty good for the campaign. There have been protests
against the attacks, but for the most part they have been against tactics,
not that the serbs are right.

>In SR this would be very similar. In a direct confrontation between a
>nation and a megacorp, whoever can use the media best will probably win
>the war even if they lose all the battles. I would suspect this to be the
>megacorp, since they already have extensive PR and advertising assets they
>could switch over to making war propaganda rather than commercials for
>washing powders.

Right, but the corps are used to advertising their products and covering up
their own little travesties. By 2060 governments will have about 100 years
of practice controlling the media during armed conflicts. They're the ones
who run the briefings and decide how much the media is told about the
latest battle. And they are a lot better at spin control of battles now
then they were back then. The army has its own department that deals with
nothing but this.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 82
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 09:53:53 -0500
Sommers escribió:
>
> At 12:37 PM 5/3/99 , Ahuizotl wrote:
> >And then UCAS going one-one with ALL the corporations hell of a enemy.
> >Nationalization of holdinga? see Aztlan? wana try chummer.
>
> Not exactly the same situation. The Corporate Court ordered a strike
> against Aztechnology holdings, not against Aztlan itself. Important
....
> assets, so it was the company that was punished.

Ok a point in that, but my piont is that even that the corps have
different agendas they still can mount a coordinate attack agains a
target that they see as an enemy, Legaly (countries at last) the
Corporate corp have no legal base because Aztlan goberment never granded
extreterritorial to megas.

>
> >Stop shipments? who? with the use of the force? somebody correctme about
> >this but i dont think the UCAS army have the same side of the army of 3
> >megacorporations
>
> True, the UCAS army is not the size of the US army today, but it is an
.....
> resources and most of the time don't do much. Until the war comes around.

But as an Example Aztechnologi have a standar army, At least is what the
Aztlan source book said. In the other hand the Ensenada strike wasnīt
made with what i call "security forces". It was an army strike, so my
fellings is that the corps have an army.

>
> >complete legitimacy of the eyes of the world? chummer the media is in
> >the hands of the corps any question?
>
> Remember the corps are not monolithic either. If the UCAS repealed ET in
...
> have a lot of clout and could screw over Cross Technologies. :)

Ok coprs are not monolithic but, UCAS have made himself a common enemy
and when somebody have a common enemy the diferrence are left behind.
This is an attack agains all the coprs and worse, UCAS could be see as
an example to other nations and they may wish to do the same, then the
coprs have the "losser cards", agains many countries they are gone a
lost. So I have to overcome UCAS fast and nasty to make it an example to
the other countries not to make the same. So i see it all the corps in
the court planing a 1 front againts the enemy (UCAS) a lot WWII alike.

> And don't assume that the corps control all of the media either. Most,
> sure, but the feeds from Tir, London, Quebec, etc would still be up and
> would probably be much more open. Then there's always KSAF and their cohorts.

IMHO I dont thik that Tir is going to help. London and Quebec i dont
know but im for sure that they have megas as the owners, so again no
help from then, on the contrari, they going to portain the president as
an idiot whit an Ego so big to let in the street and whitout job all the
UCAS good workers.

> >> You brought up cost, which is a good point. However, the weird thing is,
> >> due process doesn't apply to the enemy. The companies are clearly in
.....
> >> types of psychotropic IC that can be used, or limiting their sentry guns to
> >> rubber bullets)
> >UCAS is not long the USA, they dont have the power, just imaging a
> >cordinate corporation atack. The corporation can Block UCAS, to who is
.....
> >(coutesi of a lovely dragon) and a long ETC. In the economical and
> >militar my money is whit the corps
>
> Read the section in R:S about the Seattle meating of the corps and tell me
> how coordinated they are. The corps are not monolithic, they each have
> their own agendas. You think that Damien Knight or Lucius Cross or Richards
> would hesitate to screw over another company to improve their own standings?
>

I return to my point even they have a personal agenda now they have a
common enemy, and yes they are going to do it, Why? because first they
are meaga CEO, so no the good guys (sorry i dont trust in a mega as same
i didnīt trust a politician) second, they must win in UCAS or losse in
all the world. Is a life or dead to the corps.

> ET is not guaranteed. Look at the Tirs, or Aztlan for example. I know there
> are some other cases out there too. And the UCAS isn't as big as the USA,
> but it still has a good sized economy. The world can put an embargo on

first Aztlan have corps in, Tirs I donīt know for sure IIRC no, but is
not the same case, Tirs never let him in (the megas).
And about economy, the countries didnīt buy your goods, the companies
are the ones that buy, and you are having a war agains the corps. they
block you didnīt buy it.

> Yugoslavia or Iraq today. They couldn't do it against France, or England.
> The UCAS is too much of an interconnected part of the world economy. Now
> I'm not saying that its likely that ET will be overturned, but it is more
> possible than the corps would like to think. And while the ET decision
> dominoed from the USA out to most of the world, the reverse could also be true.

And that why if i was a Mega i going to speand all the resources i have
agains this.

IMHO of course.

Ahuizotl
Message no. 83
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:01:30 -0500
Ereskanti@***.com escribió:
>
> In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:09:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:
>
> > Chris Maxfield escribió:
> > > In the dystopian future of SR, I have no doubts that the megacorps can
.....
> > is the same but well), In the case of UCAS Everybody is hurt. I dont
> > whant to be in UCAS shoes.
>
> Actually, something that should be remembered, is that Aztlan and
> Aztechnology are NOT the same, but they cofunction in their performance

IMHO sorry man but Aztlan and Aztechnoligy are the same, even in the
real world the CEO of the most important companies are relatives or the
politicians and some are CEO and politic.

> As for Ensenada...the more I look at that setup, the more I think that is an
> example of mass fear/paranoia. I'm not saying there wasn't a right to be
> (and it's affiliated members) and later "join the club."

You have to made it an example agains any who wants to do the same, if
UCAS do it (the revesrs of ET) the example was not hard enought
>

> > Question OT the reactors are not cold reactors?
>
> I'm not sure if "Cold" would be the correct term, but they don't really
> qualify as "Hot" either. Something to remember here folks is that
"Bubble
> Fusion" is the option of choice in Shadowrun (Cyberpirates has given us this
> better clarification for reactors of "smaller than city size").


>
> > > But human rights external to the UCAS (extraterritoriality) is a
> political
> > > issue not a legal issue, is it not?
> >
> > I have i question: citizens of UCAS working for a corp are
....
>
> You don't actually have to have any other papers than this, as all your
> information is now in one place, and any verification of your ID would only
> have to reach Renraku Corporation.
>

Thanks for the answer.

> > I think the same see OJ Simson and relatives.
>
> Actually, since OJ, there have been a few interesting turns of events now in
> the courts and people have gotten mighty miffed/upset.
> > > >The Corporate Court would back down as the performing of this action
> > would
> > > >mean that their repuations in the eyes of the people of the world, and
> of
> >
> > .....
>
> I see the point you are trying to make...
>
...
> > the American soul.
> >
> > Put me in the list.
>
> Okay, but be careful. I have recalled another example of this that has
> *nothing* to do with America. Evita Peron of Argentine
> fame/glory/disposition. Mention her name anywhere within Argentinian
> boundaries and to my understanding, you are likely to cause anything from a
> minor argument to an almost blissful prayer session to potential riots (I
> know, I'm exaggerating on the first two ;-) ,j/k).

Ok you are correct.

>
> > >To most of us, JFK was a manipulative womanizer who brought the
> > > US to the brink of nuclear war, started the Vietnam fiasco and totally
....
> > Basic collage was named (Liceo President Kennedy) because this absurd.
> > Could any american explain me why?
>
> He had something that few people can comprehend very clearly. Charisma.
> Powerful Charisma at that. Combine it with a powerful family
> (money/power/media controls) and you have a formula for pure political
> divinity.

Very true.

> > I can quote the words of one of my players when the election begun
> > "remember is a dragon, do you tust a dragon?, the letani said "never
> > make a deal with a dragon"
>
> What an interesting phrase from such an interesting character choice....
>
> > Michael remember you have friends even you never see them in RL. Even
> > the distance we can call us friends
> > Ahuizotl
>
> Scarey, it takes' the Internet to create this effect. Ahuizotl, you have my
> respects...

thank you very much you honor me.

>
> -K


Ahuizotl
Message no. 84
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:22:16 -0500
Ereskanti@***.com escribió:
>
> In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:52:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:
>
> >
> > a i forget a question
> > in this situation what points tou see with little mean?
> >
> Okay, I'm going to ask you a strange question here. Resend me the entire
> letter this was attached with. Keep your original statements in english, and
> insert them in spanish. I am not quite certain I am following what you are
> saying in this last sentence.
>
> -K


I think kate already do this, but in spanish:

¿que puntos consideras lo suficientemente pequeños, es decir sin
importancia, que se puedan negociar,sin daño para mis privilegios, de
esta situacion?


Ahuizotl

Biligual trying :)
Message no. 85
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:19:35 -0500
Ereskanti@***.com escribió:
>
> In a message dated 5/3/1999 12:10:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:
>
> > And then UCAS going one-one with ALL the corporations hell of a enemy.
> > Nationalization of holdinga? see Aztlan?
>
> What about it?

you are made your self a common enemy, and give the corps coperation
agains you.

>
> > wana try chummer.
....
> > megacorporations
>
> Actually, this would depend entirely whom got involved. There is one other
> minor detail here. For all their holdings, there are also some things they
> (the megacorps) do not have. Can you figure it out? Remember, this is an
> age where magic and domain are powerful forces....
>

Magic? I donīt know but i think this is other field in what the corps
have the upper hand because their investigations and i dont know others
corps but in Aztech they have access to Blood magic

> > complete legitimacy of the eyes of the world? chummer the media is in
> > the hands of the corps any question?
>
> Actually, this isn't true either. Sure, they own most of it. But the
> governments retain the rights (today and tomorrow) over the broadcasting
> terminology, "Military" is still not something that every megacorp can
claim
> to have, let alone something as big as a nation.

Im ot sure about this one, let somebody else take the word but i think
that the corps, as ET have the right of their own brocast. but iīm not
sure.
About the militia, i supouse they have it, the Ensenada Strike wasnt
made with security forces they use at least fire power to be catalog as
an army.

>
> > UCAS is not long the USA, they dont have the power, just imaging a
....
> > militar my money is whit the corps
>
> Not mine ... relations are actually good to neutral with CAS (good), Amazonia
> (neutral...whom btw would LOVE to toss a few cracks at Aztlan if they turn
> too much attention away from them), England (who has no home-bound
> megacorps), and the Hawaiian's (talk about a magical maelstrom should a real
> fight begin there).

Funny i always see UCAS and CAS as friends as Aztlan y Amazonia. My
think that if they was a only one country the two have dreams of
invading the other and "form the powerful USA again" (from a terrorist
NPC of CAS in a run with mi players agains UCAS).
Amazonia i donīt know for sure but what the hell i didnt se the
Amazonian runinig to help UCAS
Hawaiians IMHO no way at lest in the novels they didnt have good
feelings agains UCAS. (question: didnīt the corps help whit their
independence agains UCAS and ARES didnīt send Tors agains the UCAS
Navy?)

>
> As for picking a fight with such a situation, should the fight reach
> "physical stages", please remember that *many* nations in the world of SR
are
....
> political and corporate ones), then they would gladly get involved (even if
> it was via subterfuge and double-play).

I Ok whit the idea, but i think they are not going to be in UCAS side,
they are going to be in Corp side, and take a pize of UCAS cake.

> Give me more time, and I can probably create a bigger list than most people
> might actually believe at first. Now that I think about it, there is a
> vastly larger list that probably doesn't have to fall beg and tears at the
> feet of the Megas...

Thats why the megas have to be like one again UCAS.

>
> And when all else fails...there is always terrorism...of which Nations are
> far more experienced with than any corporation likely ever will be.
In this one im not agree. Corps in Shadowrun, have more experience with
terrorism, and shadowruners.

Remember
> folks, "Nations" often fall into religious boundaries (especially in the
> middle-east, north africa and southern asia) as well.

sorry i didnīt see what was the point of this, UCAS didnt have any of
this boundaries as far as i know.

>
> > Of cource all of this is in IMHO
>
> Of course, mine as well :) Hell, the other thing people are missing is the
> "year" of Shadowrun with regards to SR3...add *that* tidbit to this
potential
> kind of situation and see what you can come up with.

Im in this, thats why i insist so much in my point the mail list is my
demon lawyer (abogado del diablo)

Ahuizotl
Message no. 86
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 10:24:52 -0500
"Kate ." escribió:
>
> > > a i forget a question
> > > in this situation what points tou see with little mean?
> > >
....
> Hope that helps,

Helps a lot

> Kate, who tries to be helpful
>
And you are
Thank you very much

Ahuizotl
Message no. 87
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 23:20:55 +0100
In article <199905040918.LAA12825@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.nl> writes
>OTOH, corporate militaries can be quickly expanded with trained personnel
>by calling up all security troops that can be spared. Sure, they don't
>have full military training but they're better and quicker to bring into
>action than completely new recruits.

On the other hand - how much heavy-weapons experience do they have
(either giving or recieving?), how much artillery, armour and air support
do they have, and - crucially - how do you keep them fed and supplied in
the field? Security troops are policemen, not soldiers.

>As can be seen in Yugoslavia ATM, controlling the media means you're more
>likely to win the war. If these reports about NATO bombing civilian buses
>(whether by accident or on purpose doesn't really matter) keep up, pretty
>soon NATO will find its people stopping to support the bombing because
>"civilians are getting killed."

So, NATO doesn't force Serbia to accede to an armed peacekeeping force,
and Serbia celebrates its victory by beginning to rebuild a conservative
seventy billion dollars' worth of damage. Factories destroyed, bridges
dropped, buildings and airbases reduced to rubble, roads and railways
cu... curious definition of "victory" even for a nation, let alone for a
commercial enterprise.

>In SR this would be very similar. In a direct confrontation between a
>nation and a megacorp, whoever can use the media best will probably win
>the war even if they lose all the battles.

The problem is that a megacorporation "loses" the moment the short-term
cost of the war outweighs the short-term gain from whatever it wanted
to achieve by fighting - and that can be pretty damn quick. War is _not_
profitable.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 88
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 15:43:32 -0700
>War is _not_ profitable.

Paul, aren't you gainfully employed for a defence contractor? ;-)

Sorry, the irony was too tempting to resist. ;-) I realize, of course, that
the only thing costlier than preparing for war is not preparing for war.

>Paul J. Adam

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 89
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:42:07 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
>
> On the other hand - how much heavy-weapons experience do they have
> (either giving or recieving?),

Given the composition of some runner groups, quite a bit <g>
Message no. 90
From: Graht Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 17:42:19 -0500
At 08:50 AM 5/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 05:19 AM 5/4/99 , Gurth wrote:
>>OTOH, corporate militaries can be quickly expanded with trained personnel
>>by calling up all security troops that can be spared. Sure, they don't
>>have full military training but they're better and quicker to bring into
>>action than completely new recruits.
>
>Again, basing this on the UCAS, since I live in the US. The corps can only
>draw from their security forces.

You forgot Mercenaries. Mercenaries will work for money. Corps have money.

Mercenaries won't be very helpful in a long conflict, but if a Corp needs a
large mobile force at the spur of the moment for a (hopefully) short term
engagement...

-Graht
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
ShadowRN GridSec
The ShadowRN FAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/
Geek Code: GCS d-( ) s++:->+ a@ C++>$ US P L >++ E? W++>+++ !N o-- K-
w+ o? M- VMS? PS+(++) PE+(++) Y+ !PGP t+(++) 5+(++) X++(+++) R+>$ tv+b++ DI++++
D+(++) G e+>+++ h--->---- r+++ y+++
http://home.att.net/~Graht
Message no. 91
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 01:19:07 +0100
In article <000b01be98da$d7795c60$5a4f0d0c@*******>, Nexx Many-Scars
<nexx@********.net> writes
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
>> On the other hand - how much heavy-weapons experience do they have
>> (either giving or recieving?),
>
>Given the composition of some runner groups, quite a bit <g>

How many runner groups employ tanks in company strength, supporting
an infantry battalion mounted in armoured personnel carriers or infantry
fighting vehicles, using a battery of multiple-launch rockets for the
preliminary fireblow and with mortars or tube artillery on call during the
assault?

Shadowrunners have small-arms, the occasional machine gun, perhaps a
couple of missiles, sometimes a few drones. That isn't military firepower.
_Military_ firepower is eight 155mm self-propelled howitzers, each firing a
dozen 90lb shells in less than two minutes, all those shells landing in an
area not much bigger than a football pitch and each shell scattering eighty
or ninety explosive, armour-piercing, incendiary submunitions.

The Iraqis called that treatment "steel rain" and it's incredibly lethal.
Anyone not in a trench is killed or wounded, even trenches without
overhead cover can be deathtraps since the submunitions fall so thickly.
Any soft-skinned vehicle is destroyed, often incinerated: any armoured
vehicles struck directly by one of the submunitions will be
damaged,sometimes fatally. MLRS is even worse - every rocket carries
nearly seven hundred submunitions. Each launcher fires twelve rockets,
salvoing them off in less than thirty seconds: each battery has four
launchers. Thirty thousand hand-grenade sized bomblets, landing on or
around you in half a minute.



The incredible violence of the MLRS strike - suddenly with no warning,
thousands of explosions shake the earth as death falls all around - leaves
the survivors shocked, stunned, helpless. Smoke obscures your vision, your
ears ring, you choke in the ammonia stench of explosive fumes. Men are
screaming in agony, several vehicles are burning, ammunition is cooking
off, somebody's firing his weapon but you don't know why.

As your senses slowly return and the smoke thins, you see - only a few
hundred yards away - forty or fifty armoured personnel carriers emerging
from cover, disgorging _hundreds_ of troops who begin to fire-and-
manoeuvre towards you under a storm of covering fire: tens of thousands
of bullets a minute aimed at you and your friends from rifles, LMGs, the
weapons on the APCs... and still artillery fire falls on and around you,
filling the air with lethal flying razors of steel and shaking the earth with
unimagined noise.


You'd be outnumbered three to one even if all your comrades were alive
and healthy: but the only position you see firing back is suddenly
obliterated by a tank shell, from one of a dozen tanks following behind the
APCs and infantry and picking off any obvious resistance with 125mm HE-
FRAGs.

You grab for the radio to ask for reinforcements, support, for someone to
_tell you what to do_, and hear only a shriek of jamming. You raise your
head for another look, perhaps to shoot back, and bullets throw earth in
your face: a few inches higher and you'd have lost your head.

Your trenchmate and friend, beside you, is less lucky and falls back, the
side of his helmet blown out by something high-velocity and metallic, and
blood is _everywhere_, hot sticky wetness splashing your face and hands.
The earth shakes as high-explosive shells burst around you, mixed with the
softer thumps of white phosphorous rounds that start furious fires and
spread opaque white smoke. You're blind and deaf and the air is full of
death. The noise is so huge you can't think: you hug the bottom of the
trench, crying. Dimly you're aware that in your terror and confusion,
you've fouled yourself, but by now it doesn't matter, you're beyond
coherent thought: you're about to die and you're glad because anything
would be better than this.

You don't even notice the grenade that falls into the trench beside you, as
the enemy troops reach you: after it explodes, you never feel the bullets
that hit your bleeding corpse, nor the bayonet in your ribs as the enemy
soldier carries out his trench-clearing drills.




_That_ is the wrong end of a battalion attack.

Now, how well does a typical security guard react in that situation? It
takes training and discipline and, if at all possible, experience to make
men realise that their only hope of survival is to raise their heads and
fight back, to find an unjammed frequency and get some artillery of their
own called onto the enemy, to withdraw out from under the killing fire
even if it means taking losses to it as you pull out... where does a typical
security guard learn these skills and how often does he or she practice
them?



--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 92
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 00:42:13 +0100
In article <v04011706b3591c7abbec@[128.120.118.25]>, Adam Getchell
<acgetchell@*******.edu> writes
>>War is _not_ profitable.
>
>Paul, aren't you gainfully employed for a defence contractor? ;-)

Yep. We make a decent livable profit by _developing_ and _building_
weapons. We _don't_ use them ourselves. Nor do we engage in armed
conflict. No profit in _wielding_ the swords, the money's in making them
and sharpening them ;)

Who do we build for? National militaries. Not a private sale in sight. Even
development is funded by the MoD - it's just too damn expensive and risky
to sink millions into a project and then plaintively hope someone buys it.

The only recent example of a major weapon system developed with
private-enterprise funding is the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, a failed
venture which nearly sent Northrop into bankrupcy.

>Sorry, the irony was too tempting to resist. ;-)

'S'okay, it's just that working in defence procurement makes me impatient
with much of the "corporations can have really big armies" rubbish that's
so oft spouted about.

I did a short exercise, a while back, looking at the actual cost of a
corporate air force. Apologies for the length.

+++++
Why is building military hardware for yourself stupid? Let's look at three
companies, each with a 20-year business plan and a billion-dollar-a-year
budget, in a world where safe investments can clear a 5% net return and
with inflation set to zero (to keep the numbers easy). No overdrafts are
allowed, and any surplus is invested at the end of each year to earn 5%.


We'll base the costs of designing and building a worldbeater combat
aircraft, roughly on the current F-22: about $15 billion over fifteen years
to develop it, about $50 million each to build (that's the cost of materials
and manpower) and the market will just about bear a price of $150
million to buy this beast. Economical production rate is twenty airframes a
year.

Operating costs are $5,000 per flight hour, covering all non-fixed expenses
(fuel, crew salaries, maintenance, ordnance, basing etc) and the aircraft
has a life of about 12,000 flying hours. Generously, we'll assume zero
attrition.

Mercenary air forces exist, hiring out to provide short-term air power to
various belligerents. Losses in these actions are low enough to be ignored,
as is training attrition.





Corp A decides it wants an air force of one hundred of the finest fighter
aircraft in the world. So, it spends fifteen years and fifteen billion dollars
developing a design, then produces twenty a year for five years at $50
million an aircraft. Total time, twenty years. Total expenditure, $20
billion. Net result, one hundred excellent jet fighters and no spare cash.
(No weapons, no crews, no bases... but never mind)

Corp B decides to invest a billion dollars a year in a Post Office savings
account that pays a guaranteed 5% net interest. By the end of twenty
years, they've invested $20 billion, but thanks to compound interest they
now have $33.1 billion dollars in their bank.

Corp C sees a market opportunity, and also designs a fighter of similar
capability to Corp A. Fifteen years and fifteen billion dollars later, they
have finished their design and they look for orders, but don't build any
themselves. They can then invest $1 billion a year in the same Post Office
account at the same 5% interest rate for five years, ending with a balance
of $5.6 billion. Or, they can build and sell 100 airframes, ending the
twenty-year period with 16.5 billion dollars accumulated in the bank.


Thus, after twenty years of corporate activity, each fighter built has cost
Corp A $331 million dollars in lost revenue (what they could have earned if
they had put the money in the Post Office or used it for more productive
investment) and they have no spare cash.

Corp B has neither an aircraft nor a design, but does have over $33 billion
dollars in the bank.

Corp C has an aircraft design, five years' head start on Corp A in the
marketplace, and nearly seventeen billion dollars stashed away..



So after twenty years, neither planebuilder is ahead. Better hope the
shareholders are investing for the long view...





How can Corp A turn this investment into a profit? Well, it can make more
aircraft at $50 million each unit cost, and sell them for whatever the
market will bear: if they sell 150 of their fighters at $150 million, they've
paid off the development cost. But they're still way behind Corp B, who
didn't waste five years building a private air force. Corp A has to sell
_360_ fighters at $150 million each, there and then, to match Corp B's
profitability. Any delay leaves them lagging further and further behind...
and they can only build twenty a year.

And, add to that the problem that they're selling at a serious disadvantage
to Corp C: because Corp C can offer delivery five years earlier than Corp
A, and either can sell at a lower price and same return, or else can match
Corp A's price at a higher net profit margin, because they don't have the
huge sunk cost of their own vanity air force to cover.



Looking ahead another ten years, Corp B has raised its cash mountain to
$66.4 billion by simple compound interest. Boring but effective.

If Corp A and Corp C both manage to sell all they produce at 20 fighters a
year, then both earn $2 billion a year each net cash. By the thirty-year
point, Corp C has amassed $65 billion dollars, while Corp A has one
hundred jet fighters and $37 billion dollars.

So, each fighter has now cost Corp A ten million dollars a year in lost
earnings alone, even before you buy a drop of fuel, a single missile, or
hire the first pilot.

Corp A has lost _thirty-three billion dollars of profit_ by its decision to
design and build a hundred jet fighters. Or else, it delays building its own
air force until it's healthily in profit. That means it's late in the queue for
airframes, and its potential adversaries - the very people it was buying an
air force to intimidate - have the superfighters before Corp A does.
Neither is satisfactory.



The life both of a fighter airframe, and the life in the marketplace of a
modern aircraft (such as the F-16 or F/A-18) is very roughly about 25
years. So, we'll run this little gamelet out to the forty-year-point (where
production continues, and 500 aircraft have rolled off the lines of both
Corp A and Corp C.

At the end of forty years, Corporation A has a hundred fighters nearing
the end of their lives and needing urgent replacement, a user base of 400
airframes, and has banked $99.2 billion. Corporation B has amassed 121.4
billion dollars. But, in pride of place, is Corporation C with $143.2 billion
dollars in the bank and 500 customer aircraft.

So, by the end of their lives, those 100 fighters have cost Corporation A
$11 million a year each in lost sales revenue alone. We haven't even
_begun_ to analyse the lost revenue from after-sales support...


OPERATION
Here's another area where things get icky. What does it cost to fly a jet
fighter?

A figure of approximately $5,000 per flight hour is a ballpark running cost
for US fast-jet military aircraft such as the F-16 and F/A-18. Accepting
that without reservation as covering all costs (depreciation, basing, crew
salaries, fuel, ordnance etc) we note that a modern airframe has a life of
approximately 8-15,000 flying hours. We've taken 12,000 as a convenient
number here.

It's also generally accepted that between 120 and 200 hours of flight per
pilot per year are needed to maintain proficiency. Assuming one pilot per
aircraft, Corporation A has an additional expenditure of $100 million per
year merely to keep her aircrew skilled. If two pilots per aircraft are
allocated (allowing for crew rotation, leave, casualties, and allowing
round-the-clock operations) then this naturally doubles, but does greatly
increase the flexibility of their force. So, their air force costs them a total
of $1.3 billion a year in flying expenses.

This also exhausts the aircraft's service life in 20-30 years - the
intermediate falling nicely on the expected service life. (That's no
accident, it's planned: extending the fatigue life costs money, so it's
matched to the anticipated service life. An aircraft that's still state of the
art is useless if the wings are falling off from age and hard use, but an
aircraft with many usable hours left is almost as useless if it's outdated)

Therefore, we can say that one megacorporation must be able to earn
$13 million dollars a year per plane from its pocket air force in order to
just cover costs of ownership, on top of the lost sales revenue described
above. To do this, it must either make money from military conquest, or
rent its air force out as a mercenary unit.



Since we're on the subject, consider a dedicated mercenary unit with a
force of twenty aircraft (all the same superfighter type as discussed here,
bought cash for full sticker price - one year's full production for Corp A or
Corp C) and forty pilots. Their operating cost is $40 million per year, plus
every 25 years they need new aircraft at a cost of $3 billion. They need to
earn roughly two hundred million dollars a year - $10 million per plane - to
make this at all attractive, compared to the option of putting that same
$3 billion starting capital in the Post Office for a quarter-century.

If they can charge $12 million dollars per plane per year, then not only are
they making a significant return on their investment: they are
undercutting Corp A in the marketplace, too.



Corp A cannot escape the cost of five years' lost production and lost
profit. And the most fundamental problem of all is that, with its hundred
superplanes having to be out earning money, Corp A has little chance to
muster a force with which to rattle its sabre at any adversary. Indeed,
since its rivals have much more cash in hand, they can neutralise Corp A's
air force by simply hiring it for service elsewhere! They can also, for the
duration of a conflict, hire mercenaries to match Corp A, for much less
total cost.



Conclusion
A "corporate air force" is going to be an expensive luxury, merely in
financial terms. The division of the company that builds the aircraft will
suffer badly compared to its less belligerent competitors in pure
profitability, and this cost of lost sales has to be passed onto any intra-
corporate employment of the aircraft.

Given the financial losses and uncertain rewards, what corporation -
driven by the bottom line - is going to insist on an in-house military, when
mercenary units can be leased for the duration of a conflict and released
as necessary?

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 93
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 20:51:43 EDT
In a message dated 5/6/1999 5:44:19 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.nl writes:

> Just a little note here: nationalization of a corporation means the
> government -- whichever that is -- buys that corp and runs it (the
> opposite is privatization: the government selling the corp or setting it
> up to run itself). This has nothing to do with extraterritoriality
> AFAICS...

Extraterritoriality is indicative of a function of total self-definition.
Where one's boundaries are completely self-contained, and thereby
self-governed. Nationalization of a property is merely where the surrounding
governing body directly absorbs (via a method of it's choice) that which is
not originally it's own.

-K (who knows that it is oversimplified, but the concepts are NOT the same)
Message no. 94
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 01:57:30 +0100
In article <4.1.19990507174022.00942820@**********.worldnet.att.net>,
Graht <Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net> writes
>>At 05:19 AM 5/4/99 , Gurth wrote:
>>Again, basing this on the UCAS, since I live in the US. The corps can only
>>draw from their security forces.
>
>You forgot Mercenaries. Mercenaries will work for money. Corps have money.
>
>Mercenaries won't be very helpful in a long conflict, but if a Corp needs a
>large mobile force at the spur of the moment for a (hopefully) short term
>engagement...

Two problems - firstly, you have to persuade the mercs to take the
contract. "You want us to go to war with the UCAS fragging Marine
Corps?"

Secondly, you have to get the mercs and their equipment to where they
have to fight, then keep them supplied.

If the "somewhere" is a corporate facility in Cleveland, and "the
enemy" is
the UCAS, that's an awfully isolated place to be. Just getting a mercenary
battalion (call it a dozen tanks and three dozen APCs, four hundred
fighting men, and probably a hundred or so auxiliary vehicles and another
four hundred support troops) there is an adventure: getting supplies
through, in the quantities consumed by any real fighting, is even more so.

They'd easily consume four hundred tons of fuel, ammunition, food and
spares every day of fighting - that's twenty C-130 Hercules-loads, or ten
heavy truckloads, assuming nobody interferes with the shipments.

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics: been true, and
decisive, since the Peninsular War.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 95
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 01:48:09 +0100
In article <19990507001730.9684.qmail@*****.netaddress.usa.net>,
James Vaughan <boss_dawg@***.net> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <Paul@********.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Extraterritorial company = no tax revenue to start with.
>
>No income tax from the company yes. What about sales tax,

Levied on any retail sales in the UCAS. No problems there.

>tax from the
>distributers,

They were extraterritorial so no taxes.

> or taxes from the megas non-extraterratorial subsidiaries.

Lost revenue for the megacorporation, too, on that one - if they pull their
subsidiaries out.

>> No, they don't - and even if they do, a nation defaulting on its debts is
>far
>> more of a headache. One reason the megas wouldn't want to touch
>> banking with a barge pole.
>
>Find someone to loan you more money after that. What would it do to the
>government bond market? Very bad precedent.

Look at Russia. They defaulted last year. IMF's in there now trying to lend
them more money anyway. Same goes for lots of Latin American
countries in the late eighties - several just said "can't pay, won't pay" as
rising interest rates sent their loan repayments skywards. The result?
Rescheduling on the loans and aid packages, because writing off _that_
much money is seriously bad for the bottom line.

And, again, sell it right. "We were repaying just fine. Then they tried to
muscle us. We don't like that. You don't threaten us, we'll pay on time and
with a smile, what's the problem?"

When you've got money from one customer on deposit at six per cent
interest, the pressure to lend it to someone at nine per cent is enormous.

>> So, what can the Court promise anyone who goes along with the
>> resolution? Lose what they've gained... for what? Those that lost out will
>> side with Yamaetsu, those that won will side with Ares, meanwhile the
>> Court is still deadlocked. The UCAS is loudly promising that its reaction
>> was solely in response to "egregriously criminal" conduct by
Yamaetsu...
>> and quietly offers generous terms to any corporations willing to abandon
>> extraterritoriality.
>>
>> Emboldened by the UCAS example, other nations begin to follow suit...
>> while still others reinforce the doctrine of extraterritoriality within
>their
>> borders.
>>
>You are assuming that the corps can't forsee something like that comming. What
>can the court give them? How about the promise that it won't be them hung out
>to dry next quarter.

Again - this is Yamaetsu against the UCAS. Did Yamaetsu get a Court
ruling? Clear its actions in advance? No? Then it's screwed.

Why should its competitors sacrifice profit and revenue to protect
Yamaetsu's mistakes? How can they sell that decision to their
shareholders? _They_ wouldn't screw up and end up butting heads with the
UCAS - not without having the backing of the Corporate Court first.

>Also the idea that people would go "They are taking on the UCAS! Are they
>nuts?!" Just as many people would say "The UCAS is taking on Saeder-Krupp!!
>Are they nuts?!"

"The US is taking on Microsoft/IBM/AT&T! Are they nuts?"

>If you assume no solidarity on the part of the corps what about
>governments? What if the corps say to the CAS "Help us out and we'll move
>this stuff into your back yard,".

Yeah, right. Aztechnology saying "Here, we'd like to put this big military
airfield - we mean, commercial airport development - here near your
border with the Republic of Aztlan, which you've already fought two wars
with."

The Japancorps moving large forces - I mean, facilities - into southern
CalFree.

Oopsie... big confrontations right there. Again, the rivalries of the
corporations make this a dangerous and complex game, much more so
than for nations: the megas are far more competitive among themselves
than nations, and add in Aztechnology/Aztlan's territorial ambitions and
you have an _explosive_ mix.

>In addition the UCAS is not a superpower
>anymore.

Carrier battle groups and SSNs? Those are superpower tools. The UCAS has
them. Plenty good enough for me.


>That's Japans' job. And chummer the corps run Japan.

Which corps? What say does Saeder-Krupp, or Ares, or Wuxing, or
Aztechnology, have in the running of Japan?

What happens when MCT, Renraku and Yamaetsu are in disagreement
about a particular point of Japanese foreign policy, if they "run Japan"?
Where does this leave any move by Japancorps into California, or by
Aztlan into their annexed territory around San Diego?

Try to think through the practicalities of the situation... this is the sort of
claim that sounds k3w1 to make, but when examined embroils the
corporations in endless expensive complications for zero real profit.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 96
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 21:07:43 EDT
In a message dated 5/6/1999 7:12:51 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.com writes:

> > Ares: Light Regiment
> <SNIP>
>
> Now this is odd, considering big a part of the Bug City quarentine Ares'
> personal army was supposed to have played. Then again, the book listed
> their *official* army size. :)

Don't get the facts twisted too badly here. Ares' has a "personal army" that
is really an "extended security power", not a true military. True, they do
have a "military power", and as they do make most of the toys, they do have
the inside scoop of those toys as well.

-K
Message no. 97
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 20:14:01 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
>
> >> On the other hand - how much heavy-weapons experience do they have
> >> (either giving or recieving?),
> >
> >Given the composition of some runner groups, quite a bit <g>
>
> How many runner groups employ tanks in company strength, supporting
> an infantry battalion mounted in armoured personnel carriers or infantry
> fighting vehicles, using a battery of multiple-launch rockets for the
> preliminary fireblow and with mortars or tube artillery on call during
the
> assault

JOKE!! JOKE!!! HUMOR!!! FUNNY!!! See the "<g>"? Means it's not
supposed to be taken seriously! Makes fun of runner groups who try to use
heavy-weapons on an extraction from a preschool!

Nexx, who is tired of off-hand comments being taken as positions.
Message no. 98
From: Dark Steel seattle2052@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 18:48:42 PDT
I'm sorry Adam but this I have to step into because it's what I do for a
living (albiet small). You put togather a very good combat scean on email
but you seem to overlook one simple thing. Everybody ASSUMES that the Megas
use thier "exstended" security forces as a private army. This may be true
for the most part. But if they really have a private army then they have a
small number (No bigger that a battalion I'd think) of trained soldiers. Any
6 week basic training course would teach any person (let's be PC here) to
respond to a battalion offensive with Arty. and other assets. These people
would be trained in small arms and support weapons (Mortars, LAWs, MAWs,
HAWs ect.). Support personel would consist of rigged rotor aicraft with tank
busting weaponry and the whole mess could be moved quietly and in plain
sight as anything from a branch relocation to a new factory opening up. My
understanding of the logistics is weak as I am only a lowly platoon leader
but I would think that the operation could be done quietly at first and
supplied through established locations after certain objectives had been
secured. In short BASIC SECURITY FORCES no, but the paramil they do have
around can and prolly better than your standard rifleman from the UCAS.

Dark Steel
SgtMaj. USMC


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 99
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 20:21:48 -0500
> VERY Legal in fact, especially in SR terms given the relationship differences
> that exist currently. Nationalization of corporate properties occurs in many
> forms in SR. And, just for a situational comparison. Nadja Davier = VP of
> UCAS = Big Person in Charge of Draco Foundation (one of the near-to-really-is
> Megas now).

I saw this the other way A corp being part of a goberment.

>
> -K
Ahuizotl
devil's advocated of the corps in orden to made a wonderful adventure
Message no. 100
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 20:21:58 -0500
"Paul J. Adam" escribió:
>
> In article <19990505000259.48527.qmail@*******.com>, Jacob Engstrom
> <skatta_av_radsla@*******.com> writes
> >
> Manufacturing and distribution is where the revenue comes in, and where
....
> most of that to the UCAS. "You want the lab secured, you pay for it and
> _you_ police it, this is _your_ contract..."
>
Thats why mi advice to the Corps is let burning ashes behind. If you win
pas the bill to UCAS. In the middle time, you let UCAS technological
hit.

> >> Maybe some megas decide the market's still worth having, especially if
>
> Relocation is fine... in a world of guaranteed free trade with no customs
> barriers and low tariffs.
>
> If a megacorporation relocates a production facility out of the UCAS to,
> say, Mazatlan, then the UCAS can't do much to stop them. But, you know,
> there are reports of BTLs being smuggled in cargo containers through the
> port facility at Mazatlan, and so every single container has to be checked
> before it can clear customs. And there are only two customs inspectors
> the UCAS deems qualified to do the work, and they're in St. Louis, and no,
> they won't move, you have to ship every container to them if you want it
> to enter the UCAS.

AJA yes como no: Could you do this to RL USA, are you going to play the
fool with Japanece citizen, give me a break you are asking for a country
to country conflict. And now UCAS is the little country.

>
> No, not really. The driving force on fuel prices where I live is Government
...
> order to suck custom away from other sites.
>
> >The little guy can under cut the big by a cent or two a gallon, but the big
> >guy
> >can afford to "Temporaily discomfort his customer base", That happens
to be
> >right out of the WalMart managemnt Training Manual, Then when you are
> >the first to put gas down, you are looked apon favorably.
>
> The problem is... with eight superconglomerate megacorps even before
> the Fuchi breakup, there is just too much competition for this to be a
> viable tactic. No megacorporation is going to leave a competitor enjoying
> a cosy monopoly in any area or market.
>
Again who? the tini lili corporation not afected with UCAS desition?
QUESTION: What you have to do to have ET? Be a corporation? Of what
size?

> Think, too, of the flexibility that Matrix-based retail offers. In Britain
...
> to play such games.

Yes you can also buy drug even they are prohivited the point is at what
cost, Rice prices to heaven, in the same time, you have unemploying
problem. See my point?

> >> Downsize assets? Sell plant, equipment and whatever, and someone in the
> >LOST.
>
> Now, was that because their owners were engaged in a political argument
> with the US Government, or was it because they were not profitable?

Whatīs the point?

>
> The two are totally different. Are you telling me an extranational, profit-
> driven megacorp will keep a plant open for a day if it could make more
> money elsewhere? But you're claiming a megacorporation will shut down an
> otherwise profitable plant, laying off workers, losing their investment, as
> a political gesture... and I don't see that happening. Now or in the future.

And all the brains behind the corporation, who is going to ride the new
megacorporation if they only own a tini corp. You are tell me that if i
give Joe Watever, microsoft, he is going to made a better job that Bill
gates (bad example i know but well). without the minds of the directors
and all the super structure of the company, and in less that a quarter
he is going to made it profile, even as he only have the local market,
and have to support shadowrun strike one a day? do you realy think this
could happend?

> >> The megacorps pull out of the market: smaller corporations, even other
> >> megacorps, rush to fill it and profit from the opportunity.
> >
> >That would work except: when a mega pulls out, it as if you lost a major
> >section of
> >several industries simultaniously. Imagine if in the space of 1 quarter we
> >lost
> >Target, Daytons, Black&Decker, Cub Foods, Food Lion, Craftsman, Power
> >Buyers,
> >Bank America, Diamler-chrysler, Rockwell industries, Samy Goody, and
> >R.J.R.-Nabisco.
>
> Not familiar with all those brand names, but remember there are _eight_
> megacorporations, and _many, many_ smaller businesses.

The most of them with invesment (money, magic or tech) or parcial own of
one of the eight megas.

>
> Think motorcycles. So, Honda (UK) pulls out of Britain? Well, gee, I
> wouldn't have minded riding a Honda, but now I can only choose between
> Aprilla, Cagiva, Bimota, BMW, Ducati, Harley-Davidson, Kawasaki,
> Laverda, Moto Guzzi, Suzuki, Triumph, or Yamaha. Oh, the pain, oh, the
> humanity, now how many people will be more than mildly irritated that
> they can't buy a Honda-brand cycle through a legitimate dealership?

Well following your example know imaging no Japan made motos, ok, now no
USA motos, ok now not European motos, what you have left. I donīt have a
idea. But this one or two can they cover all the market? You can say yes
and have all the market for their only. But in the long term you are
going to losse.
Why? because you are in medieval selfeconomy thats why. Now you know
why the "reds" losse the cold war.

> >but, especially when you factor in the Mega Corp control of the Banking
> >Industry (Corprate
> >Shadowfiles)
>
> The megacorporations _don't_ control the banks, either singly or together.
> Read Corporate Shadowfiles properly.

Why not sorry?

>
> Hell, if the megas _do_ control the banks and the megas try to use that,
> then the UCAS just defaults on its debt and says its troops will shoot the
> bailiffs. Blam, instant financial crisis that hurts the corps much more than
> the UCAS.

And Japan, Aztlan, UK are just going to sit and smile in the mind time.
AJA no way chummer.

>
> "When you owe the bank five thousand pounds and refuse to pay, you
> have a problem.
> When you owe the bank five billion pounds and refuse to pay, _the bank_
> has a problem."

Depends in the bank guns.
Imaging Hey Mexico stops paging his debs to USA because they have the
problem if we stop paying, Tomorrow i will have a marine in my back
yard.

>
> Look how the IMF et al reacted to Russia defaulting last year, for
> instance.

Russia still have the army of a Super Power and tons of Nukes, UCAS is
not a super power anymore and didnt have a so powerfull army.

>
> >A Mega BY DEFINITION controls such a wide swath of the economy that it will
> >put a
> >country in a world of hurt.
>
> No, a megacorporation controls - at absolute max - 12.5% of the economy
> (eight megas). Allowing for reality - public sector, non-megacorp activity -
> and no one megacorporation controls more than maybe 5% of the
> economy.

>From where did you take this numbers?
>
> >> The UCAS is still the biggest buyer: Ares need the UCAS more than the
> >> UCAS needs Ares. So Ares are racking up the price on their jet
> >a better relationship and more stock in the procurmant board's portfolio's.
>
> Note one oft-forgotten point about military procurement - who pays for
> _development_ and thus who owns the end design.

In the Shadowrun Universe: Ares.

> >IF price and quality were truly in the equation we would have the f-20
> >Tigershark today.
> >We would buy from ARES and we would gladly pay through the nose to do so.
>
> As a senior systems engineer, gainfully employed as a defence contractor,
... interesting stuff but i dont see the point we are talking about a
game in a fantasi universe where one of my neighbor could be a troll and
the other a insetc shaman....
> 52 F-16C is like comparing a MiG-17 to a F-4E Phantom in terms of
> capability.
>
> >In short. Yes, the UCAS could "come back" from the loss, but not
quickly and
> >there would be alot of economic suffering before they are out of the woods.
> >The mere threat to leave or even a biggining to pull out by 1 or 2 megas
> >would
> >get the gov to toe the line.
>
> Divide and conquer. With eight or more megacorporations and many more
Again who said that AA and A are not going to get hurt with the lost do
ET, and how many of this corps have the power to fight back in the
international market?

> >
> >Anyways,
> >Your points are good, but are not scaled in terms of how soon the fixes
> >reprocussons quickly.
>
> How about the crash in the megacorporation's stock, and the
> repercussions _that_ would have? "They decided to get into a pissing
> contest with the UCAS? Are they mad? Sell for what you can get! Buy
> whoever's staying out of the fight!"

Thatīs not true is laike said that Standar Oil Comp. crashes because
Mexico expropiate his assets. As an story lesson, we almost give all the
petroleum companies assets back (with an "scuse me" and a big bill paid
to them) because the economic block they made to mexican petroleum. No
way you imaging who save the petrolum companies in Mexico.



The nazis, with the WWII the block was unviable, we almost sell petrolum
to the Reich.
>
> At best, that corporation's lost a chunk of market for a while. At worst,
> it's mired itself in conflict, and war is _never_ profitable for the
> participants. What does _this_ do to the megacorporation, its managers
> (all likely to be holding share options and thus dependent on a stably rising
> share price) and its shareholders (who, in extremis, are quite thoroughly
> able to turn on the managers who got into the war and vote da bums out)
>


War is always profilable to the companies. What about the citizent that
didnt want to UCAS be in war with the corps. What about the economy. Who
ask the congress to do all this. Isnt UCAS a democracy. what kind of
democracy... BLA BLA BLA....

Ahuizotl
give me Microsoft Merchandise team and UCAS is going to look like the
Fourth Reich.

> --
> Paul J. Adam
Message no. 101
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 20:21:22 -0500
Sommers escribió:
>
> At 11:18 AM 5/5/99 , Airwasp@***.com wrote:
> >Ah, there is a nifty phrase that comes from Star Trek, DS9, "War is not
> >with all the resources that it entails, and the corps do not.

> Exactly. There are a lot of reasons why other countries might want to back
...
> tier corps don't try to gobble up the business.

Ok im agree with this, thats why If i was the corps i hit UCAS FAST and
HARD very HARD.

> Glad to see that someone else recognizes the difference between corp and
> country armies and resources.

Sorry but its CORPS agains ONE nation UCAS.
In the side of the corps I saw (please correct me and feel free to
change or agragate as you wish)

CORPS
Aztechnology (Aztecnoligia didnt sound so good in spanish but well :-))
and Aztlan.
Ares (didnt they have and operative army when the Bug city problem)
Fuchi, Mitsuhama, Renraku, Yamatetsu and JAPAN.
Saeder-krupp and the Tirs
Pueblo Copr and Pueblo.
CFS

UCAS
Ares? thinking they dare to opose the court but i thing that if they did
it same resoult as Aztech try.
CAS? If you see this correct as I al ready said it i see CAS more than
an enemy than a alie. but you can speak about this better than me.


>
> >Aztechnology has a trump card, they can have the nation of Aztlan declare
...
> >they'd do is take advantage of the situation.
>
> Hadn't actually thought of that. They really don't have a lot of stuff in
> other countries, except for the Seattle Pyramid, but I could see them
> setting up the embassies like that. Evil thought!

Aztech is a AAA they must have the same stuff in other countries that
any Mega, and remember F.. azzies are imperialist love to be in places
nobody ask it.

> >The corporations may have militaries, but their size is small as they are not
> >those people and entities back for breaking the contract. More cred wasted.

> Exactly. For the most part they don't have a reason to keep up militarties.
> I'm sure that they have some navy power, but more for doing light escort
...
> be light special forces stuff and maybe a wing or two of aircraft for the
> military companies. More than that isn't cost effective.

Te same way goberment explain to citizen, security of your invesment
gentlemnts As example, Chicago CZ, Panama Chanel, and things like that,
and of course defence again not so frienly nations. Or do you think the
corps didnt lear from what Aztlan did.

> >The other problem corps would have is that some of them have a lot of
..
> >keep tabs on them. Their security clearances may be rescinded.
>
> Yup. Can't worry about that UCAS patriot who decides to leak al of those
> dirty secrets for God and country.

no problem thatīs why they have Shadowruners :-).
Serius talking, the corps made psicoligial test, if they detect you are
a UCAS patriot you are not going to have a strong position. And as far
as Aztech and the japanese they prefer locals (Aztlaners or japaneses)
to know the secrets. UCAS citizen is not going to be more that a corp
slave. The only company i could see afected with this is Ares.

> >Oh, and how about this. What if the UCAS government authorized the purchase,
> >using some funds, to buy say 25% of Ares, and then drew up a contract with
...
> >measure to vote for.

sorry gentlement you say UCAS is a democracy. Can they do this without
permison of some kind? And from where they are going to obtain the
money. And if i were a corp i will shout
"CCCCOOOOOMMUUUUUNNNNIIIIISSSSSTTTTT they are back and we ask the joint
forces of the free world to help us in our fight to stop this and
....blabla...insert gas here...." Maybe the new Soviet union could help
UCAS :)

> Stretching it to come up with that much cash, but it could be done. Take SS
> funds (or whatever else is available) and make the play for them. Even the
> threat could do it. Easier for a country to buy its way onto the board of
> directors through stock than the corp to get elected to gov't.
>
my friend I KNOW is all the way around trus me.

> Sommers
> Insert witty quote here.

Ahuizotl
" I live in a democratic country " :-) yes you can laught.
Message no. 102
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 20:21:31 -0500
Ereskanti@***.com escribió:
>
> In a message dated 5/5/1999 10:52:32 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:
>
> > >Things could get pretty ugly when the UCAS representative comes barging in
...
> Actually, not it's not. Wanna hear something scarey. An action available to
> the President of the UCAS, as the functions of the Constitutions and BoR
...
> hours. Wanna see what happens when this action can take place as a funding
> of monies?

But to do this they must prove they have an emergency situation.
What emergency?
As far as i know.

> > Take SS
> > funds (or whatever else is available) and make the play for them. Even the
> > threat could do it. Easier for a country to buy its way onto the board of
...
> corporation it chooses.

And as I said in a later post the corps are going to shout
COMUNIST they are back, and ask the goberments the support to fight
back.
What a beautifull ironi UCAS acused for comunism.

> BTW folks, it does say that the Megacorps are NOT in charge of the major (ie;
> Global) banks. In fact, they are part of those banking structures along with
> governments.

Not as far as i know K i thing megas have the manage of the banking
structure.

Ahuizotl

"stop the red evil to engulf us" A senador of USA (i dont remember the
name) to the people of Mexico
Message no. 103
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 21:13:20 -0500
"Paul J. Adam" escribió:
>
> In article <v04011706b3591c7abbec@[128.120.118.25]>, Adam Getchell
> <acgetchell@*******.edu> writes
> >>War is _not_ profitable.
> >
> >Paul, aren't you gainfully employed for a defence contractor? ;-)
>
> Yep. We make a decent livable profit by _developing_ and _building_
> weapons. We _don't_ use them ourselves. Nor do we engage in armed
> conflict. No profit in _wielding_ the swords, the money's in making them
> and sharpening them ;)

Sell it dont use it :-)

>
>
> >Sorry, the irony was too tempting to resist. ;-)
>
> 'S'okay, it's just that working in defence procurement makes me impatient
> with much of the "corporations can have really big armies" rubbish that's
> so oft spouted about.
>
> I did a short exercise, a while back, looking at the actual cost of a
> corporate air force. Apologies for the length.
>
> +++++
> Why is building military hardware for yourself stupid? Let's look at three
> companies, each with a 20-year business plan and a billion-dollar-a-year
... very impresive .....


Ok ok you are the pro in this but you forget something

We are talking Shadowrun Universe

The american indians (i donīt knwo the number but give me a number of
american indians in USA) Kick the ass of the US army.
Dragons runs megacorps.
I can "feel" my aricraft. Run in a Van and shut misiles with mi tought.
Im faster that a bullet (Wire reflex), Iīm a urban predator.
... long etc
A troll can put his mind in a computer and take out the data he wants.
do you see my point?

> Given the financial losses and uncertain rewards, what corporation -
> driven by the bottom line - is going to insist on an in-house military, when
> mercenary units can be leased for the duration of a conflict and released
> as necessary?

Man remember Chicago? do you think that an army in hand is not usefull?
answer this.

> --
> Paul J. Adam
Message no. 104
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 21:17:40 -0500
"Paul J. Adam" escribió:
>
> In article <000b01be98da$d7795c60$5a4f0d0c@*******>, Nexx Many-Scars
> <nexx@********.net> writes
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
> >> On the other hand - how much heavy-weapons experience do they have
> >> (either giving or recieving?),
> >
> >Given the composition of some runner groups, quite a bit <g>
>
> How many runner groups employ tanks in company strength, supporting
> an infantry battalion mounted in armoured personnel carriers or infantry
> fighting vehicles, using a battery of multiple-launch rockets for the
> preliminary fireblow and with mortars or tube artillery on call during the
> assault?
>
> Shadowrunners have small-arms, the occasional machine gun, perhaps a

... WAUUU ok im not going to take for asalt USA :-)

> security guard learn these skills and how often does he or she practice
> them?

Is almos imposible that with all this fire power the indians win.
>
> --
> Paul J. Adam


Ahuizotl

"the indians win!!!! Mexico is a power country !!! i going to give a try
to this game" quoting a player.
Message no. 105
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 23:18:08 -0700
Just to respond in general, Ahuizotl:
1. As per corp militaries: Don't matter WHAT'S been said. It's been rather proven
to a point by RA:S that, while the AAA megas *do* have power...they are affected
by governments...they DO listen to governments. Note one thing: Seeing Corp
Shadowfiles, using that as the essential TO&E for the Corps combined force,
splitting up and whacking Fuchi's forces to personnel loss and the like (Novatech
and Ares will likely be, uh...occupied by UCAS forces as one of the first moves.
Novatech's in Boston, which, if I remember, has an active Navy Yard at
Charlestown, a Naval Air Station in Weymouth (IRL not even an hour or so out of
downtown Boston), some major military facilities at Natick and
elsewhere...Decidedly, they *will* be occupied. Detroit is also rather big, so
Ares is gonna be a big, FAT target. For all practical purposes, they're outta the
equation.)...The corps, if I'm doing my math and organizational-relations right,
do not even have a full division. The UCAS has *5* divisions of army troops. Plus
a CVBG (maybe multiple ones? I forget.) and SSNs. (It's stated in Cyberpirates
that no mega has any ship larger than a frigate or so. I dunno if the IJN would
REALLY get involved.) Also, a nice, SOTA airforce composed of a few wings/numbered
air forces. There is also: National Guard in both Air and Army stripes, adding on
a few extra brigades and wings. Reserves of all stripes, adding in even MORE.
Estimated callup time for TOTAL reserves and NG, with everybody reporting for duty
and combat-ready would be...hmm. I'd guess....24-48 hours? 72 at the most? With
the UCAS having PLENTY of time to prepare? About a week or two, maybe? Sorry, but,
in any contest between a standing army and its reserve components, vs. a corporate
force...The standing army wins. I also can see maybe the NAN being OVERJOYED at
this excuse to rip away ET, and *helping* the UCAS. Particularly the Salish-Sidhe
and others, like Pueblo and (a REALLY small one) the Makiwahs (or whoever controls
the old sub base on the Straits of Juan de Fuca).

JP
Message no. 106
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 09:23:09 EDT
In a message dated 5/7/1999 9:26:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

>
> > Given the financial losses and uncertain rewards, what corporation -
> > driven by the bottom line - is going to insist on an in-house military,
> when
> > mercenary units can be leased for the duration of a conflict and released
> > as necessary?
>
> Man remember Chicago? do you think that an army

Ahu...take careful notice here. Ares was NOT the standing Army, they were
merely the "Firewatch Teams" that went in and did the nastier,
"shadowier",
stuff once it all happened. Sure, their security agents lent support as well
as gained the opportunity to wear heavier than normal stuff (Chicago is NOT
all that far from Detroit, and that is what *truly* scared them), but they
weren't the actual army.

-K
Message no. 107
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 09:31:38 EDT
In a message dated 5/7/1999 9:41:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

> > Relocation is fine... in a world of guaranteed free trade with no customs
> > barriers and low tariffs.
> >
> > If a megacorporation relocates a production facility out of the UCAS to,
> > say, Mazatlan, then the UCAS can't do much to stop them. But, you know,
> > there are reports of BTLs being smuggled in cargo containers through the
> > port facility at Mazatlan, and so every single container has to be
checked
> > before it can clear customs. And there are only two customs inspectors
> > the UCAS deems qualified to do the work, and they're in St. Louis, and
no,
> > they won't move, you have to ship every container to them if you want it
> > to enter the UCAS.
>
> AJA yes como no: Could you do this to RL USA, are you going to play the
> fool with Japanece citizen, give me a break you are asking for a country
> to country conflict. And now UCAS is the little country.

Actually, though in theory this might be true, in practice it no longer is.
Remember that the megacorps in Japan are "Extraterritorial" as well, and as
such, if "Japan" decides to come to the rescue, then it is literally inviting
a series of prostrung hits and attacks from other nations.

Examples:

Aztlan. Please note that Aztlan can NOT stand the Japanese, and the instance
it sees the Japanese nation start to take actions against the UCAS in a
direct manner, then a record first is likely to be created. Aztechnologies
and Ares would most likely *both* approach the UCAS and say something like
"hey, if you start a fight with them, we'll back you up as long as you give
us time to reorganize our UCAS properties after this all settles down."
Please note, in North America -AZTLAN- (who is the owner/operator of
Aztechnology...or is the other way around??? it's SOOO confusing these days
;) is the big standing military power alongside the UCAS now. Aztechnology
is not allowed to operate within the Japanese (or it's controlled
territories), just like the Japanacorps are (still) not allowed inside the
Aztlan borders.

CAS: The UCAS and the CAS keep cordial relationships, and massive family ties
still exist there between the two nations. Sure, they have their
differences, but if they can do anything to gain the upper hand (such as
potentially weakening MCT or Shiawase's hand in Atlanta/New Orleans), then
they are going to do it as well.

Also note, that the CAS is number 2 overall for sensor technology (comes from
all those years of hypertension their suffering from Aztlan).

Great Britain. Last time I checked, the Brits were not all that overall
impressid with "Asian Operators", and also recall that in London, the Renraku
Complex has been one of two/three major annoying eyesores to them as well
(next to the Angel-thingie and Z-IC's usage of screwing chemicals in the
milk).

Gosh...the list goes on and on and on...

-K
Message no. 108
From: Steve Collins einan@*********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 99 09:51:45 -0400
On 5/7/99 9:21 pm, Ahuizotl said:
>
>> >> Maybe some megas decide the market's still worth having, especially if
>>
>> Relocation is fine... in a world of guaranteed free trade with no customs
>> barriers and low tariffs.
>>
>> If a megacorporation relocates a production facility out of the UCAS to,
>> say, Mazatlan, then the UCAS can't do much to stop them. But, you know,
>> there are reports of BTLs being smuggled in cargo containers through the
>> port facility at Mazatlan, and so every single container has to be checked
>> before it can clear customs. And there are only two customs inspectors
>> the UCAS deems qualified to do the work, and they're in St. Louis, and no,
>> they won't move, you have to ship every container to them if you want it
>> to enter the UCAS.
>
>AJA yes como no: Could you do this to RL USA, are you going to play the
>fool with Japanece citizen, give me a break you are asking for a country
>to country conflict. And now UCAS is the little country.

Actually this happens all the time for no more reason than there really are not enough
customs inspectors. I have seen shipments of product get held up in customs for over 6
weeks. look at that will do in getting your product to market. Oh yeay you also need to
pay for the wharehousing while they are waiting for delivery. In todays world of Just in
Time logistics (where you figure out how many of a part you will need over the year, and
recieve either weekly or monthly deliveries rather than ordering a bunch and then keeping
them in stock until they get used) a 6 week delay in delivery will have your customers
looking elsewhere for a supplier. If the Government is Mad at you and intentionaly
dragging it's feet that 6 weeks could easily turn to 6 months.


>> >> Downsize assets? Sell plant, equipment and whatever, and someone in the
>> >LOST.
>>
>> Now, was that because their owners were engaged in a political argument
>> with the US Government, or was it because they were not profitable?
>
>Whatīs the point?
>

The point is that the government can and frequently must take actions that are
detremential to the economy whereas a corp that takes serious losses for more than a
quarter or two is in serious trouble. The Stockholders will jump ship and when the price
of the stock reaches a certain % of the corps debts it is declaired insolvent and the
banks or courts step in and sieze control. So they will be very leery of taking an action
that will have even short to mid-term impact to proffitability, especially if that impact
is serious.

>>
>> The two are totally different. Are you telling me an extranational, profit-
>> driven megacorp will keep a plant open for a day if it could make more
>> money elsewhere? But you're claiming a megacorporation will shut down an
>> otherwise profitable plant, laying off workers, losing their investment, as
>> a political gesture... and I don't see that happening. Now or in the future.
>
>And all the brains behind the corporation, who is going to ride the new
>megacorporation if they only own a tini corp. You are tell me that if i
>give Joe Watever, microsoft, he is going to made a better job that Bill
>gates (bad example i know but well). without the minds of the directors
>and all the super structure of the company, and in less that a quarter
>he is going to made it profile, even as he only have the local market,
>and have to support shadowrun strike one a day? do you realy think this
>could happend?

But the Government wouldn't be selling it to Joe Whatever they would be selling it to
Larry Elison or Steve Jobs (head honcho's of Oracle and Apple) or maybe even to someone
like Michael Eisner (boss at Disney). they would sell it to the AA, A or large local corp
that paid the most money and had the best chance to fulfill the functions that the
previous owners fullfilled. Richard Branson at Virgin (I know he's a Brit) would even have
a shot if he agreed to the reduced extraterritorital provisions.

>
>>
>> Think motorcycles. So, Honda (UK) pulls out of Britain? Well, gee, I
>> wouldn't have minded riding a Honda, but now I can only choose between
>> Aprilla, Cagiva, Bimota, BMW, Ducati, Harley-Davidson, Kawasaki,
>> Laverda, Moto Guzzi, Suzuki, Triumph, or Yamaha. Oh, the pain, oh, the
>> humanity, now how many people will be more than mildly irritated that
>> they can't buy a Honda-brand cycle through a legitimate dealership?
>
>Well following your example know imaging no Japan made motos, ok, now no
>USA motos, ok now not European motos, what you have left. I donīt have a
>idea. But this one or two can they cover all the market? You can say yes
>and have all the market for their only. But in the long term you are
>going to losse.
>Why? because you are in medieval selfeconomy thats why. Now you know
>why the "reds" losse the cold war.
>

Actually the "Reds" lost the cold war because they wouldn't let their Scientists
talk to each other and fell behind Technologically. Also their centrilized economy didn't
work it couldn't get supplies distributed efficiently. Most years the Soviet Union had to
import food even though it grew enough to feed it self. Most of what they grew rotted in
storage or the fields because the manpower and resources necessary to harvest, process and
distribute it were unavailable. Being isolated had very little to do with it. Lets face it
at their height they influenced as many or more countries as the USA did.

>> >but, especially when you factor in the Mega Corp control of the Banking
>> >Industry (Corprate
>> >Shadowfiles)
>>
>> The megacorporations _don't_ control the banks, either singly or together.
>> Read Corporate Shadowfiles properly.
>
>Why not sorry?
>

Read Corporate Shadowfiles for the full reason but it is because there is too much risk in
Banking. There is no way to force even a fairly small country to pay it's debts if they
decide they don't want to. They do run the Z-O bank which sort of operates in the same
manner as the US Federal Reserve Bank (other countries have similar banks but I don't
remember the names) Z-O only loans to Banks, AAA Mega's , and A Mega's.

>>
>> Hell, if the megas _do_ control the banks and the megas try to use that,
>> then the UCAS just defaults on its debt and says its troops will shoot the
>> bailiffs. Blam, instant financial crisis that hurts the corps much more than
>> the UCAS.
>
>And Japan, Aztlan, UK are just going to sit and smile in the mind time.
>AJA no way chummer.
>
>>
>> "When you owe the bank five thousand pounds and refuse to pay, you
>> have a problem.
>> When you owe the bank five billion pounds and refuse to pay, _the bank_
>> has a problem."
>
>Depends in the bank guns.
>Imaging Hey Mexico stops paging his debs to USA because they have the
>problem if we stop paying, Tomorrow i will have a marine in my back
>yard.
>

Actually no bank even the Federal Reserve bank of the US or the IMF has pulled something
like this. It is called throwing good money after bad. Remember how much it cost the US to
fight the Vietnam war? Well that it what it would cost. The local Populace would rise up
in rebellion and you'd have a Guerilla war on your hands. No When a country threatens to
default on the loand usually the lending institution works with them to restructure the
debt and occasionally forgives it. Almost always it involves another loan to keep them
paying. Right now there is an influential Senator here in the States lobbying to get the
debts that Central American countries forgiven because he realizes that there is no way
they can ever be repaid and that every 10 years or so there will be a financial crisis as
one threatens to default and we loan them even more money. We have never invaded a country
because of a defaulted loan and no other country has to the best of my knowledge although
it may have happened a few times in the 14 - 1600's. It is just not profitable.

>>
>> Look how the IMF et al reacted to Russia defaulting last year, for
>> instance.
>
>Russia still have the army of a Super Power and tons of Nukes, UCAS is
>not a super power anymore and didnt have a so powerfull army.>
>War is always profilable to the companies. What about the citizent that
>didnt want to UCAS be in war with the corps. What about the economy. Who
>ask the congress to do all this. Isnt UCAS a democracy. what kind of
>democracy... BLA BLA BLA....
>
>Ahuizotl
>give me Microsoft Merchandise team and UCAS is going to look like the
>Fourth Reich.

If any countries in the world of Sr are they are UCAS, CAS, Aztlan, Japan, and UK. Japan
in the world of Sr would likely get its butt kicked by the UCAS in a war for the same
reasons they lost WW2. There are few to no natural resources on the mainland. We are far
enough from them that discounting the use of Nukes they couldn't really hurt us. We could
fairly easily cut off their supplies and blockade them. I'm not saying it would be easy
but lets face it it's not like they would get any help from out neighbors (the NAN has
little love for Jananeese Corps) and Cal Free would be all too glad to help us. Japan
would only be able to be called a superpower because it hosts 3 of the 8 largest corps in
the world. They still don't have the natural resources necessary to prosecute a major war.

Steve
Message no. 109
From: James Vaughan boss_dawg@***.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: 8 May 99 10:50:21 CDT
Steve Collins <einan@*********.net> wrote:
> If any countries in the world of Sr are they are UCAS, CAS, Aztlan, Japan,
and UK.

You say if there are any, I say there are not.

> Japan in the world of Sr would likely get its butt kicked by the UCAS in a
war for the same reasons they lost WW2. There are few to no natural resources
on the mainland. We are far enough from them that discounting the use of Nukes
they couldn't really hurt us. We could fairly easily cut off their supplies
and blockade them. I'm not saying it would be easy but lets face it it's not
like they would get any help from out neighbors (the NAN has little love for
Jananeese Corps) and Cal Free would be all too glad to help us. Japan would
only be able to be called a superpower because it hosts 3 of the 8 largest
corps in the world. They still don't have the natural resources necessary to
prosecute a major war.
>

First of all they are IMPERIAL Japan. They are not just the islands anymore.
Second I'm sure they could get plenty of resources from the Japanacorps.
Third the UCAS doesn't even have HALF of the resources the USA had in WWII.

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Message no. 110
From: James Vaughan boss_dawg@***.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: 8 May 99 11:05:00 CDT
"Paul J. Adam" <Paul@********.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "The US is taking on Microsoft/IBM/AT&T! Are they nuts?"
>
Once again the UCAS is NOT the US and despite Bill's wettest wet dream
Microsoft is not a megacorp.
> Yeah, right. Aztechnology saying "Here, we'd like to put this big military
> airfield - we mean, commercial airport development - here near your
> border with the Republic of Aztlan, which you've already fought two wars
> with."

The azzies don't really belong is this due to their special status. How about
Ares saying "We'll move these facories from into Geogia if you'll help us out.
And maybe we'll back you against the azzies when you need it.

> >In addition the UCAS is not a superpower
> >anymore.
>
> Carrier battle groups and SSNs? Those are superpower tools. The UCAS has
> them. Plenty good enough for me.
>
What happened in Hawaii chummer? How well does a carrier function after you
put a Thor shot through it. For that matter what happpens if the put one
through the roof of the white house.

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Message no. 111
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 19:58:36 +0200
According to Sommers, at 8:50 on 7 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> >OTOH, corporate militaries can be quickly expanded with trained personnel
> >by calling up all security troops that can be spared. Sure, they don't
> >have full military training but they're better and quicker to bring into
> >action than completely new recruits.
>
> Again, basing this on the UCAS, since I live in the US. The corps can only
> draw from their security forces. A country can always call up the Reserves
> or National Guard, which are several times the size of the security forces
> of any corp. Hell, I just got made ineligible for the draft because of age,
> if it ever came to that.

Certainly true in just about all countries, and I never said a corporate
army could go up against a national army and win even if the corp did
mobilize all its security forces. All I meant with the above statement is
that corporate armies are potentially larger than they appear to be at
first glance (and so are national armies, as you pointed out).

> Right now there has been some flack for attacks by NATO on civilian
> targets. There haven't been very many, but one of the reasons there haven't
> been more attacks on the Serbs is because the bombers are double checking
> almost every target to make sure that tehy have confirmation. But sometimes
> mistakes are going to happen.

Ask the Chinese :) However, you know this and I know this, but most people
in the streets seem to have been so indoctrinated in how the west can
fight precision wars that it's my guess that pretty soon, they won't
accept mistakes any longer. IMHO it could actually be in NATO's interests
to bomb _less_ precisely...

> >In SR this would be very similar. In a direct confrontation between a
> >nation and a megacorp, whoever can use the media best will probably win
> >the war even if they lose all the battles. I would suspect this to be the
> >megacorp, since they already have extensive PR and advertising assets they
> >could switch over to making war propaganda rather than commercials for
> >washing powders.
>
> Right, but the corps are used to advertising their products and covering up
> their own little travesties.

True, but they do know how to manipulate people in believing what they
have to say -- that's what advertising is all about. If you don't believe
brand Q is better than the brand you've been buying for years, you won't
switch to brand Q, will you? War propaganda is different, of course, but
the principle is the same: make your audience believe what you have to
say.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Another year and then you'll be happy.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 112
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 17:50:57 -0500
Thanks a lot for the respond, i Apreciate this

Penta escribió:
>
> Just to respond in general, Ahuizotl:
> 1. As per corp militaries: Don't matter WHAT'S been said. It's been rather proven
> to a point by RA:S that, while the AAA megas *do* have power...they are
...
> force...The standing army wins. I also can see maybe the NAN being OVERJOYED at
> this excuse to rip away ET, and *helping* the UCAS. Particularly the Salish-Sidhe
> and others, like Pueblo and (a REALLY small one) the Makiwahs (or whoever controls
> the old sub base on the Straits of Juan de Fuca).

Very interesting it deserves a second thought before answer.
The only thing that didnt like is the help of NAN nations.
I didnt see why they are going to help the same nation that try to
eliminated, but in the other hand they hate the coprs also, dificult
question.
Did they are going to wait and joint with the wining side. I do know.
A and Pueblo is a Corp also. so Pueblo i donīt think so.


Ahuizotl
"my grand father put me in a suitcase so i can escape from the militar
forces that raid my town in orden to send it to concentration camps.. i
swear my totem for revange" from the background of one of my players
Message no. 113
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 17:51:13 -0500
Steve Collins escribió:
> >AJA yes como no: Could you do this to RL USA, are you going to play the
> >fool with Japanece citizen, give me a break you are asking for a country
> >to country conflict. And now UCAS is the little country.
>
> Actually this happens all the time for no more reason than there really are not
enough customs inspectors. I have seen shipments of product get held up in .....
and intentionaly dragging it's feet that 6 weeks could easily turn to 6
months.

you know it was a trick, i know it was a trick and im sure SRU japanece
will know it was a trick. And even it wasnīt a trick they can say that
is was a trick. See my piont. You are helping the corps in involucring
countries.


>
> The point is that the government can and frequently must take actions that are
detremential to the economy whereas a corp that takes serious losses for more than a
quarter or two is in serious trouble. The Stockholders will jump ship and when the price
of the stock reaches a certain % of the corps debts it is declaired insolvent and the
banks or courts step in and sieze control. So they will be very leery of taking an action
that will have even short to mid-term impact to proffitability, especially if that impact
is serious.

Sorry i lost the idea somewhere?
Who said the corps are going to go backrupt because UCAS is not a market
any more. There still have the NAN market, the European, the Asia, south
America, pacific rim, i didnīt know about but somebody could tell me
about Africa. UCAS is not the powerful center of economy, in Shadorun is
Japan, thatīs why the curency is Newyen

>
> >
> >And all the brains behind the corporation, who is going to ride the new
> >megacorporation if they only own a tini corp. You are tell me that if i
......
> >and have to support shadowrun strike one a day? do you realy think this
> >could happend?
>
> But the Government wouldn't be selling it to Joe Whatever they would be selling it to
Larry Elison or Steve Jobs (head honcho's of Oracle and Apple) or maybe even to someone
like Michael Eisner (boss at Disney). they would sell it to the AA, A or large local corp
that paid the most money and had the best chance to fulfill the functions that the
previous owners fullfilled. Richard Branson at Virgin (I know he's a Brit) would even have
a shot if he agreed to the reduced extraterritorital provisions.

first Larry an Jobs, in our example, are Magas to, so you also have
problems with them, and maybe looking also for someone to take his
places.

> >Well following your example know imaging no Japan made motos, ok, now no
....
> >Why? because you are in medieval selfeconomy thats why. Now you know
> >why the "reds" losse the cold war.
> >
>
> Actually the "Reds" lost the cold war because they wouldn't let their
Scientists talk to each other and fell behind Technologically.

Ok first is OT second the rusians can talk with others (with Mexico at
least) even i agree that some thimes they take a science subjet to the
political field (like the Gen isue.) they fu.. it. But we can discust
this in personal mail not in the list :-}

Also their centrilized economy didn't work it couldn't get supplies
distributed efficiently. Most years the Soviet Union had to import food
even
...
do with it. Lets face it at their height they influenced as many or more
countries as the USA did.

Another mail personal discusion about thie, my beat is in they can
produce be tech enougth to made food because with the lack of competice,
and the burocraci in his industry they can be in SOTA. IMHO.

> >> The megacorporations _don't_ control the banks, either singly or together.
> >> Read Corporate Shadowfiles properly.
> >
> >Why not sorry?
> >
>
> Read Corporate Shadowfiles for the full reason but it is because there is too much
risk in Banking. There is no way to force even a fairly small country to pay it's debts if
they decide they don't want to. They do run the Z-O bank which sort of operates in the
same manner as the US Federal Reserve Bank (other countries have similar banks but I don't
remember the names) Z-O only loans to Banks, AAA Mega's , and A Mega's.

More than a word Bank didnīt, it. So they can control in some way the
banking sistem isnīt it. Well this bring me another idea.
If they control Z-O Bank and this bank give loans to A megas and AA
megas, You target client in the seld of the goons confiscate to AAA
megas. do you see my point? :-)

>
> >>
> >> "When you owe the bank five thousand pounds and refuse to pay, you
> >> have a problem.
> >> When you owe the bank five billion pounds and refuse to pay, _the bank_
> >> has a problem."
> >
> >Depends in the bank guns.
> >Imaging Hey Mexico stops paging his debs to USA because they have the
> >problem if we stop paying, Tomorrow i will have a marine in my back
> >yard.
> >
>
> Actually no bank even the Federal Reserve bank of the US or the IMF has pulled
something like this. It is called throwing good money after bad.
....
loan and no other country has to the best of my knowledge although it
may have happened a few times in the 14 - 1600's. It is just not
profitable.

let me give you a history lesson, Caranza president said that Mexico is
not going to paid his deab to the USA. Marines invade Veracruz. 1917-18
Any cuestion?

>
> If any countries in the world of Sr are they are UCAS, CAS, Aztlan, Japan, and UK.

You forgot Amazonia, the Tirs and the NANs i didnt know the status of
germanies countries, neither Africans

Japan in the world of Sr would likely get its butt kicked by the UCAS in
a war for the same reasons they lost WW2. There are few to no natural
resources on the mainland. We are far enough from them that discounting
the use of Nukes they couldn't really hurt us. We could fairly easily
cut off their supplies and blockade them. I'm not saying it would be
easy but lets face it it's not like they would get any help from out
neighbors (the NAN has little love for Jananeese Corps) and Cal Free
would be all too glad to help us. Japan would only be able to be called
a superpower because it hosts 3 of the 8 largest corps in the world.
They still don't have the natural resources necessary to prosecute a
major war.

a) We are talking Imperial Japan, im sure that this is not the island
only any more.
b) CFS is almost a Japanese protectorate. The UCAS didnīt ask for his
lost piece of country. Even Aztlan didnt take it. (in RL Los Angeles
have more mexicans that Guadalajara o Monterey city, Se second and third
bigest citiesw in Mexico) Free Cal is not free at all, maybe the Freedom
figther of Cal could help UCAS :-)
c) Japan is gpoing to have the resources of the Megas in his side, UCAS
again him.
d) UCAS is not USA of the WWII.
E) UCAS can block Hawaii, do you think they can block Imperial Japan?
Message no. 114
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 17:54:47 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Ahuizotl <cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx>
>
> Very interesting it deserves a second thought before answer.
> The only thing that didnt like is the help of NAN nations.
> I didnt see why they are going to help the same nation that try to
> eliminated, but in the other hand they hate the coprs also, dificult
> question.
> Did they are going to wait and joint with the wining side. I do know.
> A and Pueblo is a Corp also. so Pueblo i donīt think so.

I think the NAN helping out the UCAS is more likely than them helping out
the Corps, because elimination of the UCAS will probably remove one of the
few things that are keeping the corps at bay. Without the _very_ large
economy of the UCAS, and all the smaller corps it protects, there will be
less in the way of the large corps absorbing an even larger market share...
thus making competition with them by home-grown businesses (including
Pueblo Corp) very difficult.

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 2-5-99
Message no. 115
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 01:31:08 EDT
In a message dated 5/7/1999 9:41:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
seattle2052@*******.com writes:

> In short BASIC SECURITY FORCES no, but the paramil they do have
> around can and prolly better than your standard rifleman from the UCAS.
>
Okay, my turn. I don't really give a flying anything what your rank is and
where. I know PJA somewhat, and I'm fairly certain he does not what he's
speaking of. Do he and I agree on some topics? No. This however, is one of
them (at least, for now). I am also a fairly avid reader of the SR material,
and I know from several locations where the references for "marksmanship" and
"skill" that a corp has comes from people the Corp has recruited *FROM*
"X"
military organization, not the other way around. FoF makes the distinction,
as does Corporate Security.

-K
Message no. 116
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 01:33:24 EDT
In a message dated 5/7/1999 9:41:59 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

>
> Te same way goberment explain to citizen, security of your invesment
> gentlemnts As example, Chicago CZ, Panama Chanel, and things like that,
> and of course defence again not so frienly nations. Or do you think the
> corps didnt lear from what Aztlan did.

Ah, but Ahu, please be careful. You are crossing that gray line of "Aztlan"
vs. "Aztechnology" again.

-K
Message no. 117
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 01:37:17 EDT
In a message dated 5/7/1999 9:44:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx writes:

>
> > BTW folks, it does say that the Megacorps are NOT in charge of the major
(
> ie;
> > Global) banks. In fact, they are part of those banking structures along
> with
> > governments.
>
> Not as far as i know K i thing megas have the manage of the banking
> structure.

This is explained a bit in the BitB and Corporate Shadowfiles books. They
might be the "big accounts" of the banks, but are not themselves, the banks.

-K
Message no. 118
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 19:14:13 +0100
In article <37339DC0.11B5EB08@***.telmex.net.mx>, Ahuizotl
<cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx> writes
>Ok ok you are the pro in this but you forget something
>
>We are talking Shadowrun Universe
>
>The american indians (i donīt knwo the number but give me a number of
>american indians in USA) Kick the ass of the US army.

The North Vietnamese did it to the French and then the US, the
_muhadejin_ did it to the Soviets, the Chechens nearly did it to the
Russians. Guerilla warfare: it's much more about politics than about armed
force.

>Man remember Chicago? do you think that an army in hand is not usefull?

And who put the Wall up and manned it? The UCAS. Who's securing the
perimeter around the Renraku Arcology? The UCAS. Armies are
_expensive_, and one reason to have nations is so _they_ bear the
troublesome cost of maintaining military might: you just develop and sell
gear to them.

Of course... you have to be careful then, because someone might decide
that a corporation could leverage a government that used its equipment.
Doesn't work: look at the French arms embargo against Israel from 1967.
Backfired disastrously: the Israelis developed their own arms industry and
took a lot of export business away from Dassault.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 119
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 18:52:13 +0100
In article <19990508160500.15005.qmail@*****.netaddress.usa.net>,
James Vaughan <boss_dawg@***.net> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <Paul@********.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "The US is taking on Microsoft/IBM/AT&T! Are they nuts?"
>>
>Once again the UCAS is NOT the US and despite Bill's wettest wet dream
>Microsoft is not a megacorp.

The problem remains - corporations have to have markets to sell into, or
they die, and that really limits their manoeuvre room against nations.

>> Yeah, right. Aztechnology saying "Here, we'd like to put this big military
>> airfield - we mean, commercial airport development - here near your
>> border with the Republic of Aztlan, which you've already fought two wars
>> with."
>
>The azzies don't really belong is this due to their special status.

They're a megacorporation and they're a nation. Why do they keep _both_
statuses if there's no advantage to it? Why, if nations are so helpless and
weak, just cut loose the old Republic of Aztlan and concentrate on
Aztechnology?

>How about
>Ares saying "We'll move these facories from into Geogia if you'll help us out.

And the moment you do anything we don't like we'll move them on
again...

> And maybe we'll back you against the azzies when you need it.

And maybe they won't.

>> Carrier battle groups and SSNs? Those are superpower tools. The UCAS has
>> them. Plenty good enough for me.
>>
>What happened in Hawaii chummer? How well does a carrier function after you
>put a Thor shot through it.

Yep. Note that was a long time ago, and the UCAS has boosted its military
power significantly since then (the 2042 Military Improvements Act).

Now, how do you THORshot a carrier when your targeting's jammed, the
carrier's escorts have ATBM capability, and the THORshot satellites got a
faceful of gravel from an ASAT?

>For that matter what happpens if the put one
>through the roof of the white house.

Zurich Orbital becomes a spectacular meteor show a few minutes later.
The problem with THORshots is that, being orbital assets, they're easily
observed and tracked and thus can't be anonymous. Megacorp attacking
the UCAS leadership? You're straight to Rung 38 of Kahn's ladder.

Remember - the idea of a cruise missile or depressed-trajectory SLBM
strike on Washington was a Cold War staple, and the capability to ensure
retaliation was designed into the command and control systems.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 120
From: Dark Steel seattle2052@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 06:01:02 PDT
>Ahu...take careful notice here. Ares was NOT the standing Army, they were
>merely the "Firewatch Teams" that went in and did the nastier,
"shadowier",
>stuff once it all happened. Sure, their security agents lent support as
>well
>as gained the opportunity to wear heavier than normal stuff (Chicago is NOT
>all that far from Detroit, and that is what *truly* scared them), but they
>weren't the actual army.
>
>-K
>
You have to watch it to. A commen t in bug city said something along the
lines of, "When Ares pulled out the UCAS army was hard pressed to cover the
whole wall." Which tells me thay were doing containment on the wall as well
as excursions into the CZ.

Dark Steel
SgtMaj USMC


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 121
From: Dark Steel seattle2052@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 06:10:23 PDT
> > In short BASIC SECURITY FORCES no, but the paramil they do have
> > around can and prolly better than your standard rifleman from the UCAS.
> >
>Okay, my turn. I don't really give a flying anything what your rank is and
>where. I know PJA somewhat, and I'm fairly certain he does not what he's
>speaking of. Do he and I agree on some topics? No. This however, is one
>of
>them (at least, for now). I am also a fairly avid reader of the SR
>material,
>and I know from several locations where the references for "marksmanship"
>and
>"skill" that a corp has comes from people the Corp has recruited *FROM*
"X"
>military organization, not the other way around. FoF makes the
>distinction,
>as does Corporate Security.
>
>-K
>
Well that's a little harsh, and I have no doubt that Adam knows what he's
talking about. If you want to take this down a road of conflict that's fine
I'll be foreced to arm myself with this cheap store bought THWAP-O-Matic and
defend my honor.<g>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 122
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 12:18:06 +0100
In article <3734BFD1.FC703988@***.telmex.net.mx>, Ahuizotl
<cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx> writes
>Penta escribió:
>I also can see maybe the NAN being OVERJOYED
>at
>> this excuse to rip away ET, and *helping* the UCAS. Particularly the Salish-Sidhe
>> and others, like Pueblo and (a REALLY small one) the Makiwahs (or whoever
>controls
>> the old sub base on the Straits of Juan de Fuca).
>
>Very interesting it deserves a second thought before answer.
>The only thing that didnt like is the help of NAN nations.
>I didnt see why they are going to help the same nation that try to
>eliminated, but in the other hand they hate the coprs also, dificult
>question.

Remember the UCAS is _not_ the same nation, in many ways. It
attempted a genocidal solution to the "Native American problem", lost,
and fragmented as a result. I'd guess many people in the UCAS in 2060
look back on those days the way many Germans do on the Hitler years.


Similarly, in 1945 the Western Allies were fighting Germany tooth and nail.
Within ten years, (West) Germany was a full member of NATO, because
the new threat was the Soviet Union.

The NAN, in many ways, would trust the UCAS more than the
corporations. They already defeated the UCAS once, in a guerilla war: a
rematch would be bloody and expensive, with little to gain for the winner,
and both sides know that. So, while they would likely have some lively
rivalries, the idea of UCAS armoured spearheads rolling into the Sioux
Nation is just too silly to be credible.

On the other hand, corporations... make a handy common enemy. If you
assume, as seems to be prevalent, that the corporations set aside their
rivalries in order to beat up nations, why is the reverse never considered?


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 123
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:24:24 +0100
In article <373391B5.2CDF60A@***.telmex.net.mx>, Ahuizotl
<cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" escribió:
>> Manufacturing and distribution is where the revenue comes in, and where
>....
>> most of that to the UCAS. "You want the lab secured, you pay for it and
>> _you_ police it, this is _your_ contract..."
>>
>Thats why mi advice to the Corps is let burning ashes behind. If you win
>pas the bill to UCAS. In the middle time, you let UCAS technological
>hit.

The UCAS aren't taking any sort of damage from that. They didn't know
what was in the lab before, now they never will but then neither will
anyone else, so what have they lost? The corporation is hurting as a result,
but that's their problem.

>> If a megacorporation relocates a production facility out of the UCAS to,
>> say, Mazatlan, then the UCAS can't do much to stop them. But, you know,
>> there are reports of BTLs being smuggled in cargo containers through the
>> port facility at Mazatlan, and so every single container has to be checked
>> before it can clear customs. And there are only two customs inspectors
>> the UCAS deems qualified to do the work, and they're in St. Louis, and no,
>> they won't move, you have to ship every container to them if you want it
>> to enter the UCAS.
>
>AJA yes como no: Could you do this to RL USA,

Yes. It's a common tactic: the French used it for years to limit imports of
foreign consumer electronics and protect their domestic manufacturers.
Video recorders had to be inspected... in Lyon, nearly two hundred miles
from the nearest port.

>are you going to play the
>fool with Japanece citizen,

Japan does this to imports too. It's a regular and routine tactic. One thing
you can't easily do is muscle someone's customs system... because once
you set that precedent, you're wide open to someone doing the same to
you.

>> The problem is... with eight superconglomerate megacorps even before
>> the Fuchi breakup, there is just too much competition for this to be a
>> viable tactic. No megacorporation is going to leave a competitor enjoying
>> a cosy monopoly in any area or market.
>>
>Again who? the tini lili corporation not afected with UCAS desition?

Yes: the large but UCAS-based firms like Federated-Boeing, for instance.
There is a _lot_ of corporate activity outside the Big Eight - where do
outfits like Cross Applied Technologies and Wuxing come from?

>QUESTION: What you have to do to have ET? Be a corporation? Of what
>size?

You can claim extraterritoriality as a corporation of any size, provided the
territory in question is "continuous and contiguous, recognised and long-
term". So, a building, or a fenced-off area of land, publicly identified as
belonging to the corporation in question and owned or leased for an
undefined qualifying period, can be defined as "extraterritorial".

>> Think, too, of the flexibility that Matrix-based retail offers. In Britain
>...
>> to play such games.
>
>Yes you can also buy drug even they are prohivited the point is at what
>cost, Rice prices to heaven, in the same time, you have unemploying
>problem. See my point?

It's not _your_ unemployment problem if corporate citizens are laid off.
Extraterritoriality cuts both ways.

>> Now, was that because their owners were engaged in a political argument
>> with the US Government, or was it because they were not profitable?
>
>Whatīs the point?

The American car industry - like the British - suffered seriously in the
1970s, with many closures and layoffs. That wasn't because they decided
to "punish the United States" for some business dispute, it was because
Honda and Toyota could make and sell desirable cars more cheaply, and so
stole slabs of the market.

>> The two are totally different. Are you telling me an extranational, profit-
>> driven megacorp will keep a plant open for a day if it could make more
>> money elsewhere? But you're claiming a megacorporation will shut down an
>> otherwise profitable plant, laying off workers, losing their investment, as
>> a political gesture... and I don't see that happening. Now or in the future.
>
>And all the brains behind the corporation, who is going to ride the new
>megacorporation if they only own a tini corp. You are tell me that if i
>give Joe Watever, microsoft, he is going to made a better job that Bill
>gates (bad example i know but well).

No, you wouldn't give a Microsoft-size company to Joe Blow from Kokomo.
You'd split it up, give it to people who could make good use of it. For
instance Larry Ellison of Oracle gets the database management arm,
Netscape get Web browsers, Lotus get applications software...

Or, having seized it, you auction it off to the other corporations, who get
to buy a competitor at fire-sale prices. Are you honestly telling me that a
corporation _would not_ leap at such an opportunity?

>> Not familiar with all those brand names, but remember there are _eight_
>> megacorporations, and _many, many_ smaller businesses.
>
>The most of them with invesment (money, magic or tech) or parcial own of
>one of the eight megas.

No, not at all. Again, look at Blood in the Boardroom: there's a raft of
not-quite-mega corporations snapping at the heels of the Big Eight, and as
Fuchi falls apart others, like Cross Applied Technologies, move in to take
its place.

>> Think motorcycles. So, Honda (UK) pulls out of Britain? Well, gee, I
>> wouldn't have minded riding a Honda, but now I can only choose between
>> Aprilla, Cagiva, Bimota, BMW, Ducati, Harley-Davidson, Kawasaki,
>> Laverda, Moto Guzzi, Suzuki, Triumph, or Yamaha. Oh, the pain, oh, the
>> humanity, now how many people will be more than mildly irritated that
>> they can't buy a Honda-brand cycle through a legitimate dealership?
>
>Well following your example know imaging no Japan made motos, ok, now no
>USA motos, ok now not European motos, what you have left.

Why? Again, as one manufacturer pulls out, others don't deny themselves
profit; they storm in to take that market share and turn it into profit.

>I donīt have a
>idea. But this one or two can they cover all the market? You can say yes
>and have all the market for their only. But in the long term you are
>going to losse.
>Why? because you are in medieval selfeconomy thats why. Now you know
>why the "reds" losse the cold war.

Except that, with only one or two players in the market, a bright young
spark who's got some interesting ideas about how to build a motorcycle
raises some money and launches a new model, and if the market likes it
he's off and running. This isn't the fUSSR when you had two choices, "State
Factory" or "nothing".

Or else Federated-Boeing - for instance - capitalise on their "build cool jet
fighters and fast stuff" image to launch their own range of sports
motorcycles.


Remember, the Soviet command economy happened because there was no
competition: whereas the one thing the Shadowrun world isn't short of is
corporate competition.

>> The megacorporations _don't_ control the banks, either singly or together.
>> Read Corporate Shadowfiles properly.
>
>Why not sorry?

Too risky, for all sorts of reasons. To own a bank you need to lend money
out at a high enough rate to cover costs, plus the interest you're paying on
deposits, and still have a profit at the end of it. The reason you get banks
failing is because they lend money out at a high rate to a bad risk, and
when the bad risk defaults the bank collapses.

One reason governments and corporations value their stability rating is
that it lets them borrow money cheaply: the greater the danger of
default, the higher the interest rate charged to try to offset that risk.

Corporations need reliable, independent banking services, and that's why
they established Zurich-Orbital. But a "corporate bank"? It would have to
use the corporation's own currency, and that violates all sorts of economic
laws. It would open them up to speculation, since they'd have to value
loans in UCAS dollars, Japanese yen and the like, and that destroys the
advantages of corporate scrip. And, in the world you suggest, no nation
would touch their money with a barge pole.

>> Hell, if the megas _do_ control the banks and the megas try to use that,
>> then the UCAS just defaults on its debt and says its troops will shoot the
>> bailiffs. Blam, instant financial crisis that hurts the corps much more than
>> the UCAS.
>
>And Japan, Aztlan, UK are just going to sit and smile in the mind time.

Sure. Not _their_ problem. Doesn't affect them: it either makes them
look even more respectable, or else gives them leverage.

>AJA no way chummer.

Uh, yes. How do you force someone to repay a loan? Raise an army and
go to war? By the time you've done that, it would have been cheaper to
just write it off.

>> "When you owe the bank five thousand pounds and refuse to pay, you
>> have a problem.
>> When you owe the bank five billion pounds and refuse to pay, _the bank_
>> has a problem."
>
>Depends in the bank guns.
>Imaging Hey Mexico stops paging his debs to USA because they have the
>problem if we stop paying, Tomorrow i will have a marine in my back
>yard.

Mexico _has_ defaulted on its loans. You weren't invaded.

Russia defaulted on its enormous debts on August 17 last year. Did the IMF
send in mercenaries? No, it renegotiated the loans and lent more
money...

Japan's banks are staring at unofficial estimates of over 100 _trillion_ yen
of bad debts that will never be recovered: enough to crash their entire
banking sector. Are they raising an army? No, they're desperately trying to
shore up the situation.

>> Look how the IMF et al reacted to Russia defaulting last year, for
>> instance.
>
>Russia still have the army of a Super Power

Bollocks. Their army hasn't been paid in a year, their equipment is rusting
away. Airbases are being turned into _farms_ because the personnel need
to eat, and the aircraft have no fuel or spare parts so they can't fly or
train. The Navy is tied up in port: the Russian Navy couldn't even muster
half-a-dozen ships to intervene in the Aegean and Adriatic.

>and tons of Nukes, UCAS is
>not a super power anymore and didnt have a so powerfull army.

The UCAS Army in 2060 is still five divisions strong: today they have only
ten. They certainly still have nuclear weapons. They have carrier battle
groups and fast-attack submarines, and almost certainly SSBNs too (the
best answer to keeping your nuclear deterrent survivable, with a huge
benefit of deniability on top)

>> No, a megacorporation controls - at absolute max - 12.5% of the economy
>> (eight megas). Allowing for reality - public sector, non-megacorp activity -
>> and no one megacorporation controls more than maybe 5% of the
>> economy.
>
>>From where did you take this numbers?

Eight megacorporations, roughly equal, 12.5% per megacorp.

Allow for the many, many submegas and 5% per megacorp seems about
right.

>> Note one oft-forgotten point about military procurement - who pays for
>> _development_ and thus who owns the end design.
>
>In the Shadowrun Universe: Ares.

Where is this stated? When did this paradigm shift occur?

It costs _fifteen billion dollars_ to develop a state-of-the-art fighter
aircraft today (EF2000, F-22). The only way to turn that into a profit is to
sell many such aircraft: but few countries can afford them. So far, only
the US is buying F-22s: only Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain are buying
Eurofighters. (Norway, Australia and Greece are interested, but are
holding competitive flyoffs)

The only time in recent memory any corporate enterprise has developed a
fighter aircraft with its own money, it nearly bankrupted the company
when no buyers were to be had.

The sums involved in military R&D are too large, and the sales too small -
_especially_ if you claim that national militaries are emasculated - to be
justifiable.

Look at the consolidation in the defence industry caused by the end of the
Cold War. Again looking at aircraft, the US alone went from having ten
producers (Lockheed, Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, Northrop,
Hughes, McDonnel Douglas, Boeing, Sikorsky, Ling-Temco-Vought,
Grumman) to three (Lockheed Martin, MDD-Boeing, and Sikorsky). Did any
of those producers go "freelance" and develop their own designs? No.

Compare that to Russia, where - thanks to a collapse in State finances -
the aircraft manufacturers _are_ on their own. R&D has stalled
completely, production is at a standstill, and MAPO and Sukhoi are
scrabbling for export sales, selling below cost simply to get _some_ money
into the coffers. MAPO are on the verge of bankrupcty, and Sukhoi are
not far from it.

>> As a senior systems engineer, gainfully employed as a defence contractor,

>... interesting stuff but i dont see the point we are talking about a
>game in a fantasi universe where one of my neighbor could be a troll and
>the other a insetc shaman....

And that affects economics how, precisely? One of the reasons I like
Shadowrun instead of AD&D is that while the game has fantastic
elements, many factors are still realistic.

>> Divide and conquer. With eight or more megacorporations and many more

>Again who said that AA and A are not going to get hurt with the lost do
>ET,

Take Federated-Boeing as an example. Its main customer for its ships and
aircraft? The UCAS. Is it "extraterritorial"? Not stated. But what does it
lose by fighting the withdrawal of extraterritoriality? Its main market. So,
it'll live with the decision: especially if the costs invovled are offset by the
UCAS buying another few squadrons of F-B Eagles instead of the
competing Ares product they'd been evaluating.

>and how many of this corps have the power to fight back in the
>international market?

The "international market" is made up of nations. Going to war -
economic or military - with your customers is generally a really stupid
idea.

>> How about the crash in the megacorporation's stock, and the
>> repercussions _that_ would have? "They decided to get into a pissing
>> contest with the UCAS? Are they mad? Sell for what you can get! Buy
>> whoever's staying out of the fight!"
>
>Thatīs not true is laike said that Standar Oil Comp. crashes because
>Mexico expropiate his assets. As an story lesson, we almost give all the
>petroleum companies assets back (with an "scuse me" and a big bill paid
>to them) because the economic block they made to mexican petroleum. No
>way you imaging who save the petrolum companies in Mexico.

But then, OPEC tried to hammer the US in 1973 for its support of
Israel.The costs to the US were considerable... but the costs to the rest of
the world were greater, triggering a lengthy depression. OPEC didn't
notice, though megacorporations certainly would.

The end result, though, was that OPEC lost. Why? Because their attempt
to jack up oil prices above the market cost made it profitable for many
other sources, such as the North Sea or many US fields, to be exploited
whereas before they had languished. And then OPEC producer countries
began violating their production quotas, further depressing the price: and
suddenly, OPEC became an irrelevance, its power lost.

Meanwhile the US continued to support Israel throughout.

>The nazis, with the WWII the block was unviable, we almost sell petrolum
>to the Reich.

Except - and, again, this is where the more powerful nations win - how
would they get oil from Mexico to Germany? By sea, in ships... which the
Royal Navy would easily sink. During World War 2, German commercial
shipping needed _enormous_ escort, and still suffered huge losses: one
"convoy" intercepted in the Bay of Biscay consisted of _twenty-eight_
destroyers, S-boats and F-lighters, escorting a single freighter. The Royal
Navy sank the freighter anyway :)

>> At best, that corporation's lost a chunk of market for a while. At worst,
>> it's mired itself in conflict, and war is _never_ profitable for the
>> participants. What does _this_ do to the megacorporation, its managers
>> (all likely to be holding share options and thus dependent on a stably rising
>> share price) and its shareholders (who, in extremis, are quite thoroughly
>> able to turn on the managers who got into the war and vote da bums out)
>
>War is always profilable to the companies.

How? They have to buy weapons and then expend them. Their buildings
are bombed, or at best they have to use expensive air-defence weapons
to protect them. Supply convoys are ambushed and destroyed. Finished
goods, not yet sold, are likewise intercepted. Trained men are killed.

Where's the profit in any of that?


Now, _someone else's_ war is enormously profitable: you're taking their
money and selling them munitions, supplies and fuel. But fighting the war
yourself is an incredibly expensive business.

>What about the citizent that
>didnt want to UCAS be in war with the corps.

Depends what happens between the war ending and the next election.

>What about the economy.

If the corporations are trying to crush the UCAS, then fighting back's
better than dying.

>Who
>ask the congress to do all this.

War Powers Act.

>Isnt UCAS a democracy.

Sure: but democracies win wars pretty well.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 124
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 14:20:33 +0100
In article <19990506.185948.-893873.1.dghost@****.com>,
dghost@****.com writes
>On Tue, 4 May 1999 11:19:01 +0200 "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> writes:
><SNIP>
>>If you look in Corporate Shadowfiles, most megacorporations don't have
>>more than a token army.
>>
>> Ares: Light Regiment

>Now this is odd, considering big a part of the Bug City quarentine Ares'
>personal army was supposed to have played. Then again, the book listed
>their *official* army size. :)

Combat troops on the Wall is only a small part of the force. You need
logistics personnel, running food and ammo forward, rotating units and
medevacing casualties. You have a _lot_ of vehicles that use a lot of fuel -
that's got to be brought to the theatre and distributed. Vehicles, especially
military vehicles being used hard in harsh conditions, break down and need
to be recovered and repaired. Supply depots - large collections of food,
fuel, ammunition and other extremely salable gear - have to be guarded.

As a real-world example, despite my Territorial Army REME unit being
reservists, at just about any time a good quarter of them were deployed
in Bosnia: there was _enormous_ demand for mechanical repair specialists
in any prolonged deployment.

Ares could assume much of that burden: then use withdrawing it as
leverage to force acceptance of their solution to Chicago.

The downside is, they're highly unlikely to get any more support contracts
for the UCAS military. Once burned...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 125
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 09:47:25 EDT
In a message dated 5/9/1999 8:02:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
seattle2052@*******.com writes:

> >
> You have to watch it to. A commen t in bug city said something along the
> lines of, "When Ares pulled out the UCAS army was hard pressed to cover
the
> whole wall." Which tells me thay were doing containment on the wall as
well
> as excursions into the CZ.

Ah, but that isn't why they were hard pressed. They were hard pressed
because the Ares Intel and Site Overwatch was then gone. And that *was* a
distinct advantage. Additionally, as so many have pointed out, the CCZ's
Wall had to have mages, and corps pay better than most everyone else, so when
Ares said "all's clear, we're going home", things got trickier.
Additionally, Ares Magicians were the first to openly use some specific "Bug
Seeking Spells" (such as the Bug Barrier first intro'd in Burning Bright),
and that was also an additional leap.

-K
Message no. 126
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 09:50:23 EDT
In a message dated 5/9/1999 8:11:56 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
seattle2052@*******.com writes:

> Well that's a little harsh, and I have no doubt that Adam knows what he's
> talking about. If you want to take this down a road of conflict that's
fine
> I'll be foreced to arm myself with this cheap store bought THWAP-O-Matic
and
>
> defend my honor.<g>

Well en'guard then you ruffian o'foul!!! <K draws his slightly dusty
Carposlicingdeath from it's shelf of prototypes and loads to bear with the
5KYear old thing he just swiped from the Gridsec types...>
Message no. 127
From: Dark Steel seattle2052@*******.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 13:11:49 PDT
>Well en'guard then you ruffian o'foul!!! <K draws his slightly dusty
>Carposlicingdeath from it's shelf of prototypes and loads to bear with the
>5KYear old thing he just swiped from the Gridsec types...>
>
>
Fine. <Steel pulls out a glittering Thwap -O- Matic and sets it to "Thwap
Senseless" and puts it up into the guard position.> Have at thee foul
swine!! <Steel lunges to the attack carp swinging wildly over his head>
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 128
From: Nexx Many-Scars nexx@********.net
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 17:34:33 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Dark Steel <seattle2052@*******.com>
> >
> Fine. <Steel pulls out a glittering Thwap -O- Matic and sets it to "Thwap
> Senseless" and puts it up into the guard position.> Have at thee foul
> swine!! <Steel lunges to the attack carp swinging wildly over his head>
> THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!

::Nexx stands quietly in the shadows, watching the combat. When the
combatants are engaged, he raises a curious-looking crossbow to his
shoulder, and gently squeezes the trigger::

THWAP! THWAP!

::His cargo unleashed, both K and Dark Steel wiping scales from their
faces, Nexx disappears into the darkness::

*****
Nexx Many-Scars
aka Mark Hall
*
Three hateful things in speech: stiffness, obscurity, a bad delivery.
*
http://www-personal.interkan.net/~nexx/mainpage.html
-Last Update: 2-5-99
Message no. 129
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: The Shiawase Decision Appealed?
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:21:30 EDT
Again, another email from the ShadowRN list.

Look. Get me OFF this list. I'm not even an official subscriber, according
to the website itself, so there is NO way for ME to get back off it.

END THE EMAILS NOW. Because, if by tomorrow morning I am still getting these
emails, I will be left with no other recourse except to begin reporting them
as spam.

Because that is precisely what they will be.

Sean
GM Pax

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about The Shiawase Decision Appealed?, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!