Trashy commercialism

Call all advert breaks "brainwash challenge" - i've already told him

(then get some blinkers)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Like some form of legislation placing severe restrictions on advertizing. For example, the somewhat recent legislation pertaining to email spam in California (not that it's been doing much good!).

Seems stunningly inconsistent with the idea of a free market. Placing severe restrictions on business is a reliable stifler of economic growth.

Yeah you can't ban ads (tho thank god they banned those 1-frame ones in movies that jump straight into the unconscious and caused 50% increases in coca-cola sales in cinema foyers when trialed). They pay for too many good things for a start. Just ignore them, or decide NOT to buy that product, unless analysis of all the possibilities suggest they offer the best service. Then we get the best out of them

It's worth pointing out that the free-market is stunningly inconsistant with itself i.e. the practices of: governmental support for troubled industries; disagreement on what regulations SHOULD be inforced and HOW (i.e. scientific rigorosity in food safety for a start); and the fact that nepotism and back-patting mean contracts are often not won in a "free" way makes a mockery of many of its principals.

The only real thing that we can conclusively say about the effect of free-trade in practice is that it has over-seen a very sharp increase in the poverty divide in third world countries - even the WTO admits this and that it is a problem! We're talking about most of the wealth being in the top 3% in many cases. That's a bad trend. And it suggests the system DOESN'T open up oportunity for all, as it would like to suggest.

Personally, seeing as free-trade is a 200 year old system never designed for mass-implementation, and that it seems to palpably favour industries over societies, i'd like to see governments wrestle back a bit of control in one core area:

social responsabilities: (this would include massively increasing the influence and independance of groups like the FSA, and other consumer/worker-health groups). That seems to me to be one reasonable stipulation. It shouldn't be up to people to fall ill from a product/working-practice and sue etc. If all companies were held equally accountable, and we were prepared to foot the tax bill, i don't see how this could be a bad move. It seems like a necessary move at the moment. Companies would HAVE to offer a GOOD PRODUCT, rather than trying to cut corners to reduce prices compared to their competitors - which often leaves us with most-corners-cut-PLUS-best-advertising = most popular product (tho by no means best in terms of quality/price balance)

Give me a break! Restrictions placed on corporate advertizing in the interests of human welfare are no different, for example, than other government regulations placed on corporations vis-a-vis pollution of the atmosphere, protection of natural resources, human rights interests, etc. The free market is not about giving corporations and wealthy entrepreneurs the license to do whatever they like and get away with murder! There is such a thing as protecting the interests of the average citizen from exploitation by wealthy and, often, corrupt corporate interests! You can't excuse the proliferation of ruthless commercialism in society by citing the "free market" ideal! One of the reasons that the government exists is to protect the interests of the electorate from wealthy corporations that would otherwise exploit anyone and everyone to the end of personal profit. There has to be a balance between preserving the welfare and interests of society at large and stimulating economic growth. Interestingly, the current administration in the White House is failing miserably at both! The only reason for it's survival thus far, I would have to argue, is the fallout in the aftermath of 9/11! In terms of competence and performance by any realistic standards, they leave a lot to be desired. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Well spoken.

Which bone?


Pollution and basic human rights are tangible things that can effect us regardless of our own will. Not at all akin to advertising, whose effects you are clearly VASTLY overrating. It does not strip of us free choice the way, say, recklessly disposed of chemicals can.

Agreed. But advertising -- even when excessive and saturating -- is no more than an annoyance. It isn't "murder."

Why not? It's mere existence is dependent on the consumers. Last I checked, DVD-ROMS were not mandatory. Commercialism may not be desirable to you in all it's forms, but it's not a crime.

The government is our bodyguard, not our babysitter. There's a difference. A babysitter makes sure the person it watches over doesn't do anything bad, even if it wants to. A bodyguard simply makes sure the person it's watching over is free to make his or her own choices. Advertising is not

Given your past claims about "nitpicking," I'll give you a chance to retract this.

Not sure I follow you here, but I sure as heck wouldn't touch the bone you have been chewing on!

I believe that there have been sufficient scientific studies (though I can't cite them offhand--you'd have to check with Golgot) to prove that the effects of advertizing have been vastly UNDERESTIMATED. 90% of what goes on in the human subconscious, by definition, escapes our conscious awareness. I think that the psychological effects of advertizing need to be studied a great deal more

That's arguable, as in the case of cigarette and alcohol ads. But even if it were no more than an annoyance or inconvenience, pollution, too, is, ultimately, no more than an annoyance or inconvenience, but one that the government regulates against. Question is: how much of an annoyance is it? Enough to warrant legislative action? I would argue that in some cases, at least, it is.

Commercialism is, indeed, undesirable to me in some of its manifestations, and, in fact, in other manifestations, it is, indeed, criminal--e.g. the drug trade, the piracy of music, films and other copyrighted entertainment media, health-related issues in the pharmaceuticals and food industries, etc. Not every manifestation of commerce is quite as innocuous as you might argue.

By that statement, I assume you mean that the sole function of the government is military defense--which seems to be the line taken by the current administration. While I don't deny that that is an important function of the government, it is far from its only responsibility! The government is responsible for maintaining law and order in society, for dispensing justice, and, most importantly, for protecting the rights of its citizenry, esp. the rights of those citizens whose rights are most often trodden upon. These are RESPONSIBILITIES that any civilized administration needs to address, as opposed to playing at phony cowboys in a Texas ranch all the time!

You have got to be kidding me! LOL!

Regardless of your opinions on some of the more minor issues, any reasonable man has to concede that some form of regulation is needed in business, regulation like: There are other methods of advertising similar to the subliminal that are being developed, and despite how I may feel about other methods use by the "Free Trade" system, I think someone needs to regulate advertisements like you'd regulate anything else being produced and widely distributed by these large companies.

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

Amen to that!

Wehey! I am Django's fact-checker

Djangi - i'm afraid i have to quibble with a few things meself b4 Yods gets to you. Yes, people as a whole seem to underestimate the influence advertising can have overall (if anyone ever reads/challenges an earlier florid post of mine about it i'll give some examples)
....but....
-you can't compare advertising to pollution! [incidently, i never knew human-rights were tangible! Sidestepping that, i would say advertising belongs inside the human-rights debate anyway]. Pollution is a physical component, an effect of human activity, that causes death or illness (in people or other "things"). Whatever claims we can make against advertising, and there are some ugly ones, it's still just an extention of historical human practice i.e. power thru manipulation [and plain old communication]

-and...90% is a strange statistic to pull out of the air considering, as you said, we don't(can't) know the extents of the unconscious.

erm. Death and illness are damn big inconveniences

I can't leave this. Djangle. You have really mangled this one. You've not only got the wrong end of the stick, i'm not even sure it's a stick you're holding any more Yoda...just...have at him

Oh, and i'm very happy with the goverments-are-there-to-protect-us arg of Yode's. Coz it means he should agree with my industries-should-be-regulated-as-far-as-product/worker-safety-goes idea.

:cheering-crowds-smilie:

Argh! Really? I agree that, as with the previous ban, "watchdogs" etc have to keep doing their job. And if new technologies or techniques are allowing further extentions-of-human-manipluativeness, then maybe they'd need some new powers of enforcement.

As far as watchdogs not doing enough already - I'd like to see toddler-level stuff cut right out to be honest. That kind of thing really can be argued to be a form of brain-washing - tho brain-"forming" would be more accurate.

What methods are you talking about? I'm all eyes

Didn't say that--what I meant was that, given the extent of your knowledge on the subject, you would be more qualified to make such citations.

Well, I wasn't referring to the sort of pollution that causes death and disease--I was referring to government ordinances against littering on the sidewalk. Basically, that's about civic beautification--a minor (relatively speaking) annoyance, but a significant one. Advertizing falls into the same category, in my opinion.

That isn't a scientifically verified statistic--just my habit of speaking figuratively by using statistical language. My way of saying: "the subconscious is a vast, unexplored domain of the human psyche."

Again, I was referring to littering on the sidewalk, etc.

I don't see how I mangled this--Yoda said that whereas commerce and commercialism may be undesirable, it isn't necessarily criminal. My response is that it can be criminal, case in point, the examples I cited.

Hmm . . . I think Yoda was arguing for limited government intervention into the affairs of the citizenry, whereas my argument calls for the government taking on more responsibility with regard to defending the rights of the citizenry, esp. those of people whose rights are often trampled upon. Regulating on placing restrictions on advertizing in the interests of the welfare of the citizenry falls into this category, in my opinion. From what I understand, I don't think that Yoda particularly cares if industries should be regulated from the worker-safety standpoint--perhaps that would constitute yet another "unwarranted" intrusion into the "free market"?

The same one I've been meaning to pick with you, of course.


Under or overestimated, there's clearly no particularly good reason to believe that advertising robs us of our free will, nor even dramatically hinders it. Regulating advertising is like regulating persuasion.

I don't see how you can even begin to justify putting severe restrictions on advertising (and, in turn, business in general) with such a flimsy justification as annoyance.


Golgot already pointed out how silly this is. Pollution is not just an annoyance; advertising is. I don't care who you are, you're liable to cough if you breathe in polluted air. But advertising is another story; some don't particularly mind it. It varies from person to person, and to advocate severe legislation because you're easily unnerved is ridiculous.



The parade of wildly inapplicable comparisons continues. No one here is arguing under the impression that "commercialism" is okay no matter what you're buying and selling. Clearly, we're talking about a market within the boundries of our laws. Trying to label the drug trade as some kind of downside of commercialism is absurd.


You assume incorrectly. What I mean is that the government's business is more about setting the table for us, and less about cooking our meals. Comprende?


Perhaps you could demonstrate to me just what rights are being "trodden upon" when someone drives past a billboard.


No retraction? Okay, then tell me what constitutes "economic growth." Be specific. What economic indicators should one look at? Go ahead, don't be shy.

Maybe your copy of the Bill of Rights differs from mine, but I don't see any section on popup windows. You don't have a right to restrict or ban anything which may happen to annoy you. The government is not here to make sure you never experience anything which might displease you.

I have a fair amount of respect for the liberal viewpoint...the idea that the government should provide a base level of service for each and every individual is a very compelling, reasonable belief, whether or not I agree with it in as many areas as most liberals do...but you're taking it to ridiculous extremes. You'd think that someone who cries "fascism!" so readily wouldn't advocate a government which behaves like an overprotective parent.


I suggest you stop making assumptions until you start assuming the right things.

I don't pick bones, thanks!

Advertizing does strongly and subtly influence our wills and judgment. As such it needs to be addressed in some form--it cannot be permitted to run rampant in society unchecked. It needs to have its place in society so that it isn't as intrusive as it currently is. For examples on government regulation of advertizing, there's the California state legislation against email spam. Another example is the link I posted at the head of this thread: Rural advertising: Should the ban be lifted?. Also check this link for more info on the insidiousness of advertizing: Rogue advertisers by John Shreve

I don't think annoyance is a flimsy justification. Governments around the world already legislate against annoyance: littering in the streets, noise pollution, indecent public exposure, etc. Advertizing falls into the same category.

See above

Sorry, Yoda, but the comparisons are dead-on. You are simply trying to evade the issue here. You said that "Commercialism may not be desirable to you in all it's forms, but it's not a crime." My point is that certain forms of commercialism is indeed criminal. I don't see how you can deny my point.

My point is that the government needs to assume more responsibility with respect to upholding the rights of the citizenry. This point goes along with law enforcement and the judicial process. Perhaps you might argue that the role of law enforcement is to act strictly as the observer to crime rather than assume a preventive or remedial role.

The right to view the beauties of nature unobstructed by ugly advertizing.

Unemployment and job-creation, consumer spending and confidence, greater production, etc. Surely you know what I'm referring to. Do I need to spell it out for you all over again? I'm getting tired of your silly game of playing the fool all the time and requiring me to explain everything in monosyllabic terms!

I want to take sides on this thing, but everyone arguing has taken such extreme viewpoints that I'm simply unable to fall in line. Advertising can by no means go unchecked, like anything else there have to be a set of rules and regulations to keep things from getting out of hand.
Conversely, though, I think making efforts to severely limit advertising (like eliminating E-mail spam, billboards) simply because it's an annoyance would definitely present a threat to the state of free trade in the United States.
There's a line that needs to be drawn between fair advertising and invasion, and I guess I draw that line in a moderate place.

Right.
So... there.

By your own admission, anti-spam laws have been horribly ineffective. There's a reason for that, you know: you can't merely tidy up advertising until it comes in nice, moderate, Django-pleasing forms. You've either got to let it go (for the most part), or lasso it to unreasonable degrees, in which case you'd give up an awful lot of your right to complain about the economy.Littering is not just an annoyance; it's an actual, physical thing. It can and will pile up eventually.

But aside from that, the difference is that cutting back on things like littering and public nudity does not hinder economic growth, nor does it really infrgine on anyone else's rights. Telling someone they can't buy a piece of land to place a billboard on DOES, though, in my mind.
I guess you can't read:

No one here is arguing under the impression that "commercialism" is okay no matter what you're buying and selling. Clearly, we're talking about a market within the boundries of our laws.



See, the problem with a commercial drug deal is the drugs, not the fact that it constitutes commerce. Your problem is with what's being sold, and not the act of selling. The fact that you can engage in illegal commerce doesn't make the idea itself wrong anymore than the fact that you can drive drunk makes automobiles a bad idea.It's about time you dropped those little observations beginning in "perhaps," because they always state some ridiculous nonsense that no one believes.You don't own "nature" and as such have no inherent right to view it however you wish. Toss in the fact that "ugly" is wholly subjective, and you've really got no case. Can I complain about your house because it blocks my view of a pretty little hill?Are you really this dense? I'm asking you to spell it out so that you can't squirm out of your mistakes if and when the data shows you to be in the wrong -- which it usually does.

That said, congratulations: you just listed just about every well-known economic indicator there is. Lemme guess: you give equal weight to all of them, right? Anyway, consumer confidence is a terribly economic indicator, for a host of as-of-yet unrefuted arguments against Keynesianism. And you'll need to be a helluva lot more specific than "greater production." Are you talking about the GDP?

We probably agree more than you realize.

Allow me to ask a question: what catastrophe do you imagine will take place if advertising goes on "unchecked"? More importantly, just how can (and should) we reasonably "check" it?

Furthermore, can't you say the same about this sort of regulation? Clearly it presents an even greater danger if left "unchecked." Enacting regulations against advertisements deemed "annoying" encourages the attitude responsible for turning us into such an overly-litigious society.

and Django gets BLASTED AWAY:

Attached Images