Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

voxeu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 537 posts

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#411

Post by reallydontask »

kortilla wrote: post #401
rexpop wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be smart to accuse me, here, of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but the core parasite is Capital, which siphons value from the labor of mankind in a Byzantine labyrinth of social games meant to obscure this essential truth.

The core parasite is government, which siphons value from private citizens under the threat of violence.

that is one way of looking at it.

Another way would be to say that effective government ensures that the rule of law is maintained, that contracts are enforced, that the environment is protected, that trade is conducted efficiently etc ..

Granted, none of the above are absolute, some governments will do better than others and some will abuse their power.

What is the alternative? Somalia in the late nineties? All government functions handled by corporations? something else?

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#412

Post by otabdeveloper1 »

deepakkarki wrote: post #346

Folks in this thread may find this interesting, a 4 part documentary on Edward Bernays and the history of advertising and PR as we know it today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 From the video description - "The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud's idea…

Advertising hasn't been about 'persuasion' or psychology for a long, long time.

Advertising today is mechanical applications of the central limit theorem / law of large numbers to sociological problems.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#413

Post by foldingmoney »

csomar wrote: post #374
foldingmoney wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like there's some central planning committee that sits down and decides what to pay everyone. Citizens decide where to spend their money -- at least the part that the government doesn't tax and spend for them -- and all of these industries you name exist and pay well because people value them and choose to spend their money on them.

> and all of these industries you name exist and pay well because people value them and choose to spend their money on them. I think his point is, these industries are not valuable to people; they are just aggressive at extract wealth from other people. In net, they have a negative value (from his perspective) and thus society will be better without them.

No one's being forced to buy soda, eat highly processed food, have a credit card, or use a car dealership. Yet people voluntarily choose to spend their money on these things, so they obviously do find some value in them.

When you characterise them as 'not valuable to people', you're making a prescriptive moral judgement (and not one I necessarily disagree with), as opposed to a descriptive observation of where free agents choose to spend their money.

I don't drink soda or eat highly processed food, I don't have a credit card, and I didn't buy my car from a dealership. But the fact that many people choose to spend their money on all these things tells me that those people do see value in them, and I don't think my preferences are right and theirs are wrong.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#414

Post by ionised »

Mirioron wrote: post #385
Chathamization wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a larger and larger percentage of our economy is being taken up by parasitic sectors that have a net negative value for society. Advertising, soda, highly processed food, credit cards, car dealerships, (most) sales people, etc. We'd probably be better of as a society paying these people to do nothing than to do what they do now; we'd be even better off if we paid them to do something actually productive…

How are soda, highly processed food, and credit cards parasitic? They provide a service that people find very useful.

Just like heroin and hitmen.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#415

Post by ionised »

chrisseaton wrote: post #409
Chathamization wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a larger and larger percentage of our economy is being taken up by parasitic sectors that have a net negative value for society. Advertising, soda, highly processed food, credit cards, car dealerships, (most) sales people, etc. We'd probably be better of as a society paying these people to do nothing than to do what they do now; we'd be even better off if we paid them to do something actually productive…

This is such a hugely snobby attitude. The value of soda for example is that some people like the taste and sensation. It brings them a little bit of joy. Not everything has to be coldly utilitarian.

Or people enjoy soda because the of insane amount of sugar put in it by people intending to make the product as addictive as possible.

Remove the sugar from soda and you have awful-tasting water.

Sugary drinks are no better than cigarettes, and the people pushing them know exactly what they are doing and what they are exploiting.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#416

Post by ionised »

solitus wrote: post #304
ngold wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the math geniuses that could be the next Einstein are slaving away in cubicles writing algorithms for the stock market. So much potential lost in the pursuit of increasing someone else's wallet.

And their own. These people are writing algorithms for the stock market because it pays incredibly well. Same for the engineers at FAANG selling ads online. Our society values money/material above all else and it's making us miserable. Money is your score at the game of life.

> Money is your score at the game of life.

In the saddest and emptiest of lives, sure.

Living only to increase the number on your bank balance seems like a terrible waste of life to me.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#417

Post by foldingmoney »

kavalg wrote: post #410
foldingmoney wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, explain to me how the government is incentivising 'advertising, soda, highly processed food, credit cards, car dealerships, (most) sales people, etc.' through taxation and monetary policy.

Wrt soda, and highly processed food, I think that FDA and similar agencies could make an effort to evaluate the consequences of prolonged consumption of such food and figure out what quantities are safe. They could require proper labeling and not allow children to buy such foods (as with cigarettes and alcohol). For credit cards, maybe he meant that in some countries, where individuals cannot default, banks are comfo…

But you're talking about guiding your children, not observing your neighbours. This is 'how do I make other people choose the same things I would choose', not 'people aren't free to make their own choices because [the government somehow]'; it's not 'people aren't free to choose', it's 'I don't like what they choose'.

I also don't like what they choose, and I don't disagree with any of your suggestions; I think these would all be good ideas. But you're asking for less freedom, not more.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#418

Post by mbrock »

kortilla wrote: post #404
jcora wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no economic calculation problem: http://flowing.systems/economy/politics/2017/08/16/calculati...

>The Mises Institute has put it up for free, which is surely off-message but whatever. Ah, a clearly well-rationed article is at foot. Here’s a hint, if someone isn’t able to model free things in their understanding of capitalist systems, they don’t understand them enough to critique them. Anyway, the rest of that “critique” isn’t actually a critique. It’s just goal post shifting to the point where it assumes sociali…

Also in true socialism there will be no exchange of consumption goods between people. How will this be enforced? Hmm, let’s not think about that.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#419

Post by ionised »

JohnFen wrote: post #232
maerF0x0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the reason they keep doing-- It works. Stop rewarding it and they'll stop. I actually think a large number of societal issues today are stemming from people's inability to think rationally for themselves. Things like fake news, being vulnerable to advertising, taking bad deals like minimum wage etc. If someone were able to think rationally and into the future to figure out, "4 years from now if I choose this […

> Stop rewarding it and they'll stop. Here's the thing... I'd taken quite a lot of advertising courses during my education, and among the many truly scary things that I learned in them, one stood out above all others: Knowing how advertising manipulates you, and even noticing it in the moment that it's happening, in no way makes it less effective. People who claim that they aren't affected by advertising are incorrec…

I would never say 'advertising doesn't work on me' but it definitely doesn't seem to have the intended effect (persisting the brand in my memory for future sales) in a lot of cases.

Example 1: Coca Cola adverts. I can't stand coke, it tastes like soap to me. No amount of viewing their adverts (which are everywhere) will make me want a coke.

Example 2: I find most adverts cringey and embarassing and they serve only to make me avoid the company responsible in the future. If I see an annoying ad, I react wityh an aversion to products by that company. It's not true of everything, but it happens enough that I notice it.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#420

Post by titzer »

kortilla wrote: post #401
rexpop wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be smart to accuse me, here, of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but the core parasite is Capital, which siphons value from the labor of mankind in a Byzantine labyrinth of social games meant to obscure this essential truth.

The core parasite is government, which siphons value from private citizens under the threat of violence.

I know people love to parrot this libertarian talking without really thinking it through. Generally young, logic-minded people that end up following some kind of Randianism and cannot fathom the possibility that people are, by and large, basically bastards to each other.

The truth is the government is a social contract designed to actually protect people from violence. Yeah, it taxes people. But it also protects them from mobsters and racketeers and is at least supposed to offer a chance to poor people. A libertarian paradise dooms the poor to never be able to afford education and basic necessities unless they sacrifice through slave wages. In a libertarian paradise, the rich run amok, and children of rich people start with an insane advantage that no amount of smartness or slaving away will ever erase. And no, by and large, people are not Howard Roarks in hiding. Most people are within 2 sigma of the mean--i.e. not geniuses. In a situation with no social contract, the 5 sigmas both in terms of intelligence and aggressiveness prey on and suppress the rest. Inequality skyrockets. It ultimate results in violent revolutions, like France. In short, libertarianism is madness.

In general it'd be great to have a discussion about these things, but since this comment is just some non-thinking spouting of absurdity, I'll just leave it here. I already said too much.

Post reply on HN