This post brought to you by...
So Independence Day I went to a minor-league baseball game. It was fun (our mascot is a Sasquatch), but I couldn’t help noticing that every time the teams switched out, some hapless fan was dragged out onto the field to compete in a poorly conceived minigame with the sole purpose of promoting some corporate sponsor. Now, I’m sure everyone who’s
( Read more... )
Your first paragraph seems to argue that advertising is good because A) it's powerful, B) has been around a while and will continue to be around a while, and C) garners money for businesses. A is at best irrelevant, at worst a reason against it. B is also irrelevant. C, no one argues with, but does it benefit consumers?
Paragraph 2 as I understand it: "You say there's too much advertising. I say there's not because it's everywhere. The issue is not that there's too much advertising, the issue is that we are bothered by it." The first two sentences contradict each other, and the last seems like asking someone's tastes to change to accommodate eating rocks. Or something. Please clarify.
Paragraph 3 (by itself): yes, I agree. Jesus is my tinfoil hat.
Yes, advertising is an essential part of our economy, but I think that our form of economy could be vastly improved - for instance, the stock market seems to reinforce negative bust/boom cycles - could we eliminate it? [gasp] It's risky, and at its best is money for nothing, as long as you already have money. Without the stock market, I see it being very difficult to form huge corporate empires, but is that a bad thing? Local businesses should proliferate in their absence, and I think the things for which corporations were necessary in the past (quality control, efficient, cheap transportation of goods, etc.) can now be done quite well by small businesses thanks to the advent of the internet, among other things.
[Disclaimer: this is a layman's perspective. I am not an economics expert by any stretch of the imagination.]
Reply
Leave a comment