Advertising has many effects on society, some good, some bad (in my opinion). I must admit that in my attack on Consumerism I did only present one side of the argument, and that there is another side which I accept. Ad's do have some positive functions, such as funding free TV, WWW and reducing the cost of newspapers and magazines and stuff. But there are still some points which we disagree on.: the second helps people to be satisfied with less.
I thought advertising did the opposite, by convincing people that spending more money leads to a happier life. What happens is that people end up dissatisfied with what they've got, and yearn to own $3800.00 designer clothes.
However the dissatisfaction I mentioned does go on to motivate people to work more to make more money. This increases the value of money because people want it more. So I guess I'm arguing that Ads make people unhappy but motivated.
: Rather than lead the world on some wild Socialist adventure, wouldn't it be better to just modify Capitalism?
I think I'd go along with that. Although Socialism is a theoretically beautiful way of life, there are big practical questions which can't be ignored. Incrimental changes to Capitalism seems practical, by targeting the negative effects and trying to reduce with the current tools available (e.g Laws, market forces, social pressure)
The big question lingers: What practical changes would you make to Capitalism?
: We could redistribute *some* of the income so that people who don't have enough could have a chance to break out of poverty.
Sounds wise. What would happen if you put ceilings on pay, so that you couldn't earn under or over certain ammounts. Could you use taxing to create a halfway-house between 'equal-pay-for-all' and the current system? What effects would this have?
Yours inquiringly,
Stu.
