: Nat briefly advertising convinces you of need that doesnt exist (I know I need food because I get hungry I dont need a mc chicken etc. until they try to convince me) and if it makes people happy to have a particular brand in a socialist society it could be mass produced for all (Therefore losing its meaning when everyone has one and real factors such as durability come into play).Brands cost no resources to produce. If they make people happy, why should we let them "lose their meaning"? Suppose we can only afford to give everybody "x" amount of goods? Why not make them happier by providing "x" in many colors, flavors, and brand-names? We can do this without using up more resources.
: I dont think you understand the grip these things have over the world or the misery it creates in a poverty stricken household whenever advertising convinces the childrean they cant do without a play station.
Remember the two types of advertising:
1) Convince people to buy more. "You need mouthwash..."
2) Convince people to like a given product. "Nat's mouthwash is minty-fresh..."
The first sort often causes problems. But I don't see much wrong with the second.
- nat
