On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/16/17 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:20:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:52:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I don't mind the commercials if I am listening to a commercial radio or
TV station...the commercials pay the bills. Without advertising, every
piece of 20-year-old stuff you own would have been more expensive.

Bull****.
If you compare the price of heavily advertised products to products
that seldom advertise, the advertised product is always more. Someone
needs to pay for those ads and it is not like we would stop using
toilet paper if they did't have that bear on TV telling us to.
Another example is beer. Most people could not tell the difference
between Budweiser and Busch if it was served in a glass. Both come
from the same brewery, using essentially the same ingredients but the
Bud is a couple bucks more expensive, because of that frog.


Sell that to your libertarian buddies. I know better.

What part is wrong? BTW that is not a libertarian issue at all but I
know it is your go to brain fart


Your belief that advertising does not lower prices for products and
services.


===

It depends on the product or service. Yes, if advertising increases
market share and leads to economy of scale (assuming the savings get
passed along), no otherwise. In the case of Budweiser it has led to
increased market share for an inferior product, at no obvious cost
benefit.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com