.... Certainly the food-producing/retailing companies won't voluntarily
abstain from advertising.

I agree, as long as the current socio-economic-legal systems are in place.
You seem to be on the opposite spectrum from Frank B who seems to believe
that advertising is just a curious way corporations have of disposing
excess dollars.


Maxprop wrote:
Independent studies have demonstrated, repeatedly and for decades, the value
of advertising and other forms of marketing to a company's bottom line.
That's beyond dispute. I wonder what Frank thinks the effect on GDP would
be were advertising completely eliminated?


Dunno, not sure I'm getting his POV... Maybe he'll continue
in this thread, I hope so.


My complaint is that advertising should be part of GDP even
though it is a "service." It does not create wealth nor
improve any thing... it's demonstrable that *some*
advertising, as an information network, helps market
efficiency. But to spend gazillions on it is a waste, overall.




.... Thus the government would have to *protect us* from such harmful
advertising. And wouldn't that constitute a nanny state?


Depends on how it's done. If the gov't were to say "No advertising
cheeseburgers, people are too dumb to know how much is healthy" then yes,
that would be nannyism.


No essential difference from the little caveats on cigarette packages:
"Smoking may be hazardous to your health." Duh.


If OTOH advertising expenditures were to be penalized by taxation, for
example in a way similar to how research & development is encouraged by
tax rules, then that would not be nannyism and might tilt the system away
from heavy advertising.


Of course it's nannyism. The end product is to protect Americans from
themselves: nannyism. Penalizing advertising is, incidentally, a
legislative action, which you seemed to decry above.

No, it's fiscal policy.

I guess you think that tax deductions for charity
contributions, and for legitimate R&D, etc etc, are also
nany-ism?

Face facts. The current social & economic & legal framework
within which we all function, and all businesses &
corporations too, is a result of "legislation" if you use it
as a blanket term. Why is a dollar bill worth a dollar, why
do merchants accept it? Because of legislation.

In other words, using that word as a catch-all for big bad
gummint interference (which I am also against) is friggin'
stupid. There is *alread* a huge web of rules & practices in
place, which gave rise to the situation as it exists.
Oretending they don't exist, so you can whine about how
changing already-existing policy is nannyism, is not any
effective answer.



... And it would not work
unless the level of punitive taxation would exceed the financial benefit to
the company in quesiton. Bad, unworkable idea.


I guess the current tax skews towards charity donations &
R&D are also bad unworkable ideas?


And how would a government effect such tax penalties without appearing
prejudicial?

Why worry about that? Of course it's prejudicial! The
"Medicare Reform Bill" thinly disguised bail-out for the big
pharm corps was prejudicial, as are speeding laws. Heck, the
recent Supreme Court decision to make the Treasury put
Braille on all paper money is prejudicial against people
with good vision... after all, we have to pay for it.

Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair?
If so, I hope they gave you a lollipop too.


... Would it be acceptable to allow, say, Phillip Morris to
promote their 'prevent kids from smoking' website while taxing McDonalds for
pushing Big Macs? Both companies produce potentially harmful products that
become addictive.


Maybe we should just sue both companies... no wait, somebody
tried that.



If you see only two solutions, then you're being intentionally obtuse, or
your blinders are strapped on a little too tight, or you're stupider than
I'd have given you credit for.


And you accuse Dave of ad hominems, particularly when they are no such
thing. This is beyond laughable, Doug. You are the cardinal hypocrite in
this NG.


Hardly. I'm not pretending to be a libertarian, nor
pretending to be against nannyism while demanding that a
Race Committee protect me from too much wind.


Back to the issue: There are essentially only two alternatives.

Hardly.

.... If the
government enacts *any* sort of program to protect us from ourselves, that
*is* nannyism.

Perhaps you could look at it that way... if you go far
enough with this approach, then you might as well get rid of
gov't. After all, it's only a great big nanny to protect
those who shouldn't need it or want it if only they had
enough backbone.


... Couching such actions in the guise of selective/progressive
taxation or penalties is the most blatant from of denial.

Only if you're either too stupid to know the difference, or
profoundly prejudiced against looking at the situation
rationally.

DSK