Frank Boettcher wrote:
Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller,
Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them
buy or consume more beer.


I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you
saying that that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't
make people paranoid about bad breath? Car ads don't glorify
fast driving (and roads with no traffic)? Perhaps I should
ask you to explain what effect you think advertising *does*
have.

DSK

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, katy
wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food

I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an

emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.

The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of
people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if
choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no
matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were
many who did not have food in the world...could never figure out how my
eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in China...I was all
for packing the stuff up and shipping it to Taiwan...



My Grandmothers were both depression mothers who used the same tactics
on my parents. Fortunately, they had had enough of it and let us just
eat till we were full. Their contribution to nutrition was not being
well to do. In the late forties and fifties, when I was a kid, things
processed and emerging junk foods cost more than simple and live
foods. With six kids in the family they just didn't buy them so we
ate a healthy diet by default.

Today, everyone can afford junk food. That may be too bad.

What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

You haven't had my Mom's....her goulash was bad, too....we ate a ot oif
what we planted in the garden and then put up each simmer and what my
Dad caught fishing and hunting...my maternal gramma supplied eggs and
chickens...even though we were no longer farmers in any sense of the
word, my Dad never got over being a farmer...

DSK wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller,
Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them
buy or consume more beer.


I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you saying that
that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't make people paranoid
about bad breath? Car ads don't glorify fast driving (and roads with no
traffic)? Perhaps I should ask you to explain what effect you think
advertising *does* have.

DSK

Wellm I can tell you one thing..I am NOT diving off a balciny just so I
don't get white stuff from antiperspirant on my dress!

War profiteer.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
Almost right... ban excessively fat profits.

Commie.

Joe

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:06:06 -0500, DSK said:

It's also the result of the profit motive: large
corporations are making lots of money

Ah, Doug has the solution again. Don't ban fat--ban profits.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:43:46 -0500, DSK wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller,
Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them
buy or consume more beer.


I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you
saying that that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't
make people paranoid about bad breath? Car ads don't glorify
fast driving (and roads with no traffic)? Perhaps I should
ask you to explain what effect you think advertising *does*
have.

Nope I'm saying that you won't necessarily eat more food because of
advertising, but you certainly might be swayed into eating the wrong
food, disallowing room for the right food.

If you have made a choice of what car to buy as a result of
advertising or your own method for making that decision you don't go
out and buy three more because they are advertised. And no, if you
stopped all advertising cold I believe those people who drive fast
would continue to do so.

Despite the fact that I don't think they work in most cases, If you
think you have halitosis and need a mouthwash, you don't buy every
brand available because they are advertised. And I don't believe the
advertising causes you to think you have bad breath (paranoia). I
believe bad breath preceded mouthwash.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Madison Avenue, just don't
believe they are a primary cause for or more appropriately an excuse
for an individuals lack of personal responsibility or discipline.

You say it works and maybe it does, however, It doesn't work on me so
I don't have that perspective. I generally purchase to fill a need,
and am affected by advertising to the extent that it provides a source
to be evaluated. I never, ever, believe the ad. without the
additional evaluation.

Frank


DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller,
Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them
buy or consume more beer.


I don't think we're speaking the same language here. Are you saying that
that, for example, mouthwash advertising oesn't make people paranoid about
bad breath? Car ads don't glorify fast driving (and roads with no
traffic)? Perhaps I should ask you to explain what effect you think
advertising *does* have.

DSK


Well then, let's advertise crime and poverty away!


As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race, I make my proper
prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn.
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breath of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of
Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in
Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would
cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had
plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not God that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four-
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man- There are only
four things certain since Social Progress began:-
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Dave wrote:
I'm not missing it. I agree with your first sentence, as assumed that was
the case. I'm simply not persuaded that your second sentence is true. My
view on that score is significantly colored by the fact that virtually every
advocate of regulating one product or another earnestly argues that his
particular hobby horse should be regulated because it is uniquely exempt
from the usual laws of supply and demand.


But of course! Every product *is* unique... not exempt from
the laws of supply & demand, but with it's own unique curve
fit. Does that mean more regulation is good? In some cases,
yes. DDT & Agent Orange, for example, should be banned.


Galbraith, before he was discredited, made a career of arguing that supply
and demand had been repealed by the emergence of sophisticated advertising.

sigh just can't give up the political posturing, can you?

If Galbraith has been discredited, that's front-page news.
You could be rich & famous. However, I'm confident that he
hasn't been discredited at all, in reality.

And your misquoting again, although this time I will assume
it's from bad memory rather than ulterior motive. Galbraith
said (and demostrated rather satisfactorily) that
advertising shifts demand, which in turn skews supply (for
many types of goods) because of economies of scale.

DSK

Nowadays people get offended if you question
advertised claims of products they like.


Dave wrote:
That is a phenomenon I haven't experienced. Is it a Southern thing?

Oh, you've experienced it plenty. In fact you've
participated vigorously. You just haven't been paying
attention... or aren't willing to admit it, depending.

DSK

"katy" wrote :
katy wrote:


What I don't understand is why they don't convert the
sugar to Splenda,



Splenda?

I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar
bucket.


//Walt

I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served
people and they never knew it wasn't sugar...

sugar's a quick burn sort of thing. Think of the
quantitudes of fats Americans chow down at every turn. And
then have to ":jog" off again. I had lunch at a place in
Miami that the meal had to have weighed at least 10lbs. on
the plate. It was gross. What was worse was just throwing
all that untouched mountain of food away.

Seahag

Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!

Seahag

"katy" wrote in message
...
Frank Boettcher wrote:
...could never figure out how my
eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in
China...I was all for packing the stuff up and shipping
it to Taiwan...


What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

You haven't had my Mom's....her goulash was bad, too....we
ate a ot oif what we planted in the garden and then put up
each simmer and what my Dad caught fishing and
hunting...my maternal gramma supplied eggs and
chickens...even though we were no longer farmers in any
sense of the word, my Dad never got over being a farmer...