Advertising to Children and Feeling Ripped Off
Offline Hamby's post on child indoctrination got me thinking about advertising to children. The bright colours, happy faces of other children playing with a product, and the use of specific motion to attract a kid's attention is frankly sick. They honestly know exactly how fast to zoom and pan in those commercials to produce the desired effect.
What is the desired effect? Whining. If a child whines enough at a parent, eventually that parent will give in. How do you get a child to whine? The same way you get an adult to whine: you dangle a carrot, and show them that they're not getting whatever it is that you're dangling. In their powerlessness, they whine.
The worst part is that it carries into adulthood, just with different toys. Television shows continue to reinforce the idea that other people are doing better financially, have prettier girlfriends/boyfriends, more dramatic social interactions, and can solve problems in a simple and comprehensive way. Commercials grab that suggestive state and run with it, showing more pretty people enjoying the products they're selling. The pretty people in the commercials reinforce the idea that people in general are pretty (when that's not true at all) and all that modeling of reality has a detrimental effect.
The effect is, again, whining. How can you not feel ripped off when your life doesn't look anything like the one on television where everyone's pretty and important and has simple problems to solve? That doesn't look like reality, where problems are more complicated, and take longer to solve, if indeed they can be solved at all. Add to that the ubiquitous reminders of an attractiveness standard, through pictures of people who presumably meet that standard, and you can't escape feeling (again) like you've been ripped off - this time genetically!
Irony of ironies, this is happening in the most affluent societies! Even in a recession, we're generally doing pretty well compared to the people in the world who really are getting ripped off.
And we're doing this to ourselves!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
I think this is one of the most damning arguments against free will. If we are only subject to our individual whims (You know, because we're all snowflakes.), why is there an entire science dedicated to triggering Pavlovian responses in consumers? Upselling, buy two get the third one free, the impulse display by the register are all a means of manipulating people for profit and most people don't even know it's happening.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
If it was my decision I would ban all advertising directed to children. Thats just brainwashing at it's worst.
When I was a kid, I discovered if you mute those overstimulating "cool" commercials, they become laughable. It's basically just someone pushing a button or moving a piece of plastic around, but you don't notice that with the noise and the colors. It's confusing to kids because it's so IN YOUR FACE.
I think children should spend WAY LESS time in front of the TV than they do in the US. It's horrible for you. They should be outside exploring and using their imagination to make their own "toys" and games, which honestly is much more exciting than some piece of plastic shit that breaks in a week.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
It's strange, but I don't recall ever being influenced by an advertisement, even as a child. The only power an ad has over me is the ability to inform me of a products existance. Most of which I completely ignore. The few I don't, I've usually been looking for something along those lines anyway. In fact, the more emotional and pretencious an ad is, the less likely I will ever purchase a product from that company. Ever. I have a list. Hasn't grown much in the last few years....but then I did stop watching tv....
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I personally find it amazing - almost magical - the way my apparent quality of life improved after I ceased watching TV. I just felt more accomplished in general.
Even now that I have access to it I really find the chore of sitting through the ads too much of an annoyance to bother with it much (MythBusters is the exception - I'll sacrifice the extra time for them). I can find DVD box sets of the shows I like these days anyway, so the advertisers can sit ony my thumb and rotate (of course a lot of advertisers realize this and happily insert their shit as product placement, often waay awkwardly prominent & out of place, which pisses me off to no end).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I don't really watch TV unless it's a show I'm in love with, and even then I usually download it online so I don't have to sit through the commercials. Of course, I usually just mute the commercials and do something else while they're on.
My grandfather always called the TV an idiot box. The more I see kids in front of it, their eyes hollow with dark circles, eating their Fritos and fatty pizza, the more I just want to GO OUTSIDE AND BREATHE AIR.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
The ads are even flooding the internet.
For those who think advertising doesn't have any real effect on children or teenagers, you should jump to GameFAQs message boards for the flame wars that errupt over X game or Y console or Z band.
Worst part is that some one's social status is almost entirely judged by the products they have, especially among children.
Haha, seriously attempting to objectively debate something that's inherently subjective. I love it.
Well..........I don't love it. Ah, you know what I mean.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I thought this video by Charlie Brooker fitted quite nicely here
I think it's taken for granted by these advertisers that free will is, in practice, a total joke. The vast majority of people are easy to manipulate, and since that's common knowledge, it strikes me as particularly insidious to continue to push things on kids.
That's the way I feel, too, but it occurs to me that it's very difficult to ban something without incurring yet another set of costs. But considering how prevalent these ads are, it worries me that we're encouraging generations of entitled whiners (my generation included).
And that's what I object to: targeting children's inability to filter out that stimulus as a lie. Because it is a lie. The ads want to give the children the impression that they will be happier with the toy they're selling, when that's not true. They'll still be just as happy or unhappy, they'll just have a different toy. Let's recall that the greatest toy of all time is the refrigerator box. If you remember that as well as I do, then the lie is obvious.
Well presuming that you're not autistic, chances are you were affected by the ads, it's just unconscious. It's part of our culture, so it's very unlikely that you went "swimming without getting wet" (to quote Shane Mosley's trainer).
The difference is palpable. Even with the internet, where I spend a fair amount of time writing in these forums, at least it's interactive. At least it keeps my mind sharp. Television is like a knee to the head.
That's a good reflection of their parents, too, who buy that idea hook, line and sinker.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I always thought that the purpose of childrens' commercials was to make them whine, but when I watched The Corporation (which I reccommend that you watch) I found it to be truer than I had expected.
They interviewed a woman who used to work in advertising for McDonald's (I'm pretty sure it was McDonald's) and her job was to figure out what advertising content was most likely to make children whine to their parents. Upon finding this out, I was disgusted, but not very shocked. Ronald McDonald is the second most famous children's icon in the world - right behind Santa Claus. Somehow, he even creeps into the public school system. We can't escape him even when we turn off the television. I remember, when I was in kindergarten, Ronald McDonald came to my elementary school. We (all the older kids too, up to 6th grade) essentially got a full school day off to watch him perform (inundating our undeveloped, pliable minds with fast food propaganda).
When I adopt a child, he will not watch any television for at least the first ten years of his life. That's the most loving thing a parent could do.
Yeah, I've seen that (I'm a trader, so naturally the part with that hilarious commodities trader is my favourite part), and the part with that lady (facial scrunching and all) was one of the most chilling things I think I've ever watched. But like you, I wasn't exactly surprised.
It's also the most difficult. I have many friends who have decided the same, and it has been a bit difficult for the kids to understand. They don't know why they're the only ones without a television, because they don't have the means by which to compare the pros and the cons. But no television in a house is how I've been living for years, now. I can't imagine going back. So in the unlikely event that I have children (adopted or otherwise), they'll have to go somewhere else to watch television. There's no way I'm going to get one and then grumble passive-agressively about it!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
No tv is not a bad idea, but there are also happy mediums. We don't have cable anymore as I don't see any point in paying for it, but my boy really likes Mythbusters and Colbert from when we did and still watches those on the computer sometimes (with me or my mother) . The tv gets used exclusively to play movies now. They do have commercials at the beggining, but I don't think completely sheltering him from commercialism is a good idea. Of course, I'm hard-hearted and don't mind sending him to bed if he's whining or begging.
He needs to learn that there are lots of shiny objects in society that he is going to want but that he doesn't really need.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Everything in moderation.
I have two kids, ages 2 and 4, and we let them watch a few hours of television each week. But we strictly control what they watch. There is a good channel on cable that's produced by public television. The cartoons actually teach lessons that they understand, and the only commercials seem to be for cleaning products - which is kind of hilarious and scarily brilliant at the same time. Must...clean...the...bathrooooom....
But anyway, my wife and I also read books with the kids every night, even if we're dead tired. There's also plenty of playing outside when the weather permits. Both of the kids continue to score well above average in their developmental tests. So I don't think the amount of television we let them watch is harming them.
I am appalled, though, and some of the other cable channels that purport to be for children - terrible cartoons, non-stop ads for toys, etc. Just crap.
So it's not just quantity - you also have to take quality into consideration.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
I'm alternatively amused and disgusted by just how obvious it is that humans are not the masters of their own destinies. Will is right, of course. Advertising companies are masters of applied psychology, which is just another way of saying that they exploit predictable, innate reactions in humans. As an example, I remember a night at my restaurant where the manager on duty had listed the special of the day as "linguini topped with meaty marinara, mushrooms, and onions." I asked how it had been selling, and was told they had only sold one or two all day. Realizing that my target consumer is a down home old school southerner, I told them to change the description to "Spaghetti with meat sauce." After we made the change, we sold out in a couple of hours.
Both descriptions were accurate, of course. One just had psychological appeal to my customers, and the other didn't. In my essay on free will, I use the example of food preference to show that our preference is set before we realize what it is. This is a perfect example. If we had taken a poll from all of the customers that day, we would have found a consistent percentage who like the dish we were serving across all hours of the day. Had people ordered linguini with marinara, they would have enjoyed it. However, they didn't desire it because their brains were not induced into desiring it by the description. If this isn't a perfect example of our environment determining our mental state, I don't know what is.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I got around this problem by not watching a great deal of television. Although this is not universally true, the general adage that television makes you stupid is reasonably accurate. Indeed, after not watching television for a sufficient period of time and then switching it on and watching an advertisement it strikes you how utterly preposterous advertisements are, although of course, with sufficient repetition (aka constantly watching television) advertisements work their purpose of inducing unconscious responses and biases in the observer. This is the desired effect of the advertiser, especially in children who are too young to know to take the advertisement with a grain of salt, and indeed, many adults as well.
With sufficient education in the psychology of observer bias, the detection of such responses is actually a relatively straightforward task. For example, I used to do a lot of work in analytical and organic chemistry, both disciplines requiring the observer to make a great deal of qualitative observations, such as color, smell, etc. in order to glean quantitative results and make a judgment about the analyte. One particular example that I did all the time was something called a self-indicating redox titration. The problem with many such titrations is that the indicator color is not always permanent and in many cases(especially with manganate and dichromate) we end up with “shades” which shouldn’t really happen for a good titration and never happens with properly done acid-base titrations. As a result the observer has to make a judgment about when the titration is finished. It’s not totally subjective, of course, because the analyte does switch color when the correct amount of titrant is added, but because of shading the experimenter has a tendency to overshoot the mark by comparing his titration to other repeats and trying to judge whether the shading matches. This is an example of observer bias which we don’t want contaminating our results. In any formal procedure involving measurements of this sort the experimenter should explain what method they used to eliminate observer bias. In my case I would usually cross-reference my results with colorimetry analysis. Similar procedures exist for numerous different tests we could do (especially those with continuous ranges and lots of repeats, which is most of them). Anyone who works in pharmaceutical chemistry, medical research, quality control, etc. has to be familiar with this or else they’ll get fired.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I suppose I didn't mean to say any television... but the vast majority of children's programming on cable television. I did enjoy Mister Rogers and Reading Rainbow on PBS as a child and would not consider that type of programming damaging to a child. But when I look back on my childhood I do sometimes wish my parents would have limited my television viewing a bit more than they did (luckily, they did read to me quite a bit... maybe that helped counteract the hours of cartoons). Not that I turned out badly, but sometimes I think that the amount of television I watched as a child could have affected my attention span and overall focus for the worse.
When I was a small child I had a tonka truck, a spoon and a tape measure. Now I am a surveyor, and I own and run a few dozers, backhoes and trucks. Perhaps mid-80's marketing has influenced my career choice. I feel more fucked over every time I read a post here. I had three full rides to college when I graduated highschool (one of which was to OU, boomer sooner!) and gave them all up to try my hand in construction. I wonder how my life would have turned out if I had never watched a tonka ad?
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell
Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."
I despise advertising for both children and adults and view it as nothing more than ‘mind spam’. I actively try to avoid any products that push the advertising into my face (within reason).
Luckily in Britain we have Sky+ which enables me to record all my preferred programmes. I only ever watch TV from the Sky+ box and fast forward all the adverts. If an episode of Battlestar Galactica for example, starts at 9pm I start watching at 9.15pm and fast forward the 3 five minute breaks. There are many great programs on the history and science channels I would hate to miss.
We also have the BBC which thankfully is advert free.
Being dyslexic and a slow reader I feel I can’t really do without a TV for educational purposes alone.
Exactly! And it's more effective when it's unconscious. Someone earlier mentioned that they weren't affected by advertising, and when I hear that, I tend to think that people who say that are the ones who are affected most by advertising, because the affect is unconscious (whatever the affect may be). That's just a hunch, though. We can't escape our biology, and yet that's what every misguided ideology has attempted since we could form ideologies. We can't escape such a prevalent variable in our psychological environment, either.
That gave me a laugh. Sometimes I read your comments as "If we weren't such dumb fucks, we wouldn't be such dumb fucks." I agree, of course, that education has the potential to solve the problem, here. If only the world were more like Judy Holliday in Born Yesterday. (Another example of my desire for the ability to solve a problem in a straightforward way.)
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
*Shifty eyes* Wait...are you insulting me?
I'm not joking. It's something I have to do all the time, and not in a vague abstract way but actually on paper. If I did not possess this skill I would have no job.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
No. The laugh was definitely fraternal. I wish more people had the capacity and inclination to know what you're talking about. I really, really do.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are the most affected, but they're obviously the least aware of being affected. I've played many a Jedi Mind Trick on people who think they aren't affected by Jedi Mind Tricks.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
And another thing... people who say they aren't affected by ads usually mean that they don't buy the product after watching the ads. That's very different from not being affected.
One thing that a lot of people don't realize is that ads are not designed to make everyone go out and buy the product. In the first place, the best ads are targeted to specific groups, and even within those groups, they're designed to create a culture which promotes the product.
I posted a Harley ad in another thread a couple of months ago that was a triple whammy. (I thought it was a really great ad, by the way, from a marketing point of view.) A very attractive clean cut couple is making out on the bed when a Harley pulls up outside. The couple panics, and the guy gets his stuff together and hides in the closet, peering out to watch. So now, the audience is thinking, "Wow... she's cheating on her Harley riding husband!" But a few seconds later, we realize we've been fooled. The Harley guy comes into the room, and right before he gets to her, she turns over the wedding picture on the nightstand -- the picture of her and her husband -- the first guy!
So the message is that Harleys are so cool that even married men will let their wives be with Harley guys, and be happy to watch, because dammit, Harley guys are fucking awesome.
This ad works on lots of people. I don't ride Harleys, but it worked on me. I have an impression of Harley guys as big, tough, and sexually appealing to women. This ad reinforced that image for me. I'm never going to buy a Harley. BUT, and this is very, very important, when I'm around a Harley guy, I will act deferential, and will probably feel a little overwhelmed in the manliness department. That ad totally reinforced my behavior. The Harley guy will notice my behavior, and it will make him feel like more of a man. So, the ad targeted me even though I will never buy a Harley -- precisely because I will help them to make the Harley image more powerful, and will make potential Harley customers more envious of people who do own them, and therefore -- more likely to buy.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'll have to assume you are reffering to me, and I say this is a ridiculous response. I have seen through ads for the entirety of my life. Their lies have been transparent since I was a child. They never influence me. I stopped listening to the radio entirely around 12 years old in part due to commercials, though the death of music with the 80's had a part. I still don't listen to it unless I have no choice. Television is similar. I watch without commercials(ie: box sets), with commercials fast forwarded, or with them removed(ie: youtube type sites).
I am well aware of what being affected is. Ads simply do not affect me. Maybe all of you are so weak minded as to be affected by watching ads(which I must say surprises me), but I am not. I'll thank you to quit assuming I am.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
As a Harley rider, I cannot disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiGw_ZBkqjw
Now, that's a MANLY sounding bike! I won't post a pic of myself, as that might dilute the effect.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I think the funniest moments are when the debates are over games or consoles which aren't even for sale and the parties invovled have never actually interacted with.
-Triften
I always thought of them as men who wanted bikes, but were to afraid to jump on a ninja and go 200mph down the freeway.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
And I bet there's a marketing department somewhere who promoted your attitude with an ad....
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Loud motorcycles make me long for the impending oil crisis. Middle-aged men posing as overweight criminals who wear way too much leather and can't find time to shave should be much quieter rolling down the streets.
The marketing clearly worked there, because that's embarrassing. Either you're actually a criminal, in which case fuck you, or you're not, and you're trying to look like a criminal because you think it's manly.
The guy who landed that plane in the Hudson is manly. That dorky-looking pilot who calmly guided 155 people out of the air to safety rather than their demise, that's a man. Guys who wear leather and cruise around on their flatulent, wheeled laz-e-boys, making it impossible for anyone to walk down the street without becoming deaf ... well, thanks guys, that's a lovely over-priced noise machine you have there.
I know I just derailed my own thread, but holy shit those bikes bother me.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Indeed, and I will agree with you to an extent. My bike sounds loud in that video because it's running inside a garage. In the open, you wouldn't even hear it over the wretched monster trucks that some people drive around here.
Oh, and as for the leather, I started wearing leather when I rode Japanese bikes. It's not a fashion statement, it's for two reasons:
1) It is an excellent and cheap windblock(cheap because I don't buy brand name). Ride a bike in inclement weather, and you'll find that most materials let wind pass right through. I've ridden through hail, rain and light snow(none by choice). Those goofy looking chaps don't seem so goofy after 5 minutes in 60 degree wind at 60mph.
2) It is good protection against road rash. Leather won't help your bones, but it will help keep the asphalt from stripping the meat off while you slide. I've never dropped a bike at speed(and hope to never do so), but I'd want a set of heavy leathers on in the event that I do.
As an aside, a lot of people rationalize their choice of exhaust pipe as being an extra layer of safety. Loud pipes save lives. Now, I have absolutely no data to back that up. I doubt that a person oblivious to a motorcycle will somehow notice the sound in time to prevent an accident. And I do think it's an attempt to rationalize a personal affectation. Probably another shrewd bit of marketing.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
What about those of us who ride both? In college I rode around on Ninjas and Katanas. I like to go fast, but if I'm planning a trip, give me something slow and comfortable. You match the bike to your personality and your purpose. For bar hopping, I'm building a bobber XS650, for example. But my ass wouldn't take a cross country trip on that. Give me my Ironhead for anything over 50 miles.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I'm just picking. I would prefer a crotch rocket, but that's just me. I generally don't drive over 40 miles in a single trip.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I was about to go into rant mode due to the ridiculous amount of hypocrisy involved in capitalists (a couple of avowed libertarians) decrying the use of marketing techniques on children.
However, I thought that perhaps I would simply dismiss it as cognitive dissonance on your parts caused by watching too much tv.
Don't forget. YAZ doesn't prevent the transmission of std's.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
And there we have it. The standard dichotomous logic heard from either side of the extreme: if you're not busy puffing on the Communist magical dream pipe out from whence drifts the reality everyone will embrace one another and differences will dissolve utterly if we only stopped selling things, you're a capitalist. If you think the government can, has and does make better spending decisions with some of the money you're taxed than you would normally make, rather than believing that every politician is either a fanged demon out to devour you wholly or the equivalent of a mentally retarded squirrel, you're a communist.
I mean, sure, we could look at what science has to say on the matter - but why do that when being cranky and making snarky insults is so much easier?
Here, Darth:
Capitalists are morons. They appear to be incapable of realizing that if they didn't pay a state tax, state infrastructure (like the roads that they drive on, for example) could only exist if their share of the taxes was burdened upon someone else. So what they actually go rail in favor of is some classical aristocracy, where they live cheery, champagne glass clanging lives atop the backs of rabble peasantry and beggars until some blindsiding events pops-up from over the horizon, whips the mobs into a frenzy and the aristocrats literally lose their heads.
The notion that the ongoing 'cuts' in the workforce (they won't even refer to them as 'lay-offs' anymore, at least not in Alberta) are somehow vaguely 'necessary to keep the economy going' is bullshit, a fact we should all be well aware of (no sheeples, we). They are necessary to keep select businesses going, and are strictly self-centered. The economists touting otherwise are either completely deluded or outright lying.
I'm not a capitalist, and refusing to share your faith in the rock solidness of the communist house of cards doesn't somehow make me one.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
LOL.
I espouse socialism. I am an avowed socialist if you want.
However, I think I'm a really good capitalist. I live relatively at ease financially. I have the occasional 'bump', but I recover much more quickly than most.
I'm running a crew missing a person for almost a year now because I saw the downturn coming and protected my favorites from layoffs now.
I am 7% below in expenses from prior year in my department. I've been so good at cutting costs that my boss has given me bonuses for helping other departments.
HOW???
Because I have applied the principles of capitalist intentions in a capitalist society well.
I know why they put the milk, bread, and cereal farther back in the store than they do the junk food.
I know why Barnes&Noble and Books-a-million set up the BRIO train sets in the children section for kids to play.
I know why there is a blonde, a brunette, and a redhead in the PajamaGram commercial.
It's done on purpose and it is part of capitalism at its fundamental basis.
Soooo, to hear people denigrate the use of one of the most important marketing tools (kids) on the basis that it is 'immoral' grates upon my nerves because goddammit it's the way the system functions and if you want that to be gone then you're going to have to change on your own to the point that shit doesn't work on you anymore.
But please, don't say it isn't hypocrisy to espouse free capitalism and need for money while telling others they shouldn't try to capitalize on the human idiocy that causes people to watch advertisements in the first place.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I believe that Will was actually just espousing an opinion that there should be legal restrictions against creating advertisements specifically designed to target children, rather than the strawman you just fabricated.
Care to explain how laws against advertising to children would somehow unravel the present economy?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
This is a false dichotomy fallacy. First of all, I think it was quite clear that KRB and HW were not promoting "free capitalism". They are not libertarian and neither am I. See, there's this thing called the political spectrum which, like most spectrums, is continuous. So don't try and get away with implying that anyone was trying to promote free capitalism on the grounds that they were not in favor of abolishing a private economy.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I think that watching this drivel of advertising is far better than allowing the government to regulate the companies.
I mean think about it, you have a bunch greedy, corrupt, irrational, deluded, selfish self-centered fucktards.
And then you want those same people to regulates private companies?
I've yet to meet a trader who wants regulations placed on anything in their portfolio. Just other peoples. lol.
Just wondering how many clients use kids in their ads.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Better them than no one. Do you know how much the average CEO makes in relation to his/her average employee?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I'm a socialist, but I still want a ninja.
Fuck!
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
You think that the government should essentially claim ownership over every woman's uterus, remember?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Oh, I see you objection now. No, I only trade for qualified persons, I don't work for an institution. (It would be a phenomenal exaggeration to call my company an "institution".)
But I can understand your point. Certainly many traders are very much into the free market. It's natural: when you work in a market that already takes its spread, then you have other people dictating what goes on in the market, etc.
Except that I work largely with currencies. Lots of qualified persons (ie rich people) like to hedge the value of their money against other currencies or gold/silver. That's about half of my business, now, where the other half is for larger gains. In currencies, there's no such thing as an unregulated market. Traders like to think that there are unregulated markets, or that somewhere, at some time in the future that could happen. They even grumble about Japan being "too regulated", with how much that government attempts to intervene in the economy.
The truth, however, is that it would be ridiculous to ask any country to allow an unregulated market, when the activities of that market affect everyone else in the country. That's not fair to the people being affected, and it creates a financial oligarchy. When the oligarchy weakens - as we've seen recently - everyone gets thrown into something they didn't necessarily sign up for.
So I pay taxes and accept regulations ungrudgingly. For the most part, the regulations are useful anyway, and some even provide new trading opportunities. I usually find people who cry about regulations particularily lazy, seeing as any change creates an opportunity.
But in the case of targeting children, I'm not allowed to sell my services to kids. I'm not even allowed to sell my services to unqualified adults! That's a simple regulation that's easy to follow, and I don't think it creates that much overhead. I still think it's deplorable to target ads at children, in the same way that I agree with not being allowed to offer sophisticated financial services to unqualified (retail) investors.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I certainly understand your objection. I make money off of financial markets, so I'm definitely a capitalist. But there are ethical limits, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I think mutual funds are the biggest scam ever, and should be illegal to offer to retail investors (who don't know any better). I think "financial advisors" are unspeakable contradictions, who could only ever teach you to become as rich as they are. (If they're not rich, on what basis are they advising you?)
Understanding the market system, I get why people go for mutual funds or any other instrument that the bank sells. But banks aren't honest about what they're selling, whereas I'm required to be honest about what I'm selling. I think that's a responsible thing to do anyway, so I have no objection. I'm not about to ask someone who's unqualified to invest in what I do, because I think that's cheap exploitation. Banks seem to have no problem convincing someone who knows nothing about investing that investing is great. But "great" doesn't really provide enough information, does it? In fact, it's a huge lie, and there's no way that a retail investor could know why that's a lie.
The same holds true for children, who have no experience filtering out bullshit. They don't. They don't know the difference between lies and truth yet, especially when the con is so sophisticated.
So I just want the same standards to be applied to children's advertising, that's all.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I think you've just illustrated human behaviour in two equivalent organizations. The government and the private sector are so much alike in practice that it's probably best just to look at them as far as their function and effect is, rather than the character of the individuals involved.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Ok, now I have to object as I technically am an investment advisor, although I would not advise you choose me to help restructure your portfolio. My boss might be a good choice though. I don't see his role as helping people become rich, but helping them to not lose their money and see it increase reasonably. Trying to get rich is gambling. (Which is what traders do!
 
He does a good job of helping people with IRAs of $50,000-$250,000 realistically plan for retirement, learn something about the financial world when they know next to nothing (like what the S&P 500 is, what a mutual fund is, how to look for fees, etc. ) , and help them find mutual funds that give them broad market exposure. Most of our clients have $200,000 or less in assets. Trying to build portfolios based purely on stocks gets expensive for these people due to transaction costs. There are good no-load mutual funds that have decent fee structures that provide the needed broad exposure for clients. Yes, a portfolio that heavily uses mutual funds is not a finely tuned as one that sticks to individual stocks, MLPs, ETFs, etc. but most people are not capable of understanding a such finely tuned portfolio and likely do not have the funds for adequate diversification unless they include at least some mutual funds. What do you personally find most objectionable about mutual funds, and does it apply to all funds or certain ones?
Your point about honesty is key though. A good deal of my day is spent sending out articles and research reports to clients with explanations as to why X, Y, and Z are or are not appropriate investments for them. It is a combination of educating clients who would definitely lose their retirement funds if they did not have help investing and making sure to disclose the reasons behind investing in a certain way. I do realize that there are many shady operators in the advisory business, but not all advisors are bad. There are some ethical people in the profession who do take the idea of helping people with their finances seriously. Do remember that the same people who are not willing to think critically about religion are often not really going to be spending much time on critical thinking in other important areas of life either. I don't know what your client base is like, but ours is not all that knowledgeable. They're not dumb, but they spend their time and efforts on other areas of life and leave the finances to my boss to worry about.
What all this really boils down to is a person's willingness to think. Children's advertising is objectionable as children do not have the cognitive ability to seriously analyze commercials yet, and many of their parents don't take the time to do so either. Older and ignorant people are easy prey for unscrupulous financial advisors for the same reason. I would think it would be better to promote critical thinking than governmental crackdown. Regulations for advertising akin to what the financial regulatory bodies have in place for investment advisors, broker-dealers, etc. sounds like a reasonable idea.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Yeah, CEOs are absolutly greedy, but honestly putting the government in control of them is stupid. Why? Because the government makes laws, they can force people to do things under punishment from the law. They can selectivly enforce laws to stomp out the competition of their lobbyists, while ignoring the lobbyist's unlawful duties.
Or they can make company laws so complicated that nobody can open a business because they didn't fill out one of the complicated forms correctly.
Socialsim sounds good in theory, but in practice government officals are just as corrupt and greedy as the CEOs, the only difference of course is that CEOs can't make laws to force people to do things. The government can.
There are plenty of ways to mitigate or remove any and all of the problems you suggest. Transparency and democracy being the most effective.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
But these things happen and we have an open government already.
Why isn't Haliburton being punished for their illegal activities in Iraq and U.S?
Why isn't Paul Martian in jail for money laundering?
etc etc.....
In a Libertarian system, there couldn't be any private interests in the government, and their would be actual legitimate competition for government contracts none of this "no-bid" garbage.
Halliburton would be have been kicked to the curb and Cheney and their CEO would be in prison for their illegal activities under that system and a new company would have taken over with paranoid ambitions that the same thing could happen to them if they pull that shit.