[nickelcitymario]

Alright, clearly we don't have a shared understanding of what is good or bad. That's cool. I understand your position, even if I don't agree with it.

> Why do we need to be socialist or a utopia to ban most advertising?

You don't, as long as you don't mind a sudden drop in national GDP.

[kaibee]

> You don't, as long as you don't mind a sudden drop in national GDP.

GDP is a terrible measure of how economy feels for the median person. A sudden drop in the GDP due to the lower classes saving money as a result of not being constantly bombarded with ads for net-negative goods seems like a win to me. Banning tobacco ads also caused the GDP to drop.

[nickelcitymario]

Ok, so how about "as long as you don't mind another recession"?

[kaibee]

There's two things about recessions. First, they end. Second, it does not follow that banning/severely regulating advertising to consumers would trigger another recession.

[nickelcitymario]

Well, it seems to me you're trying to have it both ways.

Does advertising cause people to spend more than they would otherwise, or not?

If it does, then eliminating advertising would reduce spending which is what causes a recession.

If it doesn't, then what's all the fuss about?

Recessions in North America (can't speak for any other context unfortunately) have ended due to concerted efforts to get people to spend more: lowering interest rates mostly, forgiving debts, and political leaders outright telling people that their patriotic duty was to go out there and shop.

Looking around the world, it seems to me that many recessions didn't, in fact, end. Instead, their economies imploded entirely.

That's not a risk I'm interested in taking, personally. But you do, you rebel you.

[kaibee]

> Does advertising cause people to spend more than they would otherwise, or not?

Yes, it does, though not as much as they wish they could spend. Hence the unhappiness. However, it also distorts the allocation of that spending.

> If it does, then eliminating advertising would reduce spending which is what causes a recession.

People would not stop buying stuff without advertising. They would be more likely to spend the money more on vacations/experiences. Trusted reviews would become a much larger industry. This is different from ads however, as it would be paid for by the consumer. I suppose companies could also pay the reviewer to include their product when doing a round-up of the various options, assuming that all of the competitors paid the same amount, there's no reason for the reviewer to be biased.

> Looking around the world, it seems to me that many recessions didn't, in fact, end. Instead, their economies imploded entirely.

How many of them were caused by banning/regulating direct-to-consumer advertising?

[nickelcitymario]

> Yes, it does, though not as much as they wish they could spend.

...is that not the cause of recessions?

> People would not stop buying stuff without advertising.

Outright "stop", no. Reduce, yes. How much of a reduction is anyone's guess, but I suspect it'd be by a whole lot more than anyone is comfortable with.

> How many of them were caused by banning/regulating direct-to-consumer advertising?

DTC is regulated, as all advertising is. Also I thought we were discussing all advertising, not DTC specifically, and I'm not sure what that specific category of marketing would bother you more than any other. Unless of course you're talking about all the online tracking, which I'm fully onboard with banning.