[phkahler]

>> No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP.

I doubt that. People tend to spend their money regardless. Advertising just determines what they spend it on.

[tclancy]

Yes, but then you might consume beer based on how it tastes rather than the likelihood of winding up in an impromptu volleyball game with a bunch of Nordic bikini models. So you see where the entrenched players want to keep the status quo.

[regentbowerbird]

Our culture values the act of buying things for social status (consumerism), and one of the main reasons for that is advertising.

You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised.

Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.

[GJim]

Famously....

Advertising is only used heavily when all products are similar, otherwise the best would naturally rise to the top.

For example, washing powder/liquid is advertised heavily on TV, yet do you really believe one brand of powder/liquid gets your clothes cleaner than any other?

[tcfhgj]

not so sure about that, I am pretty sure ads promote materialism and consumerism, probably even leading to people working more to be able to afford more