4 ms·

It's not like there's some central planning committee that sits down and decides what to pay everyone. Citizens decide where to spend their money -- at least t

It's not like there's some central planning committee that sits down and decides what to pay everyone. Citizens decide where to spend their money -- at least the part that the government doesn't tax and spend for them -- and all of these industries you name exist and pay well because people value them and choose to spend their money on them.

flukus 7y ago
> Citizens decide where to spend their money That's the problem, to a large extent we don't because of the pervasive manipulation the advertising industry does to us, the industries reason for existence is literally undermine our free will.
- kortilla 7y ago
  suggesting that you come over for dinner because my desserts are tasty is not “literally undermining your free will”.
r00fus 7y ago
Almost correct. Governments have a strong say in what is incentivized and what is not through taxation and monetary policy. The people running government are (in most places) elected by the people but that is affected by political manipulation, gerrymandering and politicians often represent the moneyed interests that got them into power.
- foldingmoney 7y ago
  Okay, explain to me how the government is incentivising 'advertising, soda, highly processed food, credit cards, car dealerships, (most) sales people, etc.' through taxation and monetary policy.
  - QuercusMax 7y ago
    Well, to start, corn is highly subsidized. This means corn syrup is cheaper than it should be, making soda and most processed foods cheaper than healthier options.
    - foldingmoney 7y ago
      Low quality ingredients will always be cheaper than high quality ingredients, regardless of subsidies and taxes. That's an unfortunate fact of life, not a government decision. And there's nothing to stop people buying diet soda.
      - QuercusMax 7y ago
        Here's an article backing up my point: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-diet-farm-subsidies-idUSKCN0ZL2ER https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-diet-farm-subsidie... Why do we need the govt making cheap unhealthy stuff even cheaper?
  - kavalg 7y ago
    Wrt soda, and highly processed food, I think that FDA and similar agencies could make an effort to evaluate the consequences of prolonged consumption of such food and figure out what quantities are safe. They could require proper labeling and not allow children to buy such foods (as with cigarettes and alcohol). For credit cards, maybe he meant that in some countries, where individuals cannot default, banks are comfortable taking too much risk and advertise credits aggressively. I have personally witnessed several victims of this (yes, people can be dumb). Wrt "car dealerships and (most) sales people", it is probably not affecting the individual so much, but if you look closer at "enterprise sales" and government spending, you will certainly notice some "interesting" practices. However, I think that this is a lot harder to solve than the other case above, because it is not so directly aimed at the masses.
    - foldingmoney 7y ago
      But you're talking about guiding your children, not observing your neighbours. This is 'how do I make other people choose the same things I would choose', not 'people aren't free to make their own choices because [the government somehow]'; it's not 'people aren't free to choose', it's 'I don't like what they choose'. I also don't like what they choose, and I don't disagree with any of your suggestions; I think these would all be good ideas. But you're asking for less freedom, not more.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    How about the chicken tax [1]? Or how any truck is allowed to bypass CAFE standards for emissions [2]? Or the fact that if a truck or SUV is used for "business" it can be written off completely over time as opposed to a limited amount [3]? That's off the top of my head. Taxation is control. And the wealthy & powerful have undue influence over who chooses what gets taxed - using the above methods I referenced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax [2] https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/small-business-taxes/business-use-of-vehicles/L6hi0zzzh https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/small-business-taxes/bu... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cafe-loophole-could-lead-to-bigger-cars/2011/12/14/gIQA3bGLuO_blog.html?utm_term=.31a843a4077f https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cafe-lo...
- narag 7y ago
  Governments have a strong say in what is incentivized and what is not through taxation and monetary policy. Governments have similar competition problems as individuals and companies. If taxes are raised too much, the people with money will take it to other countries with more lenient tax systems. And unpopular policies will cause other political parties to seize the power from their promoters. Money and advertisement also plays a part in campaigns. Finally, if you try to extract competition from politics, you get a tyranny. People on HN likes very much to write comments with the "we as a society" or "we as a species" or "we should do that", but there is really no such we.
rexpop 7y ago
> Citizens decide where to spend their money. It's almost criminal the way we propagate the narrative that advertising is ineffectual. Of course, if it were, there wouldn't be so much money in it. So it's very hard for me to take seriously people who believe in consumer choice.
- foldingmoney 7y ago
  What percentage of the products that you see advertised every day do you buy? 100%? 50%? I'm guessing it's probably less than 1%. No one would argue that businesses spend a lot of money on targeted advertising, and targeting is something that marketers are constantly trying to refine. What is targeting? Showing things to the people who are most likely to buy them. In the world you're describing, targeting wouldn't exist, because the mind control techniques of advertising have made free will a thing of the past, and people will just buy whatever the all powerful advertising agencies tell them to buy.
csomar 7y ago
> and all of these industries you name exist and pay well because people value them and choose to spend their money on them. I think his point is, these industries are not valuable to people; they are just aggressive at extract wealth from other people. In net, they have a negative value (from his perspective) and thus society will be better without them.
- foldingmoney 7y ago
  No one's being forced to buy soda, eat highly processed food, have a credit card, or use a car dealership. Yet people voluntarily choose to spend their money on these things, so they obviously do find some value in them. When you characterise them as 'not valuable to people', you're making a prescriptive moral judgement (and not one I necessarily disagree with), as opposed to a descriptive observation of where free agents choose to spend their money. I don't drink soda or eat highly processed food, I don't have a credit card, and I didn't buy my car from a dealership. But the fact that many people choose to spend their money on all these things tells me that those people do see value in them, and I don't think my preferences are right and theirs are wrong.
  - piva00 7y ago
    You lost me on "free agents", under the kind of system of advertising and PR we are under there is a very narrow window of "free agency".
    - foldingmoney 7y ago
      If the advertising industry is such a powerful force of mind control that we literally have no free will anymore, then why did they let _you_ figure it out? You're giving them way too much credit. Do you notice how the world is full of failed advertising campaigns? How the world is full of failed companies and failed products that the evil geniuses in advertising weren't able to make people buy? There's a world of difference between 'we can use some principles from psychology to try to exploit people's fears and make them more interested in our product' and 'our unlimited powers of persuasion make free will an illusion'. And despite the hype, most big-data, machine learning, 'downloading your thoughts from Facebook before you've even had them'-style targeted advertising amounts to showing you ads for the thing that you just bought.

flukus 7y ago

> Citizens decide where to spend their money That's the problem, to a large extent we don't because of the pervasive manipulation the advertising industry does to us, the industries reason for existence is literally undermine our free will.

kortilla 7y ago
suggesting that you come over for dinner because my desserts are tasty is not “literally undermining your free will”.

r00fus 7y ago

Almost correct. Governments have a strong say in what is incentivized and what is not through taxation and monetary policy. The people running government are (in most places) elected by the people but that is affected by political manipulation, gerrymandering and politicians often represent the moneyed interests that got them into power.

foldingmoney 7y ago
Okay, explain to me how the government is incentivising 'advertising, soda, highly processed food, credit cards, car dealerships, (most) sales people, etc.' through taxation and monetary policy.
- QuercusMax 7y ago
  Well, to start, corn is highly subsidized. This means corn syrup is cheaper than it should be, making soda and most processed foods cheaper than healthier options.
  - foldingmoney 7y ago
    Low quality ingredients will always be cheaper than high quality ingredients, regardless of subsidies and taxes. That's an unfortunate fact of life, not a government decision. And there's nothing to stop people buying diet soda.
    - QuercusMax 7y ago
      Here's an article backing up my point: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-diet-farm-subsidies-idUSKCN0ZL2ER https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-diet-farm-subsidie... Why do we need the govt making cheap unhealthy stuff even cheaper?
- kavalg 7y ago
  Wrt soda, and highly processed food, I think that FDA and similar agencies could make an effort to evaluate the consequences of prolonged consumption of such food and figure out what quantities are safe. They could require proper labeling and not allow children to buy such foods (as with cigarettes and alcohol). For credit cards, maybe he meant that in some countries, where individuals cannot default, banks are comfortable taking too much risk and advertise credits aggressively. I have personally witnessed several victims of this (yes, people can be dumb). Wrt "car dealerships and (most) sales people", it is probably not affecting the individual so much, but if you look closer at "enterprise sales" and government spending, you will certainly notice some "interesting" practices. However, I think that this is a lot harder to solve than the other case above, because it is not so directly aimed at the masses.
  - foldingmoney 7y ago
    But you're talking about guiding your children, not observing your neighbours. This is 'how do I make other people choose the same things I would choose', not 'people aren't free to make their own choices because [the government somehow]'; it's not 'people aren't free to choose', it's 'I don't like what they choose'. I also don't like what they choose, and I don't disagree with any of your suggestions; I think these would all be good ideas. But you're asking for less freedom, not more.
- r00fus 7y ago
  How about the chicken tax [1]? Or how any truck is allowed to bypass CAFE standards for emissions [2]? Or the fact that if a truck or SUV is used for "business" it can be written off completely over time as opposed to a limited amount [3]? That's off the top of my head. Taxation is control. And the wealthy & powerful have undue influence over who chooses what gets taxed - using the above methods I referenced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax [2] https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/small-business-taxes/business-use-of-vehicles/L6hi0zzzh https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/small-business-taxes/bu... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cafe-loophole-could-lead-to-bigger-cars/2011/12/14/gIQA3bGLuO_blog.html?utm_term=.31a843a4077f https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cafe-lo...
narag 7y ago
Governments have a strong say in what is incentivized and what is not through taxation and monetary policy. Governments have similar competition problems as individuals and companies. If taxes are raised too much, the people with money will take it to other countries with more lenient tax systems. And unpopular policies will cause other political parties to seize the power from their promoters. Money and advertisement also plays a part in campaigns. Finally, if you try to extract competition from politics, you get a tyranny. People on HN likes very much to write comments with the "we as a society" or "we as a species" or "we should do that", but there is really no such we.

rexpop 7y ago

> Citizens decide where to spend their money. It's almost criminal the way we propagate the narrative that advertising is ineffectual. Of course, if it were, there wouldn't be so much money in it. So it's very hard for me to take seriously people who believe in consumer choice.

foldingmoney 7y ago
What percentage of the products that you see advertised every day do you buy? 100%? 50%? I'm guessing it's probably less than 1%. No one would argue that businesses spend a lot of money on targeted advertising, and targeting is something that marketers are constantly trying to refine. What is targeting? Showing things to the people who are most likely to buy them. In the world you're describing, targeting wouldn't exist, because the mind control techniques of advertising have made free will a thing of the past, and people will just buy whatever the all powerful advertising agencies tell them to buy.

csomar 7y ago

> and all of these industries you name exist and pay well because people value them and choose to spend their money on them. I think his point is, these industries are not valuable to people; they are just aggressive at extract wealth from other people. In net, they have a negative value (from his perspective) and thus society will be better without them.

foldingmoney 7y ago
No one's being forced to buy soda, eat highly processed food, have a credit card, or use a car dealership. Yet people voluntarily choose to spend their money on these things, so they obviously do find some value in them. When you characterise them as 'not valuable to people', you're making a prescriptive moral judgement (and not one I necessarily disagree with), as opposed to a descriptive observation of where free agents choose to spend their money. I don't drink soda or eat highly processed food, I don't have a credit card, and I didn't buy my car from a dealership. But the fact that many people choose to spend their money on all these things tells me that those people do see value in them, and I don't think my preferences are right and theirs are wrong.
- piva00 7y ago
  You lost me on "free agents", under the kind of system of advertising and PR we are under there is a very narrow window of "free agency".
  - foldingmoney 7y ago
    If the advertising industry is such a powerful force of mind control that we literally have no free will anymore, then why did they let _you_ figure it out? You're giving them way too much credit. Do you notice how the world is full of failed advertising campaigns? How the world is full of failed companies and failed products that the evil geniuses in advertising weren't able to make people buy? There's a world of difference between 'we can use some principles from psychology to try to exploit people's fears and make them more interested in our product' and 'our unlimited powers of persuasion make free will an illusion'. And despite the hype, most big-data, machine learning, 'downloading your thoughts from Facebook before you've even had them'-style targeted advertising amounts to showing you ads for the thing that you just bought.