> In a message dated 10/27/99 6:06:38 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>The money is of course extracted from the economy, where else, and
>must be paid for out of the wages of those doing productive work.

     Advertising INJECTS money into the economy and its cost is paid for by
the consumer who purchases the product or service being offered by the
advertiser.  For example, a shoe store purchases advertising space in a
newspaper to inform potential customers that it is offering a discounted
price on a particular line of shoes.  The money used to purchase the ad comes
from gross profits from previous sales and is being put back into
circulation.  Much of it will end up in the pockets of workers who are in any
way connected to the companies that will benefit from this injection of money
(truck drivers, ink makers, paper makers, lumberjacks, secretaries, janitors,
etc.). A small portion of it will end up as owner profit.

>Over consumption [production] must be overcome (lamely) else recession
depressions
>result since production must be stopped to prevent gigantic constipation
>of the economic system.  What it represents is value extracted from
>productive labor, which advertising is not.

    Who are you speaking of when you speak of labor and how do you determine
if labor is "productive"?  More importantly, by what criteria are you
determining "value"?

In a message dated 10/30/99 4:12:28 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>It is a little difficult to see an analogy between starving ;mothers
>on welfare (or better, now 'reformed' into the streets) and grandly
>overpaid martini-lunchers on Madison Av.

     What basis do you use to determine that these people are "grandly
overpaid" and what do you think happens to the money they receive?

>The goods which the latter consume (expensive cars, etc.) were not made
>by them and in fact they have no role in production.  They are simply
>parasitic.  Their function again is to try to deal with over production
>by convincing people to buy things which they don't really need, at
>the expense of proper (more costly) food, education, medical care and
>etc.

   So, by this reasoning, one should only consume goods made by oneself or
one is simply a parasite.  No, controlling over production is not the
function of advertising.  Advertising's function is to try to convince the
consumer to buy the product or service their client offers as opposed to what
is offered by their client's competitors.  Companies do not spend money on
advertising in an attempt to control overproduction - they either drop prices
to increase the effective market for their product of they reduce production,
which is to say they lay off or reduce the hours of a part of their work
force.

   You are also saying that people already have enough money to buy "proper
food, education, medical care, etc" but they are so irresponsible or stupid
that they instead spend their money on items you have decided they do not
need.

Yours,
Issodhos