The problem with this view is that it attempts to reverse cause and effect. A new widget/gizmo/car/vacation gives you the power to do something with your time that you aren’t capable of (or at least, not as easily) without it. But that object does not impose that ability upon you; it does not compel you to use it, or even to use it properly.

Only through a conscious expenditure of mental effort focused towards making proper use of that new purchase can you achieve the value that the object was designed to help you achieve.

This is why many people fall victim to tactics like jonesing or buying anything from the shopping network.

Don’t blame the advertisers for taking advantage of people who follow an invalid philosophy; advertisers are only trying to give these people what they claim to want. Instead, learn what’s wrong with the prevalent philosophy, and take steps to correct it in yourself, and then persuade others to do the same (dare I call that advertising?).

We took the liberty to translate this one. Hope you don’t mind.

http://www.meervrijheid.nl/index.php?pagina=1929

Wrong. If we don’t like the emotions evoked by a painting or movie, we can usually leave the place where it is shown. Often, we paid to experience the painting or movie in the first place. Advertising, however, is designed to be visible from a place where you have to go, and you cannot choose to leave it. You can look away, but that may be hard if you are looking around in boredom during your activity.

Advertisers often aim to create dissatisfaction, and then present their problem as a solution to this dissatisfaction. Many television commercials primarily aim to create positive associations with the product they are marketing. Unfortunately, more often than not, buying the product that is being marketed will not resolve your dissatisfaction. Nor will it necessarily help you live a happier life.

One of the worst consequences of marketing is that it contributes to interpersonal economic competition, also known as “keeping up with the Jones’s”. I became a little less of a libertarian yesterday when I read this article in the American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_we_dont_vacation_like_the_french

I am not suggesting that we place any kind of restriction on marketing. I am suggesting that we promote general awareness of its dangers, and promote skepticism in the general public.

“Perhaps the most classic example of granfalloon tactics in the commercial world is the macho designation of being either a “Chevy Man” or a “Ford Man” that the two automotive companies were happy to foster. For decades — and in many parts of the U.S. still — a key aspect of many men’s self-definition was the brand of truck they drove: Ford or Chevy.”

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/06/06/25/people_who_drive_silver_or_blue_cars_should_not_read_this.htm

This is just one example of the manipulative tactics used by marketers. Marketing is a rare example of a free market occupation that does not create any wealth for the general public. Instead, marketers capitalize on stupidity and present false solutions. By teaching people to be wary of the influence of marketing, they will be able to make better decisions for themselves. One more quote from Brian Vaszily:

“PLEASE remember the First Real Rule of Marketing — the key secret of those who seek to control your beliefs and habits in order to take your money, your votes, your time or whatever else it is they desire from you — is that nobody believes they can be manipulated by marketers all that much. But that’s the key reason why marketers can manipulate them so much.”