> In an ideal world all consumption would be 'pull'.
I'm not sure that would be ideal. Well, yeah, sure -- but it's so abstract that it doesn't make sense. Even the simplest product has dozens of properties, which again are complicated to understand. There will always be some level of not understanding something, and then you fall back to rely on trusting someone, and that's the end of pure-to-the-core pull.
> Most consumption of 'primary needs goods' is still on 'pull' basis,
I don't agree. There has been advertising long before the ordinary consumer could afford anything luxurious. I'm talking about stuff like this: http://www.advertisingantiques.co.uk/
> But the recursion bottoms out where you run out of funds to buy something that you really need. (...) By having individuals compete with companies that have meanwhile spent upwards of a century honing their skills we are creating a completely uneven battle.
Never the less, in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases the individual wins that battle. When that doesn't happen, there are usually a general inability to prioritise resources behind it. And if it happens, if someone prioritises making a payment on a huge plasma TV rather than feeding their children, I would find it morally bankrupt to blame advertising for that failure.
> The best way to describe 'to benefit someone' is to say that their lives have a maximized sense of happiness (...) if you buy the 'wrong' car because a salesman pushed it down your throat
Sure, and that's fine on the individual level. On the other hand, most people are notoriously aware of especially car salesmen for exactly this reason. And sometime someone needs to get burned, that's how this awareness is kept alive. It's a feedback mechanism, and it's working fine. One of the reasons I bought my last (used) car from the guy I did, was that he insisted that I should take it to a third party mechanic to check it out before signing. The car I got was not the one I initially though I'd get. I'll never know if I'm happier or not (oh well, I'm happier, this one is faster :) ).
> I would suggest you look everywhere but to your government, almost by definition it does not have the common best interest at heart
I agree. My point, and basic premise, is that the greater common best interest can't be defined.
I'm not sure that would be ideal. Well, yeah, sure -- but it's so abstract that it doesn't make sense. Even the simplest product has dozens of properties, which again are complicated to understand. There will always be some level of not understanding something, and then you fall back to rely on trusting someone, and that's the end of pure-to-the-core pull.
> Most consumption of 'primary needs goods' is still on 'pull' basis,
I don't agree. There has been advertising long before the ordinary consumer could afford anything luxurious. I'm talking about stuff like this: http://www.advertisingantiques.co.uk/
> But the recursion bottoms out where you run out of funds to buy something that you really need. (...) By having individuals compete with companies that have meanwhile spent upwards of a century honing their skills we are creating a completely uneven battle.
Never the less, in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases the individual wins that battle. When that doesn't happen, there are usually a general inability to prioritise resources behind it. And if it happens, if someone prioritises making a payment on a huge plasma TV rather than feeding their children, I would find it morally bankrupt to blame advertising for that failure.
> The best way to describe 'to benefit someone' is to say that their lives have a maximized sense of happiness (...) if you buy the 'wrong' car because a salesman pushed it down your throat
Sure, and that's fine on the individual level. On the other hand, most people are notoriously aware of especially car salesmen for exactly this reason. And sometime someone needs to get burned, that's how this awareness is kept alive. It's a feedback mechanism, and it's working fine. One of the reasons I bought my last (used) car from the guy I did, was that he insisted that I should take it to a third party mechanic to check it out before signing. The car I got was not the one I initially though I'd get. I'll never know if I'm happier or not (oh well, I'm happier, this one is faster :) ).
> I would suggest you look everywhere but to your government, almost by definition it does not have the common best interest at heart
I agree. My point, and basic premise, is that the greater common best interest can't be defined.