Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Basic truism (I came up with) -- "The initial spark that leads to the vast majority of transactions, emanates from the marketER, not the marketEE."

Capitalism cannot exist without intrusive advertising.

Intended audience(s) cannot be ALLOWED to ignore the ads (or capitalism will fail).

The success of capitalism is directly proportional to the intrusiveness of advertising.

The degree to which intrusive advertising is *permitted* on the internet determines the internet's commercial viability.

The growth of FACEBOOK as a 'power' on the internet is directly proportional to the *EROSION* of its privacy policies (thus allowing ads to be MORE intrusive) -- http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline
(note: in typical consumer-delusion fashion, the final paragraph of this article has the cause + effect relationship between privacy erosion + commercial success, totally BACKWARDS!)

The more the facebook's privacy policies ERODE, the more commercially viable (aka: successful) it will become.

As privacy vanishes, marketERs' ability to be intrusive, increases.

As intrusive advertising increases, more transactions happen.

"Permission marketing" and capitalism do not mix.

Which all ties (circles) back to this...

Basic truism (I came up with) -- "The initial spark that leads to the vast majority of transactions, emanates from the marketER, not the marketEE."
(which is *the opposite* of what most marketEEs (consumers) naturally (+ MISTAKENLY) believe.

(sorry, Ankesh)

-- TW

How to profit from the right kind of intrusive advertising...
 

Hi TW,

The way I like to look at it is in the following way...

There are welcome intrusions, and unwelcome intrusions...

For your advertising to have maximum impact, in my opinion you want to be one of the welcome intrusions...

Many things can be welcome intrusions. If your relationship is falling apart, and your tear-stained eyes see an ad for a book that promises to help fix disintegrating relationships - that could be a very welcome intrusion! That's because it helps to solve a problem that's stabbing you right in the heart at this moment.

An email, letter, or phone call from a long-lost friend can be a welcome intrusion (and some companies have "ridden" on these - like those promotions you used to find at the bottom of emails sent from free email services, like Hotmail, once upon a time, or those notices that pop out from nowhere which you get from friends via those various services on Facebook).

Or information about something you have an interest in could be a welcome intrusion. For example, you may be the president of Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson's fan club, so if you see a promotion for the next movie that she is in, that could be a welcome intrusion.

A free discount coupon could be a welcome intrusion, if the coupon is for a widget that you're interested in.

I know a restaurant that gives out free falafel balls to passers-by, to promote their restaurant. That's a welcome (and yummy) intrusion for me, every time I walk by there...! (And yes, I have eaten there too, so perhaps it worked! They keep doing it, so I suspect their "free sample of yummy food" promotion must work...)

Of course, there are unwelcome intrusions too. It's not that they don't work - they may work to some extent, but I feel they are probably less powerful than welcome intrusions.

However, what is welcome for one person, is unwelcome for another. One person may love Scarlett Johansson with a passion, but another person may feel like screaming in agony whenever they see her - so an ad for her next movie could be welcome for one person, yet not for another.

Anyway, I think it's a good idea to always strive to make your promotions welcome intrusions, rather than unwelcome ones...!

That doesn't mean you have to please every Tom, Dick, and Harriet (which is impossible) - but in my opinion, it's great if your promotions are "welcomed" by your target market...!

Best wishes!

Dien

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism... Your Dream business...
 

Hey TW...

Special for you...

Smart Negotiating, your Passion, one of your favorite topics...

Mixed with some intriguing Creativity, High speed Updating, Good story telling, past, 2010 and into the future..

This Intrusive advertising baby could be All yours and ready for some Viral Monetization buzz, Video marketing! etc. etc... T-Shirts to whatever... ;)

All kinds of Opportunities throughout internet land Rejuvenating, buying/selling and renting Aging unattended Web businesses... :cool:

Into Nice little Money makers...

As many know, Tons of IM's are doing Extremely well Spinning and Collecting web properties & real estate portfolios...

All yours...
http://www.badads.org/
http://www.badads.org/archives.shtml

Phil

Re: Impactful and not Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Thanks TW.

I recently read this article:


And yet I'm going to try... Sigh!

Google vs Facebook.

Facebook recently overtook Google and became the most popular website on the interwebs.
But it still makes nowhere near as much $$ as Google does.
More traffic. Fewer transactions.

Don't know what it does with your basic truism. But balance sheets like those don't lie.


Anyways...

The argument shouldn't be about where the ad or the transaction originates from. Or even whether the ad is intrusive* or not. But just on whether the ad / marketing is effective for You or not.

* You can be intrusive and interrupt folks to win their attention. Or you could be unique and win their attention. Like this footnote shows, you don't necessary have to be loud or in-your-face to make an impact. After all - this is the most closely scrutinized paragraph of this entire thread - and all because of its small different font size and the usage of asterisk.

Your marketing differs a lot on whether you're producing a movie or running a plumbing business.

Before you even create an ad, you need to know things like how do people make decisions to consume what you provide. How often they require your services. Do they ever know when they require your help? Or do you have to educate them? Based on that - you decide if you should take a passive brand building approach and build a reputation. Or if you should actively take a direct marketing approach. Or more likely - if you should use a mix of both.

Ankesh - I DO make this ONE distinction (+ I always have)...
 

I make the distinction between (what I call):

"If-you-need-it-you-need-it-if-you-don't-you-don't" types of biz's

vs.

"NON-if-you-need-it-you-need-it-if-you-don't-you-don't" types of biz's

If a biz is in the former category (like a towing company), intrusive advertising probably won't help.

If a biz is in the latter category, intrusive advertising probably WILL help (a lot!).

(hint: if there are many, many full-page ads in the yellow pages for a particular biz type, it's probably in the 1st category)

Problem is, many biz owners THINK they're in the 1st category, when they are really in the second.

Problem is made worse because most biz owners think like marketEEs -- believing the falsehood: The initial spark that leads to the vast majority of transactions emanates from the marketEE (not the marketER) -- This misguided belief is usually exemplified by this declaration...

"BACK OFF marketers! If *I* want to buy something, *I* will go out, and *I* will find it (myself)!! Your attempts to intrusively advertise to/AT me, have NO EFFECT on my buying decision(s)!! I will behave in EXACTLY the same way, with or WITHOUT your intrusive advertising!!"

Those statements are absolute nonsense -- and successful marketERs understand they are nonsense.

-- TW

Phil - thanks for the link...
 

If I did take over that blog, I'd have to change the viewpoint. Whereas he's saying ads are too intrusive, I see that as a good thing!

Ads MUST get more intrusive. It is a natural (+ necessasry) evolution. As marketEEs struggle to find ways to IGNORE ads, marketERs must find ways to make sure marketEEs CANNOT ignore them!

For capitalism to survive, there's no way around it! For example, look how ads on PBS have evolved -- from 'whispering' almost-invisible suggestions, to (now) blatant, out+out blaring ADS. There's no other choice (assuming PBS wants the advertisers to PAY them!!).

Here's a report on one aspect of the intrusive ad frontier...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0nmztds7B4

Here's a great article on the topic...
http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/m...aises-concerns

Article mentions how surveyed marketEEs say they would not ***WANT*** this type of thing to happen. IMO, consumers' opinions about what ads they ***WANT*** is irrellevant!! If people want to keep their JOBS (which RELY on capitalism's survival!!!), they must NOT ignore the ads. It's all interconnected -- a giant house-of-cards economy.

Another example -- when people use the DVR to "save" their favorite TV show, they are actually KILLING that show (at the same time as "saving" it), because the DVR allows the viewer to IGNORE (skip past) the ads -- which, in turn KILLS the show, because the MUNNY to pay the actors goes away.

The marketEES see the intrusive ads as an UNNECESSARY annoyance, when actually it is the LIFEBLOOD that keeps what they consume (AND THIER OWN JOB, most likely) ALIVE in the first place (capitalism, in general).

There's no way around it.

Cheers.

-- TW

Yahoo News videos held HOSTAGE...
 

Try to watch a Yahoo News video online, and you're likely to run into this...

"Your video will begin after a word from our sponsors." (aka: an intrusive COMMERCIAL)

This will (by NECESSITY) increase to the point where (I predict) your entire websurfing experience will be *interrupted* (every 1/2 hour or 15-minutes?) by UNavoidable commercials (like on TV). Actually if/WHEN such intrusive commercials are in place on the web, they will be MORE effective than TV ads, because they must be 'experienced' in a straight line (time-wise), and CANNOT be 'skipped past,' as with a DVR!!

Adding intrusive, unavoidable commercials to the websurfing experience is a natural progression (because the money comes from intrusive ads (they produce more transactions) -- and without money, nothing happens).

Again, the intended audience(s) cannot be *permitted* to avoid the ads (if capitalism is to survive).

-- TW

A question? SHOULD capitalism...survive?
 

Just wondering. About capitalism.

The kind of free market that brought us the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill?

The Wall St. Capitalism of a trillion dollar bailout?

The let's make second rate cars of Detroit capitalism?

I'm just wondering what is there so worth saving about it?
To have to resort to intrusive advertising for capitalism to survive, well, hell then, let it die.

Maybe we can have a NEW Free Market of "intrusive honesty"?

I'm not buying the premise or the products that use it.

Gordon Jay Alexander

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

By the way, it wasn't free market cap-ism that led to the spill or the housing melt down -- it was gov't rules + oversight, mostly. Fannie/Freddie forcing banks to lower lending requirements + the deepwater horizon rig was given excellent safety rating by the gov't 1 or 2 months before the explosion.

But -- is cap-ism worth saving? Well, if it goes away, all will be reduced to what is "necessary." That is whatever you'd see in an Amish village. Nothing wrong with that -- except -- how will everyone EAT?

Cap-ism is decadent, lavish, materialistic, imperial, etc. -- yes, I agree.

But when one dials everything back to what is "necessary," one ends up with many, many STARVING PEOPLE who unable to supprt themselves, because their LIVELIHOOD was a *superfluous* job.

No, we don't NEED 137 TV channels, or Macy's, or Paul Mitchell, or computers, or $2,300 couches -- and all the middlemen in all the distribution chains, etc., etc. -- we don't even really "NEED" more than one kind of shirt. But, together, all those "superfluous" jobs (products + services) make up a giant "superfluous" HOUSE-of-CARDS that is our ECONOMY!!

And that economy (as superfluous as (I admit) it is), FEEDS a lot of people.

If it goes away (in favor of what is "necessary") how will all those people EAT?

Gordon, you have in your sig an info product about info products. That product allows you to eat (or it creates a certain % of your food). But when all the "unnecessary" things start getting zapped, won't that include your info product? Isn't your product superfluous too? Isn't it (too) part of the interdependent, superfluous house-of-cards called cap-ism? If it gets zapped, and everything gets dialed back to "Amish village" level -- and you go to the grocery store to buy milk -- and you reach into your wallet for $ -- and you see nothing there -- what will you do?

Or are you also a carpenter?

-- TW

Normally TW, I don't respond to your posts...
 

You are as much of an enigma to me as Glenn Osborn is to you. I just don't 'get' you. That being said.

The gulf oil spill as well as wall street meltdown WERE the result of OUR current free market capitalism which believes the golden rule of whoever has the gold makes the rules. And Gov't at all levels and in all Federal Bureaucracies is in collusion with or paid by "Capitalists".

There was a popular book in the 50's, None Dare Call it Treason. The saying is, "Treason does not prosper, for it prospers, none dare call it treason."

I'm a big believer in free enterprise and capitalism as you well know, but my point is, I'm not buying YOUR premise of the need to advertise in such a way, an INTRUSIVE way to "save capitalism".

What will save "capitalism" is NOT intrusive advertising...but a combination of factors, and advertising being only a part of the mix.

YES, it is necessary to promote products, but even when the ads come on for say, Hulu, we don't have to tune into them. In fact, the 30 seconds can be used for doing other things.

Gordon Jay Alexander

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Hi Gordon...

I'm not saying ads must be made to be intrusive to save cap-ism. I'm saying intrusive ads have always been + will continue to be the cornerstone, driving force, behind cap-ism. Cap-ism cannot exist without intrusive ads. Further, it thrives to the extent that ads are intrusive -- and that has always been the case.

When you say, "those 30-secs can be spent doing something else," are you saying the advertisERs are stupidly wasting their zillions of $$$'s? That the intrusive ads 'system' is a myth, in terms of effectiveness? If so, I'm sure stockholders would be fascinated by that.

Also, if you don't like ads that are intrusive, why not remove your sig from your posts in this forum? Why doesn't the owner of the forum remove the banner ads? Wouldn't the exact same number of sales be made, with or without the intrusive sigs + banners? Or are the sigs + banners "successful" to the extent that they are intrusive (uninvited + use info about the viewer that the viewer never (willingly) "gave" to the marktER(s) -- contextual).

Whether the marketEE "wants" or doesn't want to be "marketed to," is irrellevent. That cannot be allowed to be part of the transaction equation. How many ads do you "want" to see on your favorite tv show? None, of course. Yet, the ads are what is paying for the show -- and it's NOT the advertisier who's paying -- it's the viewer(s) who pay, via buying the stuff that is advertised. For that to happen, the audience must be *forced* to pay attention to the ads. So, merely "ignoring those 30-seconds" makes the show (or yahoo news video) VANISH.

-- TW

Re: Yahoo News videos held HOSTAGE...
 

I look at my email until the internet commercials are over.

Anti-capitalism
 

Gordon,

The problem is not capitalism.

Every instance you cite involves huge corporate interests who have a long-time unholy alliance with the politicians. The corporations fund campaigns, and congress passes the legislation the corporations want ... mainly designed to raise the bureaucratic cost of entry into any market so high that no entrepreneur in his right mind would dare enter that market.

The problem is government collusion with big business. If you want to call that capitalism, I guess that's your choice. To me, it's anti-capitalism. The intended result is FEWER businesses and LESS competition ... putting more money in the pockets of big business and the politicians.

The only way that will stop is when politicians don't go along with it. It's pretty tough to be optimistic THAT will ever happen ... but certainly not with the group in charge now.

Richard

Sorry to be such a terrier here...
 

Every member of this forum who puts a for-profit link in their sig, is engaging in intrusive advertising.

The owners of this forum are engaging in intrusive advertising via the banner ads that appear.

Also, I noticed Gordon (who has a link-in-sig), asks -- on his site -- for the services of a WP expert. The reward he offers him/her, is... an intrusive ad (for them, in his final product).

So, not only an intrusive ad user, but he's *trafficing* in intrusive ads (ie: he's a "dealer"), too! lol

Or maybe I'm just looking at the topic differently than Gordon is, overall.

I'm not saying I'm a *fan* of intrusive ads -- I'm just pointing out that they are *necessary* part (an INTEGRAL part) of capitalism. And the natural progression is for the intrusiveNESS to INCREASE over time, not decrease.

The ads CHASE the people, and the people cannot be permitted to "win" (or cap-ism will die).

Cheers.

-- TW

Re: Sorry to be such a terrier here...
 

I think your definition of "intrusive" contrasts with what most folks think "intrusive" means.

If you ask folks if forum signatures are intrusive - they will say no.
If you ask folks if blinking forum signatures are intrusive - they will say yes.

Intrusive = forced / unwelcome interruption. At least thats what I take the word to mean. It would be helpful if you mention what the word means for you yoo.

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

TW,

To start with the cornerstone of Capitalism was to break free from the King of England's rule and government ownership of all businesses as well as the extreme taxation placed upon colonists.

The definition of Capitalism is: "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Simply put, Capitalism succeeds due to a free market, not advertising. When the government steps into the free market to take over or regulate private sector businesses, then Capitalism begins to disappear. No amount of intrusive or permission based advertising can save it or shift the machine.

Advertising is only a medium and has always been a medium to do one thing and one thing only, to carry a message. And that message has always been, "Look what I got, You need it, Buy it now!"

As for Intrusive Advertising, the subject, it's in every economic system and has been around long before Capitalism ever came into existence.

Remember intrusive advertising can be found as far back as Ancient China when peddlers would dance and sing in front of their goods and were known for going door-to-door interrupting the person's day to sell them their wares.

Forms of advertising in ancient times

People in old times created various ways of advertising to prosper their businesses. Today you can still find traces of the ancient advertising signs in commercial streets or in front of stores and restaurants. The main advertising forms included:

Peddling

Peddling, a kind of clear, sonorous and rhythmic yo-heave-ho, was a special way to attract customers or passengers when the peddlers traveled about the streets to sell their goods.

Signboards

The signboard, usually made of cloth, silk or boards, was a vivid sign to describe the businesses and attract customers. Mainly set up in front of shops and bars, it was also called a bar sign or shop sign.

Music

It was a centuries-old advertising form in China in which sellers sang songs and played instruments while selling their goods.

Lanterns

Lanterns had been used as a means of advertising in front of shops and restaurants until the founding of New China. Similar to neon signs in today's cities, lanterns in ancient times had clear but brief business descriptions on them.

Real objects

Real objects were used as advertising signs for businesses especially in front of restaurants and bars, such as the head of various cattle.

Picture signs

Picture advertising, such as designs of scissors for a scissors shop and shoe pattern for a shoe shop, was a more civilized way compared to using real objects.

Characters

From real objects to pictures, and to pictures with descriptions, ancient advertising had developed a long way. The emergence of signboards with only characters, such as "当" (to pawn) and "押" (to impawn) in front of pawnshops, indicated the maturity of advertising.

Copperplate-printed advertisements emerged during the Song Dynasty (960-1279), more than 300 years earlier than those in the West.

Finally, ALL ADVERTISING is intrusive. I don't care what Seth Godin preaches. Because at the end of the day it is still: "Look what I got, You need it, Buy it now!" Some folks just have to say it 7 times.

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

I make a distinction between 'unwelcome' + 'uninvited.'

Unwelcome means there's an implied backlash -- like 'reviled.'

'Uninvited' just means there may or not be a backlash, but either way, the ad was not *requested* (or sought out) by the marketEE.

That is, intrusive advertising is where the ad finds the marketEE, and not the other way around.

It's the difference between a display ad (smack-dab in the middle of a newspaper article), and a classified ad.
In the former, the ad 'finds' the reader (intrusively/uninvited). In the latter, the reader finds the ad (intentionally).

It never made sense to me when, say, Yahoo announces (re: yahoo SEARCH), "Target thousands of potential customers!" That's not the marketER 'targeting' the marketEE! -- It's backwards! After all, the 'target' in 'target marketing' SHOULD refer to the marketEE, not the marketER!

Intrusive marketing is where the marketER has a means by which he/she can get the message in front of the intended audience, with or without their specific permission to do so.

So, a sig link and a banner ad, both qualify.

In both cases the marketER has found a way to state their case, in front of my eyes, regardless of whether I am seeking such an offer or not.

It is intruding, *uninvited* (by me).

-- And I contend, if this ability is taken away from marketers (or as it erodes), cap-ism will disappear -- because that is where the initial spark comes from, that leads to the vast majority of transactions.

It is a question of who is finding whom, really. I say 80-90% of transactions are the result of marketers finding marketees (with or without permission).

-- TW

I agree. But...
 

Richard,

I can't argue with you. I agree. But it may be a parsing of words.

WE are the picture in the dictionary when it comes to Capitalism.

However, we have, as you point out, an Anti-Capitalism society, which has been built from the late 50s when President Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial complex.

What we have is a PAY TO PLAY capitalism. Deep pockets secure votes.

Let me give you an "observation". Twenty-five years ago, Ben Suarez was at war with corrupt bureaucrats and politicians.

He spent millions fighting and running full page ads and millions more exposing corruption.

NOW, I'm in NO WAY speaking for Ben, just giving my OBSERVATION of what appeared to happen, and I may be way off target. But what I saw happen was a shift.

A shift of money spent. Instead of fighting, Ben formed a Political Action Committee.

So, IT APPEARED, that instead of "fighting" politicians, he decided to join the Capitalistic Way of doing it...BUYING THEM.

If you consider political contributions, he and other small businesses are "small fries" compared to the money being spent by Big Pharm, Big Insurance, Big OIL, Big BANKS, etc.

THEY (the big contrbutors) have their own form of capitalism. BUY the politician. Spend big money on influencing their votes as it pertains to their business.

AND the result is we have corrupt organizations, the Minerals Mining Management is just the most recent GLARING example of money talking and "to hell with the people" attitude which pervades all of gov't.

IT is ANTI capitalism. But it is the REALITY of the times in which we live. But it is the way things are, so, it is also the way of capitalism in America today.



My opinion: it won't happen. EVER. No matter who is elected or who is in power. It is my opinion, it is too late. We've passed the line of no return. What we have in the way of Capitalism in USA today is what we have.

It is what it is.

And it won't and I think CAN'T be changed. I call it Capitalism. You call it anti-capitalism...and I think we agree on the condition as it exists, however we might parse the word or differ on definitions.

Gordon

PS. On a different note Richard, is there 100 acres available in your neck of the woods, or all the way up into GA. A golf course for sale might work too.

Re: I agree. But...
 

I refer to this as corporatism.

Re: I agree. But...
 

Gordon,

I love you, man. We've only met once, but that week in Arkansas definitely ranks high on "Most Fun Weeks of My Life."

But I totally disagree that this is just "parsing of words." Our anti-capitalism society was going on when Ike was in elementary school. The political collusion between politicians & big business has a much longer history than the late 50s. But that's another discussion.

In 1978, after failing at a wide variety of sales jobs and 2 or 3 businesses, I took a fall-back, short-term job as a bus driver in Miami & Miami Beach, while I figured out how to make big money.

Sixteen years later, "big money" showed up and "short-term" ended. I've always had a long runway.

One of my most vivid memories from my 16 years as a county government employee came the first week in training class. The instructor asked the class how much of the system revenue we thought came in through the farebox. Don't remember my answer. Low guess for the class was about 25%.

Answer: 13%.

In other words, taxpayers were financing 87% of the transit system. The people actually using it and benefiting from it were putting up 13%.

I was stunned. But he wasn't done.

Of all those tax dollars, the majority was coming from the federal government. So people in Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bar Harbor, Maine, and Chagrin Falls, Ohio were paying MORE for our transit system than anyone in our local area.

I sat there shaking my head for awhile.

----

Remember the "3 Big Lies"? I know you heard them in the Navy, if not before:

1. "The check is in the mail."
2. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
3. "I promise not to ... (redacted)."

We all know the truth. Government is a special interest group that 100% watches out for itself. There is no way on God's green earth to waste money any more efficiently than to give it to government. The performance standard for government agencies is to spend everything they get on whatever they think is a good idea, so they can ask for more. I saw this craziness up close for 16 years. What boggled my mind was that I was seeing the thievery in just one agency in one county in one state in the U.S.

I don't take a second seat to anyone in my disdain for the big corporations. But it is stark raving nuts to demand more government oversight of these corporations. Reminds me of the words of B'rer Rabbit in "Song of the South" when I was 8 years old:

"Please, B'rer Fox, PLEASE, B'rer Fox, PLEASE DON'T THROW ME INTO THAT BRIAR PATCH!!!"

Corporations = B'rer Rabbit
You & I = B'rer Fox
Corporate & Government Collusion = the briar patch

It's government + big corporations

versus

you + me + all the public + all entrepreneurs & small businesses

I believe it is our duty to ourselves & our children & grandchildren to do everything in our power to change what we can. For instance:

1. It's pretty easy to observe that the longer a politician is in office, the worse they get. Solution? Vote for opponents. Get rid of incumbents. I believe this is a good policy for as long as the U.S. exists.

2. Let them know at every turn that they cannot spend money we don't have. That spending policy MUST end in disaster for us.

Enough of us yelling at them together, and voting them out, will make a change.

Less-experienced politicians won't be able to steal as much money from us. That's my plan.

Richard

PS - Lots of acres available up here. Give me a clue what you have in mind, and I can probably make a suggestion.

Perhaps Richard, THIS is where our opinions differ...
 

Richard,

I may be wrong, but I see we have a difference of opinion and, I'm thinking, it boils down to this:

YOU have hope.

I think it is too late.

My opinion is this; if we were to somehow replace every single politician and political appointee in the next few years,

swept every incumbent at every level, including the $800,000.00 a year City Manager of Bell, CA,

and everyone appointed to a gov't "job"...

out of office and replaced them with (and go with whatever political leanings you want, all right, all left, all extreme right, all extreme left, centrists)...

it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

And I think there is where we really disagree. You have HOPE for a better tomorrow for your children and future generations via

"Enough of us yelling at them together, and voting them out, will make a change."

I just don't see how.

My HOPE lies in the community of man, in the individual who is part of a bigger picture and working with people and not governments, big business nor special interests groups.

I feel that politics as a vehicle of change is beyond repair.

But I do hold out hope for the individual and the community.

Gordon

I wonder if...
 

Hi,

I wonder if part of the problem is that Obama isn't giving everyone enough "Hope"...

Copywriting and entrepreneurial maestro Joseph Sugarman states a theory is that the US President acts like a "father figure" for people.

When this father figure is weak, we become weak too and lose our confidence...

However, when this father figure is strong, we also become strong too and gain more confidence...

Obama hasn't been looking very confident lately, I'd say. It seems to me that he hasn't looked very strong in the face of the Gulf oil spill (although apparently it's plugged - for now, anyway)...

It seems to me that, when it comes to the President, impressions can become reality - because the impression everyone gets can affect everyone, psychologically...

Here's an old post I wrote on this topic (back in 2000)...

http://www.sowpub.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2002

And here's an article on this topic from the Telegraph (a British newspaper), about Obama's impression of "impotence"...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...lame-duck.html

I also read another article which points out that Obama's tone has changed...

The article said: The "Yes we can" chutzpah was gone. It's more: "Perhaps we can't before the next election."

The point is - this could be one of the big sources of a feeling of hopelessness... We need a "father figure" who radiates confidence, to give the nation confidence too.

Obama seems to have lost his confidence.

Best wishes,

Dien

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Dien...

I agree. I saw this coming back in Jan. I made this vid... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jxVr9hDic

Cheers.

-- TW

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Hi TW,

That's not exactly what I mean, but, anyway...

If the president is like a "father figure", then we tend to follow the president's "vibes".

When the president looks out of touch and overwhelmed - as Obama seems to be lately - it doesn't help the country's confidence! And people get pessimistic about the future...

Best wishes,

Dien

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

My vid makes somewhat the same point.

He's becoming a well-meaning, but ultimately ineffective + incompetent president -- which is similar to what Carter became.

-- TW

I 100% disagree with both of you
 

Dien:
The article said: The "Yes we can" chutzpah was gone. It's more: "Perhaps we can't before the next election."

The point is - this could be one of the big sources of a feeling of hopelessness... We need a "father figure" who radiates confidence, to give the nation confidence too.

Reality:
1. Obama has passed health care, the biggest government take-over in US history, a socialist dream for a hundred years ... despite more than 50% opposition of the American public. No other president ever did anything remotely close to this. Incredible achievement for Obama & the lefties.

2. Obama has passed a trillion-dollar stimulus bill, for which our children and grandchildren will be paying their whole lives, despite overwhelming opposition of the US public.

3. Obama has passed the financial reform act, giving incredible power to government, without so much as a word about two of the biggest sources of the financial problems - government agencies Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The fine print in this bill may be big government's biggest win of all.

Obama has changed this country more in 18 months than any president in history in that period of time ... IMO, it's not even close. He has created the socialist state that he had in mind when he started.

Hopeless? You gotta be kidding me. He's ecstatic, and he wants more.


TW:
He's becoming a well-meaning, but ultimately ineffective + incompetent president -- which is similar to what Carter became.

The truth is exactly the opposite. He's very effective, very competent, and very evil.

On the plus side, a lot of the American public is now mobilized against the socialists, which gives hope for the future.

Richard Dennis

Re: I 100% disagree with both of you
 

Not discussing Obama's politics. Discussing political bents and happiness levels.

Here is a list of top 10 happiest countries in the world:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/wor...lup-table.html

Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, and Australia.

Whats the common denominator?

Overwhelmingly they're socialist democracies. Big governments. High taxes. Cheap or free health and education.

82% people in Denmark think they are thriving. Compared to 57% of people in USA. (India is doing very very poorly...)

As one commenter on Reddit jests:


Being of a libertarian bent, I hate high taxes and government involvement. But seems like overall, the population is happier when their basic necessities are taken care of by the government.

Seems like - if we take Maslow's hierarchy - the bottom layers of the pyramid should be guaranteed by the government to make people happier. The bottom parts should not be left to merit.

Is there a way to provide the bottom needs to everyone without raising taxes and increasing the size of the governments? I'm not sure... your thoughts?

Wow
 

Ankesh,

THAT is the argument you want to make?

That people are happier with less freedom, less money, and more government?

Do you really believe that?

If so ... wow.

Richard

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Ankesh,
I think you are misreading this poll. The majority of Americans reject the "my government owes me" mentality. Europeans may be happy with their socialism but Americans are not. The further we move away from a Democratic Republic and get closer to socialism the less happy as a nation we are. I always hear how Americans can't export their idea of democracy and expect the rest of the world to be happy with it. I would say the same for European socialism. You can't bring it to America and expect the average American to be happy with it. That's what we have with liberal America, European socialism. Just my thoughts.

Also, America was the top of the list when it came to personal freedoms. I don't think we are even in the top ten now. The further away we get from a Democratic Republic and the closer we get to European socialism the less personal freedoms we have. I prefer the personal struggles and more personal freedoms. Again, just my thoughts.

Scott S.

The "dependency" mindset...
 

Hi Richard and everyone,

These "socialistic" type systems generally transfer wealth from richer people to poorer people...

So the richer types are generally unhappy with them (and often flee the country - the "tax exiles"). A lot of rich Europeans move to Monaco, for example, which has no income tax. Apparently, 84% of the population of Monaco is made of up of wealthy foreigners, most of whom are probably there to escape the high taxes of their home country.

(It is easier to become a "tax exile" if your income is from a business, though it's harder if your income is from a job.)

However, some poorer people may be happy with this approach - as they have the government looking after them. I think the main danger is that this can foster a "dependent" mentality - as Goofy sang in a cartoon, "Oh, the world owes me a livin'!"

That's a bad (and personally destructive) attitude to have!

It's easy to get unemployment benefits where I live (Australia), and I've known people who have been living off of unemployment benefits for decades, in some cases.

I've seen what happens - it often creates a "dependency" mindset. You don't "have" to actually do anything - because every couple weeks or so, the government gives you more money. That actually saps your creativity and resolve.

Why work hard to create new things and come up with new ideas, when you don't have to? These people are also often unhappy, in my observation - because creativity and being independent are two of life's pleasures!

One lady I used to know a little spent all day watching TV and eating junk food. That was her life. Collecting unemployment benefits every couple weeks, and the rest of her time was spent watching TV, and eating junk food. She made absolutely no positive contribution to society. And she was unhappy - but of course, it was somehow everybody else's fault, not hers. When I see a person like that, I think - what a sad, sad life.

Anyway, this "dependency" mindset is a big danger to be aware of!

(For the record, I've never received unemployment benefits - which is a choice I made, when I saw how destructive the "dependency mindset" could be. Whenever I've gotten myself in a hole, I've always figured I'd do my best to use my own resources to get myself out of it!)

Best wishes,

Dien

Re: Wow
 

Thanks Richard.

To tell you the truth, the idea does not sit well with me personally. But I'm trying to look at it from a macro level.

I don't think people in Denmark are less free.
I think their per capita income levels are also higher. So its certainly not less money.

But what they have is higher taxes. And bigger governments. And the government using higher taxes to provide basic necessities like security, food, health, education to all.

So "less freedom, less money, and more government" should not be bunched together. Because it'll just deviate the discussion.

There seems to be evidence that shows that populations get happier when their basic necessities are guaranteed. So it makes sense to not to reject the idea of social democracy out right. But figure out a middle way to may be make it a bit more merit based. At least thats my current thinking on it.

You KNOW being happy isn't always...
 

the answer.

Look at all of the lottery winners who thought winning the lottery would make them HAPPY.

Saying you are happy is like saying you have the in-laws living with you
but they are staying in the camper in the back. It's its own oxymoron.

Being content on the other hand is the key. Happiness comes and goes... BUT if you truly are content, you will have peace AND happiness in your life.

It's not all about money, or who provides you what, its about being content with ones life.

I would like to know the countries that have the most CONTENT people.

Am I happy if someone is paying my health care, maybe my bills, my mortgage and so on. SURE. BUT AM I CONTENT?

The difference between happiness and contentment? Deep down inside.

later...
Pappy

Re: Wow
 

Ankesh,

Here's the thing.

A business must have a clue what it is doing, because it has competitors. A business must make some % of good choices when it spends money. Most businesses cannot make bad choices for long, or they will sink below the waterline and drown.

A government has no such restrictions. People in government are not spending their own money, so they have no worries about drowning. In the US, government reps work out deals with each other to benefit each other's re-election chances ... spending your money and mine.

And what they spend it on doesn't matter to them. Not only is it not their money, but if they make 100 or 1000 bad choices in a row, they just print more money. The only losers are everybody not on the government payroll.

And all that money comes from you and me.

So absolutely, more government = less money, 100% of the time.

And how do you get more government? Because the legislators - and in the US, well over half of them are lawyers - pass more laws. Lawyers LOVE more laws. Every new law is more work for lawyers. Every new law takes money out of your hands and my hands and transfers it into the hands of lawyers ... and congress. And every law is a restriction on something we used to be able to do, 100% of the time.

So absolutely, more government = more laws = less freedom.

Richard

Re: Wow
 

Hi Ankesh, and others involved in this discussion.

I'm an Australian living in Denmark, and you're right, Taxes here are ridiculously high, and public servants take up 900,000 jobs, in active workforce of less than 3 million!

Tax rates start at around 45-50 % and go up to 63%. Vat, or 'Moms' as it is called here is 25%, on everything you buy.

A car that costs US 30,000 in Belgium ends up, with the help of a 180% duty (vat is added before the 180% kicks in), on all new cars, costing close to US 100,000.

I honestly think that there must be something in the water, that makes The Danes forget how much it costs them to enjoy the right to live here.
Combine this with a climate that is cold, damp and dark in the winters, occasionally warm in the summers, and a landscape whose highest 'mountain' peaks at 135 m above sea level.........

Why am I still here? Three days after I arrived in the country back in 1991 a local asked me the question.
"If not for Love, what the f&?k are you doing in Denmark?

Right there lies the answer!

Re: Intrusive advertising is THE cornerstone of capitalism...
 

Will agree to Bill, I mean you can do others things while the commercial is rolling. It is just the same what we do watching TV, when the commercial pops, that is the cue to stand up and go to the bathroom.. :D

Re: Wow
 

Benn, you are absolutely right.. as Ankesh given a point and well explored in your words and I completely agree with you amte.. Even I am an Australian and living in scotland. This place is bit considerable than places like Denmark. The revolution has started here saying 'enough taxes'. let us see if we can win from here..

..

Re: The "dependency" mindset...
 

Amen to that Dien. :D

Huge danger.

To me, it's like that water bottle in a hamster cage with the little metal ball at the end of the drinking tube...IF someone puts water in the bottle, the hamster drinks...if they don't...the hamster dies.

I'd rather fill my own bottle. ;)