And now for something completely different...

[--Pete]

hi,

I have been trying to talk my son into civil engineering with specialty in enviro science. He wants to be a doctor.

He does know, doesn't he, that the modern doctor is just an enrichment enabler for lawyers?

Why is it that the least useful professions pay the best, and those that actually do some good get screwed. I guess being a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, a cop, etc., should be its own reward -- after all, they don't do it for the money. :wacko:

--Pete

[naverone]

Malthus is smiling in his grave.

And, it has. Automation and technology in business have skyrocketed the past 30 years, and yet we still expect a person to commute through rush hour to the job, arrive at 8am, take lunch from 12 to 12:30, and work until about 5:00pm, then commute home through rush hour again. It is customary, and unnecessary.

I agree, and I can happily tell you first hand that this is changing. Flexible hours and working from home are heavily used at many companies. However, as long as business involves people who have a limited timeframe each day to communicate there will be bottlenecks (as you described).

We also have a socio-economic system that only rewards the worker, so social stability rests upon achieving near 100% employment. But, with more and more technology, efficiency, and automation, the society needs fewer and fewer workers. Therefore, the excess workers in our society do meaningless "make work" jobs for meager wages. Technology has increased productivity which has allowed companies to shed jobs, and increase profits. But, through it all workers have lost the power to affect a social change. So perhaps we could rethink the nature of work to include something simple like, a four day, 30 hour work week, or additional vacation time per year.

This paragraph makes a point in every direction. On one hand we have a economic system which is entirely dependent upon workers working and on the other workers have lost the power to cause change.:)

1) The view that technology is a net destroyer of jobs is incorrect. Certain part of the economy will suffer but others will thrive. In the long run, the net result will be more jobs.

2) Technology enables greater worker specialization. This enables people to focus doing what they want and earn a living doing it. (Think absolute vs relative advantage).

3) There are jobs where you can work a 30 hour work week and there are jobs where you can’t because of competition.

Consider an isolated town with not imports or exports. If you have a stable population of say 100,000 people in a town, then it makes sense that you can sell them at most a stable amount of widgets, or services. That same 100,000 people have a fairly stable income, so their same "disposable income" would also be the target of all goods and services offered in that town. The only way to increase the economy would be to grow the population, or grow the pool of "disposable income". Barring population growth, the only means to grow the pool of "disposable income" would be to reduce the costs of living, and the costs of doing business. In other words, increasing the efficiency of the entire socio-economic system. The savings would be diverted into peoples pockets. There is of course a limit to how efficient a system can get.

Assuming that you have 100,000 workers who are all employed at the best possible location then I agree, either the # of workers must increase or technology must increase.

What is the limit to how efficient a system can get?

I would contend that this is based on human ingenuity. Look at the how the standard of living has dramatically increased over the last hundred years, Matlhus be damned. Where will the next innovation come from? Unfortunately seems like a black swan to me, but if you know clue me in and we'll make a lot of money :D

Cheers,
Naverone

[--Pete]

Hi,

Investors should require a certain level of return.

'Require' and not 'demand' -- and an investor votes with his wallet.

Anyone can invest in treasuries which are widely viewed as risk free and earn a certain rate of return. Why would he accept a smaller return when more risk is involved? How is this unreasonable?

Who said anything about a smaller return? Again, keeping it simple. I make coffee for a buck a cup, all expenses included. I sell it for a buck ten. You invested a grand in my coffee shop, and I pay you a hundred bucks a year ROI. Unless you *demand* a higher ROI, why does my shop need to grow?

Taking this idea . . . we find ourselves in our current situation . . .

A truly ringing endorsement of investors and economists. A practical demonstration of the stupidity of "sustainable growth." Economists should have to take a lab course in which they establish colonies of bacteria in petri dishes and study what "sustainable growth" gives. I'd recommend nose plugs and Vick's Vapor Rub when opening those dishes after the first few days.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Malthus is smiling in his grave.

And he'll be laughing, by and by.

Matlhus be damned. Where will the next innovation come from? Unfortunately seems like a black swan to me, but if you know clue me in and we'll make a lot of money :D

Ah, yes. The falling optimist argument. He was overheard, while passing the twentieth floor, to have said, "What's to worry? It all seems fine to me."

And, yes, technology generates more jobs than it destroys. Just ask the auto and steel workers in the rust belt. But that's OK, too. We'll simply retrain them all to be neurosurgeons and cosmologists. I'm sure they'll find their new occupations much more satisfying. ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
And he'll be laughing, by and by.
Ah, yes. The falling optimist argument. He was overheard, while passing the twentieth floor, to have said, "What's to worry? It all seems fine to me."

And, yes, technology generates more jobs than it destroys. Just ask the auto and steel workers in the rust belt. But that's OK, too. We'll simply retrain them all to be neurosurgeons and cosmologists. I'm sure they'll find their new occupations much more satisfying. ;)

Well put, Pete, but about that Malthusian thing. It is unevenly reacted to as a pile of Conventional Wisdom or prophecy.

Fertility rates show that the so called civilized people who would agree with some of the bright ideas of responsible collective endeavour are low. Fertility rates of those who have yet to catch that train ranges from 2.0 to greater.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Take the video with a grain of salt, it is a rather gross pile of fear mongering. That glaring weakness aside, uses statistical data to show something that it does not intend to:

The population growth won't stop any time soon, and the eight billion figure I mentioned earlier will be arrived at within about a generation, unless something dire transpires in the interim. The film focuses on a particular political bit of tunnel vision in its scare mongering, but even if that chicken little position is somewhat correct, which I doubt, those who end up "taking over" are still faced with the same problem as any other social group: too many freakin' people with plenty of desires and expectations.

When I was in elementary school, China had about 600 million people and India about 400 million people. A generation and a half later, with two different social norms running, India has surpassed China, each over a billion. I do not care to guess how the struggle for energy and resources, of all sorts, will not result in a hell of a lot more war over the next twenty five years. It's as old an excuse as the one Darius used, or Caesar.

One of the points that irritates me about the linked film is its certainty that "what is Muslim" will not adapt and evolve as its younger generations grow up in juxtaposition with the more liberally minded regions of the world. It occurs to me that plenty of modern, secularized Muslims don't crank out babies at the 6-8 level, so from that angle alone, population pressure is not guaranted to be unending. But it may be. Depends on a lot of things, your propaganda and education pair considered.

Here is an example of the the cultural assumptions that can change, religion notwithstanding.

Italy. Once a great Catholic spawning pool. The Pope was most pleased, no doubt. I am, since it gave us Pete, and some of my neighbors in Italy. :)

My landlord came from a large, Italian family. He had six brothers and sisters. His wife likewise.

The two of them had two kids, Valeria and Alfredo. The weren't gonna have no more. Why? Cost too much, too much desire to set them up for their future.

WIll this generational change tend to happen as more places get "moderinzed?"

I don't know. But if it doesn't, then the Malthusian prediction will merely come to pass a century or so later than predicted, it all being a matter of when rather than if.

Occhi

[naverone]

Hi,
And he'll be laughing, by and by.
Ah, yes. The falling optimist argument. He was overheard, while passing the twentieth floor, to have said, "What's to worry? It all seems fine to me."

And, yes, technology generates more jobs than it destroys. Just ask the auto and steel workers in the rust belt. But that's OK, too. We'll simply retrain them all to be neurosurgeons and cosmologists. I'm sure they'll find their new occupations much more satisfying. ;)

--Pete

Drink the juice and be optimistic and invest like the current system will continue... or starting buying supplies for the "End of the World As We Know It". Peak Oil vs Peak Oil Extremists, the latter I can't make a profit off of so I don't pay too much attention too.

Economics is great until it is put into practice. When you have a bunch of really smart people telling everyone that things are getting worse and people base decisions off of it, then you end up in a really destructive cycle. Feeders of the animal spirits.

Cheers,
Naverone

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well put, Pete, but about that Malthusian thing. It is unevenly reacted to as a pile of Conventional Wisdom or prophecy.

I consider it neither. Simply a statement of a simple mathematical truism; the solution of dP/dt = kP for positive k grows without bounds.

Take the video with a grain of salt, it is a rather gross pile of fear mongering.

That video is precisely the kind of thing I'm thinking of when I say that I hate certain supporters. I wonder how many times they had to shoot that video before they got a copy without the words 'mud people' or worse creeping in. At first it appeared that that video was simple anti-Muslim propaganda. But with the inclusion of the Hispanics in the USA, it became pretty clear that it is a Christian, white supremacist rant. Their argument, like a stopped clock, may have some merit, but if it does, it is accidental at best.

The population growth won't stop any time soon, . . .

Doesn't follow from that video, and not from anything else I've seen. However, you are probably right since there does not seem to be any world leaders capable of leading in that direction and with the guts to try.

I do not care to guess how the struggle for energy and resources, of all sorts, will not result in a hell of a lot more war over the next twenty five years. It's as old an excuse as the one Darius used, or Caesar.

Funny you should mention old Julius. Free association: Caesar, Rome, aqueduct. And water might really be the resource wars will be fought over in the near future.

One of the points that irritates me about the linked film is its certainty that "what is Muslim" will not adapt and evolve as its younger generations grow up in juxtaposition with the more liberally minded regions of the world. It occurs to me that plenty of modern, secularized Muslims don't crank out babies at the 6-8 level, so from that angle alone, population pressure is not guaranted to be unending. But it may be. Depends on a lot of things, your propaganda and education pair considered.

Yes. The assumption that some form of primitive Islam will absorb Europe is indeed foolish. It is much more likely that a Europe not much different from what we have now will result, except that Islam will be added to the main religions which exist there now (Christianity and thinly disguised atheism).

Here is an example of the the cultural assumptions that can change, religion notwithstanding.

Italy. Once a great Catholic spawning pool. The Pope was most pleased, no doubt. I am, since it gave us Pete, and some of my neighbors in Italy. :)

My landlord came from a large, Italian family. He had six brothers and sisters. His wife likewise.

The two of them had two kids, Valeria and Alfredo. The weren't gonna have no more. Why? Cost too much, too much desire to set them up for their future.

WIll this generational change tend to happen as more places get "moderinzed?"

Italians have long since adopted the policy of strictly adhering to Catholic doctrine except when they disagreed with it, in which case we "will do as we do do";)

I don't know. But if it doesn't, then the Malthusian prediction will merely come to pass a century or so later than predicted, it all being a matter of when rather than if.

And to a large part, "how".

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Drink the juice and be optimistic and invest like the current system will continue... or starting buying supplies for the "End of the World As We Know It". Peak Oil vs Peak Oil Extremists, the latter I can't make a profit off of so I don't pay too much attention too.

Because, of course, there is no middle ground. No studying the current system, identifying its faults and its strengths and working to improve it, thus changing it. And, of course, planning for the future is just a waste of time.

Economics is great until it is put into practice. When you have a bunch of really smart people telling everyone that things are getting worse and people base decisions off of it, then you end up in a really destructive cycle. Feeders of the animal spirits.

So, the present conditions are just a lemming (sorry, not you, Lemming) stampede? There really wasn't an over investment in marginally secured loans? The big three auto makers weren't (again) building over sized gas guzzlers of poor quality that no one wanted? Mutual fund companies, with large sums to invest, weren't pushing the stock market beyond reasonable figures? It was all Chicken Little and the world came tumbling down?

Sorry, but I think the prophets of doom and gloom were really more reporters than prophets.

--Pete

[eppie]

Here is an example of the the cultural assumptions that can change, religion notwithstanding.

Italy. Once a great Catholic spawning pool. The Pope was most pleased, no doubt. I am, since it gave us Pete, and some of my neighbors in Italy. :)

My landlord came from a large, Italian family. He had six brothers and sisters. His wife likewise.

The two of them had two kids, Valeria and Alfredo. The weren't gonna have no more. Why? Cost too much, too much desire to set them up for their future.

WIll this generational change tend to happen as more places get "moderinzed?"

I don't know. But if it doesn't, then the Malthusian prediction will merely come to pass a century or so later than predicted, it all being a matter of when rather than if.

Occhi

This was the point that I was making before. However I think there are not enough resources on this planet to make everybody so prosperous in say a western style society that they will start considering getting less children. If all of India and China are as rich as western europe, US, Australia etc. and have the same consumption rate global warming can't be reversed anymore and the rest of the world will have 0 food. In other words, impossible.

I liked Pete's idea about propaganda but also this seems unpractical....propaganda does not work too well if every day you need to fight for getting enough food and water for you and your family.

As a socialist I have to admit that we probably should completely change our way of dealing with 3rd world countries. No more food and money, and no more taking in refugees. I know, it sound really harsh but it is the only way to prevent even bigger disasters. Of course this has to go hand to hand with technical support to raise the prosperity of these countries.....but still....it is not easy to convince people to have only 1 child instead of 5.

[Jester]

As a socialist I have to admit that we probably should completely change our way of dealing with 3rd world countries. No more food and money, and no more taking in refugees. I know, it sound really harsh but it is the only way to prevent even bigger disasters. Of course this has to go hand to hand with technical support to raise the prosperity of these countries.....but still....it is not easy to convince people to have only 1 child instead of 5.

The big issue is women's rights.

The demographic transition from high-mortality large families to low-mortality small families doesn't seem to be precisely correlated with wealth. You don't need a prosperous country, you need one that educates its people and *especially its women*. Access to contraception, effective health care, family planning facilities, and so on play a major assisting role, but if the status of women remains poor, then there is no helping it along. Advice will be ignored or subverted, contraception will go unused, and the population will continue to grow. This is one of the reasons why even relatively rich Islamic nations have surprisingly late demographic transitions, but many Asian countries have surprisingly fast ones. There might be various reasons why educating women helps so much. It might be raising the value of women's time, thereby increasing the opportunity cost of more children. It may be decreasing infant mortality, as women learn more modern ways to keep their kids healthy. But whatever it is, it seems to work.

Propaganda is useless. Shouting at someone (even very politely, with pamphlets and videos) to do something they have no interest in doing will get us nowhere. Shutting down borders will only exacerbate the problems by impoverishing everyone, and restricting the flow of culture and information.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Propaganda is useless.

Tell that to Madison Ave. Shouting at someone is useless. But incessant whispering works. We learn our values from our milieu, which is why songs, stories, TV, etc. are so important. In little more than one generation, I saw smoking go from a socially required activity to a socially repugnant one. Control the carton network and in a generation you will control the world.

--Pete

[Ashock]

Education for the 30% who think and propaganda for the rest;)
--Pete

30%? Since when have you been that much of an optimist???

Also, you are correct on propaganda. It is the single most powerful non-violent way of brainwashing people. Always has been and always will. Whoever disagrees with that, has obviously not seen real propaganda.... or at least not recognized it for what it was.

[--Pete]

Hi,

30%? Since when have you been that much of an optimist???

I was mellow and being generous. :whistling:

But, really, that is a good point. I wonder just how one could quantify 'thinking'? Is there a measure of how many 'think for themselves'? Is there even a way to determine what 'thinking for oneself' really means? We are all products of our culture, but to what extent?

Could we develop a cogitation triage, so to speak? The unaware sheep, the aware sheep, and the shepherd? For instance, divide the population into those who neither know nor care where the seven day week comes from but just accept it as 'that's the way it is'; those that know the origins and accept it anyway because it works pretty well and they can't think of how to improve it; and those that have a better idea.

I don't know -- too much to think about ;)

--Pete

[Jester]

Tell that to Madison Ave. Shouting at someone is useless. But incessant whispering works. We learn our values from our milieu, which is why songs, stories, TV, etc. are so important. In little more than one generation, I saw smoking go from a socially required activity to a socially repugnant one. Control the carton network and in a generation you will control the world.

Sure, but the problem is not in middle America. The problem is in Kenya, Niger, Bolivia. These are places where modern media has yet to make any kind of inroads. The things that determine the social milieu, in a family planning sense, aren't TV or radio, or whatever, it's women's social networks. If you can get to and convince that peer group, you succeed. If you can't, you can put up all the billboards and whatnot that you like, but they will be largely ignored.

I'm certainly not averse to using advertising to nudge them along. But I would maintain that trying to advertise without first trying to educate is inefficient at best, and ineffective at worst.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

These are places where modern media has yet to make any kind of inroads. The things that determine the social milieu, in a family planning sense, aren't TV or radio, or whatever, it's women's social networks. If you can get to and convince that peer group, you succeed. If you can't, you can put up all the billboards and whatnot that you like, but they will be largely ignored.

Right, the medium must reach the audience. That's a given. So TV ads are out. But radio reaches many more, as does the written word, as do songs and slogans. Chivalry was spread by the troubadours in a society not much more advanced, if at all, than the third world is now. Again, you seem to think that propaganda needs to be a dull ax. Well done, it is a fine scalpel which does its job unnoticed by the patient, leaving nearly invisible scars of change behind.

Why do you think things like the civil rights movement, or the women's movement have made progress? Because people have changed? Not much chance of that in a half century. Because they represent the 'right' thing to do? Then why didn't they occur eons ago -- they were just as right in classical Greece and in the anti-bellum south. What caused people to change, to embrace these 'new' ideas? Do you think it was laws? Or could it have been the propaganda in literature, in music, on TV, in the movies that reinforced the new attitudes and broke down the old.

Waterhole Number 3 was a hilarious movie when I first saw it and found nothing objectionable about it. I now find its attitude about rape to be offensive. Did it change, or have I changed? And if I've changed, why? The laws haven't changed. Song of the South was a wonderful animated musical. It hasn't changed, but it no longer is acceptable. Why?

Propaganda isn't just billboards and bullhorns. It's the look on Detective Stabler's face when a legal but socially unacceptable action takes place. It's These Boots Are Made for Walking replacing Right or Wrong. It's The Times, They Are a' Changing instead of The Ballad of the MTA.

Don't underestimate it. When we agree or disagree, it is often because of the propaganda we've each been exposed to and the degree to which it took or failed to take. And the journey to self awareness is an excavation through that propaganda, to see what of that we believe we truly believe and what we just accept.

So, yes, TV and billboards and political hacks with bullhorns might fail. But a catchy tune, a funny story, a well told joke all have their influence. Avalanches, I'm told, are started with a single rock.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Again, you seem to think that propaganda needs to be a dull ax. Well done, it is a fine scalpel which does its job unnoticed by the patient, leaving nearly invisible scars of change behind.

Like an after Glowbama.

[Jester]

Like an after Glowbama.

Michelle Malkin. Classy.

-Jester

[Jester]

So, yes, TV and billboards and political hacks with bullhorns might fail. But a catchy tune, a funny story, a well told joke all have their influence. Avalanches, I'm told, are started with a single rock.

I largely agree with you here. But the processes by which (as you mention) smoking went from popular to unpopular wasn't just advertising. It was education. Potential smokers learned why not to start, and current smokers learned why to stop. Some people still ignore the results for whatever personal reason, but it's clear that the change in peoples' knowledge about the health risks had quite a bit to do with the decline in smoking levels. And that was among one of the world's better educated populations, where there are no groups who are overwhelmingly less educated than others.

If the government hadn't pushed the education on the idea that smoking causes disease and death, and had just directly tried catchy tunes and jokes, I don't think it would have been nearly as successful. Smart advertising can help, maybe even a lot, but it probably won't be a primary cause of change.

Or, but another way, I'm told avalanches tend to roll downhill, not uphill. ;)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Malthus is smiling in his grave.

I don't predict the catastrophe he does, only increased levels of pain and destabilization. In the end, those with the guns will end up with the butter.

I agree, and I can happily tell you first hand that this is changing. Flexible hours and working from home are heavily used at many companies. However, as long as business involves people who have a limited timeframe each day to communicate there will be bottlenecks (as you described).

Here is where leadership would help. If they can implement day light savings time shifts to make better use of daylight, then they can suggest a program of work day changes to make better use of roads, to spread the peak demand for energy, or promote non commuting altogether.

This paragraph makes a point in every direction. On one hand we have a economic system which is entirely dependent upon workers working and on the other workers have lost the power to cause change.:)

You misunderstood. The economic system is built around a management and labor relationship where every worker makes widgets. Whoever can make the widget cheapest wins. Look at the inefficiencies of the family farm, and thus the death of them. The amount of land being tilled is roughly the same, but it is being done by corporations with the largest most efficient equipment. The social consequences of displacing people from agriculture were not considered, nor the social consequences of aggregating more and more people into cities where corporations are now responsible for growing the food to feed them. Likewise, automation, has displaced certain workers and yes, created other new types of employment, but employment statistics do show that the growth of service sector jobs has ballooned while others have waned. So, instead of working at the GM plant building the car, you work at Jiffy Lube changing the oil of the Jaguar owned by the robotics technician who cares for the robots at GM plant.

1) The view that technology is a net destroyer of jobs is incorrect. Certain part of the economy will suffer but others will thrive. In the long run, the net result will be more jobs.

And, in an innovation free environment, growth in output requires a proportional growth in employment. But, in an innovation rich environment, some of the workers becomes superfluous, while there is a smaller demand for some new types of workers who care for the robots. I guess another question is; How many pairs of Levi jeans do you really need? If everybody buys two or three pairs, rather than the one they need does that not triple the value of Levi Strauss?

2) Technology enables greater worker specialization. This enables people to focus doing what they want and earn a living doing it. (Think absolute vs relative advantage).

Maybe. I'm a technologist, and I've spent the last 30 years innovating people out of their jobs. I've helped 100's of companies "trim the fat", and run more efficient operations. From what I can tell, the reduction in costs helped to increase profits which kept their stocks competitive and made their shareholders temporarily happy for a few months. At no time did any company ever decide that the innovation would make the work easier, or better for the workers. The motivation is always to trim head count. At my last gig, one project was to redesigned the college admissions process. We figured out a way to trim 50 hours from the processing of every application, increasing the response time to the potential student from two weeks to three days. So, better efficiency, and higher "customer satisfaction", and a cost savings of four full time office workers in the students admissions office. No jobs were created here.

3) There are jobs where you can work a 30 hour work week and there are jobs where you can’t because of competition.

That would be because you need to convince Pete to buy two triple latte macchiato's, at $3 a pop, each day, rather than his usual 1$ plain coffee at breakfast.

What is the limit to how efficient a system can get?

That really depends upon the system. I really should write a computer model of this closed 100,000 person town to see what the economic possibilities are. Most companies are built on the premise of a growing market, and increasing market share. One problem I see is that the sum of the wages of the 100,000 are also the total expenditure on goods and services. Corporate costs are more than just labor, so there is a net loss in the system.

To outline that problem further, say you just had one person, who bought all they needed from one company (Costco), where they were the only employee, earn $100k per year, and spends $90k for clothing, food, and housing. Now, our company Costco, only earned $90K, but has to pay a $100K salary, and pay for all the expenses of getting the food, clothing, and house for our employee. So they are forced to reduce the salary to $60K to cover expenses. Rinse, repeat until Costco is bankrupt and our employee is out of a job.

This is what I mean by rethinking economics. I think we need to make an economy prosperous in a closed system like this, without depending on population growth, imports, or exports. Ultimately, the balance of the equation is where each person works more than just the amount needed (in productivity equivalences) to feed, cloth, and house them self with some left over for entertainment. This means our one employee at Costco from above needs to produce greater than one person in productivity each year, and then the excess has saved for next year. It's an ancient idea, going back to the grain bins of the pharaohs.

I would contend that this is based on human ingenuity. Look at the how the standard of living has dramatically increased over the last hundred years, Matlhus be damned. Where will the next innovation come from? Unfortunately seems like a black swan to me, but if you know clue me in and we'll make a lot of money

Along with the wealth gap between the "haves" and "have nots", there is also a technology gap where the "have nots" are left behind as well. All the innovation in the world cannot/will not remove the slums of Mumbai.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But the processes by which (as you mention) smoking went from popular to unpopular wasn't just advertising. It was education.

Bull. Education is 'drink responsibly'. Education is 'this is your mind on drugs'. Education is fore-brain, it's rational, it's cold. What was done to smoking goes waaaay beyond that. The hatred engendered for smoking (and, incidentally, for smokers -- not many 'hate the sin but not the sinner') goes way beyond. It's lizard brain, it's visceral, it's passionate hatred. It is the mind set of the patriot at war, the zealot at the stake. It's based not on knowledge but on feeling.

Smart advertising can help, maybe even a lot, but it probably won't be a primary cause of change.

I think you need to study the effects of advertising. I think you are thinking billboards and loud TV hucksters. Or even something 'subtle', like product placement. But consider Sesame Street Muppet, Cookie Monster. He has been found to be both a factor in the obesity problem, and after his 'conversion' to better eating in the past decade, he has been found to have influenced the consumption of more fruit by children. And *that* is propaganda done well.

Or, but another way, I'm told avalanches tend to roll downhill, not uphill. ;)

The purpose of advertising (why are we using an euphemism -- if it is for political or social change, advertising *is* propaganda) is to define 'downhill'.

--Pete