And now for something completely different...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Whoever can make the widget cheapest wins.

Ideally, yes. In reality, no. Let's consider a hypothetical case, two companies making similar widgets, one we'll call 'Netscape' (NS for short) and one we'll call 'Internet Explorer' (POS for short). Now the company making NS is a small company with no other products. The . . .

aaaw, you've heard this story before. But you always seem to forget it when convenient.

The point is, as you said, them with the guns get the butter.

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.

Poor example. The fall of the family farm is largely because of the ignorant independence of the family farmer. Most farmers need a given piece of equipment for a short while each year. The rest of the time, it sits idle. But, instead of co-oping on the purchase and use of this equipment, each farmer had to have his own -- usually on the basis of large loans. You want to know why family farms are going? Talk to the International Harvester salesmen.

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.

Coffee hurts my stomach, so I've become mostly a tea drinker. When I do have coffee, the pleasure has to compensate for the pain, so I make mine a tall, double mocha with whipped cream:)

I think we need to make an economy prosperous in a closed system like this, without depending on population growth, imports, or exports.

I agree with the first part of this. But, for the system to work, it must be global. That has been shown on almost all levels from cars to hairpins.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I agree with the first part of this. But, for the system to work, it must be global. That has been shown on almost all levels from cars to hairpins.

Exactly. Until we meet extraterrestrials who are willing consumers, we DO have a closed system.

[kandrathe]

Michelle Malkin. Classy.

Darn. I don't read her, and here I thought I made up something clever on my own. Way to rain on my parade Jester!

[Jester]

Darn. I don't read her, and here I thought I made up something clever on my own. Way to rain on my parade Jester!

Apologies if you're an independent inventor, but Malkin definitely has the patent, although it is widely trafficked over on the dark side 'o the blogosphere.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

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

Where do you think the largest market is now for Tobacco grown in the SE USA? It is still too high in the USA, but imagine what it might be like without the propaganda. One issue is that they get teens hooked, at an age when teens believe themselves to be invulnerable, and by the time they are in their 40's and thinking about mortality it is too late and the damage has been done.

[Jester]

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.

Both 'drink responsibly' and 'this is your mind on drugs' are advertising campaigns. They may be ineffective preachy ones, but they're not much in the way of education. I don't know anything more about drugs from watching some guy drop an egg into a frying pan with an ominous voice over. It's trying to scare me off drugs, not rationally convince me, or provide me with techniques and evidence to help me decide.

It sounds to me like you're defining the difference between education and advertising as having to do with the emotional response it elicits. I don't think that's a particularily helpful way to define the difference, but I'm not sure that it even matters much. There is probably enough blur between what's "advertising" vs. "education" in the end. Both are for conveying information.

I think you need to study the effects of advertising.

Perhaps. I've always been relatively cynical about the power of advertising per se. Things that catch on usually do so because various social forces are already lined up behind them. But I could well be wrong about that, it's not necessarily an easy thing to discern.

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.

Sesame street, unlike 'this is your brain on drugs', actually is education, alongside entertainment. Cookie monster didn't teach particularily helpful habits before, but if he's up on screen telling kids about how they should eat healthy foods, he's giving them nutritional education. Also, kids are susceptible to indoctrination, which is one of the reasons education can be powerful in this cause. Teach the sons, and especially the daughters, and you catch them while their opinions are still forming. Try showing the parents Cookie Monster, and the effect would likely be much reduced.

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'.

... something which is much easier if downhill actually is downhill. Trying to define uphill as downhill is usually pretty tough, no matter how good your advertising is. People don't have kids randomly, it's a big decision. Something major has to change to sway it. Absent anything else, you'd need one *hell* of an advertising campaign to make that happen.

But, of course, the whole debate is somewhat silly. The best campaigns have healthy doses of both good marketing and good education. Dr. Mechai Viravaidya is always my favourite example of a successful contraception campaign. It is interesting to note that many of the countries most in need of a dramatic cut in the birth rate are also the countries worst hit by AIDS.

-Jester

[Jester]

Where do you think the largest market is now for Tobacco grown in the SE USA? It is still too high in the USA, but imagine what it might be like without the propaganda. One issue is that they get teens hooked, at an age when teens believe themselves to be invulnerable, and by the time they are in their 40's and thinking about mortality it is too late and the damage has been done.

That's an interesting question. What *would* it be like without the propaganda, on either the pro or anti smoking side? If I had my counterfactual crystal ball, I'd check, but sadly, I left it back home. It would be very interesting if the problem was far worse without the government campaign, but far better without the corporate ads. It would also be very interesting if the problem was much the same without it. But how are we going to distinguish between those possibilities? The econometricist in me wants some kind of regression to figure this one out. :)

There is also the possibility that misconceived advertising actually backfires. One of the major issues of smoking is (of course) peer pressure. But advertising that emphasizes "don't give in to peer pressure" sends the message that smoking is popular, but you shouldn't do it anyway. Kids probably hear half that message, and I don't think it's the right half. Similar things may pertain with drunk driving ads: scaring the hell out of people about consequences is one way to go about things, but a better way would probably be to make the activity seem unpopular. Weirdly, people seem more hung up about things that are socially embarrassing than things that are lethal.

-Jester

Edit: And, of course, someone's already checked. Looks like a smallish effect, but definitely there.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10982571

[--Pete]

Hi,

Weirdly, people seem more hung up about things that are socially embarrassing than things that are lethal.

Exactly. Which is why educating people about the dangers of smoking stops a few, but making fun of smoking and smokers (as so many adds did in the 60's and 70's) stops many.

Education gets to the small percentage who think. Propaganda gets to the vast majority who don't.

--Pete

[Jester]

Exactly. Which is why educating people about the dangers of smoking stops a few, but making fun of smoking and smokers (as so many adds did in the 60's and 70's) stops many.

Education gets to the small percentage who think. Propaganda gets to the vast majority who don't.

But, in a low-media society where women's education is at a level somewhere between pathetic and non existent, those numbers could well be backwards.

Imagine trying to format your advertising to the Bolivian (or Kenyan, Liberian, etc...) women who are going to be the primary decision makers for having more babies. What kind of campaign would you try? They don't have TVs, and I suspect even radios are fairly rare. (They are also listened to by the men, and if the men hear something they don't like, that could seriously hurt your program. Men in many of these places have zero incentive not to have more kids.) What else? Pamphlets? Illiteracy is high. Songs? How do you get the songs to become popular? (If you could solve that one, you could make a killing.) Puppet shows? Maybe in Java. There is no sesame street equivalent in many of these countries, at least not one that's watched by the same people who are having 6 kids on average. There are all sorts of potential ways to try, but I'm not really seeing an effective one. The reason these countries are behind on the demographic curve is the same reason they're tough to reach with advertising: they're not developed.

But, if you include heath and contraception education as part of a basic literacy and education program, especially for women and children, you can get a captive audience who probably is actually interested in what you have to say, or at least interested enough to make a difference. This isn't college education we're talking about here, but just basic schooling, or even something less academic and more pragmatic than that. Governments can do that best, but international organizations can often do it as well, if the country is poor enough.

I still see that as by far the most pragmatic route to get to the audience that needs getting to.

Plus, I suspect that the issue may not be direct effects of education at all, but indirect ones. Women choose to have fewer children when they and their kids have more education, not because they're better informed, but because their time, and their kids' time, is worth more. Ditto with health care. If you know your child has a 99% chance to survive until at least adulthood, and that they'll get an education so long as they survive, investing in them has better returns. If you know that you could work part-time at something other than farm labour if you had 2 kids, but not if you had 5, then that's an incentive to have fewer kids. Education changes the incentive structure. Advertising does not, at least, not in the same direct way.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

blah blah blah

You aren't getting it. You're still using 'advertising' in the 30 second TV ad sense. You're still thinking dull ax.

Propaganda. Stories made up and circulated. Urban legends tailored for certain responses. Songs with messages (and your bit about 'popularity' is a red herring, if one song fails, try another). Jokes who's point is that what you are trying to change from is laughable, is ridiculous. Subtle, not in your face. The joke that makes you laugh even as you disclaim its message.

In old Ireland, it was believed that a sufficiently good satire could kill a man. I think they were onto something there. The power of words -- yeah.

But I'm not a behavioral psychologist and hardly conversant with the topic. I've only read a couple of popular books. So, I've shot my bolt.

--Pete

[Zenda]

You aren't getting it.

I think he does. While advertising and propaganda, subtle as they may be, only serve to 'push' people in a certain direction without actually helping them, education allows them to make up their minds by themselves, and gives them the tools they need to do something about their situation. For example, by teaching women in less developed nation ways to make a living for themselves, they will stand stronger to refuse bearing more children. And as their 'economic value' increases, the men will start to see their point more and more.

[eppie]

Hi,
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

The problem is that too many people gain from an increase in population. If the market economy doesnot drastically change you will not be able to set up a propagando campaign aimed at getting less children.
And again smoking is something different than getting children.

[kandrathe]

And again smoking is something different than getting children.

In the movies, smoking usually follows the attempts to have children. Maybe we can invent the birth control cigarette?

[kandrathe]

But I'm not a behavioral psychologist and hardly conversant with the topic.

I've got a minor in psychology, and I'm with you. The smoking example was appropriate; you can teach kids the harm of smoking, and the addiction, but if it is still *cool* they will do it anyway. Make it *uncool*, and the smoking rates will drop like a lead balloon. Education presents truthful information, and leaves the person the choice. Propaganda may or may not be true and implies that making the choice is stupid, unpatriotic, selfish, and shameful.

So rumors like, "I heard that smoking when you are young leads to ED, and urinary tract problems after a few months.", Or, "there is a study that links smoking and adding fat to your hips." would be good propaganda.

[Jester]

I've got a minor in psychology, and I'm with you. The smoking example was appropriate; you can teach kids the harm of smoking, and the addiction, but if it is still *cool* they will do it anyway. Make it *uncool*, and the smoking rates will drop like a lead balloon. Education presents truthful information, and leaves the person the choice. Propaganda may or may not be true and implies that making the choice is stupid, unpatriotic, selfish, and shameful.

So rumors like, "I heard that smoking when you are young leads to ED, and urinary tract problems after a few months.", Or, "there is a study that links smoking and adding fat to your hips." would be good propaganda.

The channels you and Pete are talking about cannot be plugged into directly. If it were that easy, we could have eliminated every social ill by now. Rumours spread from person to person. They are passed on if someone wants to, and otherwise not. If the target audience does not find your rumour worth chatting about, it won't spread. You can't just whisper something you want to happen in someone's ear, and expect that a year later, everyone will know the 'rumour'. You can't just write some songs on a topic, teach them to someone, and expect that in a year, everyone will be humming the tune. (Or, to challenge Pete's notion that popularity is a red herring, you can write a hundred songs, but if the topic does not resonate with its audience, you'll have a hundred flops. The songs will become jokes, and not in the laughing-with sense. Popularity *is* important.) Culture is not so easily directed.

You both seem to be envisioning a psychological success ("having 6 kids became uncool because the culture changed") and thinking backwards. I'm thinking forward from the beginning, wondering how exactly you're supposed to work with such protean tools as rumours and songs, absent a media culture. Why do some songs catch on, and others not? Why do some jokes get circulated endlessly in e-mails, and others not? What the audience wants to hear is more important than what the creator wants to convey. (See: Born in the USA) These are not trivial issues, and you can't just assume that somehow they'll get solved.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm thinking forward from the beginning, wondering how exactly you're supposed to work with such protean tools as rumors and songs, absent a media culture.

Media would be involved in my plan. And, I wouldn't limit the "propaganda" to rumors or songs. A well designed propaganda campaign targets all levels of society, with a consistently themed message. You could recruit and hire some very popular public figures to be a spokesperson for the cause, you can do billboards, and public service ads, etc. Tie it to the Green movement, take it to Africa and Asia with the peace corps. Introduce a population plan through the UN or the WHO, get some treaty going and get every nation to sign on to attempting to reach population growth goals. It needs a long term psychological strategy, and not a short term ad campaign. When I joked about Obama, I was semi-serious. Was he the "Change" that everybody was looking for? Or, was it a very masterfully crafted propaganda campaign where everyone believed that *he* would do exactly what you thought needed to be done. I think the later.

[Jester]

Media would be involved in my plan. And, I wouldn't limit the "propaganda" to rumors or songs. A well designed propaganda campaign targets all levels of society, with a consistently themed message. You could recruit and hire some very popular public figures to be a spokesperson for the cause, you can do billboards, and public service ads, etc.

Good luck reaching people who live on $300 US a year with billboards and public service ads. By and large, they don't live in cities, and when they do, they live in dirt poor areas. I think Pete is right to reject those methods, although I think his alternatives are unrealistic.

Getting popular entertainers to support your message probably does help, although there are limits. As I'm sure you're well aware, people can be quite cynical about being manipulated by celebrities. You also can easily lose the message in the medium. How much good did Live 8 do? I think the best thing to come out of it was still the Pink Floyd reunion. Its effect on third world poverty, or even public perceptions of poverty, has been pretty piddly. We aren't the world, whatever Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson may claim.

Tie it to the Green movement, take it to Africa and Asia with the peace corps. Introduce a population plan through the UN or the WHO, get some treaty going and get every nation to sign on to attempting to reach population growth goals. It needs a long term psychological strategy, and not a short term ad campaign.

They've been trying. It's had some success. I'm not overall pessimistic about the chances of global population peaking at 12 billion or so, and declining from there. Most of the success seems to come where they accomplish what I've been advocating: start with the women, get them an elementary education, and in that context, teach them about contraception and family planning. Establish places where women can go to get advice and talk with each other, outside their families but inside their villages. To me, this seems like by far the easiest and most effective way to 'propagate' the message. But at this point, we're just flogging the dead horse.

When I joked about Obama, I was semi-serious. Was he the "Change" that everybody was looking for? Or, was it a very masterfully crafted propaganda campaign where everyone believed that *he* would do exactly what you thought needed to be done. I think the later.

I think neither. Obviously, there was a well-run campaign behind Obama, but most of that came after he became popular, not before.

He was the right person, in the right place at the right time. He is charismatic, thoughtful, and a very stark contrast to Bush. People were tired of Bush, tired of the Iraq war, tired of the persistent fearmongering, and wanted someone inspiring and positive. People projected their desire for change onto him, partly because he was promising change, and partly because he was an effective candidate, but mostly because they *wanted* change.

But what if people hadn't been sick of Bush? What if "change" wasn't what people were after? Many candidates promise "change", in a vague way, but not all of them succeed. Maybe they're not the right candidate, maybe the people aren't interested in what they're selling. But I firmly believe that there is no magic. Nobody can simply create a successful media campaign, be it high media (TV, newspapers, billboards) or low (folk songs, jokes, rumours) out of thin air. These things succeed and fail for reasons that are very poorly understood, but they almost certainly have more to do with the receiving culture than the concept being sold.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

If it were that easy, we could have eliminated every social ill by now.

First, you can only address social issues -- you'll never be able to do jack about stupidity and laziness. And, second, you'll never hit 100% of the population. But if everyone has six kids and the campaign changes it so that only one family in a hundred has six kids, you'll have achieved the objective.

Or, to challenge Pete's notion that popularity is a red herring, you can write a hundred songs, but if the topic does not resonate with its audience, you'll have a hundred flops.

And, again, you reveal your lack of understanding of propaganda. You do not write songs about birth control or family size. Instead you write songs about whatever is popular. But you slant them to include the message you want delivered. Earlier, I gave the example of "It's These Boots Are Made for Walking replacing Right or Wrong." Look those songs up, listen to them. Right or Wrong sends the message that a woman should accept any abuse 'her man' sends her way. These Boots Are Made for Walking sends the message that a woman is free to not take any form of abuse. Neither ever mentions abuse, nor is it the stated topic of either.

But it is useless to go on.

I will challenge you on one thing -- if the husbands change the channel because they're threatened by the message, what makes you think they'll allow the women to attend the educational groups you envision. And, in a male dominated society, if you do educate the women, what makes you think it will make any difference -- that the men, wanting large families, will not force them on the women?

Education, I think, only works on the educated.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Missed this one in the fray:)

Really? I'd say it works best from the ground up, like democracy. Enter your propaganda campaign ...

The problem with a ground up economy is that pretty soon, say about next Wednesday, a Wall-Mart springs up in your neighborhood. You might keep buying local, but your cheap neighbors will buy Chinese. And with just your support, your local merchants will fold or starve, and you'll be forced to buy global or do without. The world's one big Pier One.

EDIT: Looking that over, it's a total non sequitor, sorry. Population and local? Yeah, if we had the political will to block the emigration from any over populating country. But we don't, so local over procreation in Africa becomes a population growth in Europe. A form of the tragedy of the commons, where the irresponsible gain at the price of the responsible.

Who besides America gives tax breaks for children?

Any country with socialized medicine and state supported schools that does not impose a surtax on kids. Everyone pays the same, those with kids get more. Call it what you will, society is covering at least part of the cost.

America isn't overpopulated.

I don't know about that. Last time I was on the road at eight on a weekday morning, there seemed to be a huge surplus of totally unneeded people.:) Kidding aside, look at how many areas in the USA are suffering from water shortages. That alone is one indication that we're hitting some limits. Population density doesn't tell the whole story. Death Valley probably has a population density of less than one per square mile, and it is probably supporting its maximum desirable population.

Kittens are fine, cats suck. Puppies are fine, and so are dogs.

Right now, I'm biased. I've got three cats sleeping in the house and they're not bothering me at all. My neighbor has a new yappy puppy that's been yipping all morning, and another neighbor's dog has been providing bass. I'm gonna have to check if I've got any canine shot for my 12 ga. :lol:

--Pete

[Jester]

I will challenge you on one thing -- if the husbands change the channel because they're threatened by the message, what makes you think they'll allow the women to attend the educational groups you envision. And, in a male dominated society, if you do educate the women, what makes you think it will make any difference -- that the men, wanting large families, will not force them on the women?

It's not easy. Resistance to women's rights, both by most men and by many women, is one of the most serious obstacles in getting birth rates down. In some societies, it may be an uphill struggle to get educational groups going. But people tend to have at least some notion that education can be valuable. Even the worst societies in the world have some basic idea of schooling. You might not be able to convince your husband to let you go to a family planning clinic, but you might be able to convince him that being able read would be harmless. Maybe it would help you earn money doing some clerical work on the side, or even teaching the village kids herself. Women's working hours are an even better predictor of family size, going back to the "how valuable is a woman's time" hypothesis of fertility rates.

I'm not saying there's a magic cure through setting up a handful of schools. Birth rates are what they are for good economic reasons. People are making individually rational decisions that have collectively disastrous consequences. We need to change their situation, and *that is not easy*. It's not even close to easy. But I think educational levels are at the core of the change, and that culture will change along with that more likely than vice versa. Resistance by reactionary elements, especially men, but also women, is an enormous obstacle, one that every society with currently low birth rates has struggled with at some point.

Education, I think, only works on the educated.

In addition to being cynical, I think that's absolutely incorrect, and maybe a touch nonsensical (how do you educate anyone about anything, if education only convinces the educated?). But you're probably right about the "useless to go on" bit.

-Jester