Reply #7: He has framed the argument.

[RandomThoughts]

He is making the argument that we are moving to socialism. But that avoids the bigger topic of the value of pure unregulated capitalism. The argument would be to first get a concession that some government programs are good. No child labor, programs for safe food, etc.

Then after convincing him that the label of moving to socialism is not the issue. Compare how the programs can help or hurt society. Don't let him get away with a blind accusation with a label without making him explain why each label is bad.

Politically its a bit different because the word socialism is a loaded work, it has been packed with alot of sneer. So that is probably his attempt to attach the action to that sneer, since his argument is not about weather it is good or not, but just going after the reaction people will have.

There are options, redefining using a new word is a common way to do it, that way they have to reattach the sneer to the new word, or transfer it by saying it means the same thing. Or using a word with good emotion attached to it.

Like saying it isn't socialism, it is societalism, because it helps all of society including the private sector and competition, by helping transition to a more competition including ideas of more then just money competition, and by modifying the negative cultural and buisness effects ads have on consumerism. Consumerism is not good for buisness because it creates demand where something is not needed. If demand is to be created it should match some known good for society. Like a low pollution car. It should not just be created to lazily push a product that does not have demand based on its own value.

The specifics of dealerships could be addressed by showing how vertical monopolies take from competition and are not free market, so by removing dealerships you are increasing competition a free market idea. Also car dealers are not a result of demand for cars, but an industry trying to create the demand to increase sales. If a demand exist a dealership will spring up, currently many of them are to create demand for there product in an advertising like method.

The lessening of advertisement is tougher, advertisement is more about increasing consumerism then informing people of what is available. But in an environment where only one company has limited advertisement it seems to create a problem. But advertisement adds nothing to productivity. If everyone cut advertisement in half, there would be absolutely no change in the effect in what car they buy, only in how much extra consumerism is generated.

As far as advertisement limitations for one company, they get that revenue to shore up balance sheets, and government funds has paid for short term loss if it lessons sales, but more importantly if they have to 'gin' up sales with advertisement they should be transitioning to some industry that has its own demand. Green cars for example, since their is an implicit added demand based on thoughts of future direction of where cars should be.

The real way to cut advertisements is tax it, since any ad level, lowered across the board, leaves for same level of competition, and then that waste money can be put back to good use instead of no use.