The quote "ignore manipulative ads" is not in his post. His post appears to demonize advertising in general.

Also, how can you say "Buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable."

The context is totally dependant on who the individual is. Who is to stay something is valuable to other people? It is the advertisements job to show to the potential customer why the product is valuable.

Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump.

The quote is not in his post. I got the impression from "I have too much stuff," followed by "Companies that sell stuff have spent huge sums training us to think stuff is still valuable. But it would be closer to the truth to treat stuff as worthless." Is there some other meaning I could divine from those statements?

"The context is totally dependant on who the individual is."

That's true. There's an information component to ads -- which is why I advocated skepticism over censorship. But in general, if you have two companies that are both pursuing a value-maximizing strategy selling the same product, and one does ads, the other is going to have higher quality (have you seen ads for McDonald's? Have you seen ads for, say, Beffa's (http://www.beffas.com/home.html)?).

'Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump."

If you don't spend the money, you either a) destroy it, b) save it, or c) spend it on other stuff. If b), remember that saving is deferred spending, so b) and c) are the same with different timing.

Your quoting PG's essay. I was responding to the comment that mine is under. I should not have responded as confrontation is bad on boards that could lead to meeting others in real life.

Basically I found the comment that I commented on deceptive. It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two. I regret commenting in this thread and will stick to more agreeable topics.

"It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two."

I actually believe there is a direct correlation - anecdotes (sometimes) lead to habits, and then habits lead to savings. It's much easier to form habits in childhood, which is why I picked childhood anecdotes. But it can be done late in life too - I think that was part of the point of PG's essays.

You are doing it again. You try to make a point but suddenly mention an irrelevant point that is correct but unrelated to the argument you are trying to make.

Yes that is one of PG's themes(habits can be changed) but it does not relate to believing that advertising is behavior control and holding this to be true will lead to full savings.

rot13: cyrnfr qb abg srrq gur gebyyf