|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head U-Know! | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: tv license rant /the bastards 27 messages | Select a forum: |
| jeepers, interersting argument. >The adverts are paid for by advertisers, not by the public. You can argue that consumers pay for them indirectly; but that's so abstract as to be meaningless. meaningless? it's pretty bloody clear from where i'm sitting. they might not be a bit of direct taxation, but they are still very very clearly a part of the costs of each good. As Merrick says, various studies indicate that the 'average' person pays more for their telly via ads than via the license fee. It isn't easy to ascertain exactly how much of each product goes on advertising, but we know for sure that a certain percentage does. The argument about viewers not being able to withstand the power of advertising has no relevancy to this discussion, its a cpomplete distraction. Likewise the money back for products you don't purchase, it fails to understand the point. So the argument for a reducvtion in the price of groceries etc is quite valid, imo. Reply | with quote | Posted by necropolist 12th March 2003ce 12:40 In reply to: Re: tv license rant /the bastards (grufty jim) |
Messages in this topic: |
|