tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22334503.post115399730779754483..comments2023-10-05T17:44:51.182+02:00Comments on A Pattern Tub: consider yourself warnednicohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02327758168314075671noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22334503.post-1154299677392075022006-07-30T23:47:00.000+01:002006-07-30T23:47:00.000+01:00You should all read Plato's Republic. Of course in...You should all read Plato's Republic. Of course in an ideal world the education system would produce well-informed critical thinkers, who will make decisions based on reason rather than emotion or appetite. In such a world the only role of govt. would be to make sure we get the right kind of education.<BR/><BR/>But come on, be real. The first problem we have to deal with in the real world is the sheer quantity of information. Is it possible for one person to have sufficient knowledge to make intelligent decisions about their finances, diet, health, children's education, etc. etc.? I strongly doubt it. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, even if we had the right information, in the real world there is the phenomenon called weakness-of-the-will. Ons can know everything about health and nutrition and still not be able to resist consuming sweets/cigarettes/alcohol/whatever and still not be able to have enough money left at the end of the day to invest in a superannuation scheme. (Ask B what he invests his money in.)<BR/><BR/>Advertisers know this. Benevolent advertisers package their information in ways to appeal to the emotions and desires of their various target audiences, with the ultimate goal of benefiting them. Information alone simply will not do it. The rational way must be depicted as desirable. <BR/><BR/>Non-benevolent advertisers do the same thing, but with the aim of benefitting themselves. One in particular that pisses me off tells parents that Coco-Pops contain all sorts or vitamins and minerals. Possible true, but they neglect to mention that it also contains 50% sugar.<BR/><BR/>And this is why I think we need more input from government and other non-profit organisations, in the form of benevolent advertising and control of non-benevolent advertising. And, of course, we need the help and advice of benevolent friends and family who are experts in their particular fields. So keep it coming, B. <BR/><BR/>Thanks also for the advice on anti-bacterial soaps. I've always believed in the building up immunity theory, though I'm in no position to know whether it is true or not. <BR/><BR/>LiezlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22334503.post-1154073569349404722006-07-28T08:59:00.000+01:002006-07-28T08:59:00.000+01:00b,Another great posting, this time on a topic very...b,<BR/><BR/>Another great posting, this time on a topic very close to my own heart (namely truth in financial advertising).<BR/><BR/>Here in NZ we perhaps have a more regulatory environment than in SA, yet there is still a fair amount of misleading advertising regarding financial products. In particular, advertisements concerning residential real estate are a shocker. (I consider residential real estate an investment class alongside cash, shares and bonds, although I don't consider one's own residence to constitute an investment.)<BR/><BR/>The problem, as I see it, is twofold. Firstly, there is the problem identified by b, namely misleading or outright false claims on the part of financial services providers.<BR/><BR/>However, I believe that the greater problem is consumer ignorance (call it stupidity if you like). Basically, there is a woeful lack of financial literacy in NZ and, I suspect, in SA. Why else would people fall for outrageous claims such as "you'll know EXACTLY what you have when you retire" or, even worse, for lottery or Nigerian scams?<BR/><BR/>Predictably, solutions to this problem follow political divisions. Those on the left will blame the evil businesses, and demand a greater role for government in the marketplace. Those on the right will place the blame squarely at the feet of individual consumers, who are to be held personally responsible for their lack of financial literacy. I see the solution as lying somehwere between these two extremes.<BR/><BR/>I think that the government does have a role, but the role is not primarily that of an enforcer in the marketplace (although it should have this role). Rather, the government's role ought to be to ensure that the citizenry have an adequate level of financial literacy, such that individuals will not fall for outrageous claims concerning financial products.<BR/><BR/>I could go on about this topic all night - I won't. I'll finish with question, and my attempt at an answer. Q: Why should we care whether others make good financial choices? A: Because, one way or another, we will end up paying for their poor choices.<BR/><BR/>Paul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22334503.post-1154019251057982942006-07-27T17:54:00.000+01:002006-07-27T17:54:00.000+01:00thanx 4 the warningthanx 4 the warningAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22334503.post-1154006911929406422006-07-27T14:28:00.000+01:002006-07-27T14:28:00.000+01:00i always knew dettol was inherently evil.i always knew dettol was inherently evil.arcadiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369048073517347118noreply@blogger.com