onewheeldave

Social issues like the ones you describe are common for many of those of us who have Asperger's syndrome. And the usual advice given by well-meaners is often ineffective for those with Asperger's, due to them lacking the neuronal structures necessary for processing complex social information. Depression treatments can also often be less effective, as the depression may be due to the consequences of the low level of social opportunities available to many of those on the spectrum and other issues specifically related to autism (eg sensory issues). I'd suggest, if you're interested in following it up, that you do one of the online tests for Asperger's, and, if you get a high score on it, consider seeking a professional diagnosis. That's what I did, and, ended up being officially diagnosed. While it will likely not be the end of your problems, at least you'll understand why a lot of the conventional wisdom/advice wasn't/isn't working for you, and you can start to look for other ways to make yourself feel better. One example of an online Asperger's test is- http://aspergerstest.net/aq-test/

@ Carlinate & Cyclone- I'd say you're both intelligent, but, in different ways. I believe your mutual frustration is not due to rational disagreement, but, is a communication issue. I speak from experience when I predict that, IMO, if you do not both acknowledge there is a communication issue between you, and, address it, then continuing on your present course will almost certainly only lead to greater frustration and anger. Just my opinion.

In fairness, that's some impressive out-of-the-box thinking

In truth, anyone whose husband's pension is over the limit would be denied income based JSA, that would happen to those who've not worked all their lives as well. I only mention it because there's so much scapegoating directed on those on benefits- it's important that people reading this thread don't come away with the impression that those who 'haven't contributed' are getting something denied to those who have. I agree with you that the system is unfair- people are duped into paying into it (NI contributions) on the false premise that it will be there to bale them out in times of need, and, it often isn't.

They probably mean you can't claim contribution based JSA- you'll maybe be entitled to income based JSA though. http://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/jsa

Everyone currently working in a marketing company. Yes, freeing up the 10-40% of every businesses profits that currently go marketing/adverts would cover the unemployment benefit for that portion who need it (they'll have good cvs and work histories, so many would find other work).

As you said before- So NHS websites will not be shut down, unless they carry what the law defines as advertising/marketing (in which case, the illegal content would be removed). Some leaflets will be removed from surgeries, as a lot of them are blatant advertising. Once again though, I'll point out that a ban on marketing companies will obviously precede an ban on advertising per se, and, it may well turn out that shutting down the marketing companies will make an advertising ban unnecessary.

Given that benefits reductions are killing hundreds of people a week- http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11658030&posted=1#post11658030 how is cutting them even further going to help things? In the five years 2008-12 one fifth (19%) of JSA claimants were sanctioned i.e. removal of benefits. Current estimate is that it's now more like 1 in 4. How much harder do you want to turn the screws?

Yes, they would. It's a problem with drafting any law. Some things will also slip through the net, others will be overly restricted. Nevertheless, despite things rarely being straightforward or easy, laws are implemented. That would depend entirely on the wording of whatever laws were brought in. However, like I said above, banning advertising per se would only happen, if and after banning marketing companies had taken place. After that, it would be much clearer what, if anything needed to be done in terms of legislation about advertising.

Then it's a matter of seeing what happens when marketing companies are banned. The highly successful bans on tobacco advertising, followed by bans on smoking in public, came in, as these things do, in stages. If removing the marketing companies isn't sufficient, then ban adverts. But, given that a world without marketing companies will be so different to the current one, it's totally impossible to predict how well it will work- it may be that the improvements are so great that most of the population start to see just how damaging marketing and advertising have been to society and human progress. In which case, advertising may become very unpopular without the need for legislation.

Indeed, and, previously noted- post #60

All that is true, here and now, in a world where marketing is all pervasive and soaking up 10-40% of every businesses profits. Of course, in that world, any business not paying it's 10-40% to marketing organisations will fail. I've pointed that out several times. However, we're talking about a world post the ban on marketing organisations, where no business pays 10-40% of its profits to marketing orgs. As I've already shown, in that world, sales would continue, because people still have to buy things. So all these objections of 'how's a company going to sell this that, the other' are irrelevant. People will buy, therefore there must also be selling. Have any of you noticed how, since tobacco advertisings been banned, people still manage to buy cigarettes, and, hence, companies still sell them? So you're predicting that, in a future world without marketing and advertising companies, review sites won't exist? I'd love to see your reasoning for that. (and if the reasoning includes reference to how things are in a different world, where marketing companies still exist, then clearly, it's not that relevant to a world where they don't). ---------- Post added 13-05-2017 at 15:39 ---------- So...in a world where marketing/advertising is banned, all the businesses will fail?? Why? I agree that in the current world where marketing is all pervasive, any business not handing over it's 10-40% for marketing, will fail. Why will it fail in a world with no marketing/advertising for any business?

Yes, the government could, should, and would appropriate a portion of it. After all, the government making the decision, and, implementing, a ban on marketing organisations, is going to save all businesses what is currently, in effect, a tax (10-40% of their profits) going to said marketing companies. And, when it comes to social and health needs, we are in desperate need of funds that aren't going to come from anywhere else. Do you realise the amount of money being talked about here? 10-40% of every businesses profits. It's vast, and all going to what is IMO, a leech industry that is based largely on manipulation and deceit, to produce adverts and campaigns to 'persuade' consumers to spend money on products, not just on the basis of said products quality, but, more on the effectiveness of the marketing. Try and run a business without paying that 10-40% of your profit to the marketing organisations- you will almost certainly fail. What a waste of money that could be used for health and social provision, at a time when it's never been more needed.

It certainly didn't That is quite something! We're the first country to be investigated for, effectively, 'grave and systematic violations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities'. The UK is the first to be investigated for state abuse of the disabled. I've posted lists above of details of dead disabled people who committed suicide or starved after having their benefits unjustly removed by the state. But the one that really effected me, was being told by a person at the local mental health day center, that his niece, on being denied the benefits she needed, and, was entitled to, jumped under a train while 3 months pregnant. This is Britain today. I hope those on here who use the usual redirect of justifying this horrific state abuse by referring to that tiny minority who 'swing the lead' are proud of themselves and their country. I hope they can reflect on the fact that, even if there are people 'swinging the lead', it is not appropriate to tackle that issue by killing (death by removal of benefits) thousands of genuinely disabled people whose claims are totally valid.

By banning marketing and advertising companies. You argue above that if you have a market, you have marketing. I've shown in previous posts that there will always be a market (people will continue to buy food, goods, services regardless of whether marketing companies exist). I disagree with you that what will remain after a ban on marketing/advertising companies are banned will be 'marketing'. But either way, the first step is to ban marketing and advertising companies. Even if, as you claim, marketing will continue, at least the following will cease- businesses having to pay 10-40% of their profit to marketing companies just to survive (money which could otherwise be redirected to health services and social funds).

At the moment, it couldn't. Due to the prevalence of marketing such sites can't financially survive without spending 10-40% of their profit on marketing. Virtually no business can get off the ground or survive without spending 10-40% of it's profit on marketing. If marketing were to be banned, obviously things will be very different. Produce and services will still sell, no doubt about it, because people need them- they need food, clothes, services etc. That world will be so different from ours, that it's impossible to predict how companies will 'get ahead of the competition'. It'll be about providing what people really want, rather than paying marketing companies to persuade them that they want what you're selling. But buying, and therefore selling, will continue. And some of that 10-40% of every businesses profit currently going to marketing organisations, will be available for things like the health service and social funds. And the world will be a more honest place.

Depends which meaning of 'sell' you're referring to. There are 3 common definitions- 1. give or hand over (something) in exchange for money 2. persuade someone of the merits of 3. trick or deceive (someone) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sell in the old days, definition 1 was prevelant. Obviously, in this modern age where marketing is king, it's more about 2, and, sadly 3. As we're talking about a world where marketing has been banned, it'll be more about the first definition, with a bit of the second. However, given the multiple meanings of 'sell' and the high risk of confusion given that, if marketing is banned, the meaning of 'sell' is quite literally not the same as it's current meaning, I'll look at it from the opposite direction. i.e. how will someone buy whatever high tech device they desire? How will they choose which particular model to buy? The answer is of course, tech review magazines/online sites. (or one answer- obviously things like 'word of mouth' are relevant) Which is how some of us already make our decisions, certainly, I do. The challenge presently, is that of discerning the genuine objective review sites from those that are masquarading as such, but, in reality, are fronts for the manufacturers, and, consequently, give less honest reviews. A ban on marketing should assist greatly with that problem. And, of course, it's not just about tech items. People need things like food, clothes etc. Those things will also continue to be bought- marketing and advertising are not necessary for people to buy them, hence, neither marketing/advertising necessary for others to sell them.

What feature does it have?

Let's suppose the ban occurred. Do you think production of goods and services, and, the buying of said goods and services, would cease? Of course not, buying would continue- people need food, clothes, phones and computers.

Go to a library for the book? Go to a bookshop? Presumably you don't need a library advert to find the library, or a bookshop advert to find the bookshop? For a Samsung, you'd be better off going online and reading some reviews. Realise that we currently live in a world where marketing is so pervasive that most people are only aware of the top veneer of it. Banning the companies responsible for it will not just be a 'change'- it will require a paradigm shift. To predict exactly how things will be done post a paradigm shift, is virtually impossible. (Although clearly, post the ban, companies currently putting 10-40% of their profit into marketing, just to stay afloat, will not need to do so, along with all the other social benefits previously mentioned, including that vast amount of money being potentially redirectable to health and social causes). As we see on this thread, some people genuinely believe that information only comes from adverts. That is not true.

I did predict this a few posts back

No. As Obelix mentioned, low quality cheap produce is often useful. I'm wanting to ban marketing companies that misrepresent low quality products/services as being high quality. ---------- Post added 12-05-2017 at 10:34 ---------- You think reading a book is marketing?!

OK. You have no issue with outlawing advertising companies. You have just said that. Do you think it's possible to outlaw advertising companies and permit the kind of advertising you speak of above, to continue, or, would it have to be restricted in some way? ---------- Post added 12-05-2017 at 10:15 ---------- Read a bike book?

Yeah, I buy a lot of stuff from the pound shop- low quality, but does the job cheap. What's bad is when marketing (scientifically shown to be very effective) leads to consumers buying low quality products that they've been deceived by marketing ploys, into thinking it's high quality. When it's things like mobile phones, contracts, broadband etc, that deception can cause a lot of misery. When it's the NHS buying low quality pharmaceutical products presented as high quality, then it's devastating.

Nowt wrong with Sturmey-Archers. My new Brompton has a 3 speed one and I'm very impressed by it