ST Alpha - "It's not a matter of good or bad but a degree of how good. Billions spent on TV ads doesn't put many people to work -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 159

In response to "question for economic types. Isn't spending millions on campaigns good for the economy? -- nm" by loosilu

It's not a matter of good or bad but a degree of how good. Billions spent on TV ads doesn't put many people to work -- nm

Posted by TWuG Jul 11 '12, 11:30

(No message)

Responses:

the people who work at those tv stations and advertising production companies would probably beg to differ. -- nm - znufrii Jul 11, 11:32 24
- Aside from all that...the stations are forced to make time for political ads from both sides of the aisle...at the expense of legitimate sponsors who - Jim Jul 11, 11:48 1
  - TV stations raise their rates, though. According to one measure, by as much as 50 per cent this election season -- (link) - con_carne Jul 11, 11:54
- Thoese people were pretty much working in the first place. - Will Hunting Jul 11, 11:36 7
  - yup. It's not like the tv/radio stations hire a ton of extra people to play the extra ads. -- nm - decline Jul 11, 11:38
  - you live in the DC area. You know there's a whole economy that springs up every four years around the election. -- nm - loosilu Jul 11, 11:38 5
    - Yes, mostly built on volunteers. - Will Hunting Jul 11, 11:41 4
      - You are right in the last PP, but to those I would add phone banks, technology (servers), and whoever produces those campaign web videos -- nm - con_carne Jul 11, 11:49 3
        
        much better to have money go into jobs that are not as seasonal -- nm - zork Jul 11, 11:56 2
        
        You know, I'm thinking that, with technology in 2012, campaigns are able to accomplish a lot more than before by hiring less bodies -- nm - con_carne Jul 11, 11:59 1
        
        yet they require more money than before. curious. - zork Jul 11, 12:01
- In the swing states, you mean -- nm - con_carne Jul 11, 11:36
- wouldn't you rather that money somehow go to transit or healthcare? -- nm - zork Jul 11, 11:34 10
  - yes, but that wasn't the original question. -- nm - znufrii Jul 11, 11:35 1
    - "is it good for the economy?" "there are better ways to spend the money" -- nm - zork Jul 11, 11:42
  - but it is coming from donors, not the Govt. -- nm - Beaker Jul 11, 11:35
  - in fantasy land sure, but in reality that's not the choice. -- nm - loosilu Jul 11, 11:34 6
    - This is getting away from the point, but strictly speaking, the TV stations that benefit will be paying taxes on their profits... -- nm - con_carne Jul 11, 11:37 1
      - (or income, rather) -- nm - con_carne Jul 11, 11:37
    - sure it is. you can decide to donate to a politician or a hospital fund, etc. -- nm - zork Jul 11, 11:35 3
      - Mr. & Mrs. Wealthy Socialite probably already give to that. -- nm - loosilu Jul 11, 11:37 2
        
        Don't forget about corporations. They are able to cut big checks to the RNC and the SuperPACS, if not so much to the Romney campaign itself -- nm - con_carne Jul 11, 11:44
        
        so? they can give more there and do not have to give to the politician. Obviously they are giving to the pol's for their personal gain. - zork Jul 11, 11:41
- this. Then they spend the money on more stuff. The Circle of Life... -- nm - Beaker Jul 11, 11:33 1
  - The Multiplier Effect - znufrii Jul 11, 11:36
gotta pay for two seasons of Survivor and TAR somehow. Think of how bad our lives would be without that. -- nm - zork Jul 11, 11:32 2
- Panem et circenses! -- nm - Reagen Jul 11, 11:33 1
  - *finger to nose* -- nm - zork Jul 11, 11:39

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.