About the three problems, I agree about the first two; debt definitely has impact, but I'm not sure how big and in what forms. You're probably right, though. I'll need to think more about it. For instance, there's definitely debt-based pressure on the low-wealth end of society, which makes people work on things they otherwise wouldn't. But what about the high end, the decisionmakers? Do they face similar debt-driven pressure?

Here's what I think a half-overhaul towards pull-based economy would look like. At a minimum, no advertising in push form whatsoever. That means no ads on the web, no ads in newspapers (on-line or print), TV, no product placement, no leaflets, no billboards. No ads of any kind where you'd encounter them by accident. Product discovery would be focused on company sites, on-line catalogs, mail-order catalogs, on-line product/service search engines, trade shows, and other outlets which were labeled up-front as product discovery. The goal here is that an ordinary person should have full control over whether and when they get exposed to advertising, and secondarily, to make it customer-driven. Make it easy for the person with needs to find solutions to these needs, evaluate different options based on trustworthy information[0], and pick one that works best for them.

That's more-less the idea I have on this topic. It's incomplete, probably a bit incoherent, and definitely not optimal for hundreds of reasons. I expect it to be torn apart, and I'll be thankful for criticism - I can't develop it further without feedback :).

As for how to make any of this happen for yourself, today? I'd start with the obvious - aggressive ad-blocking, avoiding exposing yourself to anything that smells of content marketing, getting rid of your TV service (the hardware itself can still work well for playing games on a console). Never doing product discovery on an e-commerce site. Asking trustworthy friends for recommendations of products and services, and giving recommendations if asked, qualifying your level of certainty and disclosing any conflict of interest. Being proactive about searching for things you need on-line. Perhaps subscribing to an industry magazine, but bearing in mind that it's - to quote Paul Graham, "a bunch of ads, glued together by just enough articles to make it look like a magazine"[1], and otherwise not trusting it further than you can throw it. Inflicting social pressure on people who decide to monetize their friends and family, if you know any (MLMs, influencers). Also, learning to respect your money and not spend it on an impulse - to counter the long-term influence of advertising. Make each purchase a conscious one.

That's more-less what I do. I barely see any overt ads on-line these days. Can't avoid covert ads, can't avoid meatspace ads either, but I can make damn sure that if I feel sudden desire for a particular product or product category, I'll pause and spend some time researching it independently before making a decision. The goal here isn't to stop buying things, but to maximize the utility and happiness you buy per dollar spent.

--

[0] - Efficient market requires minimizing information asymmetry. To the extent advertising is spreading disinformation, it's making the market less efficient.

[1] - http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I guess what got me on this tack was the thought that advertising serves vendors. It should in the sense that they're the ones paying for it, but a bunch of problems arise therefrom. What would it look like if I, the consumer, took that responsibility on myself, and was willing to pay for it?

There's a case to be made that people get the marketing they deserve, as evidenced in their voting patterns and buying behavior. It's interesting to contemplate what things would be like if consumer groups, like department stores, had "buyers." YouTube reviewers or industry mags supposedly serve that role right now, but inevitably get corrupted because of where the money comes from.

> There's a case to be made that people get the marketing they deserve, as evidenced in their voting patterns and buying behavior.

I hate it when people make this case, or in general anything along the lines of "revealed preferences". This hides a certain divide-and-conquer that's happening. A single individual can't, in general, influence the market with their purchasing behavior. A thousand buyers simultaneously switching vendors would register on someone's radar, but real buyers are uncoordinated. Consider the 3.5mm audio jack and phones. If all the people who were unhappy about Apple having the "courage" to drop it would band together and announce that they'll hold off with upgrading their iPhones or switch to Samsung, Apple would quickly reconsider. As it is, you've got lots of people complaining, but buying anyway, because they know they alone can't affect the market, and they need a decent phone.

This is related to a general observation that you can only "vote with your wallet" among the options available on the market. You don't have a way to vote for feature combination that isn't offered, for a product that doesn't exist.

I don't disagree, yet, I do, I guess? When I say "deserve," I don't mean in some cosmic moral sense, but more in a bland cause-effect sense. Cthulhu would say something like: "Oh, uncoordinated buyers have little market power? Bad decision to be an uncoordinated buyer then, loser!" The condemnation and cruelty are not warranted, but the effects are the same.

Whether a bunch of buyers could accept this, decide to coordinate, etc., and what it would look like, is the thing I'm turning over. Like, to get really wild: what if you could join a buyer's group that restricted you? The downside would be a loss of freedom, but the upside would be access to market power. We seem to be OK making this bargain on the sell side with our employment...

There are obviously versions of this that could never work, but it would be very interesting if you could find one that could!