> "3 am returning from a night on the town"

:-) that's true, and I am partial to the odd drunken cheeseburger myself, but I'm not a 6 year old nagging my Mum to take me to MacDonalds because I just _have_ to have the latest piece of cheap plastic that I can only get if I can convince her to buy it for me with the special promotional meal deal. I do my late-night run maybe three times a year (maybe yours is more frequent?), but how often does the 6-year old want to go to MacDonalds? How often does her mother give in? Of course that varies by case, but I think on average more often than me. So, I would guess that MacDonalds' bottom line is significantly affected by their ability to manipulate children into manipulating their parents into doing something that they might not do otherwise, and that almost certainly is not good for their health (although possibly their wallets would be better off than with the home-cooked-meal option, a point that should give everyone pause for thought). The fact that their advertising is strongly biased in that direction supports that hypothesis.

> Manipulative? It's not like they lie about their purpose.

Being manipulative does not require lying. That doesn't mean that it is morally acceptable.

You said that you believe the story to be hyperbole "because the real world don't lend itself well to the point he wants to make". I don't really see myself as part of the movement you refer to, and I didn't mean to appear so. I also don't want to give the impression that I think I have everything worked out, with a plan for how to make it work in the real world. However, I do think the real world gives ample evidence supporting his point. From what you say above I think we probably agree on how the world actually does work, so I hope you'll forgive me the liberty of suggesting that you actually meant to say that the real world doesn't lend itself to any alternative, at least, no alternative that wouldn't end up in an equivalent situation.

I understand your point and I agree that in a great many situations, consumers make choices that, viewed objectively, aren't in their "best interests", for some paternalistic idea of whatever they are. Should we accept this as justified or moral, just because it is an inevitable outcome of a game set up in this way? I don't think we necessarily need to, and that doesn't mean passing negative judgment on the consumer's choice in the process.

Interestingly, PG's writings support this view in many ways, and I think there are even some examples in real life that suggest this as well. For instance, the MPAA and RIAA are engaged in a campaign to convince people that they have natural rights that are being violated by people choosing the no-cost option of downloading digital media. Firstly, their rights are in no way natural. But more importantly, new technology has shown up their business model as antiquated and inefficient. The digital media downloading phenomenon can be viewed as equivalent to a black market; black markets always arise when the legal market prices are kept artificially above what the fair market price would be in a free economy (viz iTunes Store). The whole economy, including the media companies, would be better off in the long run if the media companies reconsidered their business models to take advantage of the efficiencies offered by new technologies, rather than fighting to defend their existing, inefficient investments. However, the media companies' best short-term strategy is to try to maintain the status quo.

A company's attempts to manipulate the attitudes and purchasing habits of consumers don't have to be accepted simply because they are the logical consequence of the way the game is currently structured. It is always possible to change the game.

Thanks for your reply, it really made me think about this in detail.