Instructions: Write 300 words (or more) addressing the following prompt. Responses to this Discussion Board are due by J

[answerhappygod]

Instructions: Write 300 words (or more) addressing the following prompt. Responses to this Discussion Board are due by July 8th by the end of the day.
Prompt: One prominent criticism against advertisements and marketing is that they may undermine consumer autonomy, or the ability of consumers to make rational and unbiased decisions about their purchasing decisions free from external influenced imposed by others. Consumer autonomy is regarded as essential to a market economy because such economies are presumed to operate, at their foundation, according to consumer decisions. This is why market economies, and capitalism more broadly, is regarded as the ‘democratization’ of the economy. People ‘vote’ with their dollars and the market responds in turn. This is what enables such economies to achieve social satisfaction – since the market satisfies the demands of the public – and an optimal allocation of resources – since resources are being used to meet the demands of the people. However, this only works if people are freely making their decisions. If people are tricked into demanding something, then resources might not be used optimally. Likewise, if they are being tricked into wanting something that they don’t need or that might even be harmful to them, then social satisfaction is not achieved either. At its core, then, market economies presuppose the freedom of consumers to make their own decisions. As such, Alan Goldman argues that advertisements are not inherently opposed to a market economy, so long as they avoid untruths and attempts to subconsciously influence consumers. For instance, in the early 2010s, Vitaminwater ads generally contained misleading or questionable medical claims. One particularly controversial ad from 2011 even suggested that Vitaminwater could serve as a suitable replacement for getting a flu shot. In 2016, a judge ruled that Vitaminwater would have to refrain about making various health claims, including reducing risk of disease and boosting immune functions. While the claims made by Vitaminwater were medically indefensible, their lawyers argued that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage." While this presented an odd and ineffective legal defense, it does raise an important question here: if consumer autonomy is so important to a market economy, then who is ultimately responsible for it? Some argue that consumers should expect producers to exaggerate claims and thus do their own research for consuming any products. In reply, others argue that if consumers need to do extra research to fact-check advertisements and marketing, then its unclear whether they are justifiable within a market economy.
So, what do you all think? Do you agree with Goldman that advertisements are justifiable in a market economy so long as they are truthful and avoid deliberately establishing any subconscious/subliminal links? Or do you agree with Galbraith that advertisements are ultimately unjustifiable since they inevitably undermine the ability of consumers to make autonomous purchasing decisions, thereby rendering the market inefficient and undermining its ability to achieve social satisfaction? Or do you believe that all advertisements are justifiable and that it is always the sole responsibility of consumers to research products before consumption? Or do you believe that whether an advertisement is justifiable must be based on the kind or degree of the falsehood (e.g., Vitaminwater misleading consumers about its purported medical benefits is unjustifiable, but Red Bull claiming that its gives people wings is fine since its obviously literally untrue)? Either way, be sure to defend your position.
Instructions: Write 300 words (or more) addressing the following prompt. Responses to this Discussion Board are due by July 8th by the end of the day. Prompt: One prominent criticism against advertisements and marketing is that they may undermine consumer autonomy, or the ability of consumers to make rational and unbiased decisions about their purchasing decisions free from external influenced imposed by others. Consumer autonomy is regarded as essential to a market economy because such economies are presumed to operate, at their foundation, according to consumer decisions. This is why market economies, and capitalism more broadly, is regarded as the 'democratization of the economy. People 'vote' with their dollars and the market responds in turn. This is what enables such economies to achieve social satisfaction - since the market satisfies the demands of the public - and an optimal allocation of resources-since resources are being used to meet the demands of the people. However, this only works if people are freely making their decisions. If people are tricked into demanding something, then resources might not be used optimally. Likewise, if they are being tricked into wanting something that they don't need or that might even be harmful to them, then social satisfaction is not achieved either. At its core, then, market economies presuppose the freedom of consumers to make their own decisions. As such, Alan Goldman argues that advertisements are not inherently opposed to a market economy, so long as they avoid untruths and attempts to subconsciously influence consumers. For instance, in the early 2010s, Vitaminwater ads generally contained misleading or questionable medical claims. One particularly controversial ad from 2011 even suggested that Vitaminwater could serve as a suitable replacement for getting a flu shot. In 2016, a judge ruled that Vitaminwater would have to refrain about making various health claims, including reducing risk of disease and boosting immune functions. While the claims made by Vitaminwater were medically indefensible, their lawyers argued that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage." While this presented an odd and ineffective legal defense, it does raise an important question here: if consumer autonomy is so important to a market economy, then who is ultimately responsible for It? Some argue that consumers should expect producers to exaggerate claims and thus do their own research for consuming any products. In reply, others argue that if consumers need to do extra research to fact-check advertisements and marketing, then its unclear whether they are justifiable within a market economy. So, what do you all think? Do you agree with Goldman that advertisements are justifiable in a market economy so long as they are truthful and avoid deliberately establishing any subconscious/subliminal links? Or do you agree with Galbraith that advertisements are ultimately unjustifiable since they inevitably undermine the ability of consumers to make autonomous purchasing decisions, thereby rendering the market inefficient and undermining its ability to achieve social satisfaction? Or do you believe that all advertisements are justifiable and that it is always the sole responsibility of consumers to research products before consumption? Or do you believe that whether an advertisement is justifiable must be based on the kind or degree of the falsehood (e.g. Vitaminwater misleading consumers about its purported medical benefits is unjustifiable, but Red Bull claiming that its gives people wings is fine since its obviously literally untrue)? Either way, be sure to defend your position.