Comments on: Your government at work http://ericberlin.com/?p=2865 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:49:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Scott http://ericberlin.com/?p=2865&cpage=1#comment-6653 Scott Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:16:37 +0000 http://ericberlin.com/?p=2865#comment-6653 I won't dispute the appearances of making the charge explicit, as this seems it may have done, but the principle strikes me as straightforwardly equivalent to the funding of most advertising. If General Mills runs an ad for Cheerios, they pay for that ad by a combination of raising the price on my box of Cheerios and taking a per unit profit cut that they'll make up in volume (digging into the articles, I see that the $10 fee is to fund a third of the campaign, with the government providing the rest). If I'm less willing, as a consequence of the price increase I face, to buy Cheerios, then the advertisement hasn't done its job. And if sales increase, but General Mills earns less profit, then the accountants haven't done their job. Both of those are potential concerns one could have about the particulars of this policy, either that the campaign is going to be ineffective or that $10 is the wrong amount. But Balko's implication that it is inherently foolish is only sound if you presuppose the ineffectiveness of the campaign. I won’t dispute the appearances of making the charge explicit, as this seems it may have done, but the principle strikes me as straightforwardly equivalent to the funding of most advertising. If General Mills runs an ad for Cheerios, they pay for that ad by a combination of raising the price on my box of Cheerios and taking a per unit profit cut that they’ll make up in volume (digging into the articles, I see that the $10 fee is to fund a third of the campaign, with the government providing the rest). If I’m less willing, as a consequence of the price increase I face, to buy Cheerios, then the advertisement hasn’t done its job. And if sales increase, but General Mills earns less profit, then the accountants haven’t done their job. Both of those are potential concerns one could have about the particulars of this policy, either that the campaign is going to be ineffective or that $10 is the wrong amount. But Balko’s implication that it is inherently foolish is only sound if you presuppose the ineffectiveness of the campaign.

]]> By: braine http://ericberlin.com/?p=2865&cpage=1#comment-6646 braine Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:40:37 +0000 http://ericberlin.com/?p=2865#comment-6646 23.89 million tourists in 2008...let's see, that means a marketing budget of $238.9 million. Sigh. 23.89 million tourists in 2008…let’s see, that means a marketing budget of $238.9 million.

Sigh.

]]>