I don&#x27;t immediately agree with the premise of this article: that the consumer pays an advertising tax on the good or service being purchased.<p>I tend to believe that advertising actually adds value to the good or service, especially when it&#x27;s exactly the same as a competing good. When you buy General Mills&#x27; Honey Nut Cheerios instead of Offbrand Honey Oats, the advertising on the sale has actually payed for itself and then some, increasing the profit margin above the good itself.<p>On a macroeconomic scale, the best example I can think of is the Soviet Union. Advertising was thought to be a drain on society under the Marxist thinking of the time, so the Soviet Union didn&#x27;t allow it. But then they found without advertising, it led to under consumption. I think there were other problems too, but eventually the Soviets started advertising, despite their initial misgivings about it.<p>A quick google didn&#x27;t reveal any good citations, so I&#x27;m certainly open to other ideas on this, but my main point is that this article over-simplifies the value that advertising generates for an industry.<p>Edit: Found an interesting article on the Communist world&#x27;s relationship with advertising: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acrwebsite.org&#x2F;volumes&#x2F;5816&#x2F;volumes&#x2F;v03&#x2F;NA-03" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.acrwebsite.org&#x2F;volumes&#x2F;5816&#x2F;volumes&#x2F;v03&#x2F;NA-03</a>