> What makes this view more correct than say, "economies with marketing creates a dynamic where being competitive in production is secondary to marketing" and concluding that nothings a free market until we ban all advertising? After all, you can make a vaguely plausible argument about how marketing isn't really about the merits of the product, and therefore allowing it is antithetical to the free market or whatever

Wait, so your pitch in favor of a debt-fueled market economy is that advertising is awesome and that we wouldn't want to "lose" being smothered in ads all the time?

Cause... sign me up for the non-financialized, non-mass-media-advertising-driven economy please and thank you. I'd even be ok with just nuking billboards and mass-media forms of ads and still allowing more direct forms of marketing, if we must compromise! Likely we could find some compromises around just how much of the debt world we regulate too (this should be obvious?).

(I thought the disconnect between the efficiency of competition and the market as realized in modern economies was pretty well understood and taken for granted, but I guess we all find ways to justify the system we're profiting from... even if that means we have to claim we love the ad breaks)

Marketing isn’t free for starters.

Second, marketing can take you only so far compared to the subsidies possible with financialisation.

The West is in a state of psychosis with Debt and Monopolies under the illusion of free market.

The Chinese markets are more free than West, you can just look at the Auto and AI industry.