>If you took advertising out of the U.S. economy there would be millions unemployed.

So would the global peace leave millions without a job - the weapons manufacturers, armies, military experts etc. Doesn't mean we should hold war dear just because there are so many people who make a living out of it.

OTOH, those millions could finally start to do something useful :)

The parallel here isn't without merit - every business has to advertise simply because every other business does so. So it adds to everybody's cost, and the sellers of advertisements are just doing their jobs: selling everyone the idea that advertising works. They should see the pile of junk mail I have, that I don't even glance over, the speed at which I hit the mute button as soon as commercials start, my reluctance to go to a movie just because I'd be subjected to endless minutes of ads before the feature, the fact that I bought an MP3 player for the car simply because the local radio is dead (killed by advertising), and that most of the software I use is open source (apart from Windows and Fox, and Office for automation) mostly because there's no adware in it.

>>This is just the most basic part of the Google "model", and it really makes sense for me, and for the most part of this (granted) hysterical beast called "the market".
>
>It still looks to me that investors are hanging far far too much weight on those few (2?) factors, making it look like another case of market hope driving market SENSE.

Actually Google as an advertising agent does make sense. It has tamed web advertising by forcing it into an inobtrusive little block on the right side, in small font and almost no color, no images, no blinking, shouting etc. By now, any website with glaring ads and specially banners risks looking like a porn site.

Not that it works for me :). I may click an advertising link on a googled page once in 100 searches, or maybe 300. Each time I'm disappointed with what they offer, and buy nothing.