The first part is true, the second part pretty obviously isn't. Advertizers expect to net $ from ad buys, but most advertising isn't trying to increase a consumers total spending, its trying to drive that spending towards the companies products.

To give the most obvious example, the largest category of advertising is for food and beverage products. But no one thinks that if those ads all suddenly disappeared, people would stop buying food.

Especially in a developing country where consumers ability to pay for such things is going to be limited, that will presumably deprive some margin of the population of media/services that are currently ad supported.

I still remember the "oh I get it" moment when I visited Michigan as a teen and saw Lake Michigan for the first time.

Its on such an expedition that the ring "slips" from him, further suggesting the ring is actually not only his size, but a little large.

(LOTR says the ring can change size, but this wasn't discussed in the Hobbit, and presumably hadn't occurred to Tolkien yet when he wrote it).

Think the best argument presented in the piece is just that some non-trivial fraction of soldiers are going to gamble, and its better they do so in a manor controlled by the military then backroom poker games, online, etc.

Note the age-group with the biggest drop is 15-24, its not like the average 18 year old owned their own home circa 1995.

Still, seems like a crazy requirement.

The rationalist stuff just seems like some meaningless patter they stuck ontop of more garden variety cult stuff.