177
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
177 points (93.2% liked)
politics
18904 readers
2996 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Unless he's willing to do something about it, I don't think making this kind of statement is politically helpful. The snack makers will just ignore him, and then he ends up looking impotent and irrelevant, feeding the Republican narrative against his presidency.
Same thing with his administration publicly wringing its hands about the death toll in Gaza. Meanwhile the US continues funding Netanyahu's war machine, which publicly thumbs its nose at the president. It projects weakness.
But he told them very sternly to stop doing it. Shrinkflation is over! /s
It'll be on the next list of Biden's accomplishments.
Probably twice to pad the list.
One wonders how he's going to force private enterprise to not reconsider their packaging size, etc.
there's literally nothing stopping them from selling a new "Fun-Lite" size. or soemthing.
Executive branch regulation can and should enforce honesty and transparency about changes, including shrinking package size. Then it’s up to consumers to vote with their wallets
You mean… like printing content measurements on the package?
Not saying shrinkflation isn’t wrong, but interfering in private enterprise to that extent is both illegal and excessive.
You wouldn’t want to live in a country where the chief executive has that kind of power.
Shrinkflation may be a valid business choice: misleading the customer should not be. Yes the label was required, which is a great starting point, but if the box appears the same size, who looks at the label? If the old size is not present, what do you compare with? Are you holding the customer responsible for memorizing the net weight for every product over the time range they may use it?
You want to reduce the size, that’s your choice, but honesty means the customer will notice
the relevant regulations that mandate package weight in the US has been a thing longer than I've been alive. So you compare it to the weight of the old package.
There's also some justification for using the same size packaging- they'd have to retool some of the filling machines, for example. or at least, adjust them, which adds increased associated production costs. But again, you're talking about a government executive pushing extremely intrusive interference into a company's operations.
Is shrinkflation pretty scummy? absolutely. but there's really no workable way to stop it, that doesn't have a lot of much worse consequences.
Oh, it'll be on the list regardless. Centrists can't tell the difference between a stated position and an accomplishment.
I don't think he has the power to do anything about it.
And he shouldn’t be able to do much to directly interfere with the market.
However one thing he can do is regulate transparency. A big reason shrinkflation is so widespread is that you can hide the change pretty well, but consumer protection regulations already require clear pricing, including per unit, and at least some semblance of truth in advertising, so additional regulations to improve honesty and transparency are quite appropriate. Government needs to establish a fair market, then it’s up to the market
That may not prevent shrinkflation but at least we can keep products companies from lying about it. Then it’s up to us
What do you mean by transparency? Is it the sort of transparency companies can reveal without revealing things like trade secrets?
Also, with so many Trump-backed judges, I could see that getting struck down in a hot minute, especially if businesses take it to the Fifth Circuit, which they absolutely would.
The classic case of shrinkflation is ever shrinking cans of tuna. However, to the glance, they looked exactly the same. They stacked the same way and difference in height was imperceptible.
While there was a required label for the net weight of contents, why would anyone look when the cans appear to be the same as they always were and how would you notice when there is no prior can to compare to.
This is lying. The companies are clearly misleading consumers to hide price increases even if the information is technically there for someone who looks closely enough.
Consumer transparency means that when you make a change, the difference is clearly visible. Consumer protection should be that companies cannot lie, hide or mislead about this change as they are doing now. A fundamental part of capitalism is that consumers have the information to participate in the market, which requires transparency of products. Capitalism is not just corps exploiting consumers, but an ecosystem of production and consumption where each participant can make choices in their own interest. Being able to lie, hide or mislead is a distortion or abuse of the market and governments role needs to be to stop that so markets can work effectively
So how do you get that through the Fifth Circuit?
We can have all the ideals in the world but dysfunctional is dysfunctional