Article mentions nothing with regards to holding corporations accountable nor any plan or threat of action on the president’s part.
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
230 points (92.6% liked)
News
23399 readers
4260 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
These kinds of comments frustrate me... They fundamentally conflate the presidency with a more king-like position.
The system is setup against him doing anything other than speaking out about the issue and trying to motivate others to do something about it. The president ultimately has little power ... it's more of a oversight/cheer leading position (with some extended powers over the years to deal with imminent issues -- e.g., authorize short term military operations, which is still scary in the wrong hands) while congress is the office workers that are supposed to actually get the law writing done.
Unfortunately, we've had roughly a decade of Republican lead stagnation due to slim majority Democrat representation or outright majority Republican representation -- the Republican platform is after all the "do nothing because more government is bad" platform.
He's doing exactly what he should be doing, using the office to call people out and bring attention to issues/start conversations. That can result in brands either going "... lets make a voluntary change to get the heat off" or the public going "yeah that's a good point calls congressional rep to complain."
Well put!
The president ultimately has little power … it’s more of a oversight/cheer leading position
And let me emphasize this is a good thing, even if the previous officeholder ignored legal restrictions on his power
.
Make it expensive to change the weight of a product. Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product. Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed. Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.
Are these good ideas? I don't know, I literally made them up just now while shitting. I am sure the president of the United States could hire at least one dude to come up with better ones.
All great ideas if it weren't for the fact that we have a court system heavily weighted towards pro-corporate conservatism, so none of that would survive legal challenges and there would be a shit ton of corporate challenges.
load more comments
(1 replies)
All of these things would have to be done by Congress. The President is really not the dictator that the internet thinks he is (outside of some particular domains). But just to go through those:
Make it expensive to change the weight of a product.
How? Make the government track the size of ever possible consumable product and mandate a fee when changed? Beyond the enormous logistical effort for no obvious purpose, this would also make it costly for a company to add more product. Perhaps you only apply the fee when a size decreases, but then,, how do you handle the case where a company intentionally launches a smaller sized version for a different market, eg individual or snack sized portions? What if they launch a new size and then discontinue the older, larger one, so it technically didn't change? Does that have a fine? Sure, you can try to track all of this stuff carefully and determine what the net effect is, but that costs time and money all for no significant benefit.
Standardize the size and weight of a given type of product
Who determines the standard, and why? Why should it be illegal to sell a smaller or larger bag of chips or soda?
Require the packaging to alert consumers that the weight have changed in the last year and how much it has changed
This would just be one more tiny disclaimer line on the back that nobody would read. Not to mention, the size and weight is already on the package. Consumers are already perfectly capable of seeing the weight and deciding if the value for that price is good. I somewhat doubt most people would actually change their behavior by learning that there were ten more chips in the bag a year ago, and at any rate, companies know that consumers would rather pay the same price for less than pay a higher price for the same amount.
Tie the trademark of a given product to a certain weight.
That is categorically not how trademarks work.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Law requiring all prices to be in a format of
$ per actual measurement unit and include all applicable taxes.
Presidents can't pass laws and the House Republican majority is basically dedicated to going against whatever Biden proposes.
Absolutely it's very frustrating watching them try to do so much only to have it curtailed by a Republican majority Congress.
People think the president can issue an executive order for anything they want. That being said I hope his cabinet does move on proposing this because it would be a huge win for pricing transparency.
Absolutely it’s very frustrating watching them try to do so much only to have it curtailed by a Republican majority Congress.
It was more frustrating two years ago when it was being curtailed by a Democratic majority congress.
Yeah well Dems stopping tax cuts for the rich don't hurt us as much as Reps trying to shut down the government because we refuse tax cuts for the rich but by all means "both sides"
Yeah well Dems stopping tax cuts for the rich don’t hurt us as much
Who said anything about them stopping tax cuts for the rich? I was talking about stuff Democrats did 2 years ago, like stopping the minimum wage increase and BBB. You know, their accomplishments.
How in the world can you contribute that to the Dems when they were split and Republicans almost unanimously voted against it.
If you're issue is that they should have all voted to push it through then absolutely I wish they would too and you should vote in a way that reinforces what you'd like to see.
That being said of our two options Dems support it the most. If your argument is that we should have more options to vote for what we really want then we agree again, we need voter reform to make 3rd options viable via multi-choice voting
load more comments
(19 replies)
There never was a Democratic majority congress. West Virginia and Arizona both sent senators who had a D next to their name, but were really Rs.
Not only that, but you need a super majority in the senate to get anything real through, which means you need 60+ Democrats who ALL need to be on board, along with a majority of Democrats in the House, AND a Democrat president.
That hasn't happened since early Obama, and he squandered it by trying to pass bipartisan legislation with the Republicans, instead of just railroading the right things through.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Presidents can't pass laws
Yeah, this thread is beyond frustrating. We need to prioritize teaching civics in high school because it could not be more obvious that a large number of people out there have no idea what they’re even talking about. It’s just ignorant rage.
The top comment in this comment section is so ignorant it should embarrass everyone using Lemmy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Right, but he could get the ball rolling by getting someone in congress he knows to start a bill for the idea.
If Repub's shoot it down, then he's got more ammo in his ads
load more comments
(1 replies)
We have that in the Netherlands; it’s very helpful. You usually see a price per kilo or a price per liter. Makes it really easy to just look at product X, Y and Z and see which one is actually more expensive, without having to do math in your head. That really should be the law everywhere.
Yeah, and in the UK I noticed that tax is included on the listed price as well. So again, no surprises for people when they check out, and don't need to do the math to account for the extra tax.
Same in the Netherlands. A shop legally must show a price that includes taxes. I’m always amazed that that’s not a thing in the US. Because you’re still forced to pay those taxes anyway, so why confuse things by not just showing the tax included price?
Here, what you see is what you pay.
$ per actual measurement unit
I've already seen this in essentially every supermarket ever, usually per ounce. Sure, you have to have some vague intuition about what that is relative to the product, but you can still make standardized comparisons across, say, different kinds of chips, very easily.
It'd be nice to include taxes, I agree.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
If politicians were serious in their criticism they would vote for laws forcing comparison price to be displayed next to the purchase price.
Require that $/oz is always displayed in equal size as the per package price.
That's what I meant with "comparison price".
My opinion is regulate it so any shrinking has to be marked in large bold caps lettering NOW X% SMALLER for at least 1 year. Then people might actually stop buying shrunken goods and opt for a competitor.
That won’t solve ingredient swaps.
It'd be better than nothing, though
Oh, I'm still offering the old size product. It's just less efficient and profitable than our completely new, slightly smaller size.
Stop! Or I'll say stop again!
Did he say anything about actually doing something about it? Some-sort of shrinkflation law or something?
I'm happy to just see him talking about anything other than green line go up.
I was talking to a friend recently and mentioned that Lil Debbie Fudge Rounds used to be the same diameter as the "Double Decker" ones.
Now they're smaller than the diameter of an air hockey puck. And don't even get me started on how regular Oreo Cookies used to look like the double stuff Oreos. The gall to cut the product in half, add the other half back to it, then charge more and have the balls to call it "double..."
I wouldn't mind a reduction in plastic packaging if I could get a few more snacks.
I basically reduced my snack intake by about 75%. It is almost to expensive to snack now.
90% of the snacks I buy are the store brand. Particularly, Walmart since it's the cheapest place to get foodstuffs here. So far, while all the big names have visibility shrunk in size and value, the store brands have remained the same while just continuing to grow in value compared to the other brands that are giving you less for more.
At what point during the shrink does the packaging cost more than the single serving of potatoe chip fumes?
As President should do something about the tiny size of Pringles in Australia, which are a sad shadow of their former glory now.
view more: next ›