It's interesting to me that a country that loves consumerism so much doesn't have a pro-consumer movement.

It looks like Ralph Nader led one for a while back in the '70s but it's long dead now.

If someone were to revive such a movement or if some politicians were to attach themselves to it then I think it would be hugely popular.

▲

cogman10 a day ago | parent | next [-]

There are multiple agencies that were created initially to protect consumers. The FTC, CFPB, USDA, FDA, EPA, (arguably the FCC fits here to, but it's a stretch). The issue with each of these agencies is their power has been eroded and redirected over the years. That's because their regulations when done correctly directly and negatively impact monied interests.

Donors hating these agencies means that no political party really fully supports them or funds them fully when they get power.

▲

DFHippie a day ago | parent [-]

And now they're all effectively dead, killed by illegal executive actions whose lawsuits have stalled out in the Supreme Court queue. But the employees are already fired and looking for new jobs, so even if the actions are rolled back when SCOTUS finally gets around to it (strategic delay -- they can move like lightning when it suits them), they'll be hollowed out and unable to perform their legislatively mandated duties.

> Donors hating these agencies means that no political party really fully supports them or funds them fully when they get power.

False equivalence benefits bad actors.

	▲	cogman10 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> False equivalence benefits bad actors. It's not a false equivalence. I'm sorry but democrats have not and are not trying to clean up messes left by republican administrations. Further, it was the democrats under Clinton that have done the most damage to government function "The era of big government is over". They ushered in the privatization and corporate capture of government. A lot of the Dems are still in congress from the clinton era. Lina Khan is a really good example of the problem with democrats. She was one of Biden's most popular appointees. I saw her praised from across the political spectrum because she, with the little power she had, was actually doing what a lot of people wanted. And she is exactly the person that dem donors wanted out [1]. Kamala was week there. Rather than embracing the actions of Khan, she was silent as was biden. It was a real question if she'd keep her on board because the donors were so against her. That's the problem Democrats have. Republicans would never hire a Khan in the first place. If the donors squeal loud enough, despite how popular a cabinet pick is for the general public, dems will capitulate. Weakening trust that they are actually trying to fix anything. I could go on. The boarder is another prime example of democrats utterly failing. Rather than make the case for the humanity of immigrants, they adopted the republican narrative and policies. Biden for nearly his entire admin had identical boarder policies to trump. Almost nobody in the Democrat representees is talking about scaling back ICE (certainly not the leadership). I do not think if they get power, they'd even contemplate reducing the new insane ICE budget. [1] https://www.axios.com/2024/10/18/kamala-harris-lina-khan-ftc

▲

nozzlegear a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If someone were to revive such a movement or if some politicians were to attach themselves to it then I think it would be hugely popular.

Senator Elizabeth Warren's whole schtick was, and still is, pro-consumer. She practically built the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with her own two hands. Sadly the CFPB has now been hamstrung by DOGE and the Trump admin; it's been stripped of much of its capacity to enforce its rules, conduct investigations and protect consumers.

▲

kg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Approval rate doesn't seem to be much of a concern for modern western politicians. The current administrations in the US and some other western countries have abysmally low approval ratings and they're still in power. (This is not a value judgment of the administrations or people who voted for them, just an observation).

▲

em-bee a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

consumerism is for the benefit of the corporations, not the consumer. it's to get people to consume more. being pro-consumer leads to things like warranty, forcing me to make my products last longer which leads to people buying less.

	▲	em-bee a day ago \| parent [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism

▲

woodruffw a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think Steinbeck’s quip about temporarily embarrassed millionaires has a parallel in how Americans perceive their consumerism: Americans don’t see themselves as a consumer culture, even though we are one.

▲

chneu a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Biden was one of the most consumer friendly presidents in a while. He did away with a lot of nonsense fees, forced airlines to be more transparent, among other things.