Donald Trump Is execrable For American Consumers. Here's Why.



whether you’re a right-leaning reader or a fan of the current presidential administration, you probably won’t execute it past the headline of this chronicle. And whether you achieve, it will only be for the purposes of scrolling down to leave an furious comment at the conclude of the article.

But whether by chance you made it this far, please remember final week’s column on how the Trump administration could benefit consumers. And also, that there are at least two sides to every chronicle ― particularly this one.

You don’t beget to recognize far for evidence that the Trump administration will harm consumers. From its pledge to deregulate American businesses to its actions to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to its clumsy attempt to eviscerate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it’s tough to know where to launch a column like this.

Perhaps here: Even the administration’s most full-throated cheerleaders would beget some misfortune making the case that Trump has been safe for consumers. choose the promise of deregulation lowering prices, discussed at length final week.

“I beget yet to see an example of consumer prices going down and market competition increasing after deregulation of a U.S. industry,” says Prabir Chetia, head of commerce, trade research and advisory for Aranca Research, a global research, analytics and advisory firm.

That might arrive eventually. whether taxes on airline tickets are lowered, or “burdensome” regulations are lifted, those savings could be passed along to consumers. Or not. It’s difficult to say, since consumers hold far more pricing power than one or two regulations in the airline industry ― but we’ll beget to wait and see.

“Consumers may win with lower prices in the near term as a result of deregulation because businesses can improve margins and pass the savings along to shoppers,” says Jonas Sickler, marketing director for ConsumerSafety.org. “But, in the long race, I see the potential for consumers to choose a hit from degrading safety standards on everything from food to products.”

Sickler makes a valid point. Regulations exist to protect consumers, not companies. And whether consumers feel safer, they’re more likely to trust a brand and spend more money. So the argument approximately less regulation being better for everyone doesn’t necessarily hold proper.

“When consumers feel at risk,” he adds, “everyone loses.”

But that isn’t the only way the Trump administration has wound consumers. final week, I discussed some of the less obvious ways the government’s “laissez faire” approach to regulation had changed how consumers feel approximately the government and commerce, trade, and how that change is safe.

But in other ways, Trump is hurting us. Badly.

Consumers are assuming the worst ― even when they shouldn’t.

Too many consumers are telling me that they believe companies are out to find them. And while that may be proper for some companies, it certainly isn’t proper for every single of them. The shift in the balance of power, with companies now holding the upper hand when it comes to regulation, is worrisome to consumers. It’s manifesting itself as a deep distrust of corporations. Problem is, there are lots of companies that still achieve right by their customers. Helping you find them ― well, that’s what I achieve.

Consumers contemplate the government is actively working against their interests.

It’s one thing to be skeptical, but fairly another to be paranoid. Unfortunately, many consumers say they believe, based on the current appointees to federal agencies and actions taken by the federal government, that the administration is out to find ‘em. While it may be proper at a higher level ― that the political appointees contemplate consumers are there to be fleeced by the free market ― it isn’t universally proper. I personally know people at the regulator level who care approximately consumers and want to protect them. The Trump administration has a word for these resisters: Deep Staters.

Consumers believe they can’t win.

That is perhaps the worst fallacy of every single. Many consumers are telling me the deck is so perfectly stacked against them that they can’t win. Companies hire the best lawyers, their contracts favor them, and now so achieve the very people who are supposed to protect us. This morale problem is pervasive. Evidence of it can be seen in nearly every consumer complaint we receive, and I try tough every day to counter that misconception with words and deeds. Consumers can win. Pay no heed to the thoughtless tweets and the rhetoric carelessly tossed out in impromptu press conferences ― the truth is, consumers may be more powerful than they realize.

Trump is execrable for consumers, not necessarily in what he’s doing now, but in how he’s affecting the morale and psychology of the American customer. Too much paranoia and a can’t-win attitude will only serve the profit goals of the colossal corporations that treasure the “anything goes” economy this administration has promised them.

We can’t let that happen.

Christopher Elliott specializes in solving seemingly unsolvable consumer problems. Contact him with your questions on his advocacy website. You can also follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Google or sign up for his newsletter.



Source link

You might also like More from author