Originally Posted by
GUWonder
That's your claim about my line, but it's not my line now or before. My line is far more nuanced than the above caricature would try to make it seem.
The whole point of consumer protection is not that there may be asymmetrical information -- the whole point of consumer protection legislation/regulation is to protect consumers. Whether or not there is asymmetrical information.
Just because muckrakers and yellow journalism have at times been helpful in filling in informational gaps that led to consumer protection doesn't mean that consumer protection's entire point is to address informational asymmetry.
Sure, Jan. It seems you are making up your own definition of what consumer protection is, based on your perjorative language here. But I'd direct you to the academic literature that makes quite clear that consumer protection law is in part designed to cure informational asymmetry (along with other market failures and externalities. You can start with Akerlof's seminal study, "'The Market for Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970.
Originally Posted by
GUWonder
It seems that some of the major FT-spawned bloggers are on a limited sort of credit card "warning to consumers" kick. Pleased?
Not sure what "limited" warning you are talking about, but if it is, no I'm not pleased. I generally think all credit card marketing bloggers should abide by the principles of the FTC's native advertising and social media guidelines, as I've pointed out before ...to you.
For example:
- Referencing "affiliate links" is not enough - "Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link."
- Disclosures "[s]hould be easy to read and in a shade that stands out from the background."
For more tips that bloggers should follow, the FTC has a helpful FAQ page, with a whole section on affiliate marketing:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/busi...ple-are-asking