this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
901 points (98.9% liked)
Mildly Interesting
21731 readers
619 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not objecting, but what is the motivation of the Mexican government to do this? Have they done similar things before?
I don't think they've done something exactly like this, but they have aggressively tackled obesity in recent years, going as far as labeling all foods with excess fats, salt, and sugar. It's very visible on the package and it does influence what I buy.
But this is the way I found out we're doing this now. 😅
But also I think because all the existing cocoa producers are evil enslavers. This will help something like 1800 Mexican farmers.
Nestle is notoriously evil - I'm hoping Mexico can compete
The only thing that EU has yet to stiff-arm on.
Actually doing something? Good on them!
Government should probably provide the cheapest food and set the standard.
However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.
If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability. Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?
Issues for who? The consumer? Or the capitalists?
It would hint that it's a shitty product, presuming no foul play by the government and the product is not overpriced (doesn't appear to be).
Government correction how? From suppression I think you mean lowering their price? The scenario you're laying out doesn't make sense.
The point of this kind of product is to be the baseline, no capitalist should be able to afford to offer the same product for less, because the government already has the lowest possible margin.
You start by making a better product, and you can charge whatever people decide the improved product is worth. It's a good thing that an asshole capitalist can't market a $7 bar of chocolate when a very good quality one is $1. At that price difference, your chocolate better be amazing.
Don't bother trying to correct them. They are convinced its a bad idea because its what they would do if they were in power.
So focused on hate and want you only see the consumer and capitalist, but not the worker's back. However, all three shall crumble under such a fumble.
The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes, but also implies cost cutting measures beyond that. Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.
Government correction can overextend their force with control of the fields and markets. Just look at the farming or fiahing history in most nations who had regulated government contracts.
HENCE, how could a capitalist compete, leaving only inferior or circumvention of regulations. Needing recitifying. Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.
Your last paragraph is ludicrous, start by making a better product. Reflecting in cost and raising the value of the product reaching the end user. Antithetical to your previous point.
You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.
So what does suppression of the people lead to?
Cope better. There was no hate.
No no no, it's not lower quality, it's just not luxury. It's better than the $5 Hershey bars available to you in the US. This is not a law of economics, it's a capitalist assumption. Lower prices can mean lower quality in for-profit contexts because companies cut costs to maximize profit. But in a nonprofit, state-run model, the goal is different: providing a high-quality public good at an accessible price. This is a de-commodification of a necessity or cultural staple. Chocolate in Mexico has deep indigenous and historical roots.
I don't know, did they?
The insinuation here is that the government is cheating the system. But if the government is the one setting or adapting the regulations, this is not circumvention, it's governance. State-run enterprises often don't need to chase profit margins because their revenue model isn't extractive.
Correct, that’s the point. The state provides a baseline to protect people from price-gouging and artificial scarcity. Capitalists can compete, but they must add value, not by suppressing wages or cutting quality, but by genuine innovation or diversification.
This is similar to how public healthcare in many countries sets a baseline: if private healthcare wants to exist, it must offer more, not extract more.
This is incoherent nonsense. Capitalism "winning" through the suppression of workers is not a bug; it's a feature. State efforts to offer goods affordably often arise precisely to counteract capitalist suppression.
The idea that public chocolate production suppresses workers more than Nestlé or Hershey's, companies with notorious labor violations, is laughable.
That’s just a rhetorical grenade, you’re not engaging with what I said, you’re trying to discredit me personally. And honestly, it’s frustrating. You’re implying that lived suffering and collective solutions can’t go hand in hand, but that’s just not true. Some of the fiercest, most committed advocates for public goods come from deep struggle, especially across the Global South.
The hate was you focusing on the profiteers, and want was you focused on consumers. However the product must go from a to b. Then b to c. Etc. Workers are a key aspect of this process and most people ignore this.
Chocolate in mexico does have deep indigenous and historical roots. However this is not why it's so big, it's massive due to a bunch of exploitation of the region. It's why Mexico has only sorta been at peace since the 1980s. I have studied greatly how white supremacists funded some of our state conflicts. Literally the KKK.
Anyways, you are too focused on the chocolate example when I never really talked about it. All I am saying is this is good, however I can also see it growing corrupt by forfeiting too much to the governance. Going back around from one capitalist structure to the next. State efforts to counteract start one way, I am saying they always end the same. Power corrupts.
Anyways, my point is the people will rise if they are suppressed. What goes up must come down, as above so below.
However, you have too much faith in governance, for yours has not taken from you humanity.
This meaningless, conceited ramble could have been more effective simply by pointing out that state industry can force an unfair competition simply by subsidizing its products with tax revenue, hiding the actual costs and potentially forcing any rivals out of business even easier than private industry can.
Thank you for joining me in the conceited side for thinking your point is more correct.
They work in tandem, but no one who is good can agree on what is good. Only on what is bad.
Uhh what?
It’s called competition. Having a competitor in the market who’s goal is to keep people fed instead of making money hand over fist would both bring prices down and bring quality up on higher priced items.
If we have to do capitalism, let’s get some not-for-profit competition happening.
In an ideal world, yes that would be the competition. However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts. Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
Well if another company can go lower, it inherently implies they are skimping somewhere so quality is lost or regulations circumvented. Any government correction can overstep.
Go start your not-for-profit competition. Farm for yourself, grow crops at home, reduce your footprint. Find community in your neighborhood.
Yes, and yes, but why are either of these a bad thing? Cheap, good quality food seems like a good thing to me.
If the British provided cheap food, they could actually have avoided the Bengal famine. (Unless you mean some other fuckup I'm not aware of.)
I never said they are a bad thing. I am saying it is forfeiting a lot to the governance - seizing the means of production to them.
The bengali famine was a multifaceted issue, however primarily it was the contracts and forced control of the British. In which they withhold food availability for war time embargos along with a focus on textile farming. All the contractees then essentially focused on money rather than food, as that was the profit of a contract.
Less profits for shareholders? And that is unacceptable!
/s
They sneak in just a little of that fentanyl. It's to die for.
Americans have such a shitty life that they're addicted to drugs and can't stop buying them, but sure, it's Mexicans sneaking it in.