So focused on hate

Cope better. There was no hate.

The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes

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.

Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.

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.

HENCE, how could a capitalist compete

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.

Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.

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.

You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.

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.

What? Why would a job in Mexico pay enough to live in the US… That makes no sense. Cost of living isn’t even the same across the US.

It is. They’ve got you conditioned to accept that government is just there to hurt you, it’s supposed to make society worth living in.

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.

However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.

Issues for who? The consumer? Or the capitalists?

If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability.

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 becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?

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.

Let’s trace a line from Jimmy Carter’s presidency through to Trump and the broader neoliberal catastrophe we inhabit today… Connect the dots with me…

1. Carter deregulated key industries (airlines, trucking, finance), under the logic that competition would lower prices. This deregulation began dismantling worker protections and union power.

He appointed Paul Volcker, whose interest rate hikes (to “fight inflation”) tanked employment, crushed organized labor, and shifted power toward capital. This “Volcker Shock” initiated decades of wage stagnation and debt reliance for working people.

And he began rolling back the welfare state while not building meaningful alternatives, opening space for Reagan to fully gut it.

The economic consensus began tilting toward free-market absolutism: austerity, privatization, and attacks on labor.

2. Oh boy!

Afghanistan: Carter (through Brzezinski) greenlit support to Mujahideen warlords before the Soviet invasion. This led to a brutal proxy war that helped incubate violent jihadist networks, including the early precursors to al-Qaeda.

Iran: Carter supported the Shah until the regime collapsed. The hostage crisis and U.S. blowback paved the way for U.S. militarization of the Middle East.

Israel/Egypt Accord (Camp David): Removed Egypt as a counterweight to Israel, entrenching U.S.-Israel hegemony in the region, with Palestine marginalized entirely.

The U.S. became further entangled in Middle Eastern conflicts and oil politics, setting the stage for endless wars, 9/11, and Islamophobia.

3. Reagan didn’t invent neoliberalism, he codified what Carter started:

He Used Carter’s deregulation as precedent to further destroy labor, defund public goods, and privatize government. He pushed tax cuts for the rich, shifting wealth upward. And he expanded the security state and laid ideological groundwork for the racist turn in U.S. policy.

4. Clinton continued deregulation (Glass-Steagall repeal). He was responsible for mass incarceration (“tough on crime” laws), and he signed NAFTA, decimating domestic manufacturing and labor organizing, and he “reformed” welfare which deepened poverty.

5. Obama bailed out Wall Street, not homeowners. He expanded drone warfare and surveillance, and he sold a technocratic sheen over systemic rot, giving way to disillusionment.

6. Neoliberalism’s mask fell off, the culmination of 40 years of rot, Trump used populist rhetoric and fascist tactics to deepen wealth inequality, gutted regulations, and emboldened white nationalism.

I’ll skip Biden and his genocide and go back to Trump, since Trump is continuing it, and we’re back at the end of the line, what shape did it make? A pile of shit on fire.

Climate catastrophe unaddressed, mass surveillance and militarization is well entrenched, working-class despair fuels far-right movements, and Palestine remains occupied and brutalized with U.S. complicity.

All this starts not with Trump, but with liberal acquiescence to capital: Carter’s pivot away from postwar social democracy toward corporate and military alignment.

If you’d like to do some reading, and if you’re willing to hate everyone you ever respected. First learn about neo-liberalism and why it’s really bad, then review Carter’s presidency.

Jimmy Carter started the fire everyone blames Trump for. He kicked off deregulation, empowered Wall Street, and backed brutal regimes abroad, all while smiling about “human rights.” That shift gutted unions, killed good jobs, and fueled endless wars. Reagan doubled down, Clinton made it bipartisan, Obama gave it a pretty face, and Trump lit the wreckage on fire. It’s not about party, it’s about 40+ years of selling out working people to corporations and empire. Carter didn’t end the New Deal. He started the funeral.

Because Democrats are not your friends, and this is just another attempt to keep up the illusion that they fight on our behalf.

Easy, you’re a salaried employee and “seasonal duty: light warehouse work”

Boom, it’s part of your job.

The comparison was to cash, not credit cards. The government doesn’t know who I hand cash to.