Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
February 19, 2007, - 1:50 pm
By Debbie Schlussel
. . . The Great Mexican Chocolate Bar?!
Well, sadly, it’s no longer “The Great American Chocolate Bar.” And this ad campaign is no longer true . . .
I have to disagree with you, Debbie. Although the quality of the video is pretty poor, I think I saw a token white kid in the ad.
?Hershey puede besar mi asno blanco! Compro Nestle de ahora en adelante.
HOPEFULLY, YOU ARE KIDDING, AS INDICATED BY THE “LOL.” HERSHEY’S IS CUTTING A LOT OF JOBS AND MOVING THEM TO MEXICO. THAT WAS MY POINT–NOTHING ABOUT THE ETHNICITY OF THE KIDS IN THE VIDEO.
Thee_Bruno on February 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm
The true criminal here is the sugar subsidies awarded our local criminal grower/processor trust. The normal world price of real sugar is between 5.5 and 7.5 cents per pound. The guaranteed price to American multinational slugs for American grown sugar is almost 18 cents per pound AND all commercial users of sweetners must buy American sugar if it is available. If you will check candy wrappers you will note that there are “sugar substitutes” in the candy, usually corn sweetener.
1. Hershey: they sell “milk chocolate” and the international standard for such labeling mandates the use of sugar. Period. The price of remaining in the USA was to go out of the milk chocolate business until such time as the $3 milk chocolate bar was considered a bargain. They could go anywhere in the world and produce cheap milk chocolate for a world population eager for their product. What would you do?
2. The sugar subsidy: it’s a major scandal, one that the GOP promised to get rid of but, as usual with those scumbags, they didn’t do it. But the main thrust behind the sugar subsidy is….the corn agri-business community, in particular the giants ConAgra and Carghill, the two largest corn processors in the world (ethanol, corn sweetener, and all kinds of veggies.)
American workers? Get real. Who really gives a shit when there’s more money to be made by fucking them than in treating them fairly?
Duke on February 19, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Of course I was kidding, however, I thought the ad was shot in the U.S. (like the kid in the ad at the Baseball game – not too many baseball games are played in Mehico) and was targeting Latinos as is the case with just about every other American comapny ad campaign.
Oh well, I guess Hershey is part of that “giant sucking sound”, as Ross Perot put it.
Translate the Spanish sentences I posted, and you’ll get a real clear idea how I feel.
Thee_Bruno on February 19, 2007 at 5:03 pm
the mexican should stay away from chocolate and eat tacos and learn to stand up to big business about the abuse american companies do to them and have the balls to stand up to there government with all that oil profits they should invest in there country and not baseball stadiums that nobody can afford to go to
PNAMARBLE on February 19, 2007 at 7:17 pm
You are right Debbie. This is a sad thing. DUKE who explains the economics makes sense–but how sad it is. I wonder how old that commercial is–from the 70’s?
BB on February 19, 2007 at 10:41 pm
“American workers? Get real. Who really gives a shit when there’s more money to be made by fucking them than in treating them fairly?”
What you wrote about the sugar subsidies makes me think Hershey is justified in going to Mexico. Why should they stay in America when sugar is so much more expensive than it should be?
That’s the thing I don’t get about all these people who cry about outsourcing – we wouldn’t have so much of it if it weren’t for the government making it a pain to do business in America.
Dan on February 19, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Dan my man…ever heard about the Four Horsemen of the Supreme Court???
THEY were intent on striking down FDR’s “Jew Deal,” the movement that was afoot to make the WORKERS have a little job security AND a decent wage here in Amerikkka…all the outsourcing NOW is a result of big business not being able to create a serf state in THIS county!!!
Those ‘damn’ Mexicans soon will have to build fences to keep y’all out since Amerikkka will be one big Detroit…a ghost town
EminemsRevenge on February 20, 2007 at 2:54 pm
When the government enforces “job security,” it means that business are going to be more averse to hiring people in the first place, especially those without a proven track record. When I was starting out looking for a job, I’d much rather have had no government mandated job security, allowing myself to be fired at any time for any reason. That way a company could have hired me with little risk to themselves, and I could prove my worth to them. Instead, I got the runaround for months because hiring employees is such a big commitment on the part of employers these days.
Dan on February 20, 2007 at 11:17 pm
* denotes required field
Copyright 2000–2015 www.debbieschlussel.com