Ludwig von Mises warned us 80 years ago: when governments start making individual "deals" with private companies, we're witnessing the transformation from capitalism to something far more dangerous.
The news about Nvidia and AMD giving the U.S. government 15% of chip sales to China? Mises saw this exact pattern coming. 🧵
In "Omnipotent Government," Mises identified a dangerous transformation he called "etatism."
Think of it this way: You still "own" your business on paper, but the government tells you what to make, who to hire, what prices to charge, and who you can sell to. You're a manager, not an owner.
Mises wrote: "The entrepreneur in a capitalist society depends upon the market and upon the consumers. Every entrepreneur must daily justify his social function through subservience to the wants of the consumers."
But when business success requires political deals, everything changes.
The pattern is accelerating across recent months:
— Apple announced $600B U.S. investment after iPhone tariff threats
— Intel's CEO visiting the White House after public criticism
— Nvidia/AMD now paying 15% revenue cuts for China market access
This isn't capitalism. It's what Mises called "etatism."
Mises warned that under etatism, "the government, not the consumers, directs production."
When companies must seek political permission rather than consumer approval, we've crossed a dangerous line. Success becomes about relationships with power, not service to people.
So what's the big deal about these corporate negotiations? Mises saw where this leads.
When Nvidia pays 15% to access China markets, they're not responding to consumer demand. They're buying political permission. This fundamentally changes how businesses operate.
Instead of competing on price, quality, and innovation, companies now compete on political connections. Resources shift from R&D and customer service to lobbying and government relations.
The best politically connected firms win, not the most efficient ones.
Here's the terrifying part: even if current leaders have good intentions, they're building the infrastructure of control.
Once government has the power to grant or deny market access through individual deals, that power doesn't disappear when leadership changes.
Future authoritarians won't need to seize control—they'll inherit a system where economic power already flows through political channels.
Small businesses can't negotiate these deals. They face full regulations while big corporations get special arrangements. Perfect tools for political control.
Mises understood this doesn't happen in one election cycle. It's a slow infection of ideas that spreads across decades until everyone accepts that companies should negotiate with whoever holds power.
Eventually, people forget that businesses once served consumers, not politicians.
Mises understood that ideas have consequences. Bad economic ideas don't just create poverty—they destroy the institutional foundations of free society.
The battle for freedom starts in the classroom, not the boardroom.
🚨 FINAL WEEK TO APPLY
Want to learn how to recognize and fight these patterns? Students For Liberty trains liberty leaders who understand what Mises saw coming.
Don't just watch it happen. Learn to stop it. Applications close August 16th for our 2025-26 US/Canada program.
In August 1939, Britain and France were desperately trying to stop Hitler.
They had one last hope: convince Stalin to join them against Nazi Germany. Instead, Stalin chose to ally with the nazis.
This wasn't an accident. It was ideological sympathy. 🧵
The scene in Moscow was surreal.
British and French envoys were begging Stalin for an alliance, but talks stalled over Poland accepting Soviet troops and the Baltic states falling into Stalin's sphere.
Stalin was stupefied by British refusal. How could British imperialists, who had seized one quarter of the earth, deny him the right to annex former Russian possessions?
Meanwhile, Hitler was growing anxious about a potential Soviet-Western alliance.
In May 1939, Stalin made a telling move: he replaced Jewish foreign minister Maxim Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov, whose main trait was never disagreeing with Stalin. This wasn't coincidence. It was preparation for Nazi talks.
The Soviet Union promised equality, prosperity, and democracy for all.
— 7 million died in the Holodomor famine.
— 6 million people forcibly deported.
— 800,000 died during deportation.
— 40% lived in poverty.
Don't be fooled—life for regular people in the USSR was awful. 🧵
We're told constantly that socialism "just hasn't been tried correctly yet."
But the USSR wasn't an accident. It was socialism's most ambitious experiment.
And the results? A masterclass in how utopian promises become dystopian realities.
Stalin's Five-Year Plan gave the Soviet state control over Ukraine's agriculture. Ukrainian farmers were forced to sell their grain, land, livestock, and tools to the government.
They were enslaved on collective farms called "kolkhozes."
The result? Mass starvation from central planning's inevitable failures.
You're a Soviet railroad commissar. No markets. No prices. Just you and a mountain range between two cities. How do you decide where to build?
This simple question reveals why socialism always fails. 🧵
Through the mountains, you'd use less steel but massive engineering resources. Around the mountains, you'd use more steel but save engineering for other projects. Both steel and engineering are desperately needed elsewhere for irrigation, trucks, harbors, thousands of other uses.
To choose wisely, you'd need to know what millions of people know. What farmers know about crop yields. What grocers know about customer demand. What truckers know about delivery capacity. What families know about the meals they want to cook tonight.
From progressive pulpits to college campuses to political debates, it’s a claim you hear everywhere today.
But what happens when we actually examine what Jesus taught versus what socialism requires? Let's investigate. 🧵
To answer this fairly, we need to define socialism clearly. Many people define it as "government giving free stuff" or "people doing good things for others."
Well, if that's socialism, then F.A. Hayek was a socialist—he supported some social programs and certainly believed in helping people.
But that's not what socialism actually means. Socialism is the concentration of economic power in government hands: central planning of the economy, state ownership of production, and redistribution of wealth through political force.
That's what Karl Marx commanded, and that's what his followers tried to apply across the world.
Now let's see what Jesus actually taught about these things.
Everyone says their own country should be more like Sweden.
Bernie Sanders built his campaign around it. AOC points to it constantly.
But if you really want to "be like Sweden," you'd have to abolish property, inheritance, and wealth taxes, cut corporate rates, and privatize Social Security with individual accounts. 🧵
Here's what they don't tell you: Modern Sweden isn't socialist at all.
Sweden's "socialist" reputation comes from one brief, disastrous period in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Before that, Sweden became the world's fourth-richest country through laissez-faire capitalism.
Between 1850 and 1950, Sweden transformed from a desperately poor backwater into one of the world's richest nations.
How? Classical liberals led by finance minister Johan August Gripenstedt abolished guilds, tore down trade barriers, and deregulated markets. Public spending never exceeded 10% of GDP during this golden age.
In 1925, a top Soviet economist wrote something that would eventually cost him his life.
Nikolai Bukharin, Lenin's "Golden Boy" and editor of Pravda, admitted that Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism. At least for the historical epoch in which he wrote.
This is the story of intellectual honesty in the face of tyranny. 🧵
Bukharin wasn't just any communist. He was perhaps the only trained economist among the Bolshevik founders. He studied economics during his exile in Germany and attended lectures of the great Austrians, including Böhm-Bawerk.
Lenin called him "not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; . . . [but] he is also rightly considered the favourite of the whole party."
But Bukharin had witnessed something that shook him to his core. The Bolsheviks had tried "War Communism" from 1918 to 1921: pure central planning, just as Marx envisioned.
The results were catastrophic. By the beginning of NEP, the country was producing pig iron at only 2% of the prewar (1913) level, sugar at 3%, cotton fabrics at 5% to 6%.