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.
Ronald Coase set out to prove that Socialism was superior to the chaos of the market.
So he went to America to see how giant industries were actually managed.
What he found destroyed his worldview. And won him a Nobel Prize.
This is the story of how a young socialist became one of the most important economists of the 20th century by following evidence over ideology. 🧵
London, 1929. A 19-year-old economics student at LSE calls himself a "soft socialist."
The intellectual consensus seemed obvious: markets were chaos, central planning was science.
His professors had a compelling argument: businesses are already mini-planned economies. If planning works inside firms, why not scale it to entire nations?
For young Coase, the logic felt inevitable. Scientific management promised order. The invisible hand looked like randomness.
But in 1931, he won a scholarship that would change everything: a chance to study American industry firsthand.
He went expecting to document techniques for improving socialist planning. He found something that shattered his worldview instead.
Everyone Wants Democratic Transition for Venezuela
But how do you restore democracy in a kleptocratic state captured by criminal elites?
To understand the problem, you need to understand how Venezuela got here. This story is a stark reminder that freedom isn't lost overnight, but slowly dismantled, one piece at a time. 🧵
The Liberation Myth: Venezuela Started With a Promise
In 1811, Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He dreamed of a unified, free South America built on republican ideals.
But Bolivar's revolution created a nation, not stability. What followed was a century of chaos.
A Century of Strongmen: The 19th Century Belonged to Caudillos
After independence came civil wars, military coups, and regional warlords fighting for control. Venezuela cycled through dozens of governments.
Power didn't come from elections. It came from controlling enough armed men to take Caracas. Whoever seized the capital claimed to speak for the nation.
“I'm against Maduro, but I think what Trump did was wrong.”
This sentence sounds reasonable, balanced, and mature. The kind of thing a serious person would say to avoid seeming radical.
The problem is that this sentence is, morally, one of the worst possible positions on Venezuela. 🧵
Not because it's moderate. But because it's a conscious escape. That "but" isn't prudence. It's a silent plea for moral exoneration.
The attempt to appear sophisticated while avoiding the thing that morality often demands: to hierarchize evil. To say what is worse. To choose.
Let's be clear about what we're "balancing" here.
Under Maduro's "socialism of the 21st century," Venezuela collapsed into hyperinflation exceeding 1,000,000%. Systematic scarcity created mass starvation. Venezuelans resorted to eating dogs and scavenging trash to survive.
These aren't political talking points. These are documented atrocities.
They predicted the Great Depression. Then the 2008 crash. Then 2020's inflation surge.
A group of economists spent 150 years warning about the same pattern.
Nobody in power listened.
And every time, they were proven right.
This is the story of the Austrian School. 🧵
Modern economics had a fatal flaw.
For decades, mainstream economists treated the economy like a machine. Pull this lever, push that button, adjust interest rates here; boom, everything works perfectly.
But economies aren't machines. They're millions of people making billions of decisions every single day.
You can't predict human action with mathematical precision. The Austrian School understood this from day one.
It started in Vienna in 1871 when Carl Menger published Principles of Economics and asked a deceptively simple question: Why do people value things?
His answer shattered centuries of economic thinking.
Value isn't objective. It's subjective, based on individual human needs and desires.
Not labor hours. Not production costs. Human preferences.