The criteria are simple: did the president expand state power, wage wars, raise taxes and debt, meddle with money, and erode individual liberty?

The pattern is clear—the more a president “gets done,” the less free the individual becomes.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, and the other “great presidents” all sink to the bottom tier, while Jefferson and Coolidge rise to the top.

Mainstream history judges presidents by how many big things they accomplished and how much glory they left behind.

The Austrian School asks only one question: how much did he expand the power of the state?

Here the highest honor isn’t “great”—it’s “harmless.”

The mainstream narrative loves wars, crises, and reforms.

Because only in such times can a president show “leadership”: mobilizing the nation’s resources, building new agencies, signing sweeping new laws.

The price is higher taxes, debt, inflation, conscription, and regulation—and a shrinking sphere of individual liberty.

That is why a ranking of presidents through Austrian eyes is almost a mirror image of the conventional one.

Jefferson and others rank highly because they were relatively respectful of limited government, fiscal restraint, hard money, and non-intervention.

Coolidge and Harding earn praise too, for cutting taxes and slashing spending.

Conversely, Lincoln concentrated power for war and brought in conscription, an income tax, and paper money;

Wilson created the Federal Reserve, expanded the income tax, took America into World War I, and suppressed antiwar speech;

Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed through the New Deal, swelled the administrative state, and cracked down on private ownership of gold.

The achievements celebrated in mainstream history books are precisely the evidence against them in Austrian eyes.

War is also a dividing line.

The wars and foreign interventions several presidents pursued brought not only casualties and military spending, but also left behind a military-industrial complex, an intelligence apparatus, and a surveillance system.

Wars may end, but the warfare state rarely disappears on its own.

Money is the hidden thread running through it all.

When a central bank pushes down interest rates through credit expansion, it breeds malinvestment and the business cycle; inflation is a hidden tax levied without a vote.

When Nixon closed the gold window, the government finally broke free of the discipline of hard money; ever since, debt and monetary expansion have been far harder to restrain.

Party labels mean nothing either.

Reagan talked against big government, yet spending and debt kept climbing; Trump championed “America First,” yet expanded tariffs, deficits, and executive power.

Democrats build the welfare and regulatory state; Republicans build the military, border, and police state. Both roads lead to the same place: bigger government.

The more power a modern president holds, the more likely he is to land in the low-scoring zone.

The Federal Reserve, the income tax, the standing army, the welfare system, and the administrative bureaucracy pile up layer upon layer, and every crisis becomes the excuse for another round of expansion.

From the Austrian perspective, the president truly worthy of praise is not the one who is best at wielding power, but the one who is willing to give it up.

Part I

Don’t rush to bring out the sacred tablet of the working class.

Let’s calm down and ask a question. Suppose you sign a contract with an employer: you work 30 days a month for $5,000.

Halfway through, you feel it’s not worth it and want $6,000.

At that point, should you negotiate properly with the employer, and if that fails, go to court? Or should you rush into the street, block the factory gate, prevent other workers from entering, and force the employer to pay $6,000? Anyone with basic sense knows that’s a breach of contract.

That’s being unreasonable.

That’s coercion.

But something strange happens.

When a group of workers—ten, a hundred, a thousand—do this together, it gets a polished name: the labour movement.

Put a moral cloak over it—what is it called? The right to collective bargaining.

If negotiations fail and blocking escalates, it’s called the right to strike.

There are even laws that specifically protect this kind of “legal” breach of contract.

This is the subject we’re discussing today: trade unions.

Many people treat unions like gods.

As the only hope for workers against capitalists.

But economists roll their eyes and say: spare me.

The essence of a union is a labor cartel.

More plainly, it’s a group of labor monopolists joining together to restrict supply and drive up prices.

What does that resemble? OPEC.

Real estate developers hoarding inventory.

All potato sellers in a market agreeing not to sell below three dollars.

No matter how prettily it’s packaged—fairness, justice, rights—strip it down and there are only four words: monopoly price hikes.

Part II

Let’s start from the root: what is the labor-capital relationship? Forget clichés about class oppression and surplus value.

Think about it simply.

You go to work, the employer pays you, you do the job.

That’s voluntary exchange.

If you think the pay is too low, you can refuse.

If the employer thinks you’re lazy, they can reject you.

Both sides sign a contract protected by law.

If there’s a dispute? Arbitration, courts.

That’s what a normal market looks like.

So the question is: if there are courts and contract law, what are unions for? Their logic is this: if you negotiate wages alone, you’re weak.

The employer has money and options—they can hire someone else.

You? You only have your labour. No work, no food.

So ten or a hundred of you bind together, and the employer can’t easily replace you.

You gain bargaining “power”.

Sounds reasonable, right? But let me ask: what determines wages? Bargaining power, or supply and demand?

If there are 10,000 programmers and only 100 jobs, even if the 100 of you unite and refuse to work unless paid $50,000, does it help? The employer just hires any of the remaining 9,900.

You strike? Fine—people are lining up to replace you.

On the other hand, if you’re a top expert with rare skills that only you possess, you don’t need a union.

You stand in front of the employer and say, raise my pay or I leave, and they immediately beg you to stay.

See the point? Real bargaining power doesn’t come from collective action—it comes from irreplaceability.

What do unions do? They try to use collective force to counter market laws.

They attempt to restrict supply and sell labor above market price.

How do they restrict supply? The most common method: barriers to entry.

Historically in the States, unions excluded Black workers.

Why? More Black workers meant more supply, which lowered wages.

So they had to be kept out.

Is that racial discrimination? Of course.

But to unions, it was “protecting members’ interests.”

Modern methods are more sophisticated.

Doctors’ unions, lawyers’ unions, barbers’ unions.

What do they push for? Strict licensing exams, long training requirements, high fees.

Officially to ensure quality—actually to limit new entrants.

If anyone could open a barbershop, wages wouldn’t rise.

But if the law requires two years and $30,000 for a license, fewer barbers exist, and wages increase.

Who benefits? Established practitioners.

Who loses? New entrants and consumers.

This is what unions do.

Part III

Now, strikes.

What are strikes? Bluntly, a legal unilateral breach of contract.

You signed to work until year-end.

Halfway through, you demand more pay.

The employer refuses.

You don’t go to court; instead, you gather people, block the factory gate, stop deliveries, and prevent others from working.

What is that? Infringement of property rights.

The factory belongs to the owner.

Why can you block it? Materials are theirs—why stop transport? Other workers want to work—why stop them?

In a rule-of-law society, that’s illegal.

But unions say it’s struggle, a last resort.

Take the 19th-century US railway strikes: operations halted, the economy paralyzed.

Then came violence.

Workers smashed machinery, burned railcars; the government sent troops; bloodshed followed.

Who was right? From a market perspective, workers breached contracts first and destroyed property after.

Clearly wrong.

But union logic says: the boss is rich, so he deserves it; workers are poor, so breach is justified.

See the problem? Moral coercion.

Later, the Roosevelt administration passed the Wagner Act, enshrining strike rights in law.

It banned “yellow-dog contracts” and prohibited firing workers during strikes.

What does this mean? The state intervened in labour contracts.

The state handed unions a weapon: you can legally breach contracts, and the employer cannot retaliate.

What is this weapon? Legalized extortion.

You won’t raise wages? Fine—we strike.

Your factory loses $100,000 a day.

A week? Millions.

Which is cheaper—raising wages or enduring losses? Is this negotiation? It’s hostage-taking.

Part IV

What are the social costs of union monopolies? Astonishingly large.

Non-members are sacrificed.

You want to enter the industry? Oh no.

The gate is closed.

You’re pushed into a low-wage secondary market.

How does inequality widen? Like this.

Unions protect a small group of skilled insiders while pushing the majority—unskilled, new, or different—into the bottom.

They also crush businesses.

Look at the American Rust Belt: Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh.

Once prosperous—now declining.

Why? Ask the auto unions.

Every year: higher wages, better benefits, fewer hours, more leave.

Refuse? Strike.

Costs rise, profits shrink.

What happens? Factories relocate—to Mexico, China,etc.

American workers lose jobs.

Unions win battles and bury their own livelihoods.

Is this protecting workers? It’s self-destruction.

Markets become distorted.

Unions favor minimum wage laws.

Is it for the poor? No.

Higher minimum wages kill small firms that can’t pay.

Large firms, already unionized, benefit from reduced competition.

Minimum wages also increase unemployment among low-skilled workers.

If you’re worth 5 but the law says 10, the employer won’t hire you.

The result?

Union members earn more.

Small businesses die.

Low-skilled workers lose jobs.

Consumers pay higher prices.

Everyone pays for a minority’s higher wages.

That’s not redistribution—it’s expropriation.

Part V

The most extreme type of union? Public sector unions.

Why?

Private-sector strikes hurt owners.

Public-sector strikes hurt society.

Government doesn’t produce tradable goods.

Its money comes from taxpayers.

Officials spend others’ money—no pain.

Police strike—crime rises.

Teachers strike—children lose education.

Sanitation workers strike—garbage piles up.

Public unions exploit this vulnerability.

They disrupt services to pressure society.

Want services restored? Raise wages.

Taxpayers pay.

Officials don’t care.

Citizens suffer.

And it gets worse.

Public employees already earn more and have better benefits than private workers.

They’re rarely fired.

Poor teachers? Rarely dismissed.

Inefficient bureaucrats? Rarely cut.

Protected by unions, they enjoy security, high pensions.

Who pays? Private-sector workers.

Is that fairness? No—it’s privilege.

Many US fiscal crises are tied to public unions.

Yearly negotiations, rising wages, expanding pension deficits.

Politicians, seeking votes, borrow to pay.

Eventually governments go bankrupt.

Services decline.

Unions move on to the next politician.

Part VI

Some say: are unions entirely useless? Not entirely.

In places without rule of law—where employers can abuse workers—unions can offer protection.

Where courts don’t function, contracts are meaningless.

But in modern legal systems, are unions necessary?

You can sue.

You can switch jobs.

You can start a business.

Why monopolize? Why coerce? Why burden society?

Marx said clearly: unions aim to eliminate competition among workers.

Exactly.

Eliminating competition—that’s the core.

What’s wrong with competition?

It improves quality, lowers prices, increases efficiency.

It rewards ability and removes incompetence.

It’s the lifeblood of markets.

Unions oppose it.

How are they different from monopolies or privileged elites? They aren’t.

Same nature.

Part VII

Finally, a word to workers.

You may think unions support you.

But your wage, job, and future depend on your value.

If your skills are common, unions may raise wages briefly, but employers will replace you.

If you’re highly skilled, you don’t need unions.

You are your own bargaining power.

Stable work comes from markets, not unions.

Real bargaining power comes from skill and scarcity.

What are unions good at? Creating conflict, inciting resentment, protecting inefficiency, excluding newcomers.

If you want to succeed, rely on yourself.

Improve your skills, seek opportunities, create value.

Your income will rise naturally.

Shouting slogans and blocking gates gains you nothing but anger and obsolescence.

Markets don’t care how loud you shout.

They care how rare you are.

Unions? Leave them in museums.

As exhibits reminding future generations how humans once tried to fight economic laws with force.

Thatcher’s contributions to the United Kingdom are evident to all. It was she who rescued Britain from the “cancer” of decades-long economic stagnation, restoring vitality to British society.

When Thatcher took office in 1987, Britain was a country sliding toward second-tier status in Europe. Excessive government regulation, a bloated state sector, and powerful trade unions had made it the “sick man of Europe.” Yet when she left office, she handed over one of the healthiest economies in Europe.

However, she did not cling endlessly to the position of prime minister or tightly hold on to power. Instead, she defeated ideas with ideas, tamed her opponents, and influenced the entire world.

Britain’s legendary prime minister, the “Iron Lady,” Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher was born in 1925. She grew up during the height of Keynesianism, but experienced its negative effects firsthand in her own life. In a public interview after becoming prime minister, she said: “Perhaps I had already begun to dislike Keynes before I even came to know Hayek.”

While studying chemistry at the University of Oxford, Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom had already become her “pocket book.” It is said that during her tenure as prime minister, she kept the book in her handbag. She once threw Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty in front of her colleagues and said: “This is what we should believe in.”

During her tenure as Prime Minister, she led the liberalization of the British economy with bold and decisive measures. She closely aligned with the then U.S. President Reagan, echoing each other from afar, and together they spearheaded the global trend of economic liberalization, influencing the future world and becoming a focal point of ongoing debate.

Commenting on global economic liberalization in the 1980s is a vast topic. What concerns us here is under what circumstances and by what means Margaret Thatcher promoted economic liberalization in the UK, and what impact these policies had on the British economy at the time and today.

The once-great British Empire suffered from the “British disease”

After entering the 20th century, the British economy stagnated, faltering and sluggish, a condition referred to in academia as the “British disease.”

The share of Britain’s industrial production in the capitalist world fell from 50% in 1820 to 18% in 1900, 12.5% in 1937, and 8.8% in 1962. After World War II, the pound sterling lost its status as a world currency and continued to depreciate. The balance of payments deteriorated, productivity declined, competitiveness weakened, and growth rates fell below the global average.

From the end of World War II to the late 1970s, the Labour Party was largely in power. Adhering to European democratic socialism, it sought to rescue the British economy beginning with nationalization. From 1951 to 1954 alone, the Attlee government passed eight nationalization acts, bringing major industries such as the Bank of England, coal mines, aviation, and steel under state ownership. At the same time, based on the 1942 Beveridge Report, it implemented the welfare state. Subsequent Labour governments continued these policies, and even when the Conservative Party occasionally came to power, they did not fundamentally change them.

However, these policies did not improve the British economy; the “British disease” worsened instead. By the late 1970s, the global oil crisis further deteriorated Britain’s economic situation, with prolonged slow or stagnant growth, severe inflation, large fiscal deficits, and intensified social conflicts.

It was under these circumstances that Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979. She resolved to rescue Britain through economic liberalization, with major policies including controlling the money supply, stabilizing prices, privatization, reforming welfare policies, and limiting the power of trade unions.

Thatcher used liberalization to rescue Britain

In terms of stabilizing prices, Thatcher fully implemented Milton Friedman’s views.

Friedman believed that price stability is a prerequisite for a functioning market economy, and that inflation fundamentally results from excessive money supply; therefore, stabilizing prices requires controlling money supply.

In the second quarter of 1979, when Thatcher took office, inflation in Britain was as high as 10.8%, rising to 22% by mid-1980. Her economic liberalization began with tackling inflation: tightening monetary policy and reducing national debt. By 1983, inflation had dropped to 4.5%, and GDP growth reached 3.7%, creating conditions for further liberalization policies.

Private ownership is the foundation of a market economy. Thatcher clearly understood that the root of Britain’s economic problems lay in postwar nationalization, which had pushed the economy toward a planned model.

State-owned enterprises in Britain had their boards and senior executives appointed by the government, which also determined their development strategies and incorporated their revenues into the fiscal budget—essentially no different from state enterprises in planned economies. As a result, they suffered from similar problems.

Executives became government officials, and company profits or losses were not directly tied to personal interests. Internal management became bureaucratic, inefficient, lacking innovation and competitiveness, leading to heavy losses. For example, the British Steel Corporation alone lost £300 million in the 1978–1979 fiscal year. Its per capita output in 1979 was only 141 tons, compared to 180 tons in France and 237 tons in Germany, with near-zero returns on capital.

Across all state-owned enterprises, from 1978 to 1981, they accounted for 16.8% of total investment but only 10.9% of output. These enterprises became an increasing burden on the government. From 1973 to 1980, the government invested as much as £20.5 billion into them through loans, grants, and debt write-offs, with minimal returns, worsening fiscal deficits and inflation.

During parliamentary debates, Thatcher bluntly stated: “The industries supported by Labour are parasites that only consume without producing.” At the time, state-owned enterprises dominated the British economy, and their inefficiency was a major cause of economic decline.

Thatcher firmly advocated privatization of state-owned enterprises. Smaller firms were sold to private owners, while larger ones were corporatized and privatized through the sale of government-held shares.

During her eleven years in power, industries ranging from oil, telecommunications, gas, steel, and water—once monopolized by state enterprises—to services like park maintenance, waste collection, and school catering, were opened to private ownership and operation.

Despite opposition from trade unions and Parliament, and even an open letter from 364 economists opposing her policies, she persisted.

Privatization increased government revenue—reaching £28 billion from 1979 to 1990—and more importantly transformed corporate governance, improving efficiency, reducing costs, and revitalizing businesses. Economic growth in Britain remained around 5%.

Alongside privatization, Thatcher strengthened industrial restructuring that had begun in the 1960s.

Take Manchester, a manufacturing hub, as an example: it shifted from traditional manufacturing to emerging industries such as electronics, information technology, computing, biotechnology, and optoelectronics. The share of traditional manufacturing in GDP fell from 60% to 17%.

At the same time, Thatcher relaxed government regulations on finance and business, revitalizing enterprises and the broader economy. Britain emerged from its difficulties, transforming from the “sick man of Europe” into a strong economic power, restoring its national vitality.

Another major policy of Thatcher’s economic liberalization was reforming the welfare state.

After World War II, Britain significantly expanded social welfare spending. By 1948, the Attlee government declared that Britain had established a “welfare state,” providing cradle-to-grave benefits.

Welfare spending remained high: £10.3 billion in 1949–1950 (4.7% of GDP), rising to £44.9 billion in 1979–1980 (9% of GDP). Government finances became unsustainable, relying on borrowing. By 1982, national debt had reached £100 billion, with annual interest payments of £6 billion.

Britain was mocked as a “comfortable nation living on debt.” The welfare system also fostered a class of “lazy people,” reducing social efficiency and vitality.

Yet no ruling party dared to undertake major reforms of the welfare system. Thatcher used a firm hand to reform it, emphasizing individual responsibility and shifting from universal benefits to targeted support—providing welfare only to those most in need and improving resource allocation efficiency through market mechanisms. This not only helped the poor but also encouraged greater work motivation.

She introduced market competition into healthcare, replacing the fully free system with one where patients bore part of the cost, and transforming the Department of Health from a provider into a purchaser of medical services, increasing autonomy for healthcare institutions.

In housing, she implemented privatization of public housing, selling large amounts of government-owned homes and encouraging private ownership through favorable terms. Even the poorest tenants were required to pay 20% of the rent.

Reforming trade unions

Trade unions in Britain were extremely powerful. Former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once remarked: “There are three institutions we cannot touch: the Guards, the Roman Catholic Church, and the National Union of Mineworkers.” While unions are necessary as a counterbalance to business, excessive power can harm the broader economy and workers’ long-term interests.

When unions began to hinder Britain’s economy, Thatcher resolved to challenge them. In 1981, when coal miners went on strike, she had been in office only two years and her position was not yet secure, so she conceded to union demands. However, she prepared for future confrontation.

Over the next three years, she stockpiled large reserves of coal, converted some coal-fired power plants to oil, organized road transport fleets to replace rail if needed, amended union laws, and even had intelligence agents infiltrate the miners’ union.

In 1984, miners struck again. This time, Thatcher was prepared, and unions could not replicate earlier disruptions such as power outages. The strike lasted 362 days, but she refused to yield, and the unions ultimately failed.

Not content with this victory, she further constrained unions through legislation—for example, requiring secret ballots within unions to prevent control by small factions, and prohibiting unions from punishing workers who did not join strikes, thereby dividing union ranks. These measures not only limited union power but also allowed unions to function more appropriately.

Many years have passed since Thatcher’s time in office, yet her legacy remains controversial. This involves both ideological positions and vested interests. Those who support planned economies and state intervention, particularly left-wing advocates, will never affirm her. Those whose interests were harmed by liberalization policies—such as union leaders in traditional industries and low-income groups—also will not forgive her, just as Argentinians have long resented her over the Falklands War.

However, from this perspective, I believe Thatcher’s achievements far outweigh her mistakes; she was a hero who defended the order of civilization.

From a global historical perspective, the contributions of Hayek and Friedman to economic liberalization were largely theoretical; translating theory into practice may be even more important.

In the 1980s, Thatcher and Reagan turned economic liberalism from theory into practice in their respective countries, achieving success. This led global economic liberalization, the marketization of Eastern Europe and the Soviet bloc, and China’s economic reforms. In a certain sense, all of these were outcomes of economic liberalization, which forms the foundation of humanity’s path toward civilization.

Margaret Thatcher was not beyond reproach—no one is ever always right in politics—but she got the big things right. Her extraordinary life, in which she pursued her dreams and never compromised, is admirable. This biography records the legendary life of the Iron Lady who once dominated the political stage; this may be the best biography of Margaret Thatcher.

We all know the image the United States has projected to the world over the past few decades. It was a “Beacon.”

It held two torches high: one labeled “Democracy and Freedom,” and the other, “The Free Market.”

The second torch, in particular, sent a message to the world: Open your doors for business. Don’t build walls. Let goods, capital, and talent flow freely like water. This is how we all get rich; this is how we achieve world peace. For a long time, America was the chief architect and head preacher of globalization.

But haven’t you felt lately that the light from this beacon is flickering?

It is no longer warmly inviting everyone to “come over.” Instead, it’s shouting “stay away,” and is busy stacking bricks to build walls at its own front door. The Statue of Liberty, once the symbol of openness and inclusion, seems to have quietly turned her back to pick up a mason’s trowel.

This raises a haunting question: Is the United States—the country that once championed free trade and viewed “planned economies” as a plague—quietly accelerating down a very familiar path toward the abyss?

Is it sliding toward the very enemy it once despised most: the totalitarian system?

Some might say I’m just being an alarmist. I know, it sounds crazy. How could the U.S. fall? It has the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the world’s most powerful civil society.

However, even the sturdiest fortresses often crumble from within.

Eighty years ago, before the smoke of WWII had even cleared, an Austrian prophetic thinker named Ludwig von Mises offered a chilling insight in his book Omnipotent Government. He argued that a nation’s journey toward totalitarianism and servitude rarely begins with the evil plan of a dictator. Instead, it starts from a seemingly benevolent and patriotic origin: government intervention in the economy.

Once that first domino is pushed, it triggers an inevitable chain reaction:

• To make intervention work, you must adopt protectionism.
• For protectionism to be effective, you must have industrial planning.
• To execute industrial planning, you must control capital and people.
• To make control absolute, you must regulate prices and thought…

Eventually, state power becomes a runaway black hole, swallowing everything and dragging society into the void.

In past decades, scholars of the Austrian School used Mises’ theory to analyze the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and many historical tragedies. The fit was always startlingly accurate. But few thought that one day, after decades of globalization, we would need to pick up this same theory to examine the United States of America.

My task in this long-form essay is to apply Mises’ framework to the American landscape since 2017. I want to see if the path the U.S. is currently on overlaps with the trajectory Mises predicted.

The core question is this: From Trump’s loud “America First” and his tariff “big sticks,” to the Biden administration’s ambitious CHIPS and Science Act, to the restrictions on investment in China, drug price controls, and higher immigration bars—is the Great Ship of State known as America verifying, step by step, the terrifying prophecy Mises wrote 80 years ago?

I. The “Fatal Logic” of Interventionism (Theory)

Before interpreting recent economic history, we must first understand the theory—specifically, Mises’ theory of “Interventionism.” We need to spend enough time grasping the essence of this framework because it is the foundation of all subsequent analysis. Only when the foundation is solid can we see that these seemingly isolated and chaotic policies actually follow the same destined script.

1. The Origins and Internal Contradictions of Interventionism

Interventionism is a sugar-coated poison. Its origin is rarely malice; rather, it stems from an irresistible sense of “goodwill.”

Imagine a country, let’s call it Country A. The textile industry in Country A is struggling. Under market competition, workers’ wages have stabilized at $10 per hour. At this point, a politician full of compassion and a sense of justice takes office. He visits the textile communities, sees their meager lifestyle, and is deeply moved.

At a mass rally, he declares passionately: “$10 an hour is an exploitation of labor! It is intolerable for our citizens to live on the edge of poverty! I promise to raise the legal minimum wage to $15 an hour!”

The crowd cheers. The media praises it as a “historic step for labor rights.” The bill passes smoothly. Everything looks wonderful.

But Mises is the one who analyzes the consequences while everyone else is celebrating. He forces us to stay calm and look at the fatal ripples this “pebble of goodwill” creates in the economic pond.

The First Ripple: The Mutation of Costs. For the factory owner, this isn’t politics; it’s accounting. His labor costs have jumped 50% overnight. He isn’t a philanthropist; his primary mission is to keep the business alive. What does he do? He has only three options:

1. Try to pass that 50% cost increase to consumers by raising prices.
2. Maintain prices but cut costs by laying off workers or replacing them with automation.
3. If his profit margins were already thin and he can’t raise prices or automate, he simply goes bankrupt.

The government’s “goodwill” has created its first “unintended consequence”: it intended to help workers, but it likely resulted in higher prices for everyone or higher unemployment for the very people who needed the jobs most.

The Second Ripple: Distorted Price Signals. Here, we must understand Mises’ concept of the greatness of “Price.” Market prices aren’t just numbers picked out of thin air by greedy businessmen. They are an incredibly complex information system. The $10 wage condensed countless pieces of data: the industry’s technical level, global cotton output, consumer demand, worker skill levels… It acts like a sensitive thermometer, honestly reflecting the true value of that job within the entire economic system.

When the government mandates a $15 wage, it’s like putting a hot hand over that thermometer. It doesn’t change the actual temperature of the room, but it distorts the information. This distorted price sends the wrong signal: entrepreneurs may wrongly believe demand is high enough to support such wages and make bad investments, while workers develop unrealistic expectations.

The Third Ripple: The “Addictiveness” of Intervention. This is Mises’ most profound insight. He pointed out that government intervention is “addictive.” Because the first intervention inevitably creates new, thornier problems, the government’s only solution to these new problems is to introduce more and stronger interventions.

In our story, the minimum wage led to inflation and unemployment. The public complains: “The government intervened, so why is life harder?” Does the government admit it was wrong? No. It says: “This isn’t a policy failure; it’s malicious price gouging by businesses and heartless layoffs by owners! I need more power to regulate prices and ban layoffs!”

To make the first intervention “look” effective, the second and third must follow. Price controls lead to shortages; banning layoffs leads to a loss of corporate vitality… the snowball grows until the government’s hand reaches into every corner of the economy. This is the tragedy of interventionism: it starts with “goodwill,” proceeds through a chain of uncontrollable “evil results,” and ends in a destination diametrically opposed to its original intent.

2. Why Domestic Intervention Inevitably Leads to Protectionism

Now, let’s take this story from a closed country and put it into an open, globalized world. Here, the evolution of the tragedy accelerates sharply. In an open international market, global trade plays two vital roles relative to a government’s actions.

First, it is a “Magic Mirror.” Remember the textile factory in Country A? Under domestic intervention, its production cost ($15/hr) is now much higher than its true economic efficiency. Meanwhile, the factory in neighboring Country B has no such intervention; its wages remain market-determined at $10.

The result? Country B’s fabric is high quality and cheap, flooding Country A’s market. Clothing manufacturers in Country A will unhesitatingly ditch expensive domestic fabric for imports. Country A’s textile mills now face total destruction.

At this moment, the international market—the “Magic Mirror”—reflects the failure and stupidity of Country A’s $15 wage policy with brutal clarity. It tells everyone: “Your government is doing something that defies economic logic!”

Second, it is a “Rein.” This sharp “pain” is actually a protective mechanism. It acts like a rein, pulling back the government’s carriage before it plunges off a cliff. Public anger and business failures create political pressure, forcing the government to reconsider or revoke the failed policy.

But we must think about the mechanics of politics. What is the first survival instinct of a government that needs votes and legitimacy? Is it to “admit a mistake”? No. It is to “hide the mistake.” When have you ever heard Trump or Biden say they were wrong?

When the “Mirror” shows an ugly truth and the “Rein” pulls too hard, the government’s instinctive reaction is to break the mirror and snap the rein.

How? The only way—and the only choice—is to build a wall and embrace Protectionism.

The politician gives a stirring speech: “Our textile industry is suffering from unfair competition! Country B is ‘exploiting’ its workers with low wages to commit shameful dumping! To protect our workers’ jobs and defend our industrial dignity, I am announcing a 50% tariff on all imported textiles!”

Magic happens. Country B’s $100 fabric plus a $50 tariff now costs $150. Country A’s textile mills are suddenly resuscitated from the ICU. They can continue to produce at high costs and sell at high prices. Jobs are saved, and the wave of bankruptcies is averted. The government, once a “failed intervener,” is rebranded as a “hero defending national interests.”

Conclusion (Mises): Protectionism is not an active, well-thought-out foreign economic strategy. It is a passive, reactive “political survival pill” and an “institutional fig leaf” used to cover up the failure of domestic intervention policies. It is a political maneuver that forcibly “externalizes” the costs of domestic policy failures and shifts the blame to foreigners.

Therefore, a government committed to broad domestic intervention must move toward protectionism. This isn’t a matter of “maybe”; it is a logical necessity. If it doesn’t, its interventionist lies will be exposed instantly under the sunlight of an open market.

This is the “Fatal Logic” of interventionism. It starts with a seed of “goodwill,” sprouts in the soil of “unintended consequences,” and ultimately bears the poisonous fruit of “protectionism.”

Once you understand this profound and somewhat cruel theoretical foundation, look back at the U.S. since 2016. You will find that the actions of both the Trump and Biden administrations have been meticulously providing the most vivid, living footnotes to Mises’ theory.

II. The Essence of “America First”

June 28, 2016. Monessen, Pennsylvania.

The name might sound unfamiliar to you. But decades ago, this was the heart of the American steel industry. Molten metal flowed, chimneys lined the horizon, and the air itself smelled like wealth. At this moment, however, all that remained were rust-stained abandoned factories and a group of people forgotten by the times.

On this day, a New York real estate developer wearing a red MAGA hat stood in front of a derelict aluminum plant. He wasn’t there to invest; he was there to “harvest” anger. That man was Donald Trump.

He delivered a speech to hundreds of disillusioned blue-collar workers—a speech that historians would later study as the “starting gun” for America’s great pivot. Trump didn’t talk about complex economic theories. He used simple, stinging language. He said:

“Our politicians have pursued a policy of globalization that has moved our jobs, our wealth, and our factories to Mexico and overseas… Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache… Look at Monessen, look at Pennsylvania. The fires in our steel and aluminum plants have been extinguished. Our fathers built this great country using American steel. But today, we are using foreign steel and aluminum to rebuild other countries.”

Then, he made a lethal and seductive promise: “All of that is going to change. From this day forward, it’s going to be America First!”

In this speech, Trump accurately identified two “scapegoats”: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed in 1994, which he called “the worst trade deal in history,” and China’s entry into the WTO, which he labeled “the greatest job theft in the history of the world.”

This speech was not an improvised political performance; it was a carefully constructed “political contract.” Trump reached a silent deal with the voters of the Rust Belt: “You give me your votes, and I will give you an ‘enemy’ and a ‘solution’.”

The “enemy” was globalization and “unfair” trade partners. The “solution” was to tear down the existing system and use aggressive means to “grab” the jobs back.

When he officially entered the White House in January 2017, the fulfillment of this contract began immediately. His first moves weren’t complex domestic reforms but the fulfillment of his most symbolic promises. Within his first week, he signed an executive order pulling the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This agreement, which the Obama administration had spent years building to establish a new generation of trade rules, was torn up effortlessly.

Next came the renegotiation of NAFTA. The process was filled with coercion and threats. The Trump administration constantly warned Canada and Mexico that if they didn’t meet American demands, he would slap devastating tariffs on their cars and other products.

Meanwhile, domestically, while the Trump administration claimed to believe in “small government” on paper, in practice, it engaged in clear “intervention” and “protection” for specific interest groups. For example, during the 40-day United Auto Workers (UAW) strike against General Motors in 2019, Trump broke with Republican presidential tradition. Instead of condemning the union, he repeatedly tweeted pressure at GM, demanding they “don’t close the Ohio plant” and “open new plants in the U.S.”

See? The thread of “selective domestic intervention” was already being laid. By tacitly or explicitly supporting the union’s hardline stance, he maintained his political base in the Rust Belt. But this undoubtedly increased labor costs for businesses, further weakening their international competitiveness.

When the “cause” of domestic intervention is planted, the “effect” of seeking external trade protection is only a matter of time. But to launch an unprecedented trade war, domestic political demand isn’t enough; one must construct a perfect “enemy” theoretically and morally.

This task fell to a key figure: Peter Navarro. This Harvard-educated PhD in economics was a marginal figure in academia, but his extreme views clicked perfectly with Trump. He was appointed Director of the White House National Trade Council and became the “chief architect” of the trade war.

As early as 2011, Navarro had published a sensational book—Death by China. It was later made into a documentary. In this book, Navarro systematically blamed all of America’s economic problems on China’s “malicious behavior.” He summarized China’s “seven deadly sins,” including illegal export subsidies, currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, cyber espionage, dumping, and sweatshops.

The academic value of this book was scoffed at by mainstream economists. But its political value was unparalleled. It provided the Trump administration with a complete “victim narrative.” In this story, the U.S. was no longer the leader and beneficiary of globalization, but an innocent, cheated “naïf.” China, meanwhile, was a calculating, unscrupulous “economic aggressor.”

This narrative spread through Washington like a pre-war mobilization order. On August 14, 2017, Trump signed a memorandum instructing the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to officially launch a “Section 301 investigation” into China. “Section 301” is a bully clause from the Trade Act of 1974 that authorizes the President to unilaterally impose retaliatory measures—like tariffs—on any country deemed to have “unreasonable” or “unfair” trade practices.

This was a highly symbolic move. it meant the U.S. was completely abandoning the multilateral dispute resolution mechanisms represented by the WTO and picking up the unilateralist “big stick” where domestic law trumped international law.

After nearly a year of “investigation,” on March 22, 2018, then-USTR Robert Lighthizer—another famous China hawk—released a hundred-page report. This report almost entirely adopted Navarro’s views, listing various “crimes” of China regarding tech transfer, IP, and innovation. It became the final “legal basis” for the trade war.

At this point, the stage was set. The domestic political contract was signed, the perfect external enemy was shaped, and the legal “authorization” was found. A storm destined to change the global landscape was coming.

2018 was one of the darkest years in global trade history since WWII. On the same day the 301 report was released, Trump signed a presidential memorandum announcing large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports. At that moment, Trump uttered his famous, miscalculated quote:

“We’re in a trade war. I said that months ago. But folks, trade wars are good, and easy to win!”

This lighthearted remark kicked off a tariff spiral that would last for years. Let’s review the key hits:

1. The First Strike: Steel and Aluminum. On March 1, the Trump administration announced tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum imports, citing “national security.” While global in scope, it was aimed directly at the largest producer, China.
2. The Second Strike: The $50 Billion List. On July 6, the U.S. slapped 25% tariffs on the first batch of $34 billion worth of Chinese goods, focused on high-tech products from the “Made in China 2025” plan (aerospace, IT, robotics). By August 23, another $16 billion followed.
3. The Third Strike: The $200 Billion List. China retaliated proportionally. This enraged Trump. On September 24, the U.S. announced 10% tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese goods, threatening to raise the rate to 25%. This list spanned thousands of items—from handbags and furniture to seafood and bicycles.

These three strikes completely upended the trade order between China, the U.S., and the world. It’s important to see that these “tariff combinations” were strategically designed. The steel tariffs answered the Rust Belt; the $50 billion list targeted China’s industrial upgrades; and the $200 billion list was “maximum pressure” meant to force a surrender by hurting China’s export economy.

Of course, this “easy to win” war did not end quickly. Instead, it became a long war of attrition that backfired on the U.S. economy. Opposition rose. Legislators from agricultural states were frantic because China’s retaliation hit soybeans and pork, causing massive losses for American farmers. Retailers warned that tariffs would be passed to consumers as price hikes. Tech companies complained about supply chain disruptions.

But all these rational voices were drowned out by the feverish, populist political atmosphere. As we analyzed, the primary purpose of the trade war was no longer an economic calculation. It was a political show—a “reality show” of toughness performed for the Rust Belt voters. Trump successfully cast himself as a gladiator fighting for the American worker. Inflation, farmer losses, and global instability were merely “costs” to be ignored in the face of short-term political gains.

America had stepped onto the point of no return for protectionism. Trump had pushed over the first heavy domino. However, everyone underestimated the intensity and breadth of the chain reaction. When tariffs proved to be a medicine that couldn’t cure the disease and brought severe side effects, a deeper, more “planned economy” style of intervention began to grow uncontrollably among the American political elite.

An even more ambitious “National Reconstruction Plan” led by the Biden administration was rising on the horizon. Its core was a seductive yet potentially toxic “apple”: the CHIPS and Science Act.

If Trump’s trade war was a street brawl characterized by personal style, the Biden era shifted the mode of struggle fundamentally. The new master of the White House was no longer satisfied with just adding locks to the door. He and his elite team wanted to perform a systematic, grand, and dangerous engineering project: they wanted to step onto the field themselves, blueprints and cement in hand, to build a brand new “underlying operating system” for the American economy.

The codename for this system: “Modern Industrial Policy.”

Its flagship project was the multi-billion dollar effort to reshape global tech—the CHIPS and Science Act. This marked America’s formal transition from passive “protectionism” into active “industrial planning.” The “Visible Hand” was no longer hiding; it was walking proudly to center stage, ready to be the absolute protagonist under the spotlight.

III. The “Poisoned Apple” of Industrial Policy

In the spring of 2021, the atmosphere in Washington was thick with anxiety. A sudden global “chip shortage” had gripped the throat of the American economy like an invisible hand.

Automotive giants like Ford and GM were forced to intermittently shut down multi-billion dollar production lines simply because they lacked tiny chips. Outside the factories, tens of thousands of new cars sat silently in parking lots, waiting for a “brain” no larger than a fingernail.

This scene deeply stung the American political elite. It revealed a cruel reality in the most visceral and humiliating way: the United States, the empire that invented the semiconductor and pioneered the information age, could no longer guarantee the “sustenance” for its own auto industry.

This shortage became the direct catalyst for the CHIPS Act. On April 12, 2021, President Joe Biden convened a high-profile “CEO Summit on Semiconductor and Supply Chain Resilience” at the White House. Present were the CEOs of 19 giants, including Intel, Google, and GM. Holding up a silicon wafer, Biden famously declared:

“These chips, these wafers… they are infrastructure. We need to build the infrastructure of today, not repair the infrastructure of yesterday… Franky, we can’t wait any longer.”

With those words, Biden performed a clever “bait and switch” of concepts. He redefined “chips”—a high-tech commodity whose production and distribution should be determined by market competition—as “infrastructure.” This is a crucial political tactic: once something is labeled “infrastructure,” it implies the government can and should lead its investment and construction.

After a year of debate, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 was signed into law on August 9. We need to look closely at the text to see how the “Visible Hand” intervenes. The law authorizes $280 billion, with the core being $52.7 billion in direct subsidies for the semiconductor industry:

• $39 billion for incentives to build or expand domestic manufacturing.
• $11 billion for R&D (e.g., a National Semiconductor Technology Center).
• The rest for defense-related production, workforce training, and supply chain security.
• Plus, a 25% tax credit for equipment and factory construction.

You might think, “Isn’t this just throwing money around? Many countries do this.” But the devil is in the details. The true “planned economy” nature of this law lies in the “guardrail” clauses, orchestrated by Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, the so-called “Chip Tsar.”

The “Guardrails” are a classic “carrot and stick” approach:

• The Carrot: The $52.7 billion and tax credits.
• The Stick: Severe restrictions. Any company accepting federal funds is banned for ten years from any “significant transaction” involving advanced semiconductor manufacturing (under 28nm) in “countries of concern” like China.

The Commerce Department added even more shocking rules: companies seeking over $150 million in subsidies must share “excess profits” with the government; they must provide affordable childcare for workers; they must prioritize American-made steel; and they must detail how they will involve labor unions.

Put these details together, and the picture is clear. This isn’t just a support plan; it’s a “National Plan” led by the government. The state isn’t just an investor; it’s the master planner, the construction supervisor, the profit distributor, and the welfare inspector. It attempts to use administrative orders to plan every link of a high-tech industry—from investment and R&D to production and profit distribution. This is exactly what Mises warned about: when the government transforms from a “night watchman” into the “Chief Engineer” of the economy, inefficiency follows.

The “American Ordeal” for Global Giants

When the “Chief Engineer’s” grand blueprint met reality, economic law—the “gravity” of the market—pushed back.

TSMC, Samsung, and Intel became the protagonists of this “American Experiment.” But the “onshoring” quickly turned into a costly ordeal.

TSMC: The “Model Student” in Trouble. TSMC invested $40 billion in Arizona. Biden even visited the factory, declaring “American manufacturing is back!” But costs spiraled out of control. TSMC founder Morris Chang noted bluntly: “The cost of making chips in the U.S. might be 50% higher than in Taiwan.” He argued that shifting industry based on politics rather than comparative advantage is “expensive and futile.”

Then came the “human” factor. The U.S. lacks enough skilled technicians. When TSMC tried to fly in hundreds of engineers from Taiwan to keep the schedule, local unions revolted. Union leaders accused TSMC of using “lack of skill” as an excuse to bring in cheap foreign labor. By July 2023, TSMC was forced to delay mass production from 2024 to 2025. Bloomberg reported that even with billions in subsidies, chips from Arizona are 5% to 20% more expensive than those from Taiwan. TSMC’s move to America hasn’t strengthened U.S. competitiveness; it has increased costs.

Intel: The “Village Hope” Sinking. Intel received $8.5 billion in direct subsidies and $11 billion in loans. It planned “the most advanced factories on Earth” in Ohio—the “Heart of Silicon Heartland.” But in early 2023, CEO Pat Gelsinger admitted that “market uncertainty” and “supply chain issues” meant the 2025 production goal might not be met. Analysts pointed out the core problem: they simply cannot find enough skilled workers willing to do the high-intensity, high-discipline work of chip fabrication in America.

The “Addiction” of Intervention

When the “Chief Blueprint” hits a wall, the government doesn’t reflect; it assumes there are “loopholes” to plug. The “addiction” of intervention sets in. From the CHIPS Act, the vines of regulation began to crawl across the entire tech sector, led by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)—the core of America’s “Tech Planning Commission.”

1. Export Controls: In October 2022, the “strictest in history” export controls were launched. It didn’t just ban products; it banned technical parameters (logic performance, memory density, interconnect bandwidth).
2. Ally Pressure: The U.S. pressured the Netherlands (ASML) and Japan (Tokyo Electron) to limit equipment exports to China.
3. AI Restrictions: Regulation moved to the “cloud,” restricting providers like AWS and Azure from offering high-performance computing to Chinese AI firms.

This “Small Yard, High Fence” strategy, articulated by Jake Sullivan, is a grand plan to forcibly “decouple” and “restructure” global tech. In this plan, companies are no longer free market actors; they are pawns on a strategic chessboard. Resources are no longer allocated by price and efficiency, but by nationality and “entity lists.”

IV. The Building of Invisible Walls

To ensure the “National Plan” works, the government must build dams to contain the two most unruly currents: Capital and Talent. This marks the transition into “Factor Control,” shaking the very foundation of the “Beacon of the World.”

The Wall for Capital

On August 9, 2023, Biden signed an executive order authorizing the Treasury to ban or restrict U.S. private equity and venture capital from investing in three Chinese sectors: Semiconductors, Quantum Tech, and AI.

Historically, U.S. control was on “inbound” investment (CFIUS). This new order targets “outbound” capital. For the first time, an American entrepreneur’s own money cannot be spent without government approval. This sets a “Customs Office” between Wall Street and global tech.

The right of capital to “vote with its feet” is a check on government power. If a government is foolish, capital leaves. By tightening this rein, the U.S. sends a signal to Silicon Valley and Wall Street: your freedom has boundaries defined by Washington’s “National Security.” Once this door is opened, it won’t close. Today it’s Chinese chips; tomorrow it could be Indian pharmaceuticals or European green energy.

The Wall for Talent

The government has used a “double-tap” strategy for talent: “Blocking the door” and “Locking the door.”

1. Blocking the Door (Inflow): Trump tightened H1B visas. Biden, while using different rhetoric, raised application fees by 70%. Trump even proposed a $100,000 H1B fee. Top talent is now choosing Canada or the UK over the U.S.
2. Locking the Door (Outflow): The “Exit Tax” or “Breakup Fee” has become a lethal tool. If you renounce U.S. citizenship, you must undergo a “deemed sale” of all your assets and pay a massive capital gains tax. The fee to renounce citizenship has jumped from $450 to $2,350 in a decade. New proposals suggest taxing certain expatriates for 10 years after they leave.

When a country uses high costs to prevent people from leaving, it treats citizens not as free individuals, but as “resources” belonging to the state. This is Mises’ warning: in a planned economy, humans become “means” to a national end.

When walls, blueprints, and shackles fail to stop the rising tide of inflation (caused by the interventions themselves), the government reaches for the last resort: Price Controls.

In recent elections, figures from Trump to Harris have blamed “corporate greed” for inflation. Trump suggested calling CEOs to “order” them to lower oil prices; Harris and progressives like Warren advocated for “anti-price gouging” laws and “windfall profit taxes.”

This narrative turns a complex economic consequence into a simple “good vs. evil” story. As Mises predicted, the government never blames its own policies; it blames “human greed.”

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is the masterpiece of this irony. It contains almost nothing to “reduce” inflation; instead, it grants the government the power to “negotiate” drug prices. If a company refuses the government’s price, it faces a tax of up to 95% of that drug’s sales. This isn’t a negotiation; it’s a “price holdup.”

The consequence? Research from the University of Chicago predicts an 18% drop in R&D and 135 fewer new drugs over a decade. Price control saves today by killing tomorrow.

The Military-Industrial-Digital Complex

Mises noted that protectionism is a breeding ground for monopoly. Without external competition, the “big fish” in the domestic pond stop fighting and start colluding with the state.

1. The Military-Industrial Complex: The “Big Five” (Lockheed, Raytheon, etc.) operate in an oligarchy secured by the “Rotating Door” (670+ former DOD officials moved to defense firms in 2022) and massive lobbying ($130M in 2023). The Boeing 737 MAX scandal—where lobbying secured safety exemptions—shows how regulators (FAA) are “captured” by the regulated.
2. The Digital Complex: As the “Tech War” deepens, the government needs “National Champions” (Google, Microsoft, Nvidia) to enforce its blocks. In return, the government offers “tolerance” regarding anti-trust or privacy laws. A “Digital Cartel” is forming under the name of “National Security.”

Trump’s administration even suggested the government should take a “cut” of sales from tech giants. The state is no longer just regulating; it’s demanding a share of the loot.

When a nation controls prices and embraces state-aligned monopolies, the market economy is just a hollow shell. Resource allocation has shifted from millions of free individuals to a few bureaucrats and oligarchs. We are standing on the doorstep of a planned economy.

The next and final step to keep this inefficient machine running is the most dangerous one: The reshaping of society and the taming of the individual.

V. The Regression of American Rights

I must emphasize again: today’s America is not a totalitarian state in the traditional sense. It still possesses a strong tradition of liberty and a vibrant civil society. However, what we are witnessing today is not a “yes or no” state, but a “process,” a “trend.”

It’s like the boiling frog. The loss of freedom rarely happens as an overnight upheaval; instead, it occurs through a “salami-slicing” tactic, where pieces are cut away one by one under a series of seemingly reasonable or even necessary pretexts. Today, we must examine whether this “salami-slicing” has already begun. We are not looking for a completed “Gulag,” but rather for the “intellectual fences” and “cages of rights” that are being quietly erected.

This erosion of political liberty began in an area most easily breached by the “national security” narrative: academia, particularly among Chinese-American scientists engaged in cutting-edge research.

In November 2018, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice loudly launched the “China Initiative.” Its official goal sounded noble: to combat economic espionage, intellectual property theft, and talent recruitment programs (like the “Thousand Talents Plan”). But in practice, this movement quickly devolved into a massive campaign of scrutiny and prosecution targeting Chinese-American scientists, characterized by heavy racial profiling. FBI agents began appearing frequently in the labs of top American universities, questioning, investigating, and even arresting professors and researchers.

Consider the most typical and tragic case: Professor Gang Chen of MIT. A world-renowned expert in heat transfer and a member of the National Academy of Engineering, Professor Chen was arrested at gunpoint by FBI agents at his home in January 2021. The charges were not “espionage” or “theft of IP,” but “wire fraud,” “failure to disclose a foreign bank account,” and “hiding ties to China when applying for federal research grants.” These were essentially administrative and financial flaws, completely unrelated to actual “espionage.”

The arrest devastated his reputation and career. He was suspended by MIT and faced a long, expensive legal battle. Yet, after a year of investigation, the case took a shocking turn. In January 2022, the DOJ voluntarily dropped all charges, admitting in court filings that they “could not meet their burden of proof at trial.” This meant they never had any solid evidence to begin with.

Professor Chen’s case is just the tip of the iceberg. During the years of the “China Initiative,” dozens of brilliant scientists experienced similar nightmares. While most cases ended in dismissals or acquittals due to lack of evidence, the process itself created a massive “chilling effect.” It sent a cold signal to all scientists: any academic cooperation with China carries risk. Your academic freedom and right to international exchange must be subordinate to the ever-expanding definition of “national security.” Otherwise, you might be the next Gang Chen.

This movement perfectly illustrates the extension of Mises’ logical chain: when a government begins to restrict the free movement of people and technology for its industrial plans (like surpassing China technologically), those restrictions inevitably evolve into an erosion of basic individual rights, such as the presumption of innocence and academic freedom.

“Environment Remodeling” via the “Twitter Files”

If the “China Initiative” was a “targeted elimination” of specific groups, then the cooperation between the government and social media platforms is a broader “environmental remodeling” aimed at influencing public perception.

In late 2022, the “Twitter Files” exploded in the American discourse. Elon Musk authorized independent journalists to release internal communications revealing how government agencies—including the FBI, DHS, CIA, and even the Pentagon—maintained systematic, daily “cooperation” with platforms like Twitter.

This “cooperation” went far beyond imagination:

• Encrypted, real-time communication channels were established between government agencies and content moderation teams.
• The FBI and others regularly submitted lists of thousands of “problematic accounts,” suggesting censorship, shadow-banning, or outright suspension.
• Government officials pressured platforms to restrict information (such as the Hunter Biden “laptop” story), labeling it as “potential foreign disinformation.”
• Numerous former employees of intelligence agencies moved into high-level “Trust and Safety” roles at Twitter and Facebook, effectively bringing the government’s censorship mindset into private enterprises.

Again, the pretexts were “righteous”—fighting child pornography, counter-terrorism, preventing foreign election interference. But the “Twitter Files” revealed an unsettling reality: the government is using its public power to deeply intervene in an information ecosystem that should be governed by private companies and user communities.

The Retreat of Individual Rights

The “Leviathan”—the absolute power of the state—is waking up. We are seeing individual rights, once considered sacrosanct and enshrined in the Constitution, constantly asked to retreat in the face of “national security,” “industrial competition,” and “public health.”

• Investment freedom must retreat: The government decides your money cannot flow to “strategic competitors,” even if the returns are highest. This violates property rights.
• Freedom of employment must retreat: Tightened H1B visas tell companies they cannot hire a foreigner just because they are better; they must prioritize “domestic workers.” This violates the contractual freedom of enterprises.
• Academic freedom must retreat: If you are a Chinese-American scientist, your international exchange is now subject to FBI scrutiny. This violates the freedom of thought.
• Consumer freedom is hiddenly restricted: When tariffs and bans keep cheap, high-quality foreign goods out, the government is depriving you of the right to buy better things for less money. This violates your right to choose.

This represents a dangerous shift from individualism to collectivism. The foundation of America is the belief that individual rights are natural and supreme, and the state is a tool to protect those rights. But now, a logic of statism is returning, telling you that individual interests must serve the “greater good” of “Winning the competition with China.” When the state tries to become an “Omnipotent God” that plans and defines everything, how much space is left for a diverse society made of individuals?

VI. The Dream of Autarky and the Inevitability of War

When a country completes its transition toward “regulation” and “centralization,” its internal logic inevitably drives it toward two goals: internally, the pursuit of “Autarky” (self-sufficiency); and externally, a slide toward conflict or war.

1. The Economic Mirage: Autarky

“Autarky” sounds like the ultimate form of “strength” and “security”—a country that depends on no one. However, it is a dream built on economic ignorance. It fundamentally violates the most basic law of human prosperity: The Division of Labor and Comparative Advantage.

A heart surgeon could mow his own lawn, perhaps even better than a gardener. But he doesn’t, because spending those two hours on surgery creates far more value than the cost of hiring a gardener. He maximizes his value through “outsourcing.” Nations are the same. Saudi Arabia shouldn’t grow rice in the desert, and Thailand shouldn’t try to mine oil it doesn’t have. They trade, and both sides are better off.

“Autarky” is a mad attempt to move against history. It demands that America be both the heart surgeon and the gardener—designing the world’s best chips while also sewing the world’s cheapest T-shirts. Economically, this is a nightmare:

• You produce things at the highest cost that could have been imported cheaply. Efficiency plunges.
• Without external competition, innovation dies, and technology stagnates.
• Low efficiency and waste are passed to the public as “shortages” and “high prices.” You end up “living the poorest life in the most expensive way.”

2. The Political Urge: Absolute Control

If it’s so foolish, why do governments crave it? Because to a centralized government, “external dependence” is a “lethal threat.” For a quasi-totalitarian regime, predictability and controllability are paramount. To achieve absolute control, it is willing to sacrifice efficiency and prosperity to cut off uncertain external ties.

Today’s “decoupling,” “de-risking,” and “onshoring” are modern variants of Autarky. America is trying to build a closed, parallel “high-tech club” that excludes China. But if this “inner cycle” lacks the lithium, cobalt, or rare earths it needs, what then?

3. The Return of Conflict

When a country follows a path of Autarky that defies economic laws, and finds its own resources cannot support its ambitions, it is left with one last, ancient option: Plunder.

When the “logic of commerce” is replaced by the “logic of security,” war—or extreme pressure backed by the threat of war—becomes the only “international economic policy.” This was the essence of Nazi Germany’s “Lebensraum” and Imperial Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” They told their people: “Our nation is great, but our resources are scarce. We must use the sword to secure land for the plow!”

Mises pointed out in 1943 that the root of the world wars was Economic Nationalism (protectionism and autarky). When nations abandon cooperation for the law of the jungle, war is the inevitable end.

Today, while we might not see a total “hot war” immediately, “alternative wars” are already here:

• Financial Plunder: Using financial hegemony to freeze assets.
• Technological Plunder: Using technical advantages to “strangle” competitors.
• Geopolitical Plunder: Deploying military force to ensure supply chains run according to one’s will.

This is the end of the interventionist chain: a “well-intentioned” domestic intervention eventually drags the entire world into a dark vortex of suspicion, opposition, and conflict.

Conclusion: Will America Become Its Own Former Enemy?

Let us link this chain to the abyss one last time:

1. The Start: Populist labor market intervention (minimum wage, union privileges).
2. The First Domino: Trade protectionism (tariffs).
3. The Second Domino: Industrial planning (The CHIPS Act, subsidies).
4. The Third Domino: Factor control (Invisible walls, investment bans).
5. The Fourth Domino: Price intervention (Direct control of drug and energy prices).
6. The Fifth Domino: Totalitarian tendencies (National security over individual rights).
7. The End: The mirage of Autarky and the inevitability of conflict.

This chain started with a few tariffs and ended with the systemic erosion of liberty. America became a “beacon” because its founders were deeply suspicious of government power. Today, that system is being hollowed out from within.

Is America becoming its former enemy? The enemies it once fought—Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy—were characterized by unrestrained governments, the prioritization of the state over the individual, and a zero-sum worldview. While America hasn’t fully become them, we must be alert to the fact that the ideological viruses that led to their downfall—collectivism, statism, economic nationalism—are re-emerging in the American body politic.

America stands at a dangerous crossroads:

• The First Path: Bravely admit the failure of a decade of interventionism and return to the tradition of openness, despite the pain of structural adjustment.
• The Second Path: Accelerate down the wrong road, using more power to cover old mistakes, until the “Land of the Free” becomes a closed, rigid, and power-dependent empire.

We cannot predict the future. But the wisdom of Ludwig von Mises is like an eternal lighthouse. It illuminates not only the ruins of history but every dangerous fork in the road leading to either slavery or freedom. The course of this lighthouse—America—now moves the fate of the entire world. Will it return to the bright seas of liberty, or sail headlong into the dark vortex called “Serfdom”?

Happy new year, and, we shall wait and see.

First and foremost, I want to sincerely apologize for the lack of updates over the past seven months. To be honest with you all, I have been navigating through a period of severe depression. It has been a challenging journey, and I appreciate your patience and silent support while I focus on my well-being.

I am excited to share that I will be migrating this blog from WordPress to my static site to better customize the reading experience.

• Old Domain: https://yourwhitemoon.wordpress.com
  (This will remain available and won’t be deleted)
• New Destination: https://lanticy.codeberg.page/blog/
  (Currently in beta stage)

For a period of time after the migration begins, both sites may be synchronized with the same content to ensure a smooth transition.

The migration process is expected to begin in early 2026. I look forward to reconnecting with you all in a new space when the time is right.

Thank you for staying with me.

Ariel
12/30/2025 Midnight EST

Today’s article is so incredibly long—almost half a book—dedicated solely to dismantling the countless misconceptions about monopolies in the market. If you don’t have enough time prepared, don’t even start reading.

Can Internet companies really make monopoly profits?

Thinking is always the starting point for seeking truth, and thinking originates from questions. So, let’s drop the theoretical baggage and dive right into some real-world business questions.

Over the past decade, we’ve often heard business gurus talk about a supposedly brilliant strategy: “First, get traffic by giving stuff away for free, then expand your market, and finally enter a profitable harvesting phase.” Behind this idea is actually the theory of monopoly—they believe that once they’ve cornered the market at a loss initially, they can later jack up prices and reap huge profits.

But does this really work? Let’s analyze it through a simple example.

Imagine opening an internet café aiming to monopolize an entire city’s market. You start by dropping prices drastically, undercutting all competitors until they’re forced out of business, and then later raise prices to make money. Sounds plausible, right? Isn’t this exactly what companies like Didi did?

But hold on—why don’t we see people doing this with internet cafés or countless other businesses? Why isn’t everyone copying this “perfect” strategy?

Suppose the going rate for internet cafés is currently $3/hour, and you slash it down to $1/hour. Would you really think competitors vanish instantly? If that’s your assumption, you’re probably not cut out for business. Customers choose based on many factors, price being only one.

Now imagine you own an internet café facing a competitor’s aggressive low pricing. What would you do? Personally, I’d upgrade my café—introduce gaming teams, promote social networking, and even raise prices by offering better services, targeting customers willing to pay more.

If the attacking business tries to copy and again cuts prices, another café could always adapt—like opening a “girls-only” café with cute décor, no smoking, and no men allowed.

What happens next? Endless new business models appear as the market evolves, forcing the aspiring monopolist to constantly adapt and follow these innovations, always cutting prices again.

Eventually, imagine all major competitors collapse, leaving you alone. Congratulations, now you have a real problem: Can you even make money?

You’ve spent a fortune upfront—say, a billion—to drive competitors out. How do you recoup it? If you raise your price to $5/hour, expecting to earn back quickly, you’ll swiftly lose half or more of your customers due to basic supply-demand economics. It’s like delivery companies simultaneously raising fees to $20 per order—people will just eat downstairs instead.

If you restore prices to the original $3/hour, you’ll retain existing customers but lose the extra customers who only came at $1/hour. Now you’re left with bigger stores, higher rent, and higher electricity bills, but the same revenue as before—meaning you’re actually losing money!

And that’s not your only headache. After a prolonged price war, customers now consider $1/hour the “reasonable” price. Raise it back to $3, and many original customers won’t return.

Moreover, original café owners weren’t killed—they simply exited temporarily. They’ll quickly re-enter the market, competing effectively because their costs are lower. Your elaborate management structure, numerous branches, and higher overhead put you at a disadvantage.

The smart move here? Slightly raise prices to maybe $1.50/hour and find alternative ways to make money—like beverage sales or promoting online games. Still, you likely won’t fully recover your investment, merely delaying bankruptcy.

See? A theory of monopoly that sounds powerful inevitably ends up in bankruptcy when applied practically. Don’t believe it? Give it a try!

But wait, some might argue this only fails because internet cafés have high marginal costs. Marginal cost is the cost of adding new customers—like renting larger spaces and buying more equipment.

Internet businesses are different, they say, with near-zero marginal costs. Take Didi (the ride-sharing app). It’s essentially software, connecting drivers and passengers. Scaling up merely requires more servers, cheaply accommodating millions.

However, even here, let’s critically analyze. After beating competitors like Uber, Didi spent over $20 billion securing market dominance. How can Didi recoup this massive investment? Raising ride prices or increasing driver commissions? Either move shrinks their market or drives away drivers, ultimately spiraling down to losses, not profits.

Despite huge market shares, Didi reported staggering losses—24 billion yuan in Q2 2021, 30 billion yuan in Q3. People wonder, “How could you lose money with millions of daily transactions and a hefty commission?”

Even giants like WeChat don’t charge annual fees, despite near-total market dominance. Imagine WeChat charging $15/year per user (for 1.2 billion users, that’s massive revenue!). Yet Tencent doesn’t do this. Why not? It risks driving users away to competitors who would quickly capitalize on any discontent.

WeChat tried diversifying—e-commerce, short videos—without success, despite enormous user bases. Similarly, Baidu, dominating search engines, can’t monetize effectively either, losing money even as the dominant player. Facebook, with billions of users globally, desperately chases metaverse dreams instead of simply raising prices—why?

Ironically, these companies are monopolists yet constantly worried about their survival. To fully understand this paradox, we must revisit monopoly theory itself, grounded firmly in real-world business thinking.

What Exactly Is a Monopoly Anyway?

Earlier, we raised a critical question from both practical business and economic theory perspectives: Why do supposed monopolies in real life not end up raising prices, and why do Internet companies stay free for so long? To figure this out, we first need to understand what a monopoly actually is.

Imagine a world with no kitchen knives. Now, some genius invents one—and he’s the only person with the unique skill to make knives, impossible for anyone else to copy. But instead of mass-producing, he chooses to make just one knife per day, because frankly, drinking and chasing girls is way more fun. People line up at his doorstep, bidding astronomical sums for that single knife. This scenario perfectly represents the traditional monopoly theory: intentionally reducing production rather than meeting consumer demand.

Now, imagine his brother learns the craft too. They talk it over and say, “Why produce more? One knife each day is enough. Let’s set the same price and party every day!” Voilà—they’ve created a cartel.

If they go a step further and merge their businesses, making two knives a day together but keeping the fun alive, they form what’s known as a trust—a unified monopoly.

Suppose they don’t merge fully, but hire their dad to handle all purchasing and selling, leaving them free to party. That’s called a syndicate—two companies losing their commercial independence.

Then there’s a fancier form called a concern (Konzern), where the brothers merge not only their knife-making businesses but also suppliers of knife handles and racks—creating a full industry monopoly.

They even go ahead and patent their special knife-making process. Now, even if someone figures it out, they legally can’t produce knives without permission—a patent monopoly.

Eventually, these guys decide to expand production and capture 90% of the knife market, becoming known as “market share monopolists.”

They could also lobby the emperor to issue an exclusive knife-making license, imprisoning anyone else daring to compete—this is administrative monopoly or regulated market entry.

Finally, suppose the raw material to make knives exists only in the brothers’ private mine. Even if someone learned the technique, they’d have to buy materials from these brothers—a resource monopoly.

Confusing, right? With all these different definitions, “monopoly” gets really muddled. Let’s simplify by returning to the term’s origins.

Prof. Weiying Zhang once said that the original term “monopoly” meant government-granted exclusive rights, like Britain’s historic royal charters (think East India Company). His suggested go back to monopoly’s original meaning.

Nowadays, however, the meaning has shifted. A “monopoly” typically means a single seller dominating a market, free to adjust prices or output (but never both at once).

The distinction is significant. Initially, “monopoly” described a specific government-granted privilege—an action. Modern usage includes both the state of being the sole provider and the actions taken to maintain that dominance.

Think of your village having only one barber—that’s simply a description of circumstances. It doesn’t imply the barber did something wrong, nor did the village chief. Let’s look at the world’s first anti-monopoly law: the Sherman Act.

Passed in 1890 by Senator John Sherman, the Sherman Act outlawed trusts—agreements or conspiracies restraining trade. Essentially, two brothers independently making knives isn’t illegal, but if they merge to dominate the knife market, that’s illegal. The Sherman Act targeted market dominance itself as a crime.

Then, in 1914, the Clayton Act added further restrictions. Even actions that might potentially harm competition—like price discrimination, collusive pricing, commercial bribery, or predatory acquisitions—became illegal. Unlike the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act focused on preventing monopolistic behavior before it occurred.

All modern antitrust laws derive from these two American laws. Originally, monopoly meant government-granted privileges; now it refers broadly to market dominance.

Even Karl Marx defined monopoly as a few giant capitalist enterprises dominating production and markets. Clearly, since the 18th century, intellectuals have viewed monopoly simply as market dominance.

But confusion persists. Some argue “administrative monopoly” (government-controlled market entry) is the only harmful monopoly. For instance, telecom in China is dominated by three firms—not technically a monopoly, but still restricted by administrative measures.

Similarly, doctors licensed by the government aren’t monopolists individually—they don’t control the entire market.

Today, mainstream thinking defines monopoly as market dominance, not just government privileges. Thus, for clarity, we’ll also define monopoly as market dominance going forward.

But does genuine market dominance really exist?

Say your community has only one convenience store; to buy cigarettes, you must go there. Monopoly, right? Or your village has only one barber. Seems simple, but it’s actually complicated.

Microsoft faced endless antitrust lawsuits, but argued they never monopolized the broader market—sure, they dominated PC operating systems, but what about fax machines or office equipment? They were just a small player in a much larger market.

Similarly, Didi (Chinese: 滴滴) once dominated nearly 100% of China’s ride-sharing market after buying Uber. But expand the scope slightly—traditional taxis still compete. Broaden further, and competitors include public transport, bikes, or even walking!

And here’s the kicker: your biggest competitor might even be your customers themselves. If Didi becomes too expensive, customers buy cars or scooters, turning from consumers into competitors.

Imagine a karaoke brand owning every karaoke venue nationwide—still not a true monopoly if viewed as part of broader entertainment options like dancing, card games, or even foot massages!

The concept of absolute market dominance is almost impossible because defining the exact “market” is tricky. Thus, Western governments usually challenge monopolies based on their unfair tactics rather than mere market dominance.

Even that one village barber, seemingly dominant, can’t simply raise prices arbitrarily. Customers might just stop cutting hair, shave heads, or cut hair at home. In the U.S., many Chinese immigrants avoid expensive haircuts entirely, preferring DIY methods. Raise prices too much, and suddenly customers become competitors!

The same logic applies to ride-sharing. If fares triple from Guangzhou to Dongguan, thousands of office workers will suddenly become drivers, rapidly pushing prices back down. If Didi tries raising prices significantly, customers quickly turn to alternatives like metro or personal vehicles.

People often blame Didi’s price hikes on their dominance—but regulatory changes limiting drivers are the real culprit, reducing supply and increasing prices. Real-world substitutes almost always limit monopolies from exploiting prices.

WeChat is a perfect example. With nearly 100% market share in Chinese messaging, they still don’t charge annual fees—why? Because competition lurks constantly. Competitors like DingTalk(Chinese: 钉钉) would instantly pounce, offering free alternatives if WeChat charged fees. Users have minimal loyalty and would quickly switch platforms.

Even if WeChat users remained loyal despite fees, competition still looms. Apps like TikTok compete differently, capturing user attention and advertising dollars by monopolizing user time. Users spending hours on TikTok means less attention for WeChat’s ecosystem, threatening its dominance indirectly.

Thus, monopolistic Internet companies constantly anticipate where competition might emerge. Rather than resting on user bases, they continuously innovate, anticipating threats from unforeseen angles.

Returning to our original question: is “monopolizing the market” a viable business strategy? Not really, because pure monopolies essentially don’t exist. Saying “companies aim for monopoly” is meaningless if market dominance itself is impossible.

So, how can Internet startups compete against giants like Alibaba or Tencent?

Think about it: Who are these giants’ real customers? Not consumers—they pay nothing—but businesses, advertisers, and service providers. New competitors don’t have to replicate Tencent’s ecosystem; they just need to divert advertisers away. ByteDance’s TikTok, for example, steals ad revenue previously destined for Alibaba and Tencent.

Just as unexpected mediums like elevator advertising screens once disrupted traditional media, new challengers disrupt established giants by changing the rules, not replicating dominance.

Some friends argue government monopolies, like salt or iron monopolies, can set prices at will and rake in massive profits. Is that true? Actually, no. Government monopolies also struggle to profit sustainably, which we’ll explore next.

Government Monopolies Don’t Generate Huge Profits

Many critics of monopolies point out that government-controlled monopolies—like electricity, oil, or tobacco—can supposedly do whatever they want: jack up prices at will and make outrageous profits.

Let me make it crystal clear first: I’m absolutely not defending state-owned monopolies. In fact, I strongly oppose them. But here’s the thing—criticizing government monopolies for making massive profits simply misses the mark. The real harm of these monopolies isn’t necessarily huge profits.

If you genuinely believe that state-run monopolies rake in endless cash, then why aren’t you buying their stocks? Shouldn’t their performance be skyrocketing?

For many Chinese investors, November 5, 2007, is a day they’ll never forget. On that infamous day, PetroChina—touted as “Asia’s most profitable company”—made a spectacular entrance onto the A-share market at a peak price of ￥48.6 per share, instantly becoming the world’s most valuable company by market cap. But, just like a fireworks show, it quickly fizzled out, tumbling to around ￥5–10 today, burying countless investors in the wreckage.

See? The belief that government monopolies automatically equal profits has cost investors dearly. Messing up basic economics in the stock market can cost you your shirt.

Government monopolies are essentially a mix of two problems: state ownership plus government-granted exclusivity. These compound issues deserve separate attention, but let’s start by focusing on government-granted exclusivity (administrative monopolies).

Government monopolies usually take a few common forms:

1. Licensing: Governments grant special licenses allowing only one or a few companies to operate in certain markets. Think taxi licenses, telecom providers, payment processors, or even small convenience stores (with food licenses).
2. Patents: Exclusive production rights in exchange for disclosing technological details publicly. Suppose one company owned all cellphone-related patents—voilà, instant monopoly!
3. Professional Licensing: Similar to business licenses, but for individuals. Want to be a doctor, barber, or even electrician? Better have that license, or else face legal trouble.

But do government monopolies automatically mean higher profits? Not necessarily. Let’s break it down.

The most famous historical government monopoly was salt and iron, originating back in ancient China. From the state-controlled salt and iron monopolies started by Guan Zhong in the Spring and Autumn period, to the harsh enforcement under Qin and Han dynasties, this practice lasted for centuries.

The Qing dynasty relied heavily on “salt certificates” (licenses) sold to merchants. Merchants would pay the government upfront, then resell salt to consumers. Sounds profitable for the government, right?

Well, here’s the catch: salt was so expensive under this system that many people simply went months without salt, enduring tasteless food rather than paying inflated prices. This demonstrates a core misunderstanding—critics think salt is an absolute necessity with zero elasticity (meaning demand won’t decrease when prices rise). But reality showed otherwise: people drastically cut consumption.

Imagine if water prices jumped to $1,000 per ton—you’d suddenly find ways to reuse every drop. The same happened with salt: sky-high prices meant far fewer buyers.

Salt monopolies weren’t about the government directly controlling every step; they were essentially licensing systems—just disguised taxes. Eventually, Qing officials recognized this inefficiency. They simplified the system, reduced taxes, and opened the salt trade to more merchants. The result? Lower prices, increased sales, and ironically, more tax revenue.

Thus, ancient salt monopolies weren’t state-run businesses aiming for maximum profit—they were crude taxation tools, nothing more. Confusing ancient salt monopolies with modern government monopolies is a longstanding mistake by scholars. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

Even if a government imposes insane import tariffs (say, 10,000% on cars), the result isn’t more tax revenue; it’s no revenue. Nobody will import cars at that price. Economics 101: higher prices always change consumer behavior.

Today, many believe government monopolies like China Tobacco, Sinopec, or China Mobile rake in obscene profits because they lack competition. But that’s simply wrong.

Take Sinopec: In 2020, it had a whopping ￥2.11 trillion in revenue, yet net profits were only ￥33.1 billion —a pathetic profit margin under 2%. With total assets of ￥1.8 trillion and massive debts, the returns were actually worse than just parking the money in a savings account!

China’s State Grid(SGCC) tells a similar story—nearly ￥2.66 trillion in revenue, yet less than 2% profit margin. Even China Tobacco, despite huge revenues, lumps taxes and profits together, obscuring true profitability. Meanwhile, the China Railway Corporation and many state-run highways constantly lose money.

Are these companies intentionally sacrificing profits for public welfare? Not exactly. If so, why would anyone buy their stock? Of course they want profits, but why can’t they earn more?

It’s simple: customers always have alternatives. Even with zero apparent competition, customers adjust behavior when prices get too high.

Imagine gasoline prices suddenly hitting $100 per liter. What would happen? You’d quickly abandon your car, switch to public transport, or simply stop driving altogether. Suddenly, the gas monopoly’s profits would evaporate.

Even tobacco monopolies face substitutes: if cigarette prices skyrocketed, people would shift to homemade tobacco pipes or quit altogether. Price too high? Quit smoking overnight—problem solved.

Some worry about monopolies on essential goods, claiming people have no substitutes. But seriously—no toilet paper available? Humans have been creative for centuries: leaves, sticks, textbooks…just ask people in India who famously rely on their hands. “Essential”? Don’t make me laugh LMAO!

Same with electricity: if power prices skyrocketed, people would drastically reduce usage—candles would become popular again. Thus, monopolies cannot endlessly increase prices because consumers adapt and limit demand.

The real harm isn’t prices—it’s that licensing restricts consumer choice. Under a free market, businesses succeed because consumers freely choose the best service or product. But under a license system, the government—not the market—decides who supplies goods and services. Consumers lose opportunities to express diverse preferences.

Imagine if the U.S. government had chosen Microsoft as the only allowed operating system provider. Consumers wouldn’t necessarily pay more, but we’d miss innovations from Apple or Google. Licensing stifles variety—no small gasoline delivery trucks pulling up to your house, no premium car services outside of regular taxis.

In short, the biggest loss under government monopoly isn’t necessarily high prices, but the disappearance of diverse consumer choices and innovations. Licensing doesn’t restrict quantity supplied, only the number of suppliers, and as long as companies seek greater market share, they’ll continue supplying more, reducing prices.

Companies like Sinopec or China Tobacco suffer from two separate problems: government licensing and state ownership. These must be understood independently. Mixing them together leads to muddled thinking and poor economic understanding.

Bottom line? Government monopolies rarely produce the immense profits people imagine. Their damage isn’t just financial—it’s the loss of variety, innovation, and consumer freedom.

Patent Monopoly and the Innovation Paradox

Now, we’ve tackled whether internet firms can truly profit from monopolies, examined the blurry concept of market dominance, and debunked the myth that government monopolies rake in huge profits. Now let’s dig into patent monopolies.

Whenever we discuss patent monopolies, there’s one famous company we can’t skip: Alcoa (Aluminum Company of America), a landmark in antitrust history.

Humans discovered aluminum in 1807, but it took decades to figure out how to produce pure aluminum cheaply. Finally, in 1886, Charles Hall invented the electrolytic aluminum production process, obtaining a patent by 1889. With this patent, he founded Alcoa and instantly became the sole player in the aluminum market.

Now, imagine you’re the boss. Would you jack up prices to enjoy huge margins, or lower them continuously to expand your market? Let’s look at some figures. Alcoa’s daily aluminum output was just 50 pounds in 1889. By 1937, nearly 50 years later, that number surged to a million pounds daily. Prices plummeted from $8 per pound in 1887 down to just 15 cents by 1941.

Wait, isn’t a monopolist supposed to reduce production, raise prices, limit innovation, and shrink consumer choices? But Alcoa did exactly the opposite—expanding output, lowering prices, and promoting aluminum usage everywhere.

Why on earth did Alcoa behave like this? Remember our earlier profit calculation? Let’s crunch the numbers again.

In 1889, at about $10 per pound (rounding up), daily revenue was just $500. By 1941, even at just 15 cents per pound, daily revenue skyrocketed to $150,000 (1 million pounds x $0.15). Even if profits were only 10%, that’s $15,000 daily—way better than squeezing profits from limited production at high prices. Any smart businessman would choose $15,000 daily over just $500, right?

So, Alcoa—a company operating under government-backed patent protection—didn’t raise prices when competition was absent. Instead, driven by the desire for greater profits and bigger markets, it voluntarily lowered prices and expanded production. Had they stubbornly stuck to $10 a pound, could they have earned $15,000 daily? Nope. Price increases inevitably shrink demand—basic economics 101.

Eventually, the U.S. government broke up Alcoa. After enacting the Sherman Antitrust Act, the government sued Alcoa in 1937. Over four exhausting years, 155 witnesses testified, 1,803 pieces of evidence were collected, and more than 58,000 pages of legal documents piled up. The goal? To accuse Alcoa of illegal monopoly.

Initially, the district court ruled in Alcoa’s favor, declaring them innocent. Unsatisfied, the U.S. government appealed, and the Supreme Court eventually accepted the case.

The core issue? Whether having overwhelming market dominance alone constitutes an illegal monopoly. Judge Learned Hand famously declared: “Yes. Possessing such strong market power itself violates the law.”

He bizarrely added, “Sure, Alcoa created demand and discovered new uses for aluminum—showing us endless possibilities for this metal—but they never stopped expanding production to meet that very demand they created. You taught us aluminum could be used this way, and then dared to supply all our needs. That’s your crime!”

Isn’t that just absurdly mind-blowing? Thanks to this bizarre ruling, Alcoa was split into smaller companies. Even stranger, Alcoa’s market dominance was largely due to the very patent system the government itself created, granting exclusivity. Yet the punishment fell squarely on the company.

Imagine being Alcoa—working tirelessly to boost production, lower prices, and satisfy consumers, only to be told: “Sorry, your success is illegal.” Every action individually seemed normal, yet together became criminal. Where exactly did they cross the line? Cheap prices and high market acceptance made them guilty? Where’s the logic in that?

Patent monopolies still incentivize price reductions and prevent massive profits, not because of competition but purely because businesses chase profits. Many mistakenly think competition alone pushes companies to innovate and expand. Wrong. Profit-seeking is the only genuine driver—sales revenue depends solely on pleasing customers. Consumers always hold ultimate power; no seller truly controls prices. People vote with their wallets.

Businesses aiming for profits naturally chase maximum market share and customer base. Patent systems globally rely on governments granting exclusivity in exchange for publicly disclosing technical secrets.

Let’s look at forceps, the life-saving obstetrical invention. Before antibiotics or safe cesarean sections, forceps saved countless lives. Initially, in the early 17th century, the Chamberlen family secretly invented forceps and concealed them for over a century. Eventually, the patent system emerged—allowing inventors to safely disclose secrets, guaranteeing temporary monopoly profits. Initially, patent durations were just five years, after which anyone could use the technology. Patents didn’t originate from intellectual “rights,” but as a simple exchange tool.

Ironically, most people today cheer patents, believing monopolies reward innovation, while simultaneously condemning monopolies. Isn’t that contradictory?

Think about it: the government tells you, “We’ll protect your exclusive production rights—anyone copying your tech goes to jail. But if your exclusive rights accidentally create market dominance, you’re also guilty.” Patent monopolies aren’t market outcomes; they’re state-imposed administrative monopolies enforced by courts and governments.

Why do people passionately support patents? Well, who glorifies the media as society’s conscience and defenders of justice? The media itself! Who says teachers should receive lifelong respect akin to fathers? Teachers! Who proclaims God’s supremacy and justice? Priests! And who constantly claims patents drive innovation? Patent-holders and patent lawyers, naturally.

People are easily fooled. When Copernicus stated the sun was the universe’s center, crowds mocked him. Churches slaughtered innocents, yet crowds revered them. Teachers simply perform a job but somehow get compared to devoted parents. Even elementary students instinctively think patents spur innovation—but do ordinary people truly benefit from patents? Hardly!

I’ve repeatedly stressed this: profit, not patents, motivates innovation and cost reduction. Without patents, would people abandon research and innovation altogether? Of course not.

The ancient forceps story merely reflects pre-industrial limitations—no mass production or easy monetization. Nowadays, companies swiftly mass-produce millions of products. Trade secrecy contracts sufficiently protect first-mover advantages. Companies openly share inventions when early large-scale production yields higher profits than secrecy.

It’s absurd to claim innovation dies without monopoly protections. Did shared bikes vanish without patents? Did Alipay’s innovative mobile payments require patent monopolies? Obviously not! Profit incentives alone ensure continuous innovation—not monopolistic exclusivity.

Take Amazon’s patented “one-click buy” button: users easily purchase without re-entering details, earning Amazon billions annually. Want that feature? Pay royalties or prepare for costly lawsuits. Apple paid Amazon precisely for this convenience. Amazon even successfully patented this globally.

But without patent protection, would companies still develop user-friendly features? Absolutely! Enhancing user experience naturally boosts revenues. Imagine if shared bikes had been patented—only one company could offer them. Would innovation have flourished then?

Some people absurdly claim steam engines languished unused until patents appeared, spurring productivity. Seriously? People knowingly ignored steam engines’ benefits for generations, waiting obediently for patent laws to arrive first? Ridiculous.

In truth, after Watt patented the steam engine, innovation stalled for decades. All improvements became patent infringements. Watt’s main focus? Lawsuits and royalties. Only after patents expired did steam engine technology advance again. Clearly, patents obstruct innovation!

Major corporations exploit patents ruthlessly. They often buy numerous patents solely to prevent competitors’ research—establishing formidable patent barriers. Smaller firms struggle immensely to bypass these barricades. Big companies frequently purchase and bury promising patents, squashing disruptive threats.

Consider Meizu smartphones’ beloved “tap-to-go-back” feature—far superior to Apple, Samsung, or Huawei. Meizu patented it, locking competitors out. Despite users’ pleas, Apple can’t use it.

Apple itself has patented everything imaginable: loading bars, slide-to-unlock, rounded corners, home buttons, even store displays. They have entire legal departments purely for patent lawsuits—because endless patent litigation equals true corporate prestige.

Patents aren’t natural rights—they’re artificially created powers, administrative monopolies choking innovation. Yet strangely, patents still enjoy widespread praise as innovation’s savior.

America aggressively champions global patent protection due to strong corporate lobbying, legal interests, and huge monopolistic gains. Ironically, America also pioneered antitrust laws, frequently dismantling monopolistic corporations. America simultaneously promotes administrative patent monopolies while combating market-driven monopolies—a hilarious contradiction.

Still, the logic remains clear: Who benefits most from patents globally? America. American corporations vigorously push global patent enforcement for obvious self-interest. That’s understandable. What’s baffling is why global consumers still cheerfully accept these contradictions.

Occupational Monopoly and the Praised Super-Profit

Previously, we’ve analyzed various types of monopolies: internet monopolies can’t sustainably earn extraordinary profits; the concept of monopoly itself is confusing; government monopolies don’t really make huge profits long-term; and patent monopolies, despite claiming to encourage innovation, actually end up obstructing it.

Now, let’s talk about another form of monopoly that people not only accept but actually celebrate worldwide—occupational monopolies.

What exactly is occupational licensing? It’s one of the oldest monopolistic systems, dating back to medieval European guilds. A guild was essentially a club of skilled artisans who banded together to protect their own interests. Within each guild, masters would take on apprentices, who later became journeymen, and eventually—after much time and effort—could themselves become masters, with permission from the guild.

Every artisan in the same industry in a city had to join their guild. These guilds had strict rules: setting product standards, prices, working hours, apprentice training, and even wages. Everything was carefully regulated to keep out competition and maintain stable profits. Eventually, these guilds secured government backing, giving rise to the very first administrative monopolies. Even modern patents trace their origins back to these guild systems.

Actually, ancient China had similar practices. For instance, the “Qingbang” (Green Gang) monopolized canal shipping and enjoyed government protection. Initially, they operated illegally, but eventually, the Qing dynasty legitimized them. Once official, no matter how aggressive they became, authorities would never label them as violent gangs. This was an early form of occupational licensing.

Today, occupational licensing is the most widespread form of administrative monopoly globally because it affects the most people. Look at recent American port congestion: dockworkers took their sweet time because they hold occupational licenses. President Biden commanded port workers to operate 24/7, but they basically ignored him. Instead, the workers even threatened to bankrupt port operators unless they got a permanent raise. When’s a better time to squeeze more money, right?

This kind of administrative monopoly genuinely increases members’ income. America has countless guild-like unions: actors, autoworkers, doctors—all hold governmental administrative power. Doctors control the number of medical professionals through licensing exams and certifications, making medicine one of America’s highest-paying jobs. Lower supply naturally raises prices.

Even becoming a barber in the U.S. is ridiculously hard: 1,500 hours of approved training, two years of low-paid internship, and costly exams every two years. Training alone can cost up to $10,000. Imagine spending thousands of dollars, studying for a year, slaving through internships, just to cut hair! The result? Barbers charge you $20 for a five-minute buzz-cut. Easy money, minimal effort. Americans—even wealthier Chinese Americans—often resort to cutting hair at home, because who wants to pay that much?

Even becoming a painter in America requires 3,000 hours of training. Painting a wall isn’t rocket science—why so long? To artificially limit competition. If too many people try to enter, just make training longer, ensuring fewer painters and higher paychecks.

Now you see why certain blue-collar jobs in America pay extremely well. They’re privileged monopolies. But why does occupational licensing generate big profits, while patents or other licenses typically don’t?

The answer lies in simple economics:

First, individual labor hours are limited. Each person has only 24 hours daily. A doctor can’t lower prices and serve 100 times more patients; they’re physically limited by time.

Second, occupational licensing mostly applies to local services, geographically restricted. If you have acute appendicitis, you can’t shop globally for doctors—you need immediate local treatment. Unlike car production (which can easily relocate overseas), local medical services remain geographically fixed, allowing monopolistic profits. This explains why Detroit’s auto workers lost their high wages once factories relocated elsewhere.

Third, occupational licensing still reduces overall customer demand. Americans’ obsession with fitness isn’t just vanity—it’s survival. Medical care is insanely expensive, so Americans try desperately to avoid doctors. Similarly, China’s famous public square dancing became popular when government healthcare was inadequate. Most American families don’t go to doctors for minor illnesses—they either suffer quietly or seek affordable overseas treatment. Yet acute emergencies trap them, creating a system where Americans spend 20% of GDP on healthcare, while millions still go bankrupt every year from medical bills.

While occupational licensing isn’t the only reason U.S. healthcare is a mess, it’s undoubtedly one of the largest factors because healthcare is fundamentally a service industry. Doctors’ numbers and working hours directly limit supply.

Most American households own extensive toolboxes for DIY plumbing, electrical, or carpentry tasks. It’s not that Americans naturally love DIY—it’s because hiring licensed workers is incredibly expensive. Some praise Americans’ impressive handyman skills, but the reality is simpler: they’re just forced into it.

Ironically, many who passionately condemn large corporate monopolies enthusiastically support occupational monopolies. Dreaming about easy, high-paying jobs like American doctors or dockworkers is common worldwide. People even risk illegal immigration to pursue these protected jobs because local supplies are artificially limited.

Dockworkers in America work about four hours a day, two or three days a week, yet earn seven times the national average with better benefits than Congress members. But ordinary folks can’t just become dockworkers. The guild’s entire purpose is controlling entry. Many Chinese immigrants, like infamous celebrity Fengjie, must secretly work without licenses in jobs like nail salons—because licenses cost thousands of dollars and require hundreds of hours of training. Want to wax hair or massage clients? Separate licenses required.

Chinese taxi drivers deeply understand this. Want higher income? Report and remove competition from rideshare drivers. Almost every Chinese city has witnessed taxi drivers opposing additional licenses and ridesharing—everyone loves special privileges and hates competition.

America paradoxically founded antitrust laws—splitting massive corporations like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook—yet simultaneously inherited Europe’s guild monopolies. Both coexist, which is absurdly contradictory.

Thus, among administrative monopolies, patents and occupational licenses are often public favorites. People cheer them while fiercely attacking market-leading corporations. Is it hypocrisy? Some say your position depends on your interest. Maybe. But dismantling corporations like Google or Facebook usually hurts consumers, while occupational monopolies might superficially boost wages for certain professions. Yet, it’s ultimately a zero-sum game. Dockworkers gain special rights but get fleeced by doctors, reducing actual benefits.

American doctors earn huge salaries, but med school debts haunt them for decades, and malpractice insurance consumes 20-30% of their incomes. Many doctors retire early, move to lawsuit-free areas, risk uninsured practice, or avoid risky procedures entirely.

In short, every administrative monopoly is harmful. The key is logical consistency. You can’t logically support occupational and patent monopolies while condemning license monopolies elsewhere. If you accept government-granted privileges for one group, you must accept them for all.

Yet strangely, many support various administrative monopolies but condemn market-driven monopolies—firms successful purely by consumer choice without government aid.

Are these people genuinely against monopoly? Clearly not. They love monopolies passionately, hoping some powerful force will eliminate competition. Yet, paradoxically, they attack market-leading corporations—companies that never used administrative power—as monopolists blocking competition. Isn’t that schizophrenia?

Why Antitrust Law Makes Zero Legal Sense

If we want to demolish the Sherman Act, simple legal logic does the job neatly.

If no specific action is infringing, how can the cumulative result magically become infringement? Without infringing actions, who decides where the line is drawn? You’d never know if your next innocent move would suddenly become illegal.

Real infringement must involve clearly identifiable victims and actions that directly violate someone’s rights.

Imagine a company sells products. Selling once is fine, twice is fine, even selling non-stop all day is perfectly legal. But suddenly, when they hit 90% market share—boom—they’ve infringed? Isn’t this utterly absurd?

The company’s only action was literally selling stuff. Exactly which transaction violated anyone’s rights? None individually, yet collectively they become illegal? That’s as absurd as saying: kissing someone once is romantic, but kissing multiple times suddenly makes it prostitution!

A company should freely decide with whom it cooperates. Small businesses can legally make exclusive deals, yet when large companies do the same, they’re accused of abusing market dominance.

Signing contracts—fine. Exclusive deals—also fine. Selling lots of products—totally fine. Combine these three innocent acts, and suddenly you’re a villain forcing partners to “choose one from two.” Ridiculous!

Thus, from a basic legal perspective—that infringement must involve specific harmful actions and identifiable victims—the very idea of antitrust law is fundamentally flawed.

Remember the infamous “3Q battle”? The silly company Qihoo 360 sued Tencent for market dominance. Thankfully, Guangdong courts had a judge with real common sense:

“Most people don’t rely solely on one communication method. Between close friends or family members, besides QQ, there are mobile phones, landlines, emails, even direct messages on platforms like Weibo. This clearly demonstrates QQ does not possess market dominance.”

What a brilliant judge—a rare gem!

The truth is, market dominance never truly exists; it’s merely an illusion. So, if there’s no real monopoly, why even have antitrust laws?

Ironically, monopolies (or market leaders) are actually great at lowering prices.

Contrary to popular belief, falling prices aren’t driven by fierce competition among many small businesses, but rather by efficiency improvements achieved through large-scale operations—often by the so-called monopolists themselves.

People imagine a breakfast shop selling buns for $2 and another selling for $1. Consumers naturally choose the cheaper one, forcing higher-priced sellers to cut prices, supposedly proving competition lowers prices. Sounds intuitive, right? Nope. It’s actually misleading.

If numerous dispersed producers inevitably lower prices through competition, how come small-scale farming (with countless small farmers) never consistently drives down food prices?

In reality, significant price drops in agriculture happened only after large-scale farms emerged, centralizing production. Prices drop because efficiency improves, not because companies voluntarily cut profits to compete.

How exactly does efficiency increase? Enter the Austrian School’s famous “roundabout production” theory.

In 1889, Böhm-Bawerk introduced the concept: producing consumer goods indirectly, by first creating capital goods (machinery and tools), dramatically boosts productivity. The more capital investment in production tools, the higher the efficiency—and thus, lower prices.

Businesses primarily aim to maximize sales, and increased sales depend heavily on productivity. Successful companies aren’t generous souls—they’re masters at capital accumulation, investing heavily upstream in capital equipment, which lowers production costs, boosts productivity, and grabs market share.

Even without rivals, firms continuously improve efficiency because greater productivity means lower prices, higher sales, and bigger profits. Viewed from the outside, “monopolies” actively push prices downward.

Take the IT industry—Intel once dominated 90% of the chip market, yet its computing cost per unit has dropped astonishingly. Similarly, TSMC produces chips at dramatically lower unit costs year after year, achieving thousandfold price reductions. Is this due to competition or threat thereof? Absolutely not.

It’s solely because these massive companies have enormous capital to invest in R&D and advanced production facilities. Forty years ago, chip manufacturers served mainly large corporations or military purposes. Now, with massive market concentration, households casually own dozens of microchips.

In other words, today’s affordable tech products result directly from large companies aggressively pursuing higher profits by scaling up and driving efficiency—not from competition alone.

The Nature and Misconceptions of Monopoly

After carefully dissecting various monopolies and myths surrounding them, we can finally summarize a few critical conclusions:

First, genuine market dominance practically doesn’t exist. Almost every product has substitutes. Even when something looks monopolistic, consumers can easily respond by cutting consumption, finding alternatives, or becoming self-sufficient.

Second, companies seeking market dominance aren’t simply waiting to jack up prices and exploit consumers. Their real goal is maximum profit, and more often than not, lowering prices and increasing sales volume leads to greater total profits. This explains American Aluminum’s historic strategy and why many internet giants actually keep prices low.

Third, the only monopolies truly deserving suspicion are administrative monopolies—those explicitly protected by governments. Yet even here, not all administrative monopolies earn extraordinary profits. Companies operating under licenses or patents still face pressures to expand sales and potential competition.

Fourth, occupational licensing stands out as a special administrative monopoly that consistently generates high profits. This happens because individual labor hours are limited, professional services are geographically restricted, and substitutes are difficult. Yet occupational monopolies inevitably create shortages and drive service prices excessively high.

Fifth, public understanding of monopolies is hopelessly muddled. Many paradoxically support patent and occupational monopolies yet attack successful companies with high market share. They criticize state-owned monopolies while ignoring how market leaders naturally emerge by serving consumers well. They passionately oppose monopolies yet secretly desire to join guilds or unions to obtain monopoly privileges themselves. This contradictory attitude betrays profound confusion about monopolies’ true nature.

Ultimately, businesses expand production and lower prices to satisfy consumers, driven primarily by the pursuit of profit—not competition alone.

The real issue with monopolistic state-owned enterprises isn’t greed, but ironically their lack of profit-seeking focus, causing inefficiencies and poor service quality.

A genuinely healthy market should reward businesses for meeting consumer needs better than anyone else—not those protected by artificial barriers or government privileges.

Only when we clearly understand monopolies’ nature can we design sensible policies that protect innovation and investment incentives, while effectively preventing harmful administrative monopolies.

Consumer choice itself remains the strongest guarantee against monopoly power. As countless examples demonstrate, even seemingly unbeatable monopolists inevitably yield to market forces and consumer decisions.

In today’s internet age, competition takes increasingly diverse forms. Take WeChat—it shows that having a massive user base doesn’t automatically ensure dominance in other fields. TikTok attacked traditional giants from an entirely unexpected angle—competing for users’ attention and time. This reminds us competition is multidimensional, and true business wisdom lies in predicting future competition, not clinging desperately to current advantages.

Regulators should focus primarily on monopolies sustained by government intervention, not naturally dominant firms emerging from honest market competition.

The real harm of monopolies is choking diversity and innovation, not just price hikes. When assessing monopolies, we must look beyond narrow market share metrics and instead investigate if a company blocks competitors through government privileges or deliberately reduces output to inflate prices artificially.

Crucially, we need a clear, logically consistent definition of monopoly—one uniformly applied across sectors. Internet giants, state-owned enterprises, patent holders, or professional guilds should all face identical standards when evaluating potentially harmful monopolistic behavior. Only then can we establish genuinely fair, efficient, and innovative markets.

References

Beauty Schools Directory. (2025). How much does barber school cost? Barber Schools Directory. https://www.barber-schools.org/blog/barber-school-cost

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Occupational employment and wage statistics: May 2020. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_nat.htm

DiDi Global Inc. (2023). Form 20-F annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1764757/000110465923053304/didi-20221231x20f.htm

FreightWaves. (2023, September 14). West Coast dockworkers making $200K demand higher pay. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/west-coast-dockworkers-making-200k-demand-higher-pay

MacroTrends. (n.d.). Baidu net income 2010-2024. MacroTrends. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BIDU/baidu/net-income

National Archives. (n.d.). Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. National Archives Milestone Documents. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act

National Bureau of Economic Research. (n.d.). Wholesale price of aluminum for New York, NY. FRED Economic Data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0479BUS000NYM267NNBR

Next Insurance. (2024). How to get a painting contractor license. Next Insurance. https://www.nextinsurance.com/blog/painting-contractor-license/

United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/148/416/1503668/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act

Wikipedia. (n.d.). History of aluminium. In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aluminium

Wikipedia. (n.d.). History of patent law. In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law

Wikipedia. (n.d.). James Watt. In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt

Zhang, W. (2024, January 13). Zhang Weiying: The government creates true monopoly through market entry restrictions. Tencent News. https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20240113A0258200

If he were still alive, he would be 126 years old today. He has passed away many years ago, and I’m not sure whether it’s appropriate to say “Happy Birthday”

Anyway, I think it’s worth commemorating. Artificial intelligence is truly impressive these days, and it quickly helped me create the image above. Although the composition isn’t perfect, I think it looks quite good overall. What do you think?

Since it’s a birthday, I chose a festive red tone. However, from the expression in his eyes, it seems that the current state of the world might make him a bit unhappy. I didn’t originally intend for the AI to convey this meaning in the image, and it’s strange to think that, somehow, it ended up this way.

All right. Happy Birthday, F.A. Hayek!

Although it’s short and has some unclear expressions and grammar, the ideas this sixth-grade student expresses are much much more insightful than 99% of people in the world. I feel sincerely honoured to have translated this remarkable essay into English — I hope everyone can share it widely and help people around the world see what this child has written.

My Wish

The United States imposes high tariffs on all other countries. My wish about this is that all countries could have a zero-tariff policy with each other. After the U.S. imposed high tariffs, the economies of many countries suffered badly — including the U.S. itself.

Many foreign companies in America couldn’t make money because of the tariffs, and they went bankrupt. Some American companies need to buy materials from other countries. But because foreign companies either shut down or sold products at sky-high prices, many American companies also went out of business.

As a result, prices rose like crazy. How many people lost their jobs? How many companies went bankrupt? How much suffering did the people go through — all because of one decision by the U.S. government.

Not only the U.S., a few years ago, China opened up trade with countries that produce lots of fruit and lowered the tariffs. That made the price of cherries drop from sky-high to a normal price.

This made me think for a long time, and I finally understood that lowering tariffs is good for both sides. It helps foreign countries earn money and lets people in our country buy cheaper products.

So I believe that if all countries follow a zero-tariff policy, the world economy will grow rapidly in the near future. If I say this, and others notice it too, and they also speak up — then more and more people will realize the problem and believe it. When countries see that so many people are against high tariffs, they might change the laws and improve people’s lives.

This is my wish: for the U.S. to correct its mistake. Let’s spread the word together!

(The End)

Here is the original text in Chinese as reference.

I hope the principles of the free market will spread to every corner of the world.

For now, let’s not dig into Trump’s exact reasons for pushing tariffs. Just the fact that all American states are forced under one tariff system feels like a stomp on state rights and goes against America’s founding ideas. Those ideas go back to the country’s early days. After the Revolutionary War, the U.S. ran under a confederation system where each state controlled its own tariffs. So when did states lose that power? It happened on September 17, 1787, when the U.S. Constitution was passed. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to “set and collect tariffs, import taxes, and other duties,” and says those tariffs must be the same across the whole country. Plus, to limit state power, Article I, Section 10 bans states from taxing imports or exports without Congress’s approval. From that point on, the Constitution pulled tariff control away from the states and handed it to the federal government. Once the Constitution kicked in, the first Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1789, setting an average rate of about 8.5%, mostly to pay off debts and shield local manufacturing. The guy behind that law was Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary, who pushed for higher tariffs to boost industry. In his 1791 Report on Manufactures, he laid out the “infant industry protection theory,” which has shaped U.S. tariff policies ever since. Doesn’t Trump’s talk sound a lot like Hamilton’s old lines?

The way the federal government took over tariff powers can be seen in two totally different lights. If you’re all for a strong, united America, the tariff rules in the Constitution are a big win for federalism, giving the federal government control over the economy and ending the loose confederation system—basically creating real “central power.” But if you buy what California’s governor said today—that California shouldn’t have its tariffs dictated by Trump’s Washington—then looking at the Constitution, you’d say it was a huge step backward on tariffs. That step also fueled tensions between the North and South. Northern industrial states wanted high tariffs to protect their factories, while Southern farming states hated how tariffs jacked up the cost of imported goods. This split was one of the economic sparks that led to the Civil War.

A lot of people think the Civil War was just about freeing slaves, but that might be too simple—maybe even tricked by the one-sided stories in Chinese history textbooks. History’s truth can be tough to face, and it’s way more complicated than textbooks make it. When the Civil War started in April 1861, Lincoln made it clear his main goal was to stop the Southern states from breaking away from the Union. In his March 4, 1861, inaugural speech, he said, “The Union is forever” and promised not to mess with slavery where it already existed. Early in the war, Lincoln was careful about slavery, steering clear of calling it an “abolition war” to keep border slave states like Missouri and Kentucky on his side. In August 1861, when Northern General John Fremont declared slaves in Missouri free on his own, Lincoln quickly canceled that order, saying the war was about “saving the Union, not ending slavery.” It wasn’t until 1862, when the war was stuck, the North was losing people, and international pressure was growing, that abolitionists, radical Republicans, and Black rights leaders pushed Lincoln to make ending slavery the war’s goal—to claim the moral high ground and win global support. In a 1862 letter to the New York Tribune, Lincoln wrote, “My top goal is to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery… But if freeing the slaves would save the Union, I’d do it.” Still, back then, the Constitution let states leave the Union, so Lincoln’s war was technically against the Constitution.

We’ve wandered a bit far with Lincoln—let’s get back to Trump. I know Trump’s tariff moves have split my friends again, with some cheering him on. They think he’s playing a big game, using the threat of higher tariffs to eventually lower them. Come on, even if you like Trump, do you have to polish him up that much? Are you really so sure he’s out to save the world? Isn’t this just Trump’s version of a big game? People who buy the “big game” idea often just imagine what they want, taking Trump’s words as his real reasons. But check the tariff list he put out—even countries friendly with the U.S. get hit: 20% on the EU, 24% on Japan, 17% on Israel, and even Argentina, which sticks close to Trump, gets 10%. There are two kinds of “big game” fans: one group backs Trump’s game, the other backs China’s. Both share something—they’re fine with a strong group forcing its way, even if it messes up regular people’s economic lives, no matter the cost, as long as that group gets what it wants. Maybe those fans never see themselves as part of that cost. But can you at least hear the people paying it? What about folks in trade businesses? Their workers? People whose daily lives get hit?

Plz, can you stand with civilization instead of always rooting for force?

There is a lot of people, scolding the monopoly enterprises overcharged how much money they have all the day, but on the issue of law and order, justice and fire protection where human lives are at stake, they always believed that the state monopoly is reasonable. This is logical inconsistency! There is also a large number of people criticizing the monopoly only because they haven’t taken enough advantage and benefits, if the state-owned monopoly can make themselves not pay, guess what? They will 100% support monopoly.

The firefighting monopoly was a big reason why the LA fires got out of control.

Firefighting in the free market simply doesn’t make the cheap mistakes they do and treat human life like dirt.

With market-based firefighting, there is no DEI problem at all.🤣 Firefighting is a profession that requires rigorous physical, technical, and mental fitness. Market-based firefighting organisations would never be crazy enough to recruit a large number of women and LGBT members in and recruit firefighters under so-called racial diversity quotas. Men are more suited to firefighting, it’s biological, it’s not sexist at all, it’s just common sense. Recruiting a large number of LGBT members into the fire service, are lesbians better suited to fighting fires?

Firefighters will also be well paid under market conditions. Because firefighters are such a dangerous profession, higher wages are necessary to compensate for those risks and to recruit personnel. Firefighters who are highly skilled in their profession will get top dollar. But it has nothing to do with budgets, it’s the result of voluntary payments from consumers who ‘budget’ for them.

They don’t get paid overtime, since it’s already included in their salary. The fire service is on call 24 hours a day, and it’s ridiculous to talk about overtime pay.

Whether firefighters are scarce or not is immediately reflected in the price (wage rate). When firefighters are in short supply, their wage rate will increase, attracting labour from other industries, otherwise, firefighters will be lost. The market will naturally achieve a relative equilibrium in the number of firemen supplied. There will definitely not be a situation where the monopoly of firefighting means that no matter how many people are given, they are too few, and no matter how much budget is given, it will not be enough. The reason why a state-owned enterprise is full of redundant staff and keeps losing money is that its income comes from the taxpayers, not from the voluntary monetary votes of consumers.

Will there be a situation where there is no water in the reservoirs, no water in the hydrants, and the fire service doesn’t even know about it? It won’t. The fire brigade will always be on alert, always have enough reserves, always have equipment available in case of an emergency.

Market-based fire service organisations will not slacken in the exercise of their fire-fighting duties. They will be the first to arrive at the scene and do their best to bring the fire under control and extinguish it, and they will use the most advanced technological equipment for fire-fighting in the tall buildings. This is precisely an opportunity for them to demonstrate their capability and image and attract more clients, and there is no better advertising campaign than this.

This is not to say that market-based fire-fighting organisations are capable of extinguishing all fires and eliminating all losses. Rather, I would say that they’ll minimise losses. Markets are not omnipotent, but they never fail.

Because what important is that they don’t wait until there’s a fire to put it out – which is vital, of course; but rather, they prevent it from happening and minimise the chances of it happening.

That’s because firefighting organisations in the free market are most likely to be part of insurance organisations, and the source of their fees is the premiums paid by consumers.

How would an insurance company collect premiums to feed a costly fire brigade?

Well, price discrimination by segmenting the risk pool!

Whichever place or neighbourhood has the lowest risk of fire will have the lowest premiums. While the opposite has higher price.

For example, if a community with thatched and wood-built houses is adjacent to a dry forested area, the premium is bound to be high, otherwise the insurance company will be reluctant to underwrite him. On the other hand, a community with full fire protection facilities and the use of fire-resistant materials is on the low side in terms of fire hazards, and hence the premiums are very low.

Insurance companies will collect and consolidate information from all aspects, even including criminal databases, and use big data to carry out insurance actuarial calculations to compute the class probability of fires in a certain geographical area or district and estimate the likelihood of fires, so as to collect premiums accordingly.

This is the “lifeline” of the insurance industry.

If the insurance industry is not allowed to subdivide risk pools, conduct insurance actuarial calculations, and price “discriminate” on this basis, insurance as a business will not be established. This is because insurance is a voluntary redistributive mechanism whereby the insured co-finance and share the risk in the event of a small probability of an accident occurring. For example, in the case of so-called health insurance, if it is not permitted to put an 80-year-old man and a 20-year-old chap in different risk pools and charge them different premiums, it would mean that the 20-year-old chap has become a “Good Samaritan”, and the result would be that he withdraws from the insurance.

Similarly, if the law requires the same premiums to be charged for a brick structure and a wooden house, then it means that the probability is that the owner of the wooden house will be the only one to enjoy the benefits, and then the owner of the brick structure will surrender his policy.

Price discrimination is perfectly normal in a market economy, and it is exactly the way to incentivise all people to be self-responsible and to keep moving towards a safe and healthy lifestyle. It’s only absurd to charge the same car insurance for someone who drinks and drives all day as someone who lives a strictly disciplined life.

This actuarial subdivision of the insurance pool by the insurance industry and the introduction of differential pricing will serve a good purpose. Firstly, it will lower premiums considerably, so that most people will be able to pay very low premiums to be compensated for future risks; secondly, it will attract more customers because of lower premiums, so that the poor will be able to afford to be insured, and it will expand business income, improve claims-paying capacity and equip the fire brigade with greater professionalism and efficiency; and thirdly, it will provide incentives for the ‘good’ and weed out the ‘good’ areas. Thirdly, it will incentivise the ‘good districts’ and eliminate the ‘bad districts’ because the ‘bad districts’ will face high premiums or even not be insured, thus facing huge property risks, and therefore its population will flow to the ‘good districts’. Fourthly, it will create a strong ‘positive externality’ because if a fire breaks out in the woods outside the neighbourhood, the insurance company’s fire brigade will quickly extinguish it, eliminating any possible fire hazards that might otherwise injure its own customers and result in larger claims for them, thus creating a safe environment for all – even those who are uninsured. Even those who are uninsured benefit greatly from this.

In short, insurance companies have the greatest incentive to guard against fire and any catastrophe by training a highly specialised fire-fighting team equipped with the most advanced equipment in the market, always checking for safety hazards in each area and standing by to eliminate any catastrophe that leads to a diminution in the value of their clients’ property.

For no other reason than that it would be placing its own operations in high jeopardy if it didn’t, would be paying out huge amounts of compensation, would be losing customers, and would be putting him on the road to losses and closure.

Profit is a good thing, it forces companies to obey the dictates of the consumer and to keep lowering the price of their services; the result of its elimination is that the consumer says nothing and bears more costs (taxes and even lives) as a result.

We have to trust the market. Since the market can best solve the problem of eating and clothing, it can certainly do a better job of solving the problem of rescue, firefighting, and security.

It is also clear from the above analysis why many insurance companies have cancelled their policies for this California fire.

The reason is simple: California, the famous white-left state, under the erosion of “political correctness”, does not allow insurance companies to subdivide their insurance pools and differentiate their pricing, as this is not in line with the California government’s ‘anti-discrimination’ and ‘egalitarian’ legislation. As a result, insurance companies are left with no choice but to give up and a large number of homeowners are left without any compensation for their property losses.

And of course, insurance companies can’t cover behaviour that can be actively controlled and has no long-term probability distribution. This is because it is an incentive for some people to take active steps to earn premiums. For example, suicide, unemployment, arson, business losses, and most health insurance, is just not insurable because it can all be actively controlled.

However, on the one hand, the United States Government, in the name of anti-discrimination, does not allow insurance companies to break down risk pools and discriminate on price, while on the other hand, it forces a large number of uninsurable matters to be included in the insurance coverage, and insurance companies are discriminating if they do not agree to do so. For example, the vast majority of states require insurance companies to cover treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction; many states do not allow insurance companies to ask any questions about AIDS because of anti-discrimination bills; and sickle cell Anaemia, which mainly affects black men, may not be investigated.

The result is that, first, insurance companies have to deal with an increasing number of uninsurable matters, and because having insurance coverage, in turn, incentivises certain undesirable behaviours, they have to raise premiums or lose money;

And, second, low-risk people, by not being able to get into a different insurance group, are forced to be in the same group as high-risk people, which means that these low-risk people act as living lightning rods, forced to pay premiums to pay for the high-risk people to pay for them.

Third, more and more low-risk people are dropping out of insurance because of higher prices and the fact that low-risk people are losing out.

Fourthly, fewer people are insured but more people are paid out, so prices can only continue to rise or else the insurance companies will have to go out of business.

Fires break out and homeowners lose their homes because they don’t have insurance, find out why. The reason why Americans get crushed by the insurance company and shoot the CEO of the insurance company, is also found. 🤣

At present, the reason why insurance institutions around the world are unable to give full play to the above functions is not because of its own problems, but because the insurance market is in the midst of severe regulation, which has broken the legs of insurance companies and thus hindered the fulfilment of its functions.

This is of course deliberate. It is like disarming you so that you cannot protect yourself, and then you can only be entrusted to a monopoly.

References

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.

Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. University of Chicago Press.

National Fire Protection Association. (2021). U.S. Fire Department Profile 2019. https://www.nfpa.org

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831-842. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952530

Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. Chatham House Publishers.

The Economist. (2025, January 8). Los Angeles against the flames. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/01/08/los-angeles-against-the-flames

U.S. Fire Administration. (2020). Fire in the United States 2008-2017 (20th ed.). Federal Emergency Management Agency. https://www.usfa.fema.gov

I think most people, like me, find the song not only beautiful but also full of compassion and emotional depth. It might even bring you to tears.

But yesterday when I was celebrating the New Year’s Eve, as I stumbled upon the MV again, a question popped into my head: Did this legendary classic make our world a better place—or worse?

1. The Background

The song was created in 1984, when Africa was experiencing an unprecedented drought and famine. The combination of natural disasters and political turmoil led to countless deaths across the continent.

We Are The World was composed and performed to help children struggling in the famine-stricken regions of Africa.

Its creators included Michael Jackson, his legendary producer Quincy Jones, and rising superstar Lionel Richie.

On January 28, 1985, after the American Music Awards, Michael Jackson gathered 45 star singers, including Bob Dylan, to record We Are The World in just one night.

The song was both passionate and deeply moving, spreading the message of global unity and calling on people to save lives and build a better world together.

It was a massive success, raising $80 million in just a few weeks and over $100 million in total. Since then, the song has become a symbol of charity and humanitarianism.

I’ll admit—the ideals conveyed in the song, combined with its powerful humanistic appeal, are indeed touching.

But here’s the more important question: What about reality?

2. Jesse Jackson

Good intentions don’t always lead to good outcomes, and the road to hell is often paved with them. Looking at the real-world impact, We Are The World might not have made the world better after all.

Let’s start with the song’s producer, Quincy Jones.

As Michael Jackson’s producer, Quincy Jones was a towering figure in the music industry, often referred to as the “Godfather of Music.”

The success of We Are The World catapulted both Quincy Jones and Michael Jackson to even greater fame.

But while Quincy Jones made waves in music history, he also played a significant role in political history by fully supporting another Jackson—Jesse Jackson, the famous civil rights leader.

Long before Barack Obama became America’s first Black president, Jesse Jackson was the first Black man to run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Quincy Jones provided substantial support for Jackson’s campaign.

First, Quincy leveraged his influence in the music industry to raise funds for Jackson’s campaign, not only providing financial backing but also boosting his visibility.

Second, Quincy produced The Jesse Jackson Show, a TV program that gave Jackson a platform to showcase his political views and broaden his influence.

(Jesse Jackson and Quincy Jones)

3. The Godfather of LGBT

Now that we’ve established their connection, let’s take a closer look at Jesse Jackson’s political ideals.

Let’s start with something easy to grasp. Do you know where the rainbow flag, the symbol of the LGBT movement, originated?

That’s right—it traces back to Jesse Jackson, the first Black leader to run for U.S. president.

At the 1984 Democratic National Convention, Jackson delivered his famous “Rainbow Coalition” speech, marking the first time the LGBTQ community was addressed on a national stage.

This moment symbolized the inclusion of LGBTQ people in mainstream politics and their eventual alliance with the Democratic Party.

Under the leadership of the Rainbow Coalition, Jackson actively participated in various social justice movements, advocating for racial and economic equality as well as gender and sexual diversity.

In short, Jesse Jackson, backed by Quincy Jones, became a pioneer of today’s LGBT movement.

(Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition)

Over time, the LGBT community rose to prominence in politics, with the Democratic Party pushing forward LGBT rights legislation and promoting gender diversity.

Although Jesse Jackson failed to secure the presidential nomination twice, his influence, amplified by Quincy Jones, made him one of the most impactful Black leaders within the Democratic Party.

By 2007, Jackson publicly endorsed Barack Obama, a pivotal moment among Black leaders that helped Obama gain recognition and support within the party.

Not only that—Jackson’s son played a key role in Obama’s campaign team, while his daughter became close friends with Michelle Obama.

It’s safe to say that Obama’s historic presidency as America’s first Black president was made possible, in part, by Jesse Jackson’s groundwork and Quincy Jones’s contributions.

(Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama)

Of course, Quincy’s support also played a significant role. And the story doesn’t stop there. Obama became the first U.S. president to publicly support same-sex marriage, ban discrimination against LGBTQ employees in federal departments, and protect LGBTQ workers’ labor rights.

Add to that the Affordable Care Act, more education support for Black communities, and the rise of movements like “Black Lives Matter” and… let’s not forget the infamous “smash and grab” (a.k.a. looting).

4. People Who Changed the World

On November 3, 2024, Quincy Jones passed away at his home in Los Angeles at the age of 91.

Throughout his life, he won 28 Grammy Awards and was named one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century by TIME magazine.

He was hailed as a “master of changing the world” and a “great man.”

Indeed, he changed the world. But the question remains—did he, and his music, make the world better or worse?

That’s the question. What’s your answer? As for me, the answer is clear: What truly makes the world The World—a united and thriving place—is free trade, not charitable donations.

Looking to the future, I remain cautiously optimistic and believe tomorrow will be better.

But to make tomorrow better, we need the right ideas and logical foundations, not just a philanthropist’s goodwill.

Finally, Happy New Year my friends! Stay tuned and let’s spread the ideas of the Austrian School of Economics in 2025!

References

Vaughan, D. (2024, December 10). We Are the World. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/We-Are-the-World

De Loera-Brust, A. (2024, December 9). Jesse Jackson’s America First. Retrieved from https://www.compactmag.com/article/jesse-jacksons-america-first

Borosage, R. (2024, December 25). Jesse Jackson 1988 Presidential Campaign. Retrieved from https://www.influencewatch.org/political-party/jesse-jackson-1988-presidential-campaign/

KT. (2024, December 25). Quincy Jones. Retrieved from https://essentials.neh.gov/about/awards/national-humanities-medals/quincy-jones

Jordan, J. (2022, November 1). How Jesse Jackson changed America. Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/archive/2022/11/from-the-ns-archive-next-time-the-rainbow

Nichols, J. (2023, July 14). Jesse Jackson’s Politics of Peace. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/jesse-jackson-peace-candidate/

Rozzo, M. (2024, November 4). Music Impresario Quincy Jones, 91, Is Dead. Retrieved from https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/music-impresario-quincy-jones-91-is-dead

Waxman, O. B. (2024, January 29). The History of the We Are The World Song. TIME. Retrieved from https://time.com/6588802/netflix-doc-greatest-night-in-pop-we-are-the-world

From the map, it’s clear that mainland China is the most purple, with over 50% of the population not adhering to any religion. Should we feel proud of that? It suggests that the proportion of people without religion in China is the highest, but can we flip it and say China has the highest number of atheists? Not really. That’s because a significant portion of these so-called atheists aren’t consciously atheist; strictly speaking, they’re not atheists at all. They simply haven’t encountered religion, never been proselytized, and haven’t given any thought to the existence of God. They’re still a blank slate, like animals or pets. If you asked them if they believe in God, they’d probably look at you like you’re crazy. So, can we call pets atheists?

True atheists are those who are consciously so, who have thoughtfully made that decision. Atheism has existed for thousands of years, but not all atheists are the same. They all share one belief: God doesn’t exist. However, the reasoning behind that conclusion can vary. So, let’s break atheism down into a few categories.

The first type is empirical or intuitive atheism, where people, based on life experiences, feel that God doesn’t exist. For example, someone might say, “I’ve never encountered God, never had a divine revelation, and have never seen any supernatural phenomena, so I don’t believe in God.” Have you read Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude? There’s a character who does something like this: he gets a camera, takes photos all around him, develops the film, and finds no evidence of God, so he concludes that God doesn’t exist. But this process is pretty crude. A regular camera captures what the human eye can see, and if God isn’t visible to our eyes, a camera won’t help. Such a proof is hardly convincing. Maybe God’s just hiding behind a corner somewhere. So, conclusions drawn from experience alone are unreliable. If this person, like Jack Ma, meets some “master” or spiritual guru, they might change their mind and start believing in gods or higher powers. Experience may offer some insights, but it’s far from foolproof.

The second kind of atheism is speculative atheism, which has been around since ancient times. Philosophers have long debated whether God exists, critically examining the logic behind theism. One of the most famous arguments comes from the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. He argued, “If God wants to prevent evil but can’t, then God is powerless. If God can prevent evil but chooses not to, then God is evil. If God neither prevents evil nor desires to prevent it, then God is both powerless and evil. But if God both can and wants to prevent evil, then why does evil still exist?” This logic effectively debunks the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God—the very concept of God in Christianity. Of course, this idea predates Christianity, but it was later co-opted by the religion. The flaw in this argument is that it doesn’t stop people from believing in a bad or impotent God. The God in the Christian Bible, for instance, is depicted as both impotent and evil, so the argument doesn’t fully disprove the existence of such a deity. Thus, speculative atheism has its limitations.

Another type of atheism we advocate today is scientific atheism, based on the foundation of modern science. The development of modern science has provided a solid basis for atheism, and scientific discoveries completely align with the predictions of atheism. The first major contribution comes from the fields of astronomy and cosmology, which have expanded our understanding of Earth’s place in the universe. In ancient times, people naturally believed that Earth was the center of the world, the center of the universe. Above Earth was the sky, and in the sky, gods and deities governed the world. It seemed logical and reasonable—after all, Earth was the center of the world, so the heavens must be looking after it. But astronomy and cosmology have shown us that Earth is not even the center of the solar system, and the solar system is just on the outskirts of the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is just one of about 800 billion galaxies in the universe. Our Earth is a tiny, insignificant speck in a very remote corner of the cosmos. Furthermore, astronomers have discovered many planets outside the solar system, some of which even resemble Earth.

So, here’s the question: Can God really manage such an immense universe? Why would He focus His divine power on such a tiny speck of dust, in such a remote corner of the cosmos, by sending His son here? What’s so special about Earth? There’s nothing to be proud of. So, once we realize that Earth is not the center of the universe, has no special position, there’s no need to imagine a deity overseeing it. This is one of the great contributions of astronomy and cosmology.

The second contribution comes from evolutionary biology, particularly the theory of evolution. In the past, atheists—especially those who relied on philosophical reasoning—were often perplexed by the problem of the origin of life and humanity. The complexity of living organisms seemed to imply the need for a higher intelligence to design them. Humans, of course, appeared even more complicated. It was hard to decide whether life and humans were naturally occurring or designed by a higher intelligence. Many scholars even chose to believe in the latter. However, evolution, and particularly the theory of natural selection, solved this problem. It showed us that even the most complex biological structures don’t require intelligent design. All life forms, including humans, evolved naturally through the process of natural selection. Moreover, many aspects of biological structures contradict the idea of intelligent design. For example, the human eye is a poorly designed and vulnerable organ, the result of many evolutionary repairs. Our spine is another example: it’s not ideal for upright walking, leading to many health problems. If a deity were truly responsible for designing life, He would have done a better job. A “god” who designs such flawed structures has no intelligence. And a deity like that is no different from natural selection itself.

Thus, evolution provides two contributions. First, it explains the origin of life and humanity without the need for intelligent design. Second, it shows that humans are not fundamentally different from other animals, especially primates. Humanity is not the pinnacle of creation. Humans have only existed for a brief moment in Earth’s history—just a few million years. According to religious belief, humans are the only creatures capable of understanding God, communicating with Him, and praying. But what about Earth before humans? During the 4.5 billion years of Earth’s geological history, wasn’t God lonely? This question further weakens the credibility of the idea of a deity.

The third contribution comes from evolutionary psychology. While evolutionary biology helps us understand the origin of life and humanity’s place in nature, evolutionary psychology addresses the origin of human morality and nature. A commenter earlier mentioned that love is part of human nature, but love, morality, and human nature have long been used as evidence of God’s existence. If God doesn’t exist, where did these qualities come from? Religious people argue that these cannot be explained by science—they must come from heaven. Evolutionary psychology, however, provides a biological explanation for the development of morality, human nature, and love. Though some aspects of evolutionary psychology are controversial, its insights into the origins of morality are widely accepted and supported by substantial evidence.

The fourth contribution comes from neuroscience. Research in neurobiology has shown that religious belief is, in fact, a physiological and pathological phenomenon. One interesting study found that patients with temporal lobe epilepsy are more likely to be religious and have transcendent experiences. Some people with epilepsy, when they experience a seizure, suddenly feel as if they have transcended themselves and developed strong religious emotions. This suggests that religious belief could be a pathological phenomenon. One scientist even invented a helmet that stimulates the brain with electromagnetic fields, and many people who wore it experienced religious hallucinations, seeing divine figures. Some people call this helmet the “God helmet.” Of course, not everyone reacts this way. The famous atheist Richard Dawkins wore the helmet and did not see God—he just felt uncomfortable. In 2012, another study showed that if the right parietal lobe of the brain (located above the right ear) is damaged, it can make people more prone to religious feelings, and the more severe the damage, the more devout their belief in God becomes. From this perspective, it can be argued that religious belief is a form of “brain damage.”

With these scientific findings, we can conclude that the hypothesis of God is not only unnecessary but also absurd. There’s a famous story from Napoleon’s time, where the renowned astronomer Laplace presented his model of the cosmos. Napoleon asked, “Why is there no place for God in your model?” Laplace responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis.” Modern science has followed this path, avoiding the assumption of God in scientific research. Now, the results of scientific studies show us that not only do we not need the hypothesis of God, but it’s also ridiculous and absurd. We don’t just not believe in God—we believe that God does not exist.

This belief is grounded in science, which gives us a sense of confidence. In the past, many great scholars, including Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and Bertrand Russell, did not openly declare themselves atheists, instead calling themselves agnostics. This meant they didn’t believe in God, but didn’t completely rule out the possibility either. They left room for God’s existence, saying, “I don’t believe now, but if someone proves that God exists, I’ll believe.” This was a way of leaving room for theism. But agnosticism is a weak, cowardly form of atheism—it avoids confronting one’s beliefs. This was due to the limitations of scientific knowledge at the time. But today, with the wealth of scientific evidence, we can boldly declare: “I’m an atheist. I not only don’t believe in God, but I believe God does not exist.”

Scientific atheism gives us a clear, firm stance, backed by reliable evidence. Once you understand the evidence, your belief becomes unshakable. There’s nothing more reliable than science. Since scientific discoveries show that religious belief is a pathological phenomenon—a form of “brain damage”—we have no reason to believe in it. Some religious people argue, “You don’t understand now, but you will eventually change, just like I did, and become a believer in God.” Some Chinese Christians were once atheists but converted after encountering missionaries. But they forget one key difference: when they were atheists, they were ignorant, like pets, and had no conscious understanding. But my atheism is a conscious choice, based on careful thought and supported by solid scientific evidence. Unless the scientific reasons I’ve listed are disproven by future discoveries—things like astronomy, cosmology, and biology—I will never change my mind. If I suddenly become a believer in God one day, it means something has gone wrong with my brain, and everything I said before will no longer count.

Intellectuals of Arts and Humanities often like religion—not just in China, but around the world. They believe that faith in God gives meaning to the world, that the universe is executing God’s plan, and that life has purpose. They dislike astronomy, cosmology, and especially evolution, because they believe these sciences make the world seem cold, mechanical, and meaningless. But just because the universe has no inherent meaning doesn’t mean life can’t have meaning. Many agnostics and atheists have led meaningful lives, without turning to religion for meaning. Some religious believers argue that without a deity, the world lacks warmth and purpose. But just because the universe is cold doesn’t mean humanity can’t be warm.

Religious believers are good at banding together for warmth—going to church, praying together, supporting one another. We should learn from this. As atheists, we should also come together, support each other, and encourage one another. I’m writing this blog as a form of mutual support. When I started, I had only a few followers, but now the number has multiplied, and who knows—maybe in the future, there will be hundreds or even thousands of people supporting me.

Finally, I want to tell all my readers: let us atheists band together and keep each other warm.

References

Allott, R. (1992). Evolutionary aspects of love and empathy. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 15(4), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/1061-7361(92)90023-7

Devinsky, O., & Lai, G. (2008). Spirituality and religion in epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 12(4), 636-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2007.11.011

Clark, K. J. (2019). God and the Brain: The Rationality of Belief. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray, London.

Johnstone, B., Bodling, A., Cohen, D., Christ, S. E., & Wegrzyn, A. (2012). Right Parietal Lobe-Related “Selflessness” as the Neuropsychological Basis of Spiritual Transcendence. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22(4), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2012.657524

Kapogiannis, D., Barbey, A. K., Su, M., Zamboni, G., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2009). Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(12), 4876-4881. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811717106

Márquez, G. G. (1987). One hundred years of solitude (G. Rabassa, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Wikipedia contributors. (2024, November 28). List of religious populations. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

Imagine a West Lake like this—would you still find it lovely?

And how about the Great Wall looking barren and lifeless—would you even pay the entrance fee?

Why is everything so desolate and bare? What happened to the trees on the mountains? It’s simple: they were all chopped down. The big ones became timber; the small ones became firewood. Firewood was the most important “technology” of ancient times.

Think about it: without firewood, there’s no fire. Without fire, the staples of life—rice, oil, salt, soy sauce, vinegar, and tea—are all out of reach. That’s why “firewood” takes pride of place in the Chinese phrase “柴米油盐酱醋茶” (firewood, rice, oil, salt, soy sauce, vinegar, tea). No energy means we’re back to survival mode in Minecraft, like contestants on a deserted island reality show.

China’s demand for wood has always been massive. Building houses, constructing palaces, waging wars—all of it required timber. Whether for military supplies, engineering equipment, shipbuilding, or carriage-making, wood was indispensable. As populations grew and wars raged, northern China’s forests were almost entirely depleted.

The photos we can capture today only date back to the Qing Dynasty(1644–1912), but the deforestation started much earlier. By the Tang Dynasty(618–907), northern China was already suffering from a severe lack of trees. According to “Zizhi Tongjian” (Chinese: 资治通鉴, a historical chronicle, literal meaning: Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance), in 904, Zhu Wen dismantled every visible house in Chang’an and floated the wood down the Wei River to Luoyang. Why? Because there was no usable timber left near either city.

By the Northern Song Dynasty(960–1127), they had to travel as far as Tianshui in Gansu to fell trees. Fast forward a bit to the Jin Dynasty(1115–1234): Emperor Wanyan Liang, planning to rebuild Kaifeng city, had to turn to the forests of Liupan Mountain. By the Ming Dynasty(1368–1644), when constructing the Forbidden City, the timber had to be sourced from south of the Yangtze River. During the reign of Emperor Jiajing(1521–1567), they had to go even further—to western Hunan and Guangxi—or simply import wood from foreign countries.

It wasn’t just China. Before Europe’s Industrial Revolution, human activities had also driven forests to the brink of exhaustion. So, what saved the trees in the end? Ironically, it was the much-maligned coal, oil, and natural gas. These so-called “pollutants” replaced wood as the primary energy source, powering the Industrial Revolution and sparing the forests.

Without fossil fuels, how could we have trains, ships, or cars? Would the Industrial Revolution have even happened? The UK and France only began promoting reforestation after coal became widely used. The 30% forest coverage in Europe today is, in fact, a recent achievement—just within the past two centuries.

Closer to home, when my father was a kid, mountain floods were a common, terrifying event. Maybe your parents or grandparents have had similar experiences. But as time went on, deforestation slowed, and we began to see reforestation efforts. Why? Because coal and gas replaced firewood. Those old wood-burning stoves gave way to gas ranges, and the trees finally got a break.

From a cause-and-effect perspective, fossil fuels didn’t destroy the environment; they replaced wood, protected forests, and gave us the lush green landscapes we enjoy today.

Yes, fossil fuels do pollute the environment—but here’s the bigger picture: they kickstarted an energy revolution, fueled technological progress, and ironically, saved vast stretches of greenery on our planet.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Sometimes, even if you feel my points make sense, there’s still this nagging doubt, like something doesn’t quite sit right. But why?

It boils down to different fundamental beliefs – worldview, life perspective, and value system. It’s about how you believe the world works, the ideal way to live, whether it’s a life of quiet simplicity or grand wealth.

Differing views are like explaining ice to a summer insect. Two people sitting down to have a logical debate must have a shared foundation.

For instance, two Cantonese chefs from Hong Kong discussing might agree on the basics of broth intensity and cooking technique, leaving the nuances to individual flair and secret ingredients. But throw in a British chef, and common ground dwindles. The British chef might find broth too rich, while the Cantonese chef thinks British staples are, well…dark and dreary. Now what left are basics like plating and aesthetics. But if you pair a chef with a musician, the shared foundation narrows further – maybe they agree on pleasing the audience. And if you seat a chef next to a Somali pirate, even that’s out the window, leaving only the common pursuit of a “better life.”

Take it one step further, and imagine locking a person and a cow in the same room. Communication? Out the window. Purely a case of “music to the bull’s ears.”

If we’re going to discuss anything meaningful, we have to start with the very basics. Our absolute, foundational consensus is…a shared worldview.

You might follow Christianity, believing in creation and resurrection. You might be a Buddhist, seeing the world as a cycle of reincarnation. Or a Muslim, proclaiming “Allahu Akbar.”

As for me? I’m faith-free.

So our sense of reality differs, our worldviews diverge.

But let’s say, hypothetically, we do align. Now our common ground might be survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest becomes the base level of every discussion we’d have. The ultimate motive is basic survival – simply staying alive.

Of course, you could counter that philosophically. Why should survival be good? What if there’s some “better place” beyond? What if everything is just brain-in-a-vat stuff, like in The Matrix? Is all of this just an illusion?

But back to our point: survival of the fittest is the foundation, with survival itself as the primary level, and everything else following from there.

People who nitpick for the sake of nitpicking often lack a clear worldview, have an unfocused life perspective, and bring brainwashed values to the discussion.

Talking with someone like that? It’s like an atheist like me arguing with a devout Christian:

“Repent, Ariel Wang! Disrespecting the Almighty will bring you judgment in the afterlife. Hurry up and donate all your wealth to the church. Otherwise, you’ll end up in Hell!”

I’d respond, “I’m not really looking for heavenly rewards; earthly riches suit me just fine. Or, how about we make a trade? You give me two houses here in Shanghai, and I’ll send you blessings for a high seat in heaven.”

Can you imagine the reaction? A flat-out “No way! Go and fuck yourself!” – because faith doesn’t quite trump reality.

But if you understand the concept of survival of the fittest as a basis for discussion, we’re ready for a rational, shared dialogue.

It all stacks up gradually, each layer resting on the foundation beneath it – first layer, then the second, then the third – until we eventually part ways.

So here’s my invitation to all rational thinkers out there: follow, subscribe, share – I’ll open your eyes to a whole new worldview.

Best.

He recently announced that from October 20th until the U.S. presidential election on November 5th, his newly founded “America PAC” (Political Action Committee) will be randomly giving away $1 million every day to one lucky swing-state voter who signs his petition.

The first winner has already been selected, and they just so happened to be at the event in person, so Musk handed them a $1 million check on the spot.

Now, the million-dollar prize is for the daily lottery, but all registered Pennsylvania voters who sign the petition will still get $100, while voters from other states get $47 just for signing.

And there’s more! If you refer a friend to sign, you’ll snag an extra $47 as a little recruitment bonus.

The petition Musk is pushing aims to get one million swing-state voters to support the U.S. Constitution, “especially” the First and Second Amendments, which protect FREE SPEECH and GUN RIGHTS.

Of course, that’s the official reason, but the real deal? He’s just trying to score votes for Trump, aiming to win over a few swing states.

Musk knows how to grab attention, and sure enough, this stunt shot him straight to the top of global trending topics.

Some folks say this is just democracy in action, while others argue it undermines the principles of fair competition. After all, it’s flaunting the power of money rather than focusing on candidates’ policies or ideas to gain support.

But here’s the thing—political campaigns are always a multi-faceted competition. I mean, Harris has mega-star Taylor Swift on her side. How’s that any different? (By the way, I’m a die-hard Musk fan and a loyal Swiftie! Just because I’m not into the white left stuff doesn’t mean I can’t love Taylor Swift’s music—hhhhhh!)

So, is what Musk’s doing “bribery”? Well, from a motivational standpoint, yes. He’s made it pretty clear that he’s Team Trump, and his intentions are as plain as day.

But, in his official call to action, he’s being careful with his words. He’s simply offering money for signing a petition supporting the Constitution, without demanding any commitment to vote for Trump. Still, if you pocket the $1 million, who are you likely to vote for? Let’s be real here—take the money, do the favor. It makes sense.

Trump and Musk’s opponents will undoubtedly try to spin this into a legal issue. The governor of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, has already hinted that law enforcement should look into it.

But honestly, that’s not necessary—this governor lacks a bit of wisdom.

Think about it: $1 million isn’t exactly easy for an average American family to come by. There are roughly 8.89 million registered voters in Pennsylvania. With 15 days of lottery and one winner per day, the odds of winning are about . That’s way better than the chances of hitting the $5 million lottery jackpot! Everyone knows about this juicy opportunity by now.

Now, if you, as a Democratic governor, use your power to investigate or even declare this illegal, what happens next?

Let’s say you shut it down. Do you think voters will be thrilled with that decision? I mean, I might’ve been that 1-in-600,000 winner, and now you’ve crushed my dream. Who else should I blame but you?

So, whether the Democrats act or don’t act, they’re stuck in a tough spot. If they leave it alone, Musk will continue to rally support. If they intervene, they risk pushing swing voters to his side.

In short, Musk is playing the game well.

A screenshot from https://petition.theamericapac.org

But let’s be honest, this vote-buying thing isn’t exactly new. It’s just like those reality show voting campaigns or when people on WeChat ask you to vote for them. Very common stuff in China actually.

If you’re familiar with rural elections in China, you’d know that Musk’s strategy? We’ve been doing it for ages. Some folks, like Musk, hand out straight cash. Others give out bags of rice, flour, and cooking oil(typical Chinese style lol).

The point is, votes have value, and they can be bought and sold. It’s just that polite society pretends not to notice. You can’t lay it all out on the table, and you definitely can’t write it into the law.

Humans are social creatures, and we’re naturally drawn to power. Those who can afford to spend big on votes are usually the powerful ones.

The only difference between Musk and local village power players in China is that Musk is a world-renowned figure, while the others are local big shots. No real distinction there.

Throwing money around isn’t a problem, as long as people benefit from it. The real question is: Where’s the money coming from? Is it from voluntary market transactions, or is it from forced taxation?

That’s the key difference. If it’s from market profits, where consumers willingly paid, and Musk willingly gives it away, then there’s NO victim here. But if the money comes from taxes or a local bully who’s seized community resources, then clearly there are victims.

So, Musk can do what he’s doing, but the U.S. government can’t.

If someone rises to power using market-earned money, they’re likely to maintain a market-driven agenda, which works in their favor. But if someone gets there through pillaging, they’re going to keep squeezing resources to recover their costs, which means more pain for everyone.

Musk’s a businessman. He knows that a freer market and lower taxes benefit entrepreneurs. If he succeeds, it’ll be a win for business, and the cycle will keep getting better.

So, if you had the chance to vote(just imagine hhhhh, I wish I could as a Chinese), and both candidates are offering you rice, flour, and oil(just a Chinese joke lol~), who would you choose? The one with the skills and willingness to help your village thrive, or the one who’s just out to take your money?

Works Cited

Betts, Anna. “Pennsylvania Governor Slams Elon Musk’s $1m Election Giveaway as ‘Outrageous’.” The Guardian, 21 Oct. 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/21/election-shapiro-musk-1-million-giveaway.

Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman, Ryan Mac, Jonathan Swan. “Elon Musk Is Going All In to Elect Donald Trump” The New York Times, 11 Oct. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/11/us/politics/elon-musk-donald-trump-pennsylvania.html.

“The America PAC Petition.” America PAC, https://petition.theamericapac.org.

But! What you cannot do is use the law to impose your beliefs on everyone else. White leftists can’t stomach the idea of boiling lobsters alive, so they push for laws requiring them to be stunned first, forcing this absurd cooking method onto everyone else as if their personal morals should become public policy.

They chow down on meat but can’t bear the thought of animals being mistreated while raised, so they push for animal welfare laws to make themselves feel better about eating it. They’re convinced human activity is causing global warming, so they push for international laws forcing people to use inefficient energy sources.

This behavior by the white left is an infringement on others’ freedom. A healthy society’s most important foundational rule is freedom.

So, what does freedom mean in modern society? True freedom comes only when you have full control over your BODY and your PROPERTY. These two rights should NOT be violated by anyone. This is also what the United States of America was founded on. But the white left’s overreach is a constant violation of freedom: animal protection, environmental protection—they’re all infringements on people’s right to freely manage their property.

Their over-the-top compassion, forgiving criminals, reducing sentences, raising the bar for convictions, and welcoming immigration that brings instability—all of these infringe on people’s right to personal security.

We allow different ideas and perspectives in this world. That’s why we allow you to express your opinions—yes, even opinions against freedom of speech—because that’s the logic at the core of freedom. But what’s absolutely not allowed is infringing on others’ freedom. When you infringe on freedom, you destroy the very foundation of society.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you enjoy freedom, you must also bear the responsibility that comes with it. But the so called “freedom” the white left seeks is the kind of freedom that shirks responsibility, also known as “indulgence”. It’s the mentality of “After I’m dead, let the world drown.”

The opposite of indulgence is elimination. If you want the freedom to indulge, you also have the obligation to be eliminated.

In any system where there’s only reward but no punishment, competition without elimination, that system cannot be healthy or functional. If you can do something wrong and not face any consequences, more people will join in on the wrong-doing. The “white left virus” makes people addicted to moral superiority while ignoring reality. Like cancer, it destroys society’s immune system, stripping away the ability to cleanse and repair itself. The end result is inevitably systemic collapse.

This article wraps up my “Seven Deadly Sins of the White Left” series. As Ariel, a devoted advocate of Austrian School, I put this series together with the hope that you’ll share it widely and give it some love with your likes and comments.

There’s an ancient Chinese saying: “星星之火，可以燎原。”(which means a single spark can start a prairie fire) I’m willing to contribute my spark to keep the white left’s virus from infecting the great land of China!

People often underestimate the economic damage caused by political correctness. Just look at Europe’s stagnant economy over the past few decades, and you’ll see that the white left is literally like a cancer, driving once-prosperous Europe into severe condition. Political correctness, like a relentless law, stops the society’s growth. It covers everything: environmental protection, animal rights, labour laws, minority rights, historical preservation—you name it.

Now, in Europe, try opening a traditional shoe store with a workshop in the back and retail in the front, and you’ll be in big trouble. Animal rights and environmental activists will come knocking right away! “What kind of leather are you using? Oh, rabbit fur? How can you do this to those cute little bunnies?”

The environmentalists will see your traditional oven: “What’s with all this coal? So much pollution!” …… “And hey man, I remember your store is in a historic building. How can you rent it for a shoe shop? Where’s your respect for humanism?” …… “Hey, why all your employees are white? Are you discriminating against people of colour?”

The next day, you’ll find fifty protesters outside your store, waving banners against your “destruction of historical buildings”, “environmental damage”, and “workplace discrimination”. They’ll block your customers, maybe even beat them up. You’ll have no business at all. Call the police? They won’t care. So, you have no choice but to surrender! —or just shut down.

However, many people see this as a sign of “progress”. They think, “Since our country is already so wealthy, why not spare a bit to make the world a better place?” You’ve made so much money, why not give a little to save the cats, dogs, plants, the Earth, and comfort the bleeding white left hearts?

In their minds, the political correctness of the white left is just a form of regulation, a way to slow things down. Sure, the economy used to grow at 5% annually, but now we’re saving the planet, the animals, the environment—there’s a cost, so growth slows to 4%. It’s still growth, though! The world is still beautiful and kind. Isn’t it humane to earn money and share a bit with others, feeling that inner satisfaction and living in peace?

No, no, no! Not at all! Political correctness is not just a slight slowdown. If it goes virus, it’s an invisible cost that will plague every industry! It chains the free market. The economic impact isn’t just a 1% slowdown—it could be a 50% collapse. The economy could shrink to half of what it was.

Why? Because in Europe, a newly established company must meet all the modern moral standards dictated by the white left. Hiring practices must follow the quotas set by human rights warriors: how many people of colour, how many disabled people, what’s the gender ratio—it’s not about working skills or company needs anymore. Companies have to cater to everyone’s special needs: a prayer room for the religious, a pet room for the dog lovers, gender-neutral restrooms for those with gender identity concerns. The cafeteria must accommodate vegetarians, vegans, and the dietary preferences of different cultural groups. And firing an unfit employee? That’s harder than impeaching a president. Labour laws will fine you into bankruptcy. 🤣

In this environment, starting a new business costs at least 200% more than it used to. 🤣🤣 Imagine if a fire burned down the entire district and everything had to be rebuilt. All new companies would face these inflated costs, but productivity would remain the same. The overall GDP would only be 50% of what it was before. Isn’t that a 50% economic crash?

Europe is already worn out. For the last 30 years, nothing has changed, and I AM sure that nothing will change in the next 30 years either!

France’s economy is at a standstill. There are no inspiring stories of young entrepreneurs. Youth unemployment is about 20%, and the old companies are just waiting for their employees to age out—there’s no way they’ll hire anyone new because they simply can’t afford it. 🤣🤣🤣

So, we must be vigilant against this cancer of white left political correctness, lest it drag down China’s development too.

Works Cited

World Bank. “Unemployment, Youth Total – France.” World Bank Data, https://data.worldbank.org.

In what was once a society where hard work brought harmony and freedom, the White Left insists on shouldering the world’s guilt, leading to a new rule in America: if you possess the ultimate “buff,” you can walk around like royalty, higher even than the president himself! And what is this magical buff, you ask? It’s simple: be a “transgender, Muslim, obese, and black lesbian.”

The White Left dreams of filling the world with love, but ironically, they spread discrimination everywhere. Just look at this “buff”: it’s packed with 5 kinds of discrimination! Sexism? Check—against men. Body shaming? Check—against thin people. Racial discrimination? Check—against anyone who’s not black. Religious discrimination? Check—against any faith that’s not Islam. Sexual orientation discrimination? Check—against heterosexuals.

The White Left believes that being a minority or part of a marginalized group means you automatically deserve more rights and attention. Why do I say they look noble but are, in fact, foolish? Because their logic is absurd, and their thinking is, well, questionable. Being in the minority is just a matter of how you filter things.

Filter by age? In aging societies, young people are the minority—so should they get special privileges? Filter by intelligence? Well, those with high IQs are the minority, so should we give them extra perks? And if we filter by economic beliefs, those who follow the Austrian School of Economics are a minority too—shouldn’t they be given special treatment? (I’m looking at myself here! Hahaha🤣)

No matter how you slice it, there will always be minorities. So, to all of us other minorities: why aren’t we being pampered? What about our feelings?!

The whole “marginalized groups” logic is really just a debate about how society should allocate resources. If being weak means you get more, then everyone will start trying to look weaker. And there’s a cost to every rule. If the world rewards weakness, then we’ll see more weaklings everywhere.

Every rule of competition has a cost. If strength and violence were the rules, there will be fights everywhere. That’s a cost. If education and examinations were the standard, people would be studying 24/7—that’s a cost.(Like what I have experienced in China) If social status was the benchmark, there’d be endless social climbing. If “first come, first served” was the rule, then everyone would be wasting time camping out in lines.

Any rule comes with a cost, but the White Left just can’t seem to see it. And yet, the freest and fairest rule of all is the free market. In a free market, resources go to the highest bidder. The more you contribute to society, the more you can earn, and the more you can pay to get the services you want. In a truly free market, there’s no gender, racial, religious, or sexual advantage—everyone competes by offering value to others.

Mainland China’s 40 years of reform and opening up? That was a change of the rules. We went from a society where red status, political background, and communism views determined your standing to one where your money and bid counts. And look at how fast China developed!

Meanwhile, the White Left in the West is bent on breaking this fair system, caring for this group and that group, turning a once-free market into a system of subsidies.

Is a society sustainable when it forces the majority to subsidize the minority? Forces the high-contributors to feed the low-contributors? Just look at Europe, which has been stagnating for decades under the White Left’s influence, and you’ll understand. As the Austrian economist Milton Friedman once said: “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.“

However, the White Left cannot even manage equality, let alone freedom. Haha! 🤣

Works Cited

Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

To the White Left, humans are the “virus” of the planet. They believe our mere existence is destroying the habitats of every other species. Honestly, environmentalist White Leftists might as well be anti-human.

For thousands of years, humans have struggled to improve our material conditions. The White Left, however, think we’ve made life “too comfortable”. They want us to throw away all that progress and “return to nature” – what can I say……? Go and fuck yourself!

We’ve already talked about this: stop trying to impose your moral compass on us! The White Left’s environmentalist manifesto is simple: anything that makes life easier for people is automatically bad. The more comfortable you are, the more uneasy they feel. Knowing that somewhere, someone is enjoying the conveniences of modern life? That just ruins their day. They can only sleep well at night if they know your life is at least slightly inconvenient.

Burning coal and petrol gave us warmth, power, the Industrial Revolution, and the modern world as we know it. Yet environmentalists are crazy about eliminating fossil fuels and carbon emissions, treating CO₂ as humanity’s original sin. They want us to regress to the Stone Age, and their precious “Carbon Neutrality” is just a tool for Western politicians to hold back developing countries like China.

Humans cut down trees to make disposable chopsticks, and the environmentalists cry foul, claiming we’re destroying forests. But when we switch to plastic chopsticks, they oppose that too. Use wood? Wrong. Use plastic? Also wrong. It’s a lose-lose situation because, with them, logic goes out the window! It’s always “guilty until proven guilty.”

Their biggest gripe with plastic is that it doesn’t decompose. But you know what else doesn’t decompose? Rocks. Yet they’re not out protesting against stones! Aurum(in daily life we call it Gold) is famously resistant to decomposition and can last for centuries, but you don’t see them hating on gold jewelry. Their double standards are blindingly obvious. For them, natural = good, and human-made = evil. Aurum might not break down, but hey, it’s natural, so it’s fine. Plastic doesn’t break down either, but since it’s human-made, it’s the devil’s work.

Plastic is, without a doubt, a human creation. Nature didn’t make plastic—humans did, using natural materials for our own benefit. In a way, plastic has become part of nature, thanks to human ingenuity. In fact, plastic is a symbol of human civilization. From this perspective, opposing plastic is essentially opposing human progress. And that’s what White Left environmentalism is all about—fighting against human advancement. Their mantra is simple: “If it makes life easier, I hate it.”

Now, you might be thinking: “But what about the plastic in the oceans? The sea turtles and seals full of plastic—what about them?” Don’t worry about the turtles! Don’t worry about the oceans! If the environmentalists have their way, the first species to go extinct will be us, humans!

When it comes to the environment, a lot of people can’t seem to think straight. Extreme environmentalism is bad, but ignoring environmental concerns isn’t right either. The real problem with environmental issues lies in the concept of ownership. Once ownership is clearly established—who benefits and who’s responsible—everything becomes simpler. If you pollute and it damages my property, you should face serious consequences!

On the flip side, if private property rights aren’t protected, people will act short-sightedly. If no one owns the land, the lake, or the forest, you’ll see garbage everywhere, water polluted, and resources depleted. Without stable, long-term ownership, people won’t care to preserve the environment. The overall quality of life will plummet.

Just look at how poorly maintained some old residential areas are—everyone just dumps their trash wherever because it’s no one’s problem. That’s the tragedy of the commons! But in well-maintained, upscale neighborhoods, where property ownership is clear, maintenance is better, and the property management company has a stake in it. So, the service is top-notch, and the environment is pristine.

In short, private property rights are the true foundation of environmentalism. The White Left’s version is just fake environmentalism!

Like, subscribe, and share! Next time, I’ll dive into the White Left’s ridiculous thoughts on equality.

The white left crowd adores their cats and dogs like they’re their own children and even pushes for laws to protect them. But when it comes to pigs, sheep, cows, and horses, they couldn’t care less.

They think lobsters and crabs feel pain as well. So they want laws and regulations that require people to stun them before cooking using electricity. They believe humans are buying too many animal products, which leads to more hunting, and that, in turn, causes mass extinction.

To them, humans are the ultimate ENEMY of animals, the original sin of nature. But let me tell you what we Austrian School ideologue think: animals don’t have rights. Animals are private property of humans. If you wanna protect an animal, you need to make it useful. It’s actually the lack of trade that leads to extinction.

You know what the most “successful” animal in the last 20,000 years is, in terms of survival rates? Cows! A rough estimate shows there are about 24 billion chickens on Earth, weighing a total of 500 million tons. There are 7 billion of us humans, weighing 3.75 billion tons. But 1.3 billion cows weigh a whopping 5 billion tons!

Every day, humans eat 400 million chickens. Has the chicken population decreased? Nope, it’s booming! We eat beef daily, but have cows decreased? Nope! In fact, cow manure is practically a leading cause of greenhouse gases these days. Why haven’t these animals gone extinct? Simple: because we farm them. As long as there’s demand, there’s supply.

Once an animal is farmed, it’ll never go extinct. It can’t be eaten fast enough to disappear. Take pandas, for example. If they were left to breed on their own, they would’ve been extinct ages ago. But thanks to their unique ability to rake in cash, with each panda generating around ￥50 million RMB annually, we’ve pulled out all the stops to save them.

It’s artificial breeding that keeps the panda species alive. Animal rights activists say not all animals can be farmed, though. Like Tibetan mastiffs, wild yaks, and eagles.

Sure, Tibetan yaks live at 3,500 metres above sea level and roam over hundreds of square kilometers. It would be impossible to charge tickets at a park with that much territory! But, believe it or not, there ARE ways to make them valuable and profitable too!

Take hunting licenses, for example! In Tanzania, a hunting permit can sell for $200,000 to $500,000. Imagine a rich guy chasing a cheetah from a helicopter, with a rifle slung over his shoulder, rocking sunglasses, and eight local guys carrying the animal while he poses for Instagram on the vast African plains. That’s cool on a whole new level. Upper-class socialites would be all over this! In fact, flaunting your hunting trophies might become the next status symbol.

This market is massive. There’s always a demand for showing off, and hunting licenses bring in revenue. Once locals can profit from animals, their relationship with these creatures completely changes.

Animals go from being hated pests to “gold mines”, and the locals can earn money from them. So, when they see a leopard attacking their sheep, they might let it slide because that’s no ordinary predator – it’s their “money machine”! They won’t just avoid shooting it; they might even nurse it back to health and release it back into the wild.

And as for poachers? Well, mess with someone’s livelihood, and they’ll come together to fight back. No one’s gonna let poachers get away with killing their cash cows.

The white left loves to make documentaries about how human greed and the demand for rhino horns are pushing rhinos to extinction. They claim that Kenya’s white rhinos are on the brink of extinction. But guess what? Rhinos in Kenya are going extinct because Kenya is an animal protection country. With no hunting licenses, no one profits from the survival of animals. And if there’s no profit, locals couldn’t care less if the rhinos’ habitat is destroyed. They turn a blind eye to poaching because there’s nothing in it for them. Do you really think vast grasslands can be policed by just a few police officers and government officials? Do you think the locals will “protect them out of love”? Please?

What those documentaries don’t tell you is that neighboring Tanzania has its own rhinos – they’re closely related to Kenya’s white rhinos, with only tiny differences in DNA. Tanzania doesn’t have animal protection laws, and the government generates revenue from exporting rhino horns and offering top-tier hunting experiences. Now there are thousands of rhinos in Tanzania, to the point where they’re almost becoming a problem.

So instead of this misguided “animal protection” nonsense, how about we respect nature and human nature? Only trade can prevent animals from going extinct.

Like, subscribe, and share! Stay tuned for my next post, where I’ll debunk the white left’s fake environmentalism.

Works Cited

World Economic Forum. “This Is How Many Animals We Eat Each Year.” World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-eat-each-year

Encyclopedia.com. “Livestock.” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/livestock

But as an ideologue of the Austrian School of Economics, I’d like to remind you: those who talk the most about morality are often the least moral. In short, we call them moral bitch(道德婊).

What is morality, anyway?

Morality is supposed to guide our behavior. When someone acts in a way that pleases others, we say they are “moral.” When they don’t, we call them “immoral.”

Helping an elderly lady cross the street, boycotting foreign goods (especially Japanese goods) in favor of local products—these are behaviors people label as “moral.”

Spitting on the sidewalk, littering cigarette butts, or eating dog meat—these are behaviors often deemed “immoral.”

But here’s a question: Why do we need morality when we already have laws? If we have laws and regulations to protect us and decide what’s right or wrong, do we really need morality? What’s the relationship between law and morality? If my actions don’t break the law, should I still be judged morally? And what happens when morality conflicts with the law? Or with our personal conscience?

For example, a sexy influencer wearing black stockings dances provocatively on Tiktok. For those otakus (In Chinese and Japanese they are called “宅男”), that’s a “gift to the soul” and certainly legal, but it might not align with certain politicians’ notions of “civilized, moral society.” So, what do we make of this?

The truth about morality

In reality, morality is a part of the legal system, but it’s also tied to local customs and preferences. It’s used to regulate behavior when the law doesn’t cover something in enough detail.

Let’s take a look at these behaviours: spitting in public, or running red lights. These are technically illegal, but enforcement is lax due to limited resources. Then there’s giving up your seat for the elderly on the subway or tipping waitstaff at restaurants—those are cultural norms, not laws.

But here’s the catch: these so-called “moral” preferences are limited and not always correct. Society operates on laws that 99.99% of people agree upon, such as prohibitions against murder, theft, robbery and rape. These actions violate personal safety and property rights, so we universally agree they’re immoral and illegal.

But what about the gray areas? Imagine this: one person wakes up at 6 a.m. every day and spends two hours commuting to work, just wanting to rest on the subway. Meanwhile, an energetic retiree, who is able to take the subway for free, travels ten stops just to get a five-cent discount on eggs. Who’s the “weaker” one in need of a seat?

Or what about someone smashing a Chinese-owned Nissan car to “boycott Japanese goods”—is that a moral act or an immoral one?

And in the past, it was considered moral for widows to remain chaste. Is that still the case today?

The flawed nature of morality

The inherent imperfection of morality is what fundamentally differentiates it from law. Morality is meant for self-regulation, while laws are designed to bind everyone. Humanity is diverse, and moral standards vary between people. In fact, moral codes differ wildly across different cultures and communities.

Eating pork in the Middle East is immoral. Eating beef in India is immoral. Eating any meat at a Buddhist temple is immoral. But ordering a deluxe beef-pork-lamb combo at a hot pot restaurant? Well, that’s peak morality in this situation!

Why society can’t run on morality alone

Society can’t function just on morality because moral standards differ between regions, cultures, and age groups—they’re often contradictory and conflicting. Only law can hold society together.

Extreme “saints” and white leftists make one fundamental mistake: morality is for regulating your own behavior, not for controlling others.

If you love dogs and don’t eat dog meat, and your moral superiority is off the charts, that’s fine—just follow your own principles. But why impose that on others? If you think disposable chopsticks harm the environment, does that mean everyone else has to agree with you?

If you feel bad for deliverymen in the rain, then you urge people not to order delivery……What a mess is it in your brain? You’re taking the things you support and the moral values you hold dear and demanding that everyone else—and all taxpayers—foot the bill. You expect everyone to follow your moral code, expanding it into my personal space. Why?

You have no right to call others morally corrupt. If someone breaks the law, the law will deal with them. But if they don’t break the law, there’s no higher ground for you to stand on. The white leftists, with their endless moral preaching, are the biggest moral bitch of all.

Let’s start with the first sin: False Virtue.

First, I think I have to clear up a major misunderstanding about the term “white left” in China. In English, they’re called “liberals.” In China, they’ve been dubbed “圣母”(Saint Mothers), and in official translations, “liberal” is translated as “freedom advocates.” However, that’s a misnomer.

As a genuine freedom advocate myself, I’d like to say: I don’t want to carry this burden!The proper translation for “liberal” should be “放纵派”(indulgent advocates).

The real “自由派”(freedom advocates) should be called libertarians, and the difference between the two is as stark as the difference between a ragdoll and a tiger.

Western liberals stand for opposing all forms of restraint: they oppose Christian traditions, family obligations, social ethics, and even personal responsibility. Because of their opposition to everything, some Chinese translators mistakenly called them “自由派”, as if these liberals are out there fighting for liberty. But that’s completely wrong. The core of their ideology is indulgence and irresponsibility—live for today, and who cares if the world burns after that? Libertarians, on the other hand, oppose unnecessary constraints but are still grounded in practicality.

The key difference is that libertarians do ask, “How can we complete this task?” They know that nothing is free, and if you want to help people, you first need to make money. Libertarians are like the hardworking oxen who grind day and night to earn a living, while liberals are the spoiled, reckless kids who just wanna indulge. We the Austrian School comes from the libertarian camp.

White leftists wanna “fill the world with love.” They wanna hand out welfare to everyone, give food stamps, free insurance, and even give animals human rights. These white leftists cry tears of joy at their own kindness.

But there’s one critical question these indulgent white leftists have never answered: HOW?

Of course, I’d love a world filled with love too. Heck, I wish I could hand a million bucks to everyone poor on the street! But the question is: HOW? Where does the money come from?

The most shameless thing in the world is to offer virtue without funding it. Sure, anyone can promise endless welfare—who can’t blow hot air? But where’s the cash coming from? From the rich? Then wait for my next several posts on why robbing the rich won’t save the poor.

To figure out if someone around you is a white leftist, just listen to their love-filled declarations and ask if they have any practical solutions.

You want all the kids in the mountains to stop working in factories and start going to school? Sure! But beyond calling for donations and hurting other people’s wallets, are you willing to shell out millions to solve the problem?

You want to stop people from eating dogs? Fine. But aside from stopping trucks and hurting the rights of dog sellers, are you ready to adopt a thousand dogs and care for them for the rest of their lives?

You want delivery drivers to stop working in the rain? Okay. Instead of telling people not to order food, why not place a hundred orders and tip each delivery person an extra hundred bucks to brighten their day?

None of this is charity. It’s just plain hypocrisy! Real charity involves true, voluntary giving, while hypocrisy is all about moral blackmail—forcing your own desires onto others.

The white left’s motto is: “I want the world filled with love, but I don’t know how to make it happen. Can you all do it for me?” They’re the ones shouting, “If you don’t donate, you don’t love puppies! If you order delivery in the rain, you’re just not kind enough!”

In contrast, we libertarians are far more pragmatic. We also want the world filled with love, which is why we believe in the power of commerce as the greatest form of charity. Business can mobilize people’s efforts, bring the poor into the market economy, and reward hard work. It allows mountain kids to work after school to help support their families, lets dog lovers have pets while meat lovers have dogs to eat, helps delivery drivers earn more in the rain, and gives those who need help the chance to pay for assistance when they need it.

Charitable business not only hopes for a world filled with love, it actually knows how to make it happen. The white left’s version of “love” is just empty words—hypocrisy in its purest form.

Stay tuned for my next post, where I’ll reveal the white left’s true identity as moral fraudsters!

This is Nozick’s critique of the labour theory of value. In simple terms, hard work isn’t worth much; working in the right direction is what’s valuable. And it’s up to the entrepreneur to take on the risk of finding that right direction.

If the labour theory of value is wrong, then the theory of exploitation is fundamentally undermined. If value isn’t created by the workers’ labour, then what exploitation of surplus value is there to talk about? If the labour theory of value is wrong, does Nozick still believe that exploitation exists?

Let’s go back to the two pillars of Marx’s theory of exploitation. Although the labour theory of value is wrong, Nozick still acknowledges that exploitation exists. Actually, Nozick srill believes that forced labour is a form of exploitation, but he argues that exploitation doesn’t occur between entrepreneurs and workers. Real exploitation occurs when the government taxes people, especially when it imposes progressive taxes on the rich to provide welfare for the poor. In Nozick’s view, if a person’s wealth is acquired through legitimate means, based on free choice and voluntary exchange in the market, then this person has the right to own that wealth, and no one—not even the government—has the right to take it away.

Why does Nozick make such a claim? One of the key points of Nozick’s political philosophy is the concept of self-ownership. Self-ownership means that you are the sole owner of yourself. You have absolute ownership over your abilities and the products you create with them; no one else has the right to take them from you.

If you agree with the concept of self-ownership, then when the government taxes you to redistribute your money to others, what does that imply? It implies a form of forced labour, which in turn implies exploitation. Let’s refer back and see how Nozick’s logic is somewhat similar to how Marx calculated surplus value. So, if you, as a Marxist, oppose exploitation, you should also oppose redistributive taxation because it’s a form of forced labour—it’s exploitation.

This is Nozick’s critique of the theory of exploitation. To summarize, Nozick doesn’t endorse exploitation. If you define exploitation as forced labour, then Nozick is against exploitation too, but he opposes Marx’s theory of exploitation. Exploitation doesn’t exist between the entrepreneur and the worker because the worker’s employment is free and voluntary. More fundamentally, Nozick argues that the labour theory of value is wrong. Labour itself doesn’t create value; a company’s profits don’t come from workers’ surplus labour but from the entrepreneur’s willingness to take on risk.

In that case, entrepreneurs are often the ones who face exploitation because their profits are frequently taxed to be redistributed to others. If exploitation is unjust, then redistributive welfare policies are unjust.

After Nozick wrote and published Anarchy, State, and Utopia, his provocative yet seemingly logical arguments sparked a wave of criticism from his peers. Nozick responded by not responding at all—he essentially “logged off” the academic field of the political philosophy and turned to other fields of research, like someone who pulls off a surprise and then runs off.

If you disagree with Dr. Nozick’s views, simply typing “Fuck you” or “幽默老右” on your keyboard won’t solve the problem. You’ll need to come up with more compelling and logical arguments to refute him~

That’s the END of the session “Is exploitation unjust?”. Thanks for your reading!

This brings us to Nozick’s critique of the labour theory of value. According to this theory, the value of a commodity is determined by the undifferentiated human labour embedded in it. So, where does a company’s profit come from? According to Marx, it comes from the surplus value created by workers that the capitalist has appropriated without paying them full wages. So, surplus value is the source of a company’s profit. But Nozick questions this: Is it really true that a company’s profit comes from the labour of its workers? Does that mean the more labour workers put in, the more valuable the products they produce? Suppose workers are employed at a factory that produces chairs with one leg missing. The harder they work, the more 996(the Chinese phrase I have mentioned in my first article) they put in, the more valuable these defective chairs become? The more profit the capitalist extracts from the workers? Is that how it works?

Or let’s say there’s a factory that produces a type of cell phone, a flip phone like the old brick phones, weighing several pounds. Manufacturing these phones is complex, with a lot of technical content. Even today, producing such a phone in a factory in Shenzhen would require a lot of socially necessary labour time, and the workers would be working in 996 mode, toiling day in and day out, and getting paid very little. Then the workers come to the owner and say, “Why are you paying us such low wages? We’re working days and nights, and according to the labour theory of value, the company’s profits should be rocket-high, and you should be paying me higher wages!”lol

But the owner would say, “At least you get a steady salary every month! I invested in producing these fucking brick in 2024, and I lost my grandma’s house(just kidding)! Hard work isn’t worth much; what matters is working in the right direction.” The workers’ labour is similar to “hard work”, and in Nozick’s view, it’s the entrepreneur who ensures that the workers’ hard work is directed in the right way. Figuring out the right direction involves great risk and uncertainty, which is literally gambling. So, the company’s profit doesn’t come from the workers’ labour but from the entrepreneur’s willingness to take the risk.

In simple terms, a company’s profit is like a gamble won by the entrepreneur. Yeah, the entrepreneur doesn’t need to physically participate in the labour of making the product, but they do need to decide what kind of products to invest in and which types to produce because they bear the consequences of those investments. If they win, they get a beautiful mansion near the sea; if they lose, they say goodbye from the rooftop lmao 🙂 . The market is unpredictable and full of uncertainty. Is it better to produce phones with physical buttons or full-screen phones? Is it better to stick to e-commerce or build your own logistics network? Will red hats or green hats be in fashion next year? Should you sell sweet tofu pudding or savory tofu pudding? Now, looking back, it all seems inevitable. But for entrepreneurs at the time, there were no textbooks to consult. It takes insight, vision, and courage to make these decisions. In many cases, luck plays a significant role in entrepreneurial success. Remember, the success rate for startups is in the single digits. Many statistics show that the five-year survival rate for startups is less than 5%, meaning over 95% of companies fail within five years of being founded.

Under these circumstances, there’s a survivorship bias effect, where you see successful entrepreneurs enjoying the fruits of their labour, but you don’t see the majority who fail, not only making no profit but losing their initial investments in machines, factories, etc. For workers, the worst-case scenario is losing their job, but for entrepreneurs, losing means going bankrupt. Some even borrow money to start their business, getting deeply into debt, or sell their home in Beijing, losing everything. In such a situation, since entrepreneurs bear so much risk, and risk is proportional to reward, when an entrepreneur wins, they naturally have the right to profit.

For employees, on the other hand, they don’t have the right to share in the company’s profits; they only get their steady salary. Conversely, the employee’s risk is also proportional to their reward. If the company loses money, the employee can still collect their money, while the entrepreneur doesn’t ask them to return the wages they received earlier in the year to help the company get through hard times. Then, when the company profits, the workers come running, saying, “The company’s profits were created by us; you should share them with us.” 😀

Then I believe Nozick is gonna ask: lose and do not bear the risk, win and then come to get a piece of the pie, why do you let you take advantage of all what benefits? You want both stability and high returns, right? How dare you are?!

As we all knows, Dr. Nozick is famous, and his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia caused a lot of controversy and criticism among scholars when it was published, becoming a classic “provocative” work. It’s also become the subject of many doctoral dissertations. You should know that causing controversy among peers in academia is actually an honor because if your paper made no sense at all, other scholars would just ignore it. The reason Nozick’s work sparked so much criticism is that many scholars couldn’t accept his critique of Marx’s theory of exploitation but found his arguments compelling, so they had to come up with even more convincing arguments to counter Nozick’s critique.

So, what kind of critique did Nozick level against Marx’s theory of exploitation? We know that Marx’s theory of exploitation can be boiled down to two main pillars: First, the labour theory of value, which asserts that the value of a commodity is created by labour, and that the capitalist does not pay the worker wages equal to the value of the goods they produce, but instead appropriates the surplus value created by the worker’s surplus labour without compensation; and second, that this appropriation of surplus value is essentially a form of coercion, because the worker does not own the means of production, which are monopolized by the capitalist. As a result, the worker cannot produce goods on their own and must, in order to survive, work for the capitalist and be exploited by them, which is a form of forced labour. These are the two main pillars of Marx’s theory of exploitation.

Nozick criticized both of them. Let’s first look at Nozick’s critique of the second one, forced labour. Nozick argued that there is no coercion involved when workers go to work in a factory; workers choose freely and voluntarily to work for the capitalist. Marxists argue that while workers may appear to have the freedom to quit their jobs, this freedom is illusory because, in the end, workers do not own the means of subsistence, so to survive, they must work for the capitalist and be exploited. This “must” manifests as either “voluntarily” working overtime or facing unemployment and starvation. So, this nominal freedom is nothing more than the freedom to be exploited, which is essentially a form of coercion.

To counter this Marxist argument, Nozick devised a thought experiment to demonstrate that workers are actually free. Imagine a world with only 26 straight men and 26 straight women, from Man A to Man Z and from Woman A to Woman Z. They are all of marriageable age and single, and all looking for a spouse. We all know that there is a hierarchy of desirability in the marriage market, meaning some people are more sought after than others. Let’s assume that this alphabetical order represents each person’s desirability in the marriage market, ranked from high to low. Naturally, every man would want to marry Woman A, perhaps because she’s as beautiful as Ariel Wang (I hope so); similarly, every woman would want to marry Man A, perhaps because he’s as handsome as Joker Xue.

But marriage requires “mutual consent”. You may want to marry Ariel Wang, but Ariel might not want to marry you; she, like all the other women, most desires to marry Joker Xue (lol I am just kidding). So, ultimately, the pairing ends up with Man A and Woman A, Man B and Woman B, and so on down the line. At this point, when Man B is paired with Woman B, you can’t say that Man B is being coerced into marrying Woman B simply because he would have preferred to marry Ariel but “had to” marry Woman B instead. You can’t say that because, although on the surface Man B “had to” marry Woman B, he still voluntarily chose to marry Woman B since Woman A has the right—note the use of the word “right” here—to refuse to marry Man B. Otherwise, whenever you don’t get your ideal choice, you could claim you were coerced. (Why not just ask for the moon then?)

Now, let’s look at the last man, Man Z. He only has two options: either marry Woman Z or remain single. He would much rather marry any of the other 25 women, but they’ve all rejected him. But at this point, you can’t blame the other 25 women for exercising their right to refuse to marry Man Z. So when Man Z chooses to marry Woman Z, it’s a voluntary choice.

The same logic applies when we move this thought experiment from the marriage market to the labour market. The marriage partners now become the labor force and the capitalists, and just as marriage requires mutual consent to establish a partnership, labor contracts require mutual consent between labour and capital to establish an employment relationship. Now let’s consider Worker Z. Like Man Z, who had to choose between marrying Woman Z or staying single, Worker Z faces a choice between working for Capitalist Z for the lowest wage on the market or being unemployed. If we accept that Man Z’s choice to marry Woman Z is voluntary, then Worker Z’s choice to work for Capitalist Z is also voluntary. There’s no coercion involved. If you feel forced to work for Capitalist Z, it’s like blaming Ariel Wang for not marrying you LMAO 😀

Nozick used this thought experiment in the marriage market to show that workers are not coerced. At this point, Marxists might respond by saying that Nozick’s thought experiment misses the point. The real reason workers are coerced is because of the private ownership of the means of production. Workers do not own the means of production, so to work and sustain themselves, they must work for the capitalist and be exploited. So, private ownership of the means of production is the root cause of exploitation.

Nozick countered this Marxist argument with another thought experiment. Imagine a society where the means of production are publicly owned, meaning most businesses are collectively owned by all employees, with decisions made by employee votes, and profits shared among all employees. In such a publicly-owned enterprise, there is literally NO EXPLOITATION. Now, suppose this society also has a few privately-owned enterprises. To attract workers, the private enterprise owner offers higher wages, and some employees of publicly-owned enterprises switch to the private enterprise for better salary. At this point, you can’t claim that those who went to work for the private enterprise are being exploited, because they weren’t coerced; they had the option to work for the publicly-owned enterprise. Since they chose not to work for the publicly-owned enterprise and instead opted to work for the private enterprise, it was a voluntary, free choice, and there was no coercion involved.

Now, let’s suppose that over time, the publicly-owned enterprises become less efficient, and more workers switch to private enterprises for higher wages, until eventually, the publicly-owned enterprises disappear, leaving only private enterprises, with no change in wage levels. So, is there exploitation in this society, where only private enterprises exist? Nozick argues that there isn’t, because if there was no exploitation in a society with both publicly-owned and privately-owned enterprises, then there can’t be any exploitation in a society made up entirely of private enterprises, which arose from people freely choosing to switch jobs.

In this way, Nozick’s thought experiment aims to show that the private ownership of the means of production does not lead to exploitation~~~

未完待续 To be continued~

Your boss does virtually no work, while all the tasks are handled by the employees. Why is it that the capitalists earn tens or even hundreds of times what the workers do just by sitting back? Shouldn’t the profits in the boss’s hands also include a share rightfully belonging to the workers? Is he appropriating what should be the workers’ rightful earnings? Does this exploitation have any justification?

Shouldn’t we dedicate a major discussion programme to delve into this issue? But before we do, let’s understand the definition of exploitation. What is exploitation? Exploitation is a concept introduced by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. In simple terms, it’s when capitalists appropriate the labour income that rightfully belongs to the workers. More formally, exploitation is the capitalist’s unpaid appropriation of the surplus value created by the worker’s surplus labour. What’s this so-called surplus value, huh? And why do capitalists get to snatch the surplus value created by workers for free? Let’s start with the labour theory of value: the value of a commodity is the human labour that’s embedded in it, and it’s determined by the socially necessary labour time required to produce it. This socially necessary labour time is the average time it takes for a general worker in society to produce a commodity. Generally speaking, value is created by the labour of the workers, right?

But because of the development of private ownership, in the “evil” capitalist society (very Chinese description LOL), capitalists have monopolised the means of production like machines and factories. They don’t participate in labour themselves; instead, they hire workers. The issue is, the capitalists don’t pay the workers purely based on the labour they provide. They deduct the surplus value created by the workers, keeping it as the company’s profit.

So, what exactly is surplus value? It’s closely related to the labour theory of value, but it’s a bit special. Mainly because in the “evil” capitalist society, labour power is also a “commodity” that can flow. But this commodity is different from machines or factories. Labour power is a special commodity. Although its value is determined by the socially necessary labour time required to maintain it (basically, the money needed to keep a worker alive), it can create more value than its own value. This means the value created by labour (the value of the goods produced by the workers) is greater than the value of the labour power itself, which is just enough to keep the worker alive. And the difference between these two values is exactly the surplus value. The salaries capitalists paid are just enough to keep the worker alive, however, they take the surplus value created by the workers for free. This is what Marx calls “exploitation”.

Back to our original question, why do those “evil” capitalists (again, very Chinese terminology lol) get to deduct the surplus value? It’s because they monopolise the means of production, but the workers don’t. Without the means of production, workers are not able to produce on their own. Therefore, they have no choice but to transfer their surplus labour products to the capitalists for free. This forced transfer of surplus labour is essentially forced labour, or to put it simply, unpaid overtime.

Given this, it’s clear that this kind of exploitation by capitalists, which involves forced labour, is unjust. Many political philosophers, following Marx, from Britain to America, argue that capitalist exploitation of workers is morally reprehensible. Let’s not go too deep; just think about us workers slogging away at 996, while the capitalists are sitting there doing nothing and raking in the profits. No matter where you are in the world, whether in the West or China, any society or culture would consider this unjust, right?

However! Is this TRUE???