The proof developed by hand based on property rights in line with Locke's principle of original appropriation together with the non-aggression principle not only proves satisfactory in establishing optimality and also leaves no room for intervention. In this regard, Hoppe states any deviation from this set of rules implies by definition a redistribution of property titles and thus of income from producer users and contracting parties to non-producer users and non-contracting parties. Consequently, any such deviation implies that there will be relatively less original appropriation of resources whose scarcity is known, and therefore there will be less production of new goods, less maintenance of existing goods and fewer contracts and trades that are mutually beneficial. This naturally implies a lower standard of living with respect to goods and services that change hands. Moreover, the fact that only the first user of an asset acquires property rights over it, not the last one, ensures that productive efforts would be as high as possible at all times. The notion that only the physical integrity of property and not its value must be protected guarantees that every owner will undertake the greatest possible value-producing efforts, that is to say efforts to promote favorable changes in the value of property and to prevent or counteract any unfavorable change in its value. Therefore, any deviation from this entails a reduction in productive efforts at all times. Note that by relying on private property rather than excess demand functions derived from optimization exercises, this approach allows an optimal reach without the need to use esoteric assumptions that later justify state intervention. This also avoids falling into the empirical absurdity of the second theorem of welfare economics which posits independence between production and distribution as if choosing between capitalism and communism were neutral in terms of art. So having demonstrated that the institutions of free enterprise capitalism supported by natural rights, the principle of original appropriation and the non-aggression principle are not only just but also efficient at least in static terms, it is now time to show that free enterprise capitalism displays these same properties in dynamic terms as well. As early as 380 BC, Xenophon pointed out that economics is a form of knowledge that enables men to increase their wealth when arguing that private property is the most beneficial vehicle for the life of individuals. Xenophon then went on to address the concept of efficiency from two perspectives. On the one hand, from a static viewpoint, he defined efficiency as the management of available resources aimed at avoiding waste, by highlighting the benefit of private property by stating that the master's eye is the best way to fatten his capital. On the other hand, in his second definition of efficiency, Xenophon delved into the dynamic realm, noting that efficiency also entails increasing wealth, that is increasing the available quantity of goods through entrepreneurial creativity, namely through trade and speculation. This latter criterion of efficiency is of fundamental importance for the study of economic growth because unlike a static model that considers only what Robert Lucas Jr. defined as deep parameters, that is preferences, technology and initial endowments of resources, in the dynamics field both technology and initial endowments can vary and in fact they do so continuously as a result of entrepreneurial creativity. The institution of private property deserves a separate chapter. By pivoting on it, the Austrian school of economics from Mises and Hayek has demonstrated the impossibility of socialism thereby dismantling the idea of John Stuart Mill that postulated independence between production and distribution, a form of academic deafness that led to socialism and cost the world the lives of 150 million human beings. But those who managed to survive the terror did so in line with the previous remarks and consistent with Xenophon's second line of analysis. Economic theory has identified four sources of economic progress. First, the division of labor which was illustrated by Adam Smith through the pin factory example. At its core, this is a mechanism that generates productivity gains manifested as increasing returns. Although its limit is determined by market size, the size of the market is positively affected by this process. However, it's also worth noting that this virtuous process is not infinite and that its ultimate limit lies in the endowment of initial resources. Second, there is the accumulation of capital both physical and human. With regard to physical capital, the interaction between savings and investment is crucial, highlighting the fundamental role of capital markets and of the financial system in carrying out such intermediation. On the human capital side, the focus should not be limited to education alone, but should also include the development of cognitive capacities, birth as well as nutrition and health, basic elements for gaining access to education and the labor market. Third, there is technological progress which consists in being able to produce a greater quantity of goods with the same amount of resources or to produce the same output using a smaller quantity of input. Finally, there is entrepreneurial spirit or rather the entrepreneurial function which according to Professor Kirzner constitutes the main driver of the economic growth process. Because although the three factors mentioned are important, without entrepreneurs there can be no production and living standards would be extremely precarious. The entrepreneurial function is not so much focused on short-term efficiency but rather on increasing the quality of goods and services which in turn leads to higher standards of living. These places truly matter is to expand the frontier of production possibilities to the maximum extent possible. Dynamic efficiency can be understood as an economy's capacity to foster entrepreneurial creativity and coordination. In sum, the criterion of dynamic efficiency is inseparably linked to the concept of the entrepreneurial function which is the typically human capacity to perceive profit opportunities that arise in the environment and to act accordingly to take advantage of them. This makes the task of discovering and creating new ends and means fundamental, driving spontaneous coordination to resolve market imbalances. Moreover, this definition of dynamic efficiency proposed by Kirzner coherently and appropriately combines Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction with the concept of adaptive efficiency. Naturally, given the role of the entrepreneurial function, the institutions under which it develops are of vital importance. In this regard, both Douglas North and Hayek consider one of the key functions of institutions to be that of reducing uncertainty. So while North presents them as a set of humanly devised constraints that structure social interaction in a repetitive manner, Hayek considers that these institutions, by human beings, emerge spontaneously from a process of social interaction without being designed by any single individual and that they reduce uncertainty in the market process. So as Kirzner points out, the appropriate institutional framework is one that favors entrepreneurial discovery and coordination. Accordingly, within this framework, economic policy should aim to identify and remove all artificial barriers that hinder the entrepreneurial process and voluntary exchanges. Given the decisive influence of institutions on economic progress, this directs our attention to the importance of societies that adhere to stronger moral values and ethical principles in support of institutions will be dynamically more efficient and will therefore enjoy greater prosperity. Accordingly, the fundamental ethical problem is a search for the best way to foster entrepreneurial coordination and creation. Therefore, in the field of social ethics, we conclude that conceiving human beings as creative and coordinating actors entails accepting the principle that every human being has the right to appropriate the results of their entrepreneurial creativity. So the private appropriation of the fruits of what entrepreneurs create and discover is a principle of natural law. Because if an author were unable to appropriate what they create or discover, their capacity to detect profit opportunities would be blocked and the incentive to carry out their actions would disappear. The ethical principle just stated is the fundamental ethical foundation of the entire market economy. So what we've just demonstrated is that free enterprise capitalism is not only just but also efficient and also that it is the one that maximizes growth. Given the conceptual framework of dynamic efficiency and the absence of a dilemma between efficiency and ethical values when designing public policy, it is of interest to consider their implementation in real life. The enormous achievements we have exhibited during these years in office, having eradicated a fiscal deficit of 15% of GDP, reducing inflation from 300 to 30%, lowering country rates by 2500 basis points and restoring economic growth with poverty falling from 57 to 27%, pursuing public policies guided by ethical and moral values, I would like to focus on the case of the Ministry of Deregulation, or as we call it back home, the Ministry of Increasing Retirement. This ministry is inspired by the evolution of per capita GDP since the beginning of the Christian era and it is in the shape of a hockey stick. This figure arises from the fact that until the year 1800 per capita GDP remained almost constant and from that point onwards increased 15-fold in a context in which the size of the population increased 10-fold. As GDP grew, extreme poverty fell from levels of 95% to 10%. This is due to the existence of increasing returns which in economics are associated with concentrated demand, and this is where the public policy dilemma between Pareto efficiency and justice arises. In analysis, increasing returns entail the existence of non-convexities in the production set that prevent the derivation of a profit function with a maximum. As a result, neither supply growth model nor demand for inputs is optimal. In response, regulation of firms is proposed in order to assimilate them to a perfectly competitive case, that is to kill increasing returns and economic growth. Consider the effects caused by regulation around the world. The value-based view of capitalism holds that if such a position has been achieved through discovery, voluntary exchange and without violating the non-aggression principle, there is no justification for intervention. Indeed, intervention constitutes a violation of property rights. Policy profits, the economy's protection, growth declines. So intervention and regulation are dynamically inefficient because they're violent and therefore unjust. This is why since we took office in 2023, we have carried out thanks to the cyclopean effort of Federico 13,500 structural reforms which today allow us to have a dynamically more efficient economy and which will enable us to grow once again to make Argentina great again. The Pareto optimal is clearly called into question. For that reason, many consider that it authorizes the regulation of concentrated structures or assimilating them to a competitive level. As I said, this means killing increasing returns with unintended collateral effects. In the same vein, we can also address the issue of artificial intelligence, a tool that can be seen as a 21st-century version of Adam Smith's pin factory, that is a catalyst for increasing returns and thereby a catalyst for greater growth and wellbeing. Therefore, the most responsible thing states can do regarding this issue is to stop pestering those who are creating a better world. Let me say it in a straightforward way. The most possible thing politicians can do is to stop pestering those who are creating a better world. At the same time, I wish to point out that all fears associated with dystopian scenarios are nonsense. The answer is the limit to increasing returns is determined by the size of the market. Finally, we must not forget that the implementation of these projects requires real inputs and financial resources will be constrained by initial endowments. Those who may be interested in the theoretical foundations of these arguments I'm presenting today, I uploaded to social media a paper together with which fleshes out the theoretical foundation to the fact that regulation kills. Regulations have the effect of destroying property rights thereby killing increasing returns and leading to lower growth. Linked to this phenomenal future that lies ahead, the role of human capital is of vital importance and in this regard in Argentina thanks to the work of Minister Sandra Calendo with respect to vulnerable sectors, we have stopped giving people fish and have started to teach them how to catch fish and if possible hoping to encourage them to create their own fishing company. Clearly, despite the criticism, free enterprise capitalism does not undermine moral values. After all, economic progress through the mechanism of the invisible hand emerged from Adam Smith's moral sentiment and the modern era owes its existence to what McCloskey calls the bourgeois virtues. In turn, thanks to the great work of Kirzner in developing the concept of dynamic efficiency and its application in Argentina, we can be confident that the alleged dilemma between efficiency and justice is false. That is to say, markets are not only superior in productive terms but they're also just. Therefore, public policies should be guided by ethics rather than by economic and political utilitarianism which invariably leads to unjust, populist and impoverishing outcomes. So I reaffirm what I stated at the beginning of this speech, it is therefore time to bury the myth between morality and free markets. The latter, thanks to dynamic and efficient markets, we can simultaneously achieve economic progress, defend private property, maintain peace, attain social harmony, and strengthen the social virtues indispensable for a prosperous society. Finally, I would like to leave you with a reflection on this week's Torah portion which describes the moment when Moses confronts Pharaoh, the symbol of the oppressive power of the state, to warn him that if he didn't free the Hebrew people, the final three plagues would fall upon Egypt. When Pharaoh refused, came the plague of locusts, which meant famine, then came the plague of darkness, meaning the loss of clarity in decision-making. The plague of the death of the firstborn which illustrates the fate of a society that denies liberty. The analogy with what is happening in the West today is clear. For some time now, for some strange reason, the West began to turn its back on the ideas of liberty. That is why in this same place in 2024 I stated that the West was in danger as a result of having embraced increasing doses of socialism in its most hypocritical form which is wokeism. In 2025, we must finally defeat the mental parasites sown by the left in humanity. However, 2025 is the year in which I bring you good news. The world has begun to awaken. The best proof of this is what is happening in the Americas with the rebirth of the ideas of liberty. Therefore, the Americas will be the beacon of light that will once again illuminate the entire West thereby repaying the civilizational debt with expressions of gratitude towards the foundations in Greek philosophy, Roman law and Judeo-Christian values. We have a better future ahead. The future exists only if we return to the roots of the West, which means returning to the ideas of liberty. May God bless the West. May the forces of heaven be with us and long live freedom. Damn it. Thank you very much.
