Good afternoon everyone. I am here before you to categorically state that Machiavelli is dead. For years, our thinking has been distorted, presenting us with a false dilemma when designing public policies, where one had to choose between political efficiency in contrast to respecting the ethical and moral values of the West. As Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto points out in his work on dynamic efficiency, from that point of view, efficiency is not compatible with various schemes of equity or justice, but arises solely and exclusively from one of them, which is based on respect for private property and the entrepreneurial function. Therefore, the opposition between the dimensions of efficiency and justice is false and erroneous. That is, what is just cannot be inefficient, nor what is efficient just. And in the perspective of dynamic analysis, justice and efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Without a doubt, the one who anticipated this situation most clearly was Murray Rothbard by raising the connection that exists between the dynamic conception of economic efficiency and the field of ethics. Rothbard considered it essential to previously establish the appropriate ethical framework that drives dynamic efficiency, given the ignorance we have regarding the ends, means, and utility functions that exist in reality. Thus, for Rothbard, to which I subscribe even from my role as president of the great nation of Argentina, only the ethical principles underlying Western culture can serve as a criterion of efficiency when making decisions on public policy. Put in crude terms, when designing public policies, it is inadmissible, from the point of view of ethics and morality, to sacrifice justice at the altar of efficiency. This slogan in favor of values is not only above economic efficiency, but it is even much more above political utilitarianism. Thus, by setting aside ethical and moral values, this leads to policies that are not only unjust, but also lead to collapse, not only economically but also on the social level, to the point that it could end up destroying Western civilization itself. Therefore, in 2024 at this forum I pointed out that the West was in danger. In turn, in my 2025 presentation I showed that the agendas and policies that had been promoted from various international organizations and forums were nothing more than a whole set of socialist policies elegantly wrapped to deceive people with noble and beautiful souls, with good intentions, but with the same catastrophic results as always. That is why we must never forget Thomas Sowell's words about socialism, which he acknowledged the merit of sounding very nice, but whose catch is that it always ends badly, horribly badly. Not to mention the continuous disasters caused by socialism during the 20th century, we see the aberrant damage caused in Venezuela, not only from an 80% fall in its GDP, but much worse in light of the establishment of a bloody narcodictatorship whose terrorist tentacles expanded throughout our American continent. Therefore, today more than ever, facing the ethical and moral degradation that the West is going through, as a result of having embraced the new socialist agenda, it is necessary to resolve and promote the ideas of freedom. However, unlike the way it was approached in the past, it must be based on an approach that was based on a utilitarian approach. Today, the defense of the free enterprise capitalist system must be based on its ethical and moral virtue. That is, as Israel Kirzner points out, today's socialists do not deny the superiority of capitalism in productivity; they question it for being unjust. Therefore, it is not enough for the system to be more productive, since if its root were unjust, capitalism would not deserve to be defended. Therefore, today I will demonstrate that free enterprise capitalism is not only more productive, but also that it is the only system that is just. In turn, I will demonstrate that there is no dilemma between political utilitarianism and value-based politics, since if they were in conflict, that implies that the bases of political utilitarianism must be discarded as unjust. Therefore, this will imply that if we want to get out of our dark present, we must be inspired again by Greek philosophy, embrace Roman law, and return to Judeo-Christian values, which will allow us to save the West. Much of human conflict arises from a failed interrelationship between natural law and positive law. Thus, natural law is the law that must govern human beings because it suits their nature and is therefore universally just. It is a common law for all men because it is intrinsic to their essence and therefore unmodifiable and immutable. On the other hand, positive law is what men draft for their convenience. In this way, when positive law is in consonance with natural law, there will be justice. Otherwise, it will be legal, but it will not be legitimate. In view of this, two fundamental rights are recognized: the rights to life and liberty. Man is born alive and born free and has the right to preserve these attributes of nature. Furthermore, he has the right to be respected by his fellow men in order to seek his own happiness, which is the end to which every man tends. In parallel, we have acquired rights, which are neither natural nor inherent to the human being, but are earned by merit or obtained by gift. In this way, the fundamental right to liberty derives from the acquired right of private property and is manifested in that we can freely acquire a good with the fruit of our work or we can receive a good that is freely given or inherited to us. In turn, the right of property, especially due to its dynamic consequences, is linked to the Lockean appropriation principle, so that now property can not only derive from appropriation, gift, inheritance, and/or exchange, but also adds the appropriation of discovery and creation. Finally, these rights are complemented by the non-aggression principle, which establishes that no human being has the right to exercise aggression of any kind against another human being, which not only includes physical aggression but also all types of coercion, coercion, and opposition under threat of the use of force. Hence, we define liberalism according to Professor Alberto Benegas Lynch as the strict respect for the neighbor's life project, based on the non-aggression principle and in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property, whose institutions are private property, free markets free from state intervention, competition understood as free entry and exit, the division of labor, and social cooperation. Naturally, associated with this social order, the question arises of whether it is just. Therefore, to determine if the system is just, the mandatory reference is Justinian, whose basic premise constitutes the bases of Roman law and is undoubtedly one of the pillars of Western civilization. Thus, justice is the constant and persistent will to give each person their right. That is, the intention to give each person what is theirs, what corresponds to them. However, the sentence of Ulpian did not stop there, but continued by adding that the principles of law consist in living honestly, without causing harm to anyone, and giving each person what is theirs. Therefore, from all this it follows that one of the characteristics of free enterprise capitalism is that it is a just doctrine. Given the institutional framework that emerges, which we have also proven is just, it is now time to prove that it is also efficient. The first approach in this regard was made by Adam Smith, who, using the invisible hand argument, postulated that each individual, pursuing their own interest, led to maximum social well-being. Later, the neoclassicals, guided by an idea of the invisible hand based on the Pareto optimum, managed to derive the first axiom of welfare economics. That is, every competitive equilibrium is Pareto optimal. However, this implied embracing a mathematical structure that left open the doors to state intervention under the good intentions of correcting market failures, which, from my point of view, do not exist. For this, the proof developed by Hans Hoppe based on property rights in line with the Lockean original appropriation principle together with the non-aggression principle not only proves optimality satisfactorily, but also leaves no room for doubt for intervention. In this way, Hoppe points out that any deviation from this set of rules implies, by definition, a redistribution of property titles and, therefore, of income, from the users and contractors of goods to non-users, producers, and non-contractors. Therefore, any deviation in this sense 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 in relation to the goods and services that change hands. Furthermore, the postulate that only the first user, not the last, of a good acquires the property right over it ensures that productive efforts will be as high as possible at all times. In turn, the notion that only the physical integrity of the property, not its value, must be protected guarantees that every owner will make the greatest productive efforts of value. That is, efforts to promote favorable changes in the value of the property and to prevent or counteract any unfavorable change in its value. Therefore, any deviation from these rules implies a reduction in productive efforts at all times. Note that by pivoting on private property and not on excess demand functions derived from optimization exercises, it is possible to reach an optimum without the need for esoteric assumptions that later provide support for state intervention. At the same time, it avoids falling into the empirical absurdity of the second theorem of welfare economics, which postulates the independence between production and distribution, as if the choice between capitalism and communism were neutral in terms of results. Therefore, having proven that the institutions of free enterprise capitalism, sustained by natural rights, the Lockean original appropriation principle, and the non-aggression principle, are not only just but also efficient, at least in static terms, it is now time to prove that free enterprise capitalism meets all these same properties in dynamic terms. Xenophon, already 380 years before Christ, pointed out that economics is a knowledge that allows men to increase their estate while postulating that private property was the most profitable vehicle for each person's life. After that, Xenophon deals with the concept of efficiency, which he addresses from two perspectives. On the one hand, from a static vision, he defines as efficient the management of available resources aimed at avoiding waste, where he also highlights the benefit of private property by pointing out that the owner's eye is the best formula for fattening his livestock. On the other hand, Xenophon, in his second definition of efficiency, delves into the dynamic terrain, pointing out that efficiency also implies increasing the estate. That is, it is about increasing the quantity of goods available through entrepreneurial creativity, that is, through trade and speculation. This last criterion of efficiency is of fundamental importance for the study of economic growth, since unlike a static model where only what Robert Lucas Jr. defined as deep parameters are considered, that is, preferences, technology, and initial resource endowments, in the dynamic sphere, both technology and initial endowments can vary and, in fact, they do so continuously as a result of entrepreneurial creativity. Furthermore, a separate chapter is due to the institution of private property, and pivoting on it, the Austrian school of economics from Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Kirzner, Hoppe, and Jesús Huerta de Soto have demonstrated the impossibility of socialism and thus debunked the phantasmagorical idea of John Stuart Mill that postulated the independence between production and distribution. An academic deafness that led to socialism and cost the world the lives of 150 million human beings. At a time when those who managed to survive the terror did so in absurd poverty. In line with what was stated and in line with Xenophon's second definition of analysis, economic theory has identified four sources of economic progress. First, we have the division of labor, which was exemplified by Adam Smith with the pin factory. Basically, it is a mechanism by which productivity gains are generated, which manifest as increasing returns, and while its limit is delimited by the size of the market, the size of the market is positively affected by it. However, it is worth clarifying that this virtuous process is not infinite, whose limit clashes with the initial resource endowment. Second, the accumulation of capital, both physical and human. Regarding physical capital, the crucial interaction between savings and investment is key, highlighting the fundamental role of the capital market and the financial system in carrying out this intermediation. On the human capital side, the focus should not be limited to the educational level, but should also consider the development of cognitive abilities from birth, their nutrition, and health. Fundamental elements to be able to access education and the labor market. Third, we have technological progress, which means being able to produce a greater quantity of goods with the same amount of resources or produce the same using a smaller amount of inputs. Finally, we have the entrepreneurial spirit or rather the entrepreneurial function, which according to Professor Huerta de Soto, constitutes the main engine of the economic growth process, since although the three factors mentioned are important, without entrepreneurs there would be no production and the standard of living would be extremely precarious, where the entrepreneurial function focuses not so much on short-term efficiency but rather on the growth of the quantity of goods and services, which leads to higher levels of living. In view of all this, the truly important thing is to expand the production possibility frontier to the maximum. Thus, dynamic efficiency can be seen as the capacity of an economy to drive entrepreneurial creativity and coordination. In turn, the criterion of dynamic efficiency is inextricably linked to the concept of entrepreneurial function, being this the typically human capacity to realize the profit opportunities that arise in the environment and acting accordingly to take advantage of them, making the task of discovering and creating new ends and means fundamental, driving a spontaneous coordination destined to resolve market imbalances. On the other hand, this definition of dynamic efficiency proposed by Huerta de Soto adequately and coherently combines the idea of Schumpeter's creative destruction with North's adaptive efficiency. Naturally, given the role of the entrepreneurial function, the institutions under which it develops are of vital importance. In this sense, both Douglass North and Jesús Huerta de Soto see as a key function of institutions the reduction of uncertainty. Thus, while North presents it as a set of restrictions devised by men that structure social interaction in a repetitive way, Huerta de Soto considers that these institutions conceived by human beings emerge from a process of social interaction spontaneously, without the design of a single person, which reduce the uncertainty of the market process. In this way, as Roy Cordato points out, the appropriate institutional framework is the one that favors entrepreneurial discovery and coordination, so in this framework, economic policy should be oriented to identify and remove all artificial obstacles that hinder the entrepreneurial process and voluntary exchanges. In this sense, given the determinant influence of institutions on economic progress, this directs our gaze to the importance of ethics, since those societies that adhere to more solid moral values and ethical principles in the support of institutions will be dynamically more efficient and will enjoy greater prosperity. Thus, the fundamental ethical problem is conceived as the search for the best way to foster coordination and entrepreneurial creation. Therefore, in the field of social ethics, the conclusion is reached that the conception of the human being as a creative and coordinating actor implies accepting as axiomatic the principle that every human being has the right to appropriate the results of their entrepreneurial creativity. That is, the private appropriation of the fruits of those who create and discover, the entrepreneurs, is a principle of natural law, because if the actor could not appropriate what they create or discover, then their ability to detect profit opportunities would be blocked and the incentive they have to carry out their actions would disappear. In short, the ethical principle we have just enunciated is the fundamental ethical basis of the entire market economy. Therefore, what we have just demonstrated is that free enterprise capitalism is not only just, but also efficient and also generates the highest growth rate. Thus, therefore, given the conceptual framework of dynamic efficiency and the existence of dilemmas between efficiency and ethical values when designing public policies, its implementation in real life is of interest. Beyond the enormous achievements we have shown during these years of management, eradicating a fiscal deficit of 15% of GDP, lowering inflation from 300% to 30%, reducing the country risk by 2,500 basis points, and making the economy grow, while poverty fell from 57% to 27%, carrying out public policies guided by ethical and moral values. I would then like to focus on the case of the Ministry of Deregulation or as we call it internally, the Ministry of Increasing Returns. Said ministry is inspired by the evolution of GDP per capita since the Christian era, which has the shape of a hockey stick. This figure arises from the fact that until the year 1800, GDP per capita is almost constant and from there it multiplied by 15 times in a context where the population size multiplied by 10. In parallel, while GDP grew, extreme poverty fell from levels of 95% to 10%. However, this wonder implies the existence of increasing returns, which in economics is associated with concentrated market structures. And that is where the public policy dilemma between Pareto efficiency and justice arises. In the Pareto analysis, increasing returns imply the existence of non-convexities in the production set, which, let's say, does not allow deriving profit functions that yield a maximum, so neither the supply of goods nor the demand for inputs are optimal. Faced with this, it is proposed to regulate companies and assimilate them to a perfectly competitive case. That is, kill increasing returns and with them economic growth. If not, look at the effects that regulation causes everywhere in the world. The vision based on the ethical values of capitalism points out that if that position was reached through discoveries, voluntary exchanges, and without violence violating the non-aggression principle, there is no reason to justify intervention. In fact, intervention is a violation of property rights, so by punishing profits, the potential growth of the economy falls. Therefore, intervention and regulation are dynamically inefficient because they are violent and therefore unjust. That is why since arriving in the administration in 2023, we have carried out, thanks to the cyclopean task of Minister Federico Sturzenegger, 13,500 structural reforms, which today allow us to have a more dynamically efficient economy, which allows us to grow again. That is, Make Argentina Great Again. Therefore, this shows the questionable nature of the Pareto optimum analysis. Based on it, many consider it pertinent to regulate said concentrated structures, assimilating them in results to a competitive model. However, as I had pointed out, this implies killing increasing returns, whose unintended collateral effect is killing growth. Note that under this same line we can address the issues of artificial intelligence. In this sense, said instrument could be seen as the 21st-century version of Adam Smith's pin factory, that is, an enhancer of increasing returns and with it greater growth and well-being. So the most responsible thing states can do regarding the issue is to stop bothering those who are creating a better world. To put it more directly, politicians must stop bothering those who are making a better world. At the same time, I want to point out that all fears associated with dystopian scenarios are nonsense. The answer is Adam Smith. The limit of increasing returns is given by the size of the market, and finally, we must not forget that the implementation of these projects requires real inputs and financial resources, so expansion will be limited by initial endowments. For those interested in the theoretical foundations of these arguments that I am presenting, today Dr. Ridel uploaded to the networks the work we did in collaboration and where we developed the theoretical foundations of this, that regulating kills growth, that is, the omnipotence of the State, regulations destroy property rights and that kills increasing returns and therefore, let's say, growth is lower. Finally, linked to this phenomenal future that is coming, the role of human capital is of vital importance. In this sense, in Argentina, thanks to the management of Minister Sandra Pettovello, to the vulnerable sectors, we have stopped giving them the fish to teach them to fish and, if possible, to motivate them to create their own fishing company. Finally, despite popular criticisms, free enterprise capitalism does not undermine moral values. After all, economic progress via the invisible hand mechanism arose from Adam Smith's moral sentiments, and the modern era owes its existence to the bourgeois virtues pointed out by MacIntyre. In turn, thanks to the great work of Huerta de Soto in developing the concept of dynamic efficiency and its implementation in Argentina, this allows us to be sure that the dilemma between efficiency and justice is false. That is, markets are not only superior in productivity, but they are also just, and therefore public policies must be guided by ethics and not by utilitarianism, whether economic or political, which always lead to unjust, populist, and impoverishing solutions. Therefore, I reaffirm what I said at the beginning of this conference. Machiavelli is dead, so it is time to bury him. More, given the deep link between morality and free markets, the latter make us better people, since thanks to dynamically efficient markets, we can at the same time progress economically, defend private property, maintain peace, achieve social harmony, and strengthen those social virtues that are indispensable for a prosperous society. Finally, I want to leave you with a reflection on this week's parashah. The parashah describes that moment when Moses faces Pharaoh, symbol of the oppressive power of the State, to warn him that if he did not free the Hebrew people, the last three plagues would fall upon Egypt. Faced with Pharaoh's refusal, the plague of locusts arrived, which means famine. Then came the plague of darkness, which means the loss of clarity for decision-making. Finally, the plague of the death of the firstborn, which makes clear the destiny of a society that denies freedom. The analogy with what is happening today in the West is tremendously clear. For some time now, the West, for some strange reason, began to turn its back on the ideas of freedom, and therefore, in this same place in 2024, I stated that the West is in danger as a result of having embraced increasing doses of socialism in its most hypocritical version, which is wokeism. In turn, in 2025 I explained the mental parasites that the left sowed in humanity. However, 2026 is the year in which I bring you good news. The world has begun to wake up. The best proof of this is what is happening in America with the rebirth of the ideas of freedom. Therefore, America will be the beacon of light that will reignite the entire West and with it will pay its civilizational debt with a show of gratitude towards its roots in Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Judeo-Christian values. We have a better future ahead of us, but that better future exists if we return to the roots of the West, that is, returning to the ideas of freedom. May God bless the West, may the strength of heaven be with us, and long live freedom. Thank you very much.
