風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
米萊在達沃斯的經濟演講全文（2024年）
奧派經濟學家阿根廷總統米萊在達沃斯的演講，震驚會場，並在網絡上熱傳，也震驚了全球。他傳播了自由經濟學，他揭開了西方政客的麵具，他打臉了西方政客。一場光芒四射的演講，他成為了這次達沃斯年會上唯一的明星，
米萊此次演講中涉及到的概念。
1、米萊演講開篇就說明其批評的方向，主要指向西方世界，也即歐美國家；
2、米萊演講中所用的資本主義、社會主義的概念，指的是經濟學意義上的，而不是中國民眾經常理解的政治製度意義上的。歐美國家普遍實施的福利製度、國家救濟製度、義務教育製度都屬於這個定義範圍內。
以下為米萊演講全文：
2024年01月19日 風靈之聲
下午好！非常感謝。今天，我在這裏告訴你們，西方世界正處於危險之中，這種危險是因為那些本應捍衛西方價值觀的人，被一種必然導致社會主義並由此帶來貧窮的世界觀所同化。不幸的是，近幾十年間，受一些出於好意想幫助他人的人，以及一些渴望躋身特權階層的人的驅動，西方世界的主要領導人已經放棄了自由模式，轉而采用了我們所稱的集體主義的不同版本。
我們在這裏告訴你，集體主義實驗永遠不是困擾全世界人民的各種問題的解決之道；相反，它才是問題的根源。請相信我，沒有人比我們阿根廷人更有資格來證明這兩點。我們在1860年采納自由模式時，35年間我們成為了世界上領先的大國。
而當我們在過去的100年裏擁抱集體主義時，我們目睹了我國的公民如何陷入係統性的貧窮，全球排名下降到了第140位。但在進行討論之前，首先，重要的是，我們需要看一下數據，展示了為什麽自由企業資本主義製度不僅是結束世界貧困的唯一可能的製度，而且也是唯一符合道德的能實現此目標的製度。
如果我們觀察經濟進步的曆史，可以看到，從公元0年到1800年間，全球人均GDP基本保持不變。如果你看一下人類曆史上經濟增長的演變圖，你會看到一個曲棍球棒形狀的圖形，在90%的時間裏保持恒定，卻從19世紀開始呈指數級增長。這段停滯曆史的唯一例外是在15世紀末發現美洲大陸。
除了這個例外，在公元零年到1800年整個時期，全球人均GDP停滯不前。現在，不僅是從采納資本主義作為經濟製度那一刻之後，帶來了財富的爆炸性增長，而且，如果你查看數據，你會看到增長在整個時期內持續加速。從公元0年到1800年間，人均GDP的年增長率始終是約0.02%，也就是幾乎沒有增長。
從19世紀開始，伴隨著工業革命爆發，年複合增長率達到0.66%，照這個速度，要使人均GDP翻倍，需要大約107年。現在，如果你觀察1900年到1950年之間，增長率加速到每年1.66%，意味著人均GDP翻倍不再需要107年，而是66年。如果你觀察1950年到2000年之間，你會看到增長率又提高為2.1%，這意味著僅需33年，我們就可以使全球人均GDP翻倍。
2024年1月17日，阿根廷總統米萊（Javier Milei）抵達達沃斯世界經濟論壇（WEF）發表演講。(FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)
這一趨勢遠未停止，迄今仍在持續發力。如果我們觀察2000年到2023年之間，增長率再次加速到每年3%，這意味著我們可以在短短23年內使全球人均GDP翻倍。也就是說，當你觀察從1800年到今天的人均GDP時，你會看到工業革命之後，全球人均GDP增長了超過15倍，這意味著增長的繁榮使全球90%的人口擺脫了貧困。
我們應該記住，1800年時，大約95%的世界人口生活在極端貧困之中，而這一數字在2020年大流行疫情之前降至了5%。結論顯而易見：自由貿易資本主義，作為一種經濟體係，絕非產生問題的根源，而是我們結束全球饑餓、貧困，乃至極端貧困的唯一工具。
上述實證證據無可置疑。因此，既然自由企業資本主義無疑在生產方麵更為優越，左翼理論就轉而攻擊資本主義的道德問題，稱其不公正。
他們說資本主義是邪惡的，因為它是個人主義的，而集體主義是好的，因為集體主義是利他主義的，當然，是用別人的錢去利他。因此，他們倡導社會正義。
這個概念，近來在發達國家才變得時尚，而在我的國家已經在政治話語中的老調常談了超過80年。問題在於，社會正義既不公正，也不促進整體福祉。恰恰相反，它本質上是不公平的，因為它是暴力的。
它不公正，因為國家通過稅收來獲取資金，而稅收是強製征收的。我們中誰會說他是自願繳稅的？這意味著國家是通過強製手段來獲得資金，稅負越高，強製越大，自由度就越低。那些推動社會正義的倡導者，其出發點是整個經濟就像一個可以由不同人分享的餡餅，但這個餡餅的大小並非是既定的。
這是伊斯雷爾·柯茲納（Israel Kirzner）所說的市場發現過程中產生的財富。如果企業提供的商品或服務不受歡迎，除非它改為適應市場的需求，否則生意將會失敗。
如果它們製造出高質量、價格吸引人的商品，它們將會生意興隆並生產更多商品。因此，市場是一個發現過程，資本家在其中找到前進的正確路徑。
但如果國家在資本家成功時懲罰他們，並妨礙發現過程，他們將破壞資本家的激勵，後果是他們生產將會變少，餡餅將會變小，這將對整個社會造成傷害。集體主義通過抑製這些發現過程，並阻礙發現的應用，阻止他們以更好的價格提供更好的商品和服務。
那麽，對於這樣的經濟製度——一種不僅讓世界上90%的人口擺脫了極端貧困，而且以越來越快的速度持續讓人們脫貧，並且在道德上更優越和公正的經濟製度，學術界、國際組織、經濟理論和政治界又是如何詆毀它的呢？我們可以看到，世界現在正處於有史以來最好的時刻。在人類的整個曆史中，從來沒有比今天更繁榮的時期。對所有人都是這樣。
今天的世界擁有更多的自由，更加富裕，更加和平和繁榮。對於那些自由更多，擁有經濟自由並尊重個人財產權的國家尤其如此。因為擁有更多自由的國家比壓製性的國家富裕12倍。
自由的國家貧困率是壓製性國家的25 分之一，極端貧困率是50分之一，自由國家的公民壽命比壓製性國家的公民長25%。
那麽，當我們談論自由主義時，我們指的是什麽呢？讓我引用阿根廷自由主義最大權威，阿爾貝托·貝內加斯·林奇（Alberto Benegas Lynch Jr.）教授的話，他說自由主義是基於非侵犯原則，捍衛生命、自由和財產權利，對他人生活計劃的不設限製的尊重。
其基本機構是私有財產、不受國家幹預的市場、自由競爭、勞動分工和社會合作，成功隻能通過提供更高質量或更優惠價格的商品來服務他人而實現。換句話說，資本家、成功的商人是社會的恩人，他們絕非剝奪了他人的財富，而是為普遍的福祉做貢獻。
歸根結底，成功的企業家是英雄，這就是我們為未來阿根廷所倡導的模式，一種基於自由主義基本原則的模式：捍衛生命、自由和財產。現在，如果說企業資本主義和經濟自由已經被證明是消除世界貧困的卓越工具，而我們現在正處於人類曆史上最好的時期，那麽需要問的是，為什麽我會說西方正處於危險之中。
我之所以這麽說，正是因為在這些國家中，某些政治和經濟體製的部門，本應捍衛自由市場、私有財產和其他自由主義製度價值，卻有的是出於理論框架上的錯誤，有的是出於對權力的貪婪，正在破壞自由主義的基礎，為社會主義敞開大門，這可能將我們置於貧困、苦難和停滯之中。永遠不應忘記，socialismo不管在哪裏，都始終是一個導致貧困的現象，所有嚐試過socialismo的國家都失敗了。
它在經濟上、社會上、文化上都失敗了，還導致了100 millones 死亡。西方今天麵臨的根本問題，不僅僅即使在柏林牆倒塌之後，並有了壓倒性的實證證據之後，仍然倡導導致貧困的socialismo的那些人，還有我們自己的領導者、思想家和學者，他們依靠錯誤的理論框架，破壞了給予我們曆史上最大規模財富和繁榮擴張的製度的基礎。
我所指的理論框架是新古典經濟理論，它設計了一套工具，不管是有意還是無意，最終服務於國家幹預、社會主義和社會退化。新古典經濟學的問題在於，他們所熱愛的模型並不符合現實。所以，他們將錯誤歸咎於所謂的市場失敗，而不是重新審視模型的前提。
以所謂市場失敗為借口，引入監管，這隻會扭曲價格體係，阻礙經濟計算，因此也阻礙了儲蓄、投資和增長。問題主要在於，即便所謂的自由主義經濟學家也不理解市場是什麽。因為如果他們真的理解了，就會很快看到市場失敗這樣的事情是不可能存在的。
市場不是描述供求曲線的圖表；市場是一個社會合作的機製，你在其中自願交換所有權。因此，基於這個定義，談論市場失敗是一個悖論。如果交易是自願的，就不存在市場失敗。市場失敗唯一可能存在的情境是有強製存在，而一般能夠實施強製的隻有國家，因為它擁有暴力壟斷權。
因此，如果有人認為市場出現了失敗，我建議他們檢查是否與國家幹預有關，如果他們發現並非如此，我建議他們再檢查一遍，因為顯然有錯誤。市場失敗是不存在的。新古典主義者所描述的所謂市場失敗的一個例子是經濟體中的集中結構。
然而，如果沒有規模收益遞增功能，其對應的是經濟中的集中結構，我們就無法解釋自1800年以來的經濟增長。這不是很有趣嗎？自1800年以來，人口增長了八到九倍，而人均GDP仍增長了15倍以上。因此，回報在不斷增長，這將極端貧困從95%降至5%。然而，存在不斷增長的回報涉及到集中結構，我們稱之為壟斷。
那麽，為什麽新古典主義理論認為，創造了如此多福祉的東西卻是市場失敗呢？當模型失敗時，新古典經濟學家怪罪於現實。他們不應該對現實而是應該對模型感到憤怒，並改變模型。新古典模型麵臨的困境是，他們說，他們希望通過攻擊所謂的市場失敗來完善市場的功能，但在這樣做的過程中，他們不僅為社會主義打開了大門，也阻礙了經濟增長。
例如：對壟斷進行監管，破壞它們的利潤，並摧毀增長的收益回報，這將自動地破壞經濟增長。換句話說，每當你想要糾正一個所謂的市場失敗時，由於不了解市場是什麽，或者是因為沉迷於一個失敗的模型，你就在為socialismo打開大門，將人民置於貧困之中。
然而，麵對國家幹預是有害的理論證明，以及表明其失敗的實證證據，情況本不應如此，集體主義者提出的解決方案不是更大的自由，而是更嚴格的監管，這產生了螺旋式不斷增加監管的惡性循環，直到我們所有人都變貧窮。而我們所有人的生活，都取決於坐在豪華辦公室裏的官僚。
鑒於集體主義模式的慘敗，以及無可否認的自由世界的進步，socialista被迫改變了他們的議程。他們拋棄了基於經濟體係的階級鬥爭，轉而替換為其他所謂的社會衝突，這些衝突對社區生活和經濟增長同樣有害。這些新戰役中的第一個是荒謬和非自然的男性與女性之爭。
自由主義已經提供了性別之間的平等。我們信條的基石是所有人生而平等，我們都擁有創造者賦予的同樣不可剝奪的權利，包括生命、自由和所有權。
這種激進的女權主義議程所導致的隻是更大的國家幹預，阻礙了經濟過程，為那些對社會沒有貢獻的官僚提供了工作，例子包括婦女部門或致力於推廣這一議程的國際組織。
社會主義者提出的另一個衝突是人類與自然之間的對抗，聲稱我們人類破壞了應該不惜一切代價保護的地球。他們甚至走得太遠，主張人口控製機製或血腥的墮胎計劃。
不幸的是，這些有害的想法已經在我們社會中占據了強勢地位。新馬克思主義者設法滲入了西方世界的常識，他們通過占據媒體、文化、大學和國際組織來實現這一目標。
國際組織可能是情況最嚴重的，因為這些機構對作為多邊組織成員的國家的政治和經濟決策有著巨大的影響。幸運的是，越來越多的人敢於發出我們的聲音，因為我們看到，如果我們不真正且果斷地對抗這些觀點，我們唯一可能的命運就是增加國家管製的水平，socialismo，貧困和減少自由，因此我們的生活水平將會變得更差。
不幸的是，西方已經開始走上這條道路。我知道對許多人來說，暗示西方已轉向社會主義，似乎聽起來很荒謬，但這隻是因為你將社會主義局限於傳統經濟的定義，才會顯得荒謬，該定義認為社會主義是一種國家擁有生產資料的經濟體係。
依我之見，這個定義應該依據當前的形勢進行更新。如今，國家不需要直接控製生產資料就能控製個人生活的各個方麵。通過印鈔、債務、補貼、控製利率、價格控製和管製等工具，來糾正所謂的市場失敗，他們可以控製數以百萬計個人的生活和命運。 這就是我們如何形成了這樣的局麵，即在大多數西方國家，許多被普遍接受的政治提議，無論它們是公開宣稱為comunismo、法西斯主義、納粹主義、社會主義、社會民主主義、國家社會主義、民主基督教或基督教民主主義、新保守主義、進步主義、民粹主義、民族主義還是全球主義，等等，都是集體主義的變種。究其根本，它們沒有本質區別。
它們都聲稱國家應該操控個人生活的各個方麵。它們捍衛的都是與那個引領人類走向史無前例進步的模式相反的模式。我們今天來到這裏，是為了邀請西方世界的其他國家重回繁榮之路。經濟自由、有限政府和對私有財產的無限尊重是經濟增長的基本要素，而集體主義所產生的貧困並非幻想，也不是不可避免的命運，而是我們阿根廷人非常了解的現實。
我們經曆過這一切。我們經曆這一切是因為，正如我之前所說，自從我們決定放棄讓我們富裕的自由模式以來，我們就落入了一個不斷下行的螺旋，我們每天都變得越來越貧窮。
所以，這是我們經曆過的事情，我們在這裏警告你，如果那些通過自由模式變得富裕的西方國家，繼續走這條通往奴役之路，這就是將會發生的情況。
1920年代的阿根廷街景阿根廷是一個實證示範，無論你有多富裕，或者擁有多少自然資源，或者你有多少的技術熟練或受過良好教育的人口，或者你的中央銀行有多少金條，如果采取阻礙市場自由運作、自由競爭、自由價格體係的措施，如果你阻礙貿易，如果你攻擊私有財產，唯一可能的命運就是貧困。
因此，在結束時，我想對在場的所有商業人士，以及那些雖然不在場卻在世界各地關注我們的人說一句話：
不要被嚇到，不要被政治階層或依賴國家生活的寄生蟲所嚇倒！
不要屈服於隻想掌握權力並保留特權的政治階級！
你們是社會的恩人，你們是英雄， 你們是我們所見過最非凡繁榮時期的創造者！不要聽任何人說，你的雄心壯誌是不道德的。
如果你賺錢，那是因為你以更優惠的價格，提供了更好的產品，從而有助於普遍的福祉。不要屈服於國家的步步逼近。國家不是解決方案；國家就是問題本身。
你們是這個故事的真正主角，請放心，從今天起，阿根廷是你們無條件的盟友。
非常感謝，自由萬歲，他媽的！
Davos 2024: Special address by Javier Milei, President of Argentina
The president of Argentina, Javier Milei, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
This is a transcript from the Special address by Javier Milei, President of Argentina, which took place during the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos.
Good afternoon. Thank you very much.
Today I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger. And it is in danger because those who are supposed to have to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty.
Unfortunately, in recent decades, the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism. Some have been motivated by well-meaning individuals who are willing to help others, and others have been motivated by the wish to belong to a privileged caste.
We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world. Rather, they are the root cause. Do believe me: no one is in better place than us, Argentines, to testify to these two points.
Thirty five years after we adopted the model of freedom, back in 1860, we became a leading world power. And when we embraced collectivism over the course of the last 100 years, we saw how our citizens started to become systematically impoverished, and we dropped to spot number 140 globally.
But before having the discussion, it would first be important for us to take a look at the data that demonstrate why free enterprise capitalism is not just the only possible system to end world poverty, but also that it's the only morally desirable system to achieve this.
If we look at the history of economic progress, we can see how between the year zero and the year 1800 approximately, world per capita GDP practically remained constant throughout the whole reference period.
If you look at a graph of the evolution of economic growth throughout the history of humanity, you would see a hockey stick graph, an exponential function that remained constant for 90% of the time and which was exponentially triggered starting in the 19th century.
The only exception to this history of stagnation was in the late 15th century, with the discovery of the American continent, but for this exception, throughout the whole period between the year zero and the year 1800, global per capita GDP stagnated.
Now, it's not just that capitalism brought about an explosion in wealth from the moment it was adopted as an economic system, but also, if you look at the data, what you will see is that growth continues to accelerate throughout the whole period.
And throughout the whole period between the year zero and the year 1800, the per capita GDP growth rate remains stable at around 0.02% annually. So almost no growth. Starting in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution, the compound annual growth rate was 0.66%. And at that rate, in order to double per capita GDP, you would need some 107 years.
Now, if you look at the period between the year 1900 and the year 1950, the growth rate accelerated to 1.66% a year. So you no longer need 107 years to double per capita GDP - but 66. And if you take the period between 1950 and the year 2000, you will see that the growth rate was 2.1%, which would mean that in only 33 years we could double the world's per capita GDP.
This trend, far from stopping, remains well alive today. If we take the period between the years 2000 and 2023, the growth rate again accelerated to 3% a year, which means that we could double world per capita GDP in just 23 years.
That said, when you look at per capita GDP since the year 1800 until today, what you will see is that after the Industrial Revolution, global per capita GDP multiplied by over 15 times, which meant a boom in growth that lifted 90% of the global population out of poverty.
We should remember that by the year 1800, about 95% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. And that figure dropped to 5% by the year 2020, prior to the pandemic. The conclusion is obvious.
Far from being the cause of our problems, free trade capitalism as an economic system is the only instrument we have to end hunger, poverty and extreme poverty across our planet. The empirical evidence is unquestionable.
Therefore since there is no doubt that free enterprise capitalism is superior in productive terms, the left-wing doxa has attacked capitalism, alleging matters of morality, saying - that's what the detractors claim - that it's unjust. They say that capitalism is evil because it's individualistic and that collectivism is good because it's altruistic. Of course, with the money of others.
So they therefore advocate for social justice. But this concept, which in the developed world became fashionable in recent times, in my country has been a constant in political discourse for over 80 years. The problem is that social justice is not just, and it doesn't contribute to general well-being.
Quite on the contrary, it's an intrinsically unfair idea because it's violent. It's unjust because the state is financed through tax and taxes are collected coercively. Or can any one of us say that we voluntarily pay taxes? This means that the state is financed through coercion and that the higher the tax burden, the higher the coercion and the lower the freedom.
Those who promote social justice start with the idea that the whole economy is a pie that can be shared differently. But that pie is not a given. It's wealth that is generated in what Israel Kirzner, for instance, calls a market discovery process.
If the goods or services offered by a business are not wanted, the business will fail unless it adapts to what the market is demanding. They will do well and produce more if they make a good quality product at an attractive price. So the market is a discovery process in which the capitalists will find the right path as they move forward.
But if the state punishes capitalists when they're successful and gets in the way of the discovery process, they will destroy their incentives, and the consequence is that they will produce less.
The pie will be smaller, and this will harm society as a whole. Collectivism, by inhibiting these discovery processes and hindering the appropriation of discoveries, ends up binding the hands of entrepreneurs and prevents them from offering better goods and services at a better price.
So how come academia, international organisations, economic theorists and politicians demonise an economic system that has not only lifted 90% of the world's population out of extreme poverty but has continued to do this faster and faster?
Thanks to free trade capitalism, the world is now living its best moment. Never in all of mankind or humanity's history has there been a time of more prosperity than today. This is true for all. The world of today has more freedom, is rich, more peaceful and prosperous. This is particularly true for countries that have more economic freedom and respect the property rights of individuals.
Countries that have more freedom are 12 times richer than those that are repressed. The lowest percentile in free countries is better off than 90% of the population in repressed countries. Poverty is 25 times lower and extreme poverty is 50 times lower. And citizens in free countries live 25% longer than citizens in repressed countries.
Now what is it that we mean when we talk about libertarianism? And let me quote the words of the greatest authority on freedom in Argentina, Professor Alberto Benegas Lynch Jr, who says that libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others based on the principle of non-aggression, in defence of the right to life, liberty and property.
Its fundamental institutions are private property, markets free from state intervention, free competition, and the division of labour and social cooperation, in which success is achieved only by serving others with goods of better quality or at a better price.
In other words, capitalist successful business people are social benefactors who, far from appropriating the wealth of others, contribute to the general well-being. Ultimately, a successful entrepreneur is a hero.
And this is the model that we are advocating for the Argentina of the future. A model based on the fundamental principle of libertarianism. The defence of life, of freedom and of property.
Now, if the free enterprise, capitalism and economic freedom have proven to be extraordinary instruments to end poverty in the world, and we are now at the best time in the history of humanity, it is worth asking why I say that the West is in danger.
And I say this precisely because in countries that should defend the values of the free market, private property and the other institutions of libertarianism, sectors of the political and economic establishment are undermining the foundations of libertarianism, opening up the doors to socialism and potentially condemning us to poverty, misery and stagnation.
It should never be forgotten that socialism is always and everywhere an impoverishing phenomenon that has failed in all countries where it's been tried out. It's been a failure economically, socially, culturally and it also murdered over 100 million human beings.
The essential problem of the West today is not just that we need to come to grips with those who, even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the overwhelming empirical evidence, continue to advocate for impoverishing socialism.
But there's also our own leaders, thinkers and academics who are relying on a misguided theoretical framework to undermine the fundamentals of the system that has given us the greatest expansion of wealth and prosperity in our history.
The theoretical framework to which I refer is that of Neoclassical economic theory, which designs a set of instruments that, unwillingly or without meaning to, end up serving intervention by the state, socialism and social degradation.
The problem with Neoclassicals is that the model they fell in love with does not map reality, so they put down their mistakes to supposed market failures rather than reviewing the premises of the model.
Under the pretext of a supposed market failure, regulations are introduced. These regulations create distortions in the price system, prevent economic calculus, and therefore also prevent saving, investment and growth.
This problem lies mainly in the fact that not even supposed libertarian economists understand what the market is because if they did understand, it would quickly be seen that it's impossible for there to be market failures.
The market is not a mere graph describing a curve of supply and demand. The market is a mechanism for social cooperation, where you voluntarily exchange ownership rights. Therefore based on this definition, talking about a market failure is an oxymoron. There are no market failures.
If transactions are voluntary, the only context in which there can be market failure is if there is coercion and the only one that is able to coerce generally is the state, which holds a monopoly on violence.
Consequently, if someone considers that there is a market failure, I would suggest that they check to see if there is state intervention involved. And if they find that that's not the case, I would suggest that they check again, because obviously there's a mistake. Market failures do not exist.
An example of the so-called market failures described by the Neoclassicals is the concentrated structure of the economy. From the year 1800 onwards, with the population multiplying by 8 or 9 times, per capita GDP grew by over 15 times, so there were growing returns which took extreme poverty from 95% to 5%.
However, the presence of growing returns involves concentrated structures, what we would call a monopoly. How come, then, something that has generated so much well-being for the Neoclassical theory is a market failure?
Neoclassical economists think outside of the box. When the model fails, you shouldn't get angry with reality but rather with a model and change it. The dilemma faced by the Neoclassical model is that they say they wish to perfect the function of the market by attacking what they consider to be failures. But in so doing, they don't just open up the doors to socialism but also go against economic growth.
For example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits and destroying growing returns would automatically destroy economic growth.
However, faced with the theoretical demonstration that state intervention is harmful - and the empirical evidence that it has failed couldn't have been otherwise - the solution proposed by collectivists is not greater freedom but rather greater regulation, which creates a downward spiral of regulations until we are all poorer and our lives depend on a bureaucrat sitting in a luxury office.
Given the dismal failure of collectivist models and the undeniable advances in the free world, socialists were forced to change their agenda: they left behind the class struggle based on the economic system and replaced this with other supposed social conflicts, which are just as harmful to life and to economic growth.
The first of these new battles was the ridiculous and unnatural fight between man and woman. Libertarianism already provides for equality of the sexes. The cornerstone of our creed is that all humans are created equal and that we all have the same inalienable rights granted by the Creator, including life, freedom and ownership.
All that the radical feminism agenda has led to is greater state intervention to hinder economic process, giving jobs to bureaucrats who have not contributed anything to society. Examples are ministries of women or international organisations devoted to promoting this agenda.
Another conflict presented by socialists is that of humans against nature, claiming that we human beings damage a planet which should be protected at all costs, even going as far as advocating for population control mechanisms or the abortion agenda.
Unfortunately, these harmful ideas have taken a stronghold in our society. Neo-Marxists have managed to co-opt the common sense of the Western world, and this they have achieved by appropriating the media, culture, universities and also international organisations.
The latter case is the most serious one, probably because these are institutions that have enormous influence on the political and economic decisions of their member states.
Fortunately there's more and more of us who are daring to make our voices heard, because we see that if we don't truly and decisively fight against these ideas, the only possible fate is for us to have increasing levels of state regulation, socialism, poverty and less freedom, and therefore, worse standards of living.
The West has unfortunately already started to go along this path. I know, to many it may sound ridiculous to suggest that the West has turned to socialism, but it's only ridiculous if you only limit yourself to the traditional economic definition of socialism, which says that it's an economic system where the state owns the means of production. This definition in my view, should be updated in the light of current circumstances.
Today, states don't need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the lives of individuals. With tools such as printing money, debt, subsidies, controlling the interest rate, price controls, and regulations to correct so-called market failures, they can control the lives and fates of millions of individuals.
This is how we come to the point where, by using different names or guises, a good deal of the generally accepted ideologies in most Western countries are collectivist variants, whether they proclaim to be openly communist, fascist, socialist, social democrats, national socialists, Christian democrats, neo-Keynesians, progressives, populists, nationalists or globalists.
Ultimately, there are no major differences. They all say that the state should steer all aspects of the lives of individuals. They all defend a model contrary to the one that led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history.
We have come here today to invite the Western world to get back on the path to prosperity. Economic freedom, limited government and unlimited respect for private property are essential elements for economic growth. The impoverishment produced by collectivism is not a fantasy, nor is it an inescapable fate. It's a reality that we Argentines know very well.
We have lived through this. We have been through this because, as I said earlier, ever since we decided to abandon the model of freedom that had made us rich, we have been caught up in a downward spiral - a spiral by which we are poorer and poorer, day by day.
This is something we have lived through and we are here to warn you about what can happen if countries in the Western world, that became rich through the model of freedom, stay on this path of servitude.
The case of Argentina is an empirical demonstration that no matter how rich you may be, how much you may have in terms of natural resources, how skilled your population may be, how educated, or how many bars of gold you may have in the central bank - if measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, competition, price systems, trade and ownership of private property, the only possible fate is poverty.
Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to leave a message for all business people here and those who are not here in person but are following from around the world.
Do not be intimidated by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state. Do not surrender to a political class that only wants to stay in power and retain its privileges. You are social benefactors. You are heroes. You are the creators of the most extraordinary period of prosperity we've ever seen.
Let no one tell you that your ambition is immoral. If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general wellbeing.
Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself. You are the true protagonists of this story and rest assured that as from today, Argentina is your staunch and unconditional ally.
Thank you very much and long live freedom!
