patrick.net

https://vigilantfox.substack.com/p/argentina-president-javier-milei

Argentina President Javier Milei Promotes Freedom at Davos 2024 (Full Speech)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
It's for me a great, great honor to welcome Javier Milei, as you know, the freely elected president of Argentina.
And it's actually your first trip to a foreign country after you have been elected.
First, congratulations for your election and congratulations also to your sister,
who managed your election campaign.
I think you, sometimes people would say with more radical muscles, but you introduce a new spirit to Argentina, making Argentina much more related to free enterprise, to entrepreneurial activities,
also to bring Argentina back to the rule of law.
So we have a very extraordinary person among us today and of course we are all eager to listen to you and again a very cordial welcome to the World Economic Forum.
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,
Motivated by some well-meaning individuals willing to help others, and others motivated by the wish to belong to a privileged caste, the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism.
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 better place than us Argentines to testify to these two points.
When we adopted the model of freedom back in 1860, in 35 years we became a leading world power.
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 remained 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%, again the CAGR, 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 year 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 and 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 either to the 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 they voluntarily pay taxes?
Which 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, the advocates, 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.
If they make a good quality product at an attractive price they will do well and produce more.
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
that academia, international organizations, economic theory and politics demonize an economic system that has not only lifted out of extreme poverty 90% of the world's population but has continued to do this faster and faster and this is morally superior and just.
Thanks to
Free trade capitalism, it is to be seen that the world is now living its best moment.
Never in all of mankind's 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 richer, is more peaceful and prosperous.
And this is particularly true for countries that have more freedom and have economic freedom and respect the property rights of individuals.
Because countries that have more freedom are 12 times richer than those that are repressed.
And the lowest decile in terms of distribution in free countries are better off than 90% of the population of repressed countries.
And 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 Venegas Leitch Jr., who says that libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others, based on the principle of non-aggression, in defense of the right to life,
As part of which, success is achieved only by serving others with goods of better quality or at a better price.
In other words, capitalists, 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 principles of libertarianism.
The defense of life, of freedom and of property.
Now, if 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 those of our 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, some due to
Mistakes in the theoretical framework and others due to a greed for power 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
Evidence continued to advocate for impoverishing socialism.
But there's also our own leaders, thinkers and academics who, relying on a misguided theoretical framework, 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, ends up
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.
On the pretext of a supposed market failure, regulations are introduced which
Only 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 supposedly 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 something along the lines of market failures.
The market is not a mere
This is a graph describing a curve of supply and demand.
The market is a mechanism of 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 a 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's 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 these so-called market failures described by the neoclassicals are the concentrated structures of the economy.
However,
Without increasing returns to scale functions, whose counterpart are the concentrated structures of the economy, we couldn't possibly explain economic growth since the year 1800 until today.
Isn't this interesting?
Since the year 1800 onwards, with population
Multiplying by eight or nine times per capita GDP, grown by over 15 times.
So there are 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 that 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 the model and change it.
The dilemma faced by the neoclassical model is that they say they wish to perfect the functioning 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.
An example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits and destroying growing returns
In other words, whenever you want to correct a supposed market failure, inexorably, as a result of not knowing what the market is, or as a result of having fallen in love with a failed model, you are opening up the doors to socialism and condemning people to poverty.
However, faced with the theoretical demonstration that state intervention is harmful, and the empirical evidence
The solution to be proposed by collectivists is not greater freedom, but rather greater regulation, which creates a downward spiral of regulations until we are all poorer and the life of all of us depends on a bureaucrat sitting in a luxury
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 as a community 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 these sexes.
The cornerstone of our creed says that all humans are created equal, that we all have the same unalienable rights granted by the Creator, including life, freedom and ownership.
All that this radical feminism agenda has led to is greater state intervention to hinder the economic process, giving a job to bureaucrats who have not contributed anything to society.
Examples, ministries of women or international organizations devoted to promoting this agenda.
Another conflict presented by socialists is that of humans against nature, claiming that we, human beings, damage the planet which should be protected at all costs, even
Going as far as advocating for population control mechanisms or the bloody abortion agenda.
Unfortunately, these harmful ideas have taken a strong hold 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 International Relations
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 will be having 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 the 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 political offers in most Western countries are collectivist variants, whether they proclaim to be openly communist, fascist, Nazis, socialists, social democrats.
I would like to say that the state should steer all aspects of the lives of individuals.
They all defend a model contrary to that one which led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history.
We have come here today to invite the rest of the countries in the Western world to get back on the path of prosperity, economic freedom, limited government and unlimited respect for private property are essential elements
for economic growth.
And the impoverishment produced by collectivism is no fantasy, nor is it an inescapable fate.
But 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, as part of which we are poorer and poorer day by day.
So this is something we have lived through and we are here to warn you about what can happen if the 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 or how much you may have in terms of natural resources or how skilled your population may be or
Therefore, in concluding, I would like to leave a message for all business people here and for those who are not here in person but are following from around the world.
Do not be intimidated either by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state.
Do not surrender to a political class that
If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being.
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, unconditional ally.
Thank you very much and long live freedom.

(clearly some bits are missing from the transcription)

They were so chafing to strap Milei to an altar and butt fuck him for Satan.

"An example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits and destroying growing returns"

I think I disagree with this one line.

Monopolies can emerge and crush all competition by giving away their product temporarily, then raising them to arbitrary heights later.

https://babylonbee.com/cleanArticle/america-decides-to-cancel-election-and-just-draft-that-argentinian-guy-for-president

Patrick says

"An example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits and destroying growing returns"

I think I disagree with this one line.

Monopolies can emerge and crush all competition by giving away their product temporarily, then raising them to arbitrary heights later.

Which monopolies are not through government granted exclusive license to operate in an area?

My cousin lives in Argentina, and he says Milei is nothing more than a puppet of BlackRock or whatever. He's selling off state assets to western investment corporations. My cousin believes it might lead to civil war.

Talk is cheap remember. That's all I've heard from politicians for the last 30 years, empty fucking talk.

HeadSet says

Patrick says

"An example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits and destroying growing returns"

I think I disagree with this one line.

Monopolies can emerge and crush all competition by giving away their product temporarily, then raising them to arbitrary heights later.

Which monopolies are not through government granted exclusive license to operate in an area?

Government steps in when unfettered competition destroys the profits of all market participants. Everyone gets his own turf, as long as they kick back enough of their profits.

richwicks says

He's selling off state assets

Yep. Opposite direction of Yugo Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela :-/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

https://apnews.com/article/milei-argentina-president-privatization-1a87d02035511982ab620104b9feb255

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Argentina’s right-wing president-elect gave the first indications Monday of how he plans to start shaking up South America’s second-largest economy: with a slew of privatizations.

Populist Javier Milei, a libertarian economist and self-described “anarcho-capitalist,” won a presidential runoff election on Sunday with 55.7% of the vote. He said Monday that he would move quickly to privatize the country’s state-owned media outlets and look to do the same with other public companies.

“Everything that can be in the hands of the private sector will be in the hands of the private sector,” Milei told Bueno Aires station Radio Mitre.

ad says

Yep. Opposite direction of Yugo Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela :-/

The cure to communism is NOT fascism.

If you want to fix your government, you need to get a population of COWS to fucking go in, and fucking kick the ass of corrupt bureaucrats and politicians not just sell off all the responsibilities to a corporation that doesn't have any accountability to the public whatsoever.

Also, JUST because something is SUPPOSEDLY private doesn't mean it ACTUALLY is. CNN is supposedly private, but it's state propaganda, only. So is MSNBC, so is Fox, although they are controlled opposition in this round. They were full out propagandists in 2003.

I'm not an expert with Argentina but my cousin is pretty politically aware. Time will tell. He thinks Milei is a mentally unstable sociopath, just like our presidents are. Imagine Bloomberg being president or Bill Gates or something.

richwicks says

ad says

Yep. Opposite direction of Yugo Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela :-/

The cure to communism is NOT fascism.

You have to examine what is inherently a government function. For example, the US Navy is not a private organization or company. The Constitution states to provide for a Navy.

Does the government need to own media companies and airlines ? Are they " inherently government functions " ?

.

UkraineIsFucked says

richwicks says

My cousin lives in Argentina, and he says Milei is nothing more than a puppet of BlackRock or whatever. He's selling off state assets to western investment corporations. My cousin believes it might lead to civil war.

Talk is cheap remember. That's all I've heard from politicians for the last 30 years, empty fucking talk.

You have to question why the state has those assets to begin with. Cuba seized all of Bacardi's property and operations and still "own it" til this day. Getting the state out of ownership of anything is step 1.

theoakman says

richwicks says

My cousin lives in Argentina, and he says Milei is nothing more than a puppet of BlackRock or whatever. He's selling off state assets to western investment corporations. My cousin believes it might lead to civil war.

Talk is cheap remember. That's all I've heard from politicians for the last 30 years, empty fucking talk.

You have to question why the state has those assets to begin with. Cuba seized all of Bacardi's property and operations and still "own it" til this day. Getting the state out of ownership of anything is step 1.

We'll see the outcome of this in time.

Argentina is extremely corrupt, but don't you realize that corporations just forced 5 billion people take an unnecessary vaccine that didn't work and is killing people? There are worse things than government.

We'll find out the outcome of what Milei is doing in due time. My cousin is predicting disaster, we'll see.

https://darkfutura.substack.com/p/cracks-begin-to-show-at-davos

Better than Milei is Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, "who roundly gored the wide-eyed technocrats with his unique brand of eloquent incision".

See his video about 1/3 of the way down the page.