Javier Milei

is that when you design policies on the basis of ethical and moral values, and when you do what is just, not what best suits the political rubbish people who work only on the basis of political speculation, that's how you gain support.

We got 41% of the vote, a 17% lead over Kirchnerism, which in a general presidential election would mean winning on the first round.

And the latest surveys show that 62% of Argentines

Well, actually, I came to understand the ideas of freedom as an economic growth specialist back in the years of 2013 to 2014. I could see that per capita GDP statistics over the last 2,000 years of the Christian era essentially looked like a hockey stick, indicating that per capita GDP remained almost constant until around 1800, after which it accelerated sharply.

Well, actually, I came to understand the ideas of freedom as an economic growth specialist back in the years of 2013 to 2014. I could see that per capita GDP statistics over the last 2,000 years of the Christian era essentially looked like a hockey stick, indicating that per capita GDP remained almost constant until around 1800, after which it accelerated sharply.

Well, actually, I came to understand the ideas of freedom as an economic growth specialist back in the years of 2013 to 2014. I could see that per capita GDP statistics over the last 2,000 years of the Christian era essentially looked like a hockey stick, indicating that per capita GDP remained almost constant until around 1800, after which it accelerated sharply.

In the same context of that phenomenal increase in productivity and per capita GDP, the population had multiplied sevenfold over the preceding 200 years.

In the same context of that phenomenal increase in productivity and per capita GDP, the population had multiplied sevenfold over the preceding 200 years.

In the same context of that phenomenal increase in productivity and per capita GDP, the population had multiplied sevenfold over the preceding 200 years.

So basically, in economics, that means you get increasing returns and the presence of increasing returns implies the existence of monopolies, concentrated structures, and according to traditional neoclassical economic theory, the presence of monopolies and concentrated structures is not a good thing.

So basically, in economics, that means you get increasing returns and the presence of increasing returns implies the existence of monopolies, concentrated structures, and according to traditional neoclassical economic theory, the presence of monopolies and concentrated structures is not a good thing.

So basically, in economics, that means you get increasing returns and the presence of increasing returns implies the existence of monopolies, concentrated structures, and according to traditional neoclassical economic theory, the presence of monopolies and concentrated structures is not a good thing.

But at the same time, one could see that living standards had increased tremendously and that middle-income people ended up living far better than emperors did in the Roman era and the population had gone from having 95% of people in extreme poverty to less than 10%.

But at the same time, one could see that living standards had increased tremendously and that middle-income people ended up living far better than emperors did in the Roman era and the population had gone from having 95% of people in extreme poverty to less than 10%.

But at the same time, one could see that living standards had increased tremendously and that middle-income people ended up living far better than emperors did in the Roman era and the population had gone from having 95% of people in extreme poverty to less than 10%.

And in that context, the question was how it could be that something that had lifted so many people out of poverty, that had improved human condition so much, could be something bad for economic theory, meaning something was not right. So in that context, I remember that one of the people who worked on my team suggested I read an article by Murray Newton Rothbard called Monopoly and Competition.

And in that context, the question was how it could be that something that had lifted so many people out of poverty, that had improved human condition so much, could be something bad for economic theory, meaning something was not right. So in that context, I remember that one of the people who worked on my team suggested I read an article by Murray Newton Rothbard called Monopoly and Competition.

And in that context, the question was how it could be that something that had lifted so many people out of poverty, that had improved human condition so much, could be something bad for economic theory, meaning something was not right. So in that context, I remember that one of the people who worked on my team suggested I read an article by Murray Newton Rothbard called Monopoly and Competition.

I remember reading it like it was today. And after reading it carefully, I said, everything I've taught about market structure in the last 20 years in courses on microeconomics is wrong. This caused a very strong internal commotion in me, so I called this person who used to work with me, and they recommended a place to buy Austrian School of Economics books.

I remember reading it like it was today. And after reading it carefully, I said, everything I've taught about market structure in the last 20 years in courses on microeconomics is wrong. This caused a very strong internal commotion in me, so I called this person who used to work with me, and they recommended a place to buy Austrian School of Economics books.