 Let's move forward to the next part of Malay speech, which is digging into why the West is in jeopardy. Now, if free market capitalism and economic freedom have been remarkable instruments to eradicate poverty globally, and we are presently experiencing the most favorable period in human history, it is worth inquiring why I assert that the West is in jeopardy. The main problem of the West today is that we not only have to confront those who even after the fall of the wall and overwhelming evidence continue to advocate for impoverishing socialism, but also our own leaders, thinkers, and academics who sheltered in a misguided framework, undermine the foundations of the system that has given us the greatest wealth and prosperity in our history. The theoretical framework I am referring to is neoclassical economic. The issue with neoclassicals is that since the model they fell in love with doesn't match reality, they attribute the error to the supposed market failure instead of revising the premises of their model. Market is not just a graphical description of a supply curve and a demand curve on a graph. The market is a mechanism of social cooperation where property rights are voluntarily exchanged. Thus, considering this definition, discussing market failure is a contradiction in terms. There is no market failure. If transactions are voluntary, the only situation in which there can be a market failure is if there is coercion present. And the only one with the ability to coerce in a generalized manner is the state that possesses the monopoly of violence. Each time you want to correct a presumed market failure, inevitably due to not knowing the market or because you have become attached to a failed model, you are opening doors to socialism and condemning people to poverty. So this is where he is going right to the heart of what the WF is all about. The WF is not a leftist organization. It is, I don't know, neoliberal, or he calls it neoclassical, where they embrace markets on the whole, but they see lots of market failures and say that there is a need for a strong, robust government intervention to deal with those market failures, things like pollution, climate change. The government needs to intervene and Malaya is saying, no, you are wrong, Davos crowd. And we are going to do things a different way in Argentina. Is that more or less, are we on the same page with our interpretations here? I think so, yeah. I think who was definitely criticized because of this part, because of the part where he says that there can be no market failure by neoclassical economists in Argentina, just because they, well, of course, they claim that they are. And I think the phrasing could have been differently in that people individually can definitely fail in the market. It's just that, you know, there's nothing that can be systemic that cannot be solved by the market itself. But, you know, other than that, I think your interpretation is right. And I think what Millay is saying is, again, is very similar to what we have been hearing in Argentina. It's just at this time, because it was in Davos, it caught people's eye all over the world. And I'm very glad that it did, because otherwise it would have been just us listening to his preaching, if you will. But now it's also you. Do you consider him to be a sort of high priest of Argentine libertarianism? Like, what do you think of the sort of proselytizing? Do you like it? Do you find it creepy? Do you fear that he'll develop this cult of personality in the same way that many other leaders throughout Argentine history have? I'm a bit afraid of that cult of personality, because I think many people follow him, you know, and not the libertarian ideas that he preaches again. And I think that can be bad in case things go wrong, for example, if he doesn't deliver, because then people who follow him will not be able to criticize him whenever he fails, you know, whenever he does something that's wrong. Many people today, for example, I see that they don't want to criticize the government because of anything, even if they make mistakes, you know, just because they want to support me all the way. I don't think that's very healthy, because that can lead him to believe that he can, you know, do whatever. I do believe, of course, he's a libertarian, and I have confidence, I mean, I voted for him, like, all of the times, you know, the primaries and the general election and the runoff and I would vote for him again. But I want him to, you know, be faithful, you know, to the libertarian idea. In that regard, I think he was more like a priest when he was campaigning. Again, he's not talking much right now. I think that's very strategic. I think he has definitely adapted to being president, which is a good thing, because there was this, you know, concern that Zach was talking about earlier, that he would be, you know, like Trump, but he would just keep talking as president all the time and doing nothing. But Millay is not one of those. I think he is like strategically receiving, you know, from the public eye as the nasty, you know, job gets done, basically, because of course, you know, raising revenue for the government is something that, you know, would be unthinkable under a libertarian government. But again, his priority now is to stabilize the country, you know, avoid hyperinflation and then, you know, transform the country. So I think that's why he's not talking much. But he can, if things, you know, turn right for him, if he is able to deliver, if this law that he's sending out to Congress gets passed and we start to see a recovery, you know, an economic recovery, a future of months, I think he can be, he can go back to the, you know, to the priest role from which he has receded in recent months. It's going to be interesting because he's staking out, this is a very doctrinaire, libertarian position that really differentiates him from the kind of more liberal governance that the WF would suggest, where he's saying literally there's no such thing as a market failure, you know, this I, and so it's kind of like where the policy rubber meets the road for a libertarian because there will be situations where some sort of voluntary transaction results in an externality. It results in something that costs other people something and kind of the doctrinaire, libertarian approach to that as well. They should be compensated through, they should be able to bring a suit, they should be able to bring a torch through the courts and get compensated for that. That's not at all how the modern world is governed. We're governed via regulation to avoid that kind of extreme liability from like an oil spill or air pollution or something like that. So it's going to be, I think, where it's like something to watch and kind of like empirically observe. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our new show, Just Asking Questions. You can watch another clip here or the full episode here. New episodes drop every week, so subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get notified when that happens or to the Just Asking Questions podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other podcatcher. See you next week.