The author’s mechanism. He treats efficiency as trial-and-error under free action: people chase gain; those who maximize it persist. Productivity, he says, is ease of that chase. External law that blocks “natural” action he calls violence (citing Aristotle). Bureaucratic designs (CPM, PERT) fail because they are not live trial-and-error. That is his theory, not a measured law.

Two league tables. IMD 2026 competitiveness (70 economies): Singapore 100, then Hong Kong, Switzerland; Vietnam enters; Argentina 58 (46.9), Venezuela last at 70 (14.8). Heritage Economic Freedom: Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland near the top; U.S. 22; Argentina 106; China 154; Venezuela 174. He notes China 12th on IMD, 154th on Heritage because of subsidies and credit control. Both indexes, he admits, are blunt.

Polo as the parable. The Economist “Polo’s lessons for Argentina”: 27 of the world’s top 30 players are Argentine; less tape, more ribbons. Pampas breeding, cloning, FDI. France’s IFCE/SIRE rules, he says, make horses dear and the crowd small. Argentina’s GDP still lurches; polo does not. His close: freer, less coerced economies look more productive on these lists.

Let’s start by understanding how the efficiency of an economic system is produced. By the way, we will only try to do science, it is not about what we like or what our opinion is.

When people can act naturally, freely, they will seek their greatest gain, as a result of the principle of survival that commands each one to improve their situation in order to ensure and strengthen their future.  

So, there are two possibilities, that it succeeds in maximizing its benefits or that it does not. In any case, it will continue in its purpose until it achieves it. If it does not achieve the goal at any time – which is practically impossible in the natural order, but this is another discussion – it will disappear so that only those who finally manage to obtain their maximum profit will survive, and to the extent that they do. 

And this is........

© Eurasia Review