
Profesor @EcoFinUP. Economía @Cambridge_Uni (@StJohnsCam). Opiniones personales.
Lima, Peru
Joined June 2019
- Tweets13.4K
- Following620
- Followers6.7K
- Likes73.2K
Diego Winkelried retweeted
Si el riesgo país no baja de acá a las elecciones de 2027, empiecen a buscar explicaciones acá. Lula le da impulso a la izquierda argentina, y la izquierda argentina está asociada al default, la inflación y el cepo. Se vienen meses duros.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not.
Here's why, explained so simply a 10-year-old could get it.
It starts with a book written in 1944 by an Austrian economist named Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom.
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not.
Here's why, explained so simply a 10-year-old could get it. It starts with a book written in 1944 by an Austrian economist named Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom.
Imagine a classroom of 30 kids. One day the teacher says: "From now on, I decide what everyone eats for lunch, which games you play at recess, and who sits next to whom. It's fairer that way."
First problem: the teacher doesn't know what you like. You hate carrots. Your friend is allergic to peanuts. Lucas wants to play football, Emma wants to draw. 30 kids, 30 different wishes. Nobody can know all of that, not even the smartest teacher on Earth. Hayek called this the knowledge problem. The information needed to run an economy is scattered across millions of heads, and it can't be gathered in one office.
Second problem: the kids start fighting. "Why does he get the window seat?" "Why football again?" Before, everyone just chose for themselves. Now every choice is a fight, because every choice is made for everyone.
Third problem: the class can't agree on a plan, so someone says "we need one person in charge who just decides." This is Hayek's key insight. Planning doesn't fail because planners are evil. A plan needs everyone to agree on the same goals, and free people never agree on everything. So the plan needs force to work.
Fourth problem, and it's the scariest one: who wants that job? The kind kid doesn't want it, because the kind kid doesn't want to force 29 people to eat carrots. The job attracts the one who likes giving orders and doesn't mind punishing those who disobey. Hayek wrote a whole chapter on this, called "Why the Worst Get on Top." It doesn't happen by accident. It happens by selection.
Here's the trap. When the person who controls your lunch also controls your job, your home, your shop and your newspaper, they control your whole life. You can't say no, because there's nowhere else to go. Controlling the economy doesn't mean controlling one part of life. It means controlling the means to every goal you have.
That's the road to serfdom. Nobody votes for a dictator. People vote for "someone should fix this," then for "give them more power to fix it," and one day they wake up with no one left to say no to.
The USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. These are different countries with different cultures and languages, and the story has the same ending every time. When a script produces the same ending every time, it isn't bad luck. It's the script.
Now capitalism. Back to the classroom. Instead of one teacher deciding everything, every kid can trade. You give me your carrots, I give you my apple, and we both walk away happier. Nobody needs to know what everyone wants, because prices do that job. A price is a message telling millions of strangers what's scarce and what's wanted, with no one in charge.
That's the win condition. In capitalism, you get rich by making something other people freely choose to buy, so your success depends on serving others. In a planned system, you get ahead by pleasing whoever holds power. One rewards usefulness. The other rewards obedience.
And this isn't theory. Two centuries ago, almost every human being was extremely poor. In 1990, about 38% of humanity still lived in extreme poverty. Today it's under 10%. More than a billion people escaped it in a single generation. It happened when China, India, Vietnam and South Korea opened up to markets, trade and private enterprise. The largest reduction in poverty in human history came from letting people trade.
So why do so many people hate capitalism?
Because what they hate usually isn't capitalism.
They hate the bank that got bailed out with their taxes while they lost their house. They hate the giant company that writes the regulations so no startup can compete with it. They hate rent they can't afford because building new homes has been made nearly impossible. They hate the lobbyist who gets a subsidy while the small business owner drowns in paperwork.
Look closely at each one, and you'll find a state handing out privileges. A bailout is not the market. The market would have let the bank fail. A regulation written by incumbents is not competition. It's protection from competition. None of this is capitalism. It's cronyism, which is what happens when businesses stop competing for customers and start competing for politicians.
People see the symptom and blame the wrong cause. They say "capitalism failed" and ask for more state. That gives more power to the same people who created the problem, and it puts us right back on Hayek's road.
The answer to bad capitalism isn't less freedom. It's less privilege. That means fewer bailouts, fewer protected incumbents, fewer permits, and more people allowed to build, compete and trade.
Capitalism has a win condition: make things people want. Socialism has an end condition: someone has to be in charge. And history keeps showing us who ends up in that chair.
¡Felicitaciones @OswaldoMolinaC y muchos éxitos!
#SenadoInforma 🇵🇪 | ¡El BCRP cuenta con tres nuevos directores elegidos por el Senado!
El Pleno aprobó la elección de Oswaldo Molina Campodónico, José Ricardo Stok Capella y Juan José Marthans León, tras el procedimiento de evaluación correspondiente y conforme al marco constitucional y reglamentario.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
Kuka, alguien se tomó la molestia de hacerte un dibujito animado de cómo funciona el populismo y termina destruyendote.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
“It’s nice to elect the right people, but that isn’t the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.”
— Milton Friedman
Diego Winkelried retweeted
"Capitalism is the force that drove down the price of almost everything it touched. The state is the force that blew up the price of almost everything it captured. And young people blame the first for the crimes of the second."
On my way to the office this morning, I passed a group of young people protesting, a Palestinian flag draped over their shoulders.
And I asked myself a question I can't shake: why does this generation always fall into the same trap? No matter the history. No matter the context. Even the ones from wealthy families, who went to the best schools, who were dealt every good card. Always the same trap.
I don't think it's stupidity. I think it's a mechanism. And a mechanism can be taken apart, piece by piece.
A. The observation: everything the state touches becomes unaffordable.
Look at economist Mark Perry's famous chart, the one people call "the chart of the century." It tracks US prices since 2000.
At the top, what explodes: hospital services, college tuition, textbooks, childcare, housing. Increases of +100%, +150%, up to +250%, far above general inflation.
At the bottom, what collapses: TVs, software, phones, toys, clothing. A TV today costs a fraction of what it did in 2000, for an infinitely better product.
Look at what separates the two groups. It isn't technology. It isn't complexity. It's one variable: how much the state is involved.
At the top, sectors that are subsidized, regulated, shielded from competition, where the state funds demand and blocks supply. At the bottom, sectors where companies fight every single morning to serve you better and cheaper.
B. The mechanism: why it's systematic.
When the state subsidizes demand without freeing supply, prices rise. Every time. Guaranteed student loans, and universities raise tuition. Housing aid plus blocked building permits, and rents skyrocket. Administered healthcare, and bureaucracy eats the budget before it ever reaches the patient.
In France it's even more vicious, because the price doesn't disappear: it hides. You never see the hospital bill, you pay it through payroll contributions. You never see the cost of school, you pay it through taxes. Public spending at 57% of GDP, one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world, more than €3.4 trillion in debt. And the result? Overflowing ERs, falling PISA scores, young people who can't afford to live in the city where they work.
The market didn't fail in these sectors. It was never allowed in.
C. Suffering demands a culprit.
A 22-year-old lives all of this in their bones. They can't find a place to live. Their degree either buries them in debt or opens no doors. The future feels blocked. That suffering is real, and I don't deny it for a second.
But human beings can't stand suffering without a culprit. They need a face. A scapegoat.
And this is where everything is decided: who taught them how to read the world?
D. Whoever tells the story picks the villain.
Schools are public. Universities are public. Culture runs on grants. Film goes through funding committees. Public broadcasting shapes the narratives. The people handing down the interpretive framework are, overwhelmingly, paid by the very system that creates the problem.
Do you really think that system is going to name itself as the culprit?
No. It names the capitalist. The boss. The landlord. "The rich." The multinational. The commercial West. Same role, same casting, every time.
E. One lens, a thousand causes.
And this brings me back to that flag. A generation taught to read every situation through a single lens, oppressor on one side, rich, Western, capitalist, oppressed on the other, will apply that lens everywhere. To housing. To climate. To conflicts on the other side of the world. The cause changes, the lens stays. That's why the trap is always the same: it's not the cause that draws them in, it's the way of thinking that was installed in them.
F. The perfect inversion.
Here's the irony. Capitalism is the force that drove down the price of almost everything it touched. The state is the force that blew up the price of almost everything it captured. And young people blame the first for the crimes of the second.
It's like blaming the firefighter for the fire because you saw him at the scene.
G. The ballot box confirms it.
In the US, a few weeks out from the midterms, a large share of urban young voters is getting ready to vote Democrat for more state, more spending, more regulation. New York elected a self-described socialist mayor, carried by young voters, on promises of rent freezes and city-run grocery stores. Rent freezes, the policy that has made housing scarcer everywhere it's been tried. The cure that worsens the disease.
In France, it's the same play in two acts. Part of the youth votes for the radical left, which promises more state. Another part votes for the center, which promises to "manage" the state well, and has dug the debt deeper than ever. Two different ballots, one shared assumption: the problem is the market, the solution is the state.
H. The way out.
These young people aren't stupid. They're right to be angry. They're just aiming at the wrong target.
The day they understand that their rent, their tuition and their hospital are expensive precisely because the state runs them, their anger will change direction. They'll stop protesting against those who create. They'll start protesting against those who capture.
That day, the greatest intellectual scam of our time will be over.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
And, over the dead body of our entire energy policy, environmental, industrial policy, strategic planning, security, and economic policy bureaucracy. Thank goodness for remaining property rights that they couldn't stop it, at least in some states. Can we learn a lesson?
“Todos los animales son iguales, pero algunos son más iguales que otros”🐷
Gran librito que muestra que la revolución en nombre de la igualdad deforma lenguaje, reescribe historia y lava cerebros tornándose en cruda tiranía de la élite que propagandiza.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
I am fascinated by the inability of people to process the actual argument about market theory and the price system that Mises/Hayek/Kirzner/Lavoie were making and why the fundamental problem with socialism is neither an incentive issue nor a computational complexity argument. Of course, socialism must face those two problems, but the deeper problem is one of the generation of the knowledge in the first place, and the contextual nature of that knowledge. Remove the context, the knowledge isn't difficult to process, IT IS NOT THERE. As Buchanan once tried to convey -- the market order is defined in the process of its emergence, and this is an open ended and creative process. Mechanism design theory never had an answer to this, and still does not.
It is for this reason that i fundamentally do not understand leftist hostility to AI: it is the only currently plausible mechanism by which the classical Marxist objective of a wealthy industrial society based on a non-market economy could, potentially, be achieved.
cc’ @lenitiv
… y ahora que la campaña electoral pasó, ya no se reporta al Perú como el país más desigual del mundo 🤷🏻♂️
Income Inequality (Gini Coefficient)
Colombia🇨🇴: 0.54
Costa Rica🇨🇷: 0.45
Türkiye🇹🇷: 0.44
Chile🇨🇱: 0.43
Mexico🇲🇽: 0.43
USA🇺🇸: 0.42
Israel🇮🇱: 0.38
Latvia🇱🇻: 0.34
Italy🇮🇹: 0.34
Australia🇦🇺: 0.34
Switzerland🇨🇭: 0.34
Germany🇩🇪: 0.34
Luxembourg🇱🇺: 0.34
Spain🇪🇸: 0.33
Greece🇬🇷: 0.33
Korea🇰🇷: 0.33
UK🇬🇧: 0.32
Japan🇯🇵: 0.32
France🇫🇷: 0.32
Canada🇨🇦: 0.31
Estonia🇪🇪: 0.31
Austria🇦🇹: 0.31
Denmark🇩🇰: 0.30
Sweden🇸🇪: 0.29
Ireland🇮🇪: 0.29
Poland🇵🇱: 0.28
Finland🇫🇮: 0.27
Norway🇳🇴: 0.27
Belgium🇧🇪: 0.27
Czechia🇨🇿: 0.26
Netherlands🇳🇱: 0.26
Slovenia🇸🇮: 0.25
Slovakia🇸🇰: 0.24
@OurWorldInData
Diego Winkelried retweeted
If there’s any silver lining to the Lindsay Clancy case, it’s that modern left-wing feminism has been thoroughly exposed as a cult of the mentally ill
Diego Winkelried retweeted
Replying to @IfindRetards
Communists love billionaires—until they don’t!
That’s the story of Hui Ka Yan. As the founder of Evergrande Group, he was once worth $45.3 billion and was the richest man in Asia.
How much is he worth today? $0. And he has just been sentenced to life in prison.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
Inflación con que asumió NK: 3,7%
Inflación con la que se fue NK: 8,5%
Aumento: 129,7%
Inflación con que asumió CFK: 8,5%
Inflación con la que se fue CFK: 26,9%
Aumento: 216,5%
Inflación con que asumió MM: 26,9%
Inflación con la que se fue MM: 53,8%
Aumento: 100%
Inflación con que asumió AF: 53,8%
Inflación con la que se fue AF: 211,4%
Aumento: 292,9%
Inflación con que asumió JM: 211,4%.
Último dato de inflación anual de JM: 31,5%
Aumento: -85.1%
La única verdad es la realidad.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
The plan requires your dependence, comrade ☭
Diego Winkelried retweeted
Cambridge Didn't Fail To Vet Jason Arday. It Built A System Designed Not To.
Before anyone at Cambridge read a word of Jason Arday's published work, the university had already told the world what it was looking for. The job advert named "those with a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic background" as one of three groups the faculty was seeking, against a 2019 target to exceed the national benchmark for BAME professors. Candidates needed "a demonstrated ability to support equality, diversity and inclusion." Arday "ticked two of those three boxes." That is Cambridge's own published document, stating in writing that identity was a formal criterion for one of the most prestigious chairs in British academia, before a page of his thesis had been checked against anyone else's.
What followed wasn't oversight. It was active suppression of the people who tried to do the checking Cambridge wouldn't. Evidence of plagiarism reached the university in 2023. It was dismissed. When Jack Grove, a journalist at Times Higher Education, asked basic questions about Arday's credentials, it triggered a four-month Metropolitan Police harassment investigation into him, with officers eventually warning him to stop contacting a professor whose CV he had merely asked to verify. When Dr David Harris, an academic reviewing Arday's research, pressed him on unexplained similarities to another scholar's work, Arday reported him to police too. The pattern is deliberate rather than accidental. Those red flags were raised, repeatedly, in writing, and each time, the institution's response was to weaponise the state against the people raising them rather than the man they concerned.
Students paid the same price on a smaller scale. Several complained about inadequate supervision, sessions cut short, feedback withheld. More than one was told their complaint was itself a form of racism. One appealed a poor grade on grounds of failed supervision. The appeal was rejected. These were paying students, some carrying a lifetime of debt, whose reasonable complaints were treated as an attack on a protected hire rather than information Cambridge had a duty to act on.
The panel explains why none of this triggered alarm. Six of the nine academics who interviewed him had publicly backed radical DEI positions, one arguing overseas student fees could be "tantamount to institutional racism," another arguing education should "disrupt, refuse, and displace liberal democratic principles." A source told the Telegraph the interviews felt like "going through the motions," since the panel had already decided who was getting the job. An ideologically uniform panel doesn't fail to spot fabrication by accident. It was never checking for it. It was checking for conformity, and Arday, self-taught, working-class, black, autistic, was the most conforming candidate the room had seen.
The sharpest verdict comes from inside the community DEI claims to protect. Cambridge's own senior ethnic minority academics joined calls for an independent inquiry, warning the appointment "had the potential to destroy the modest progress Cambridge has made in addressing historical under-representation." They saw immediately what the university's leadership wouldn't say aloud: hiring an unqualified man for his skin colour doesn't honour the genuinely qualified minority scholars before him. It insults them, by suggesting their own achievements might have needed the same shortcut his did.
The evidence supports a harder conclusion than Cambridge has admitted. Had Arday been white, he would have faced the scrutiny every academic candidate is meant to survive, scrutiny his actual work could not have withstood. He was never vetted because the institution had already decided, in its own job advert, that his race qualified him. Cambridge didn't fail to notice the fraud. It built a hiring process, a panel and a PR machine designed not to notice it, and when outsiders noticed anyway, it sent the police after them instead.
Diego Winkelried retweeted
1. Más del 80% del combustible se importa en Perú ¿Por qué? Porque es más barato que producirlo aquí. Adiós al mito de la soberanía
2. Petroperú nos cobra a todos 40 dólares de margen de ganancia por barril de combustible refinado (0.90 dólares por galón y en un barril entran 42 galones). Cuál es el margen en el mercado mundial? Entre 0.05 y 0.35 dólares por galón. Eso quiere decir que, sin Petroperú pagaríamos un combustible mucho más barato. Adiós al mito del combustible más barato.





































