Economista. Consultora. Comentarios a título personal.
Santiago, Chile
Joined October 2011
- Tweets18.8K
- Following2.9K
- Followers5.6K
- Likes32K
Si van a leer a Marx y Engels, lean antes a Flora (de) Tristán y verán de dónde vienen los relatos y las ideas. Otra mujer que no ha logrado su lugar en la historia. Aún. Es Franco-Peruana y pasó por Magallanes y Valparaíso en Chile. Fascinante. Abuela de Paul Gauguin.
Siguiendo el modelo de Columbia y Yale, Harvard ha creado un curso de Grandes Libros. Los estudiantes compiten por conseguir plaza, a pesar de su alta exigencia: leen un libro a la semana y las calificaciones son duras. Les atrae poder hacer algo «grande».
wsj.com/lifestyle/harvard-cl…
Daniela Benavente retweeted
“Chile está en una recesión, ha tenido este año una recesión. Esta es la primera recesión de la que uno tiene recuerdo, en la cual no es causada por fenómenos internacionales”, ex decano y académico FEN, José De Gregorio, en @InfinitaFM
infinita.cl/podcasts/entrevi…
Reinterpreto: Esto es lo opuesto al síndrome de impostura... impostores incompetentes que no están conscientes de sus propias limitaciones llegan al poder a punta de soberbia y autobombo. Qué podría salir mal?
This paper answers why confident idiots run the world.
Cornell University published a psychological paper that explains every terrible boss, every loud influencer, and every broken corporate hierarchy.
It’s called “Unskilled and Unaware of It.”
they tested participants across logic, grammar, and humor to measure the gap between actual performance and self-perception.
And the results are wild.
participants scoring in the bottom 12th percentile consistently believed they were operating in the 62nd percentile.
they were not lying. they were literally incapable of recognizing their own incompetence.
the paper revealed a brutal paradox:
the exact skills required to master a domain are the exact same skills required to accurately evaluate your own competence in that domain.
if you lack the skill, you inherently lack the cognitive capacity to realize you are failing.
this creates a dangerous systemic loop.
the incompetent are blessed with absolute, blinding certainty. their brain protects them from their own ignorance, allowing them to speak first, demand authority, and never second-guess their decisions.
meanwhile, the actual experts suffer the exact inverse.
top performers in the study consistently underestimated their rank. because a task was easy for them, they falsely assumed it was easy for everyone else.
they hesitate. they obsess over nuance. they assume they have nothing unique to add.
we are biologically wired to confuse confidence with competence.
the loudest person in the room gets promoted, gets funded, and gets the microphone, not because they know what they are doing, but because they are physically incapable of seeing what they don't.
the only defense mechanism is building systems that stop rewarding absolute certainty and start demanding proof of work.
La mejor noticia del día. Años esperando. #Feliz
Tuvo que borrarlo?
CÓMO SON LAS REUNIONES DE GOBIERNO? La Ministra del Desarrollo @MinistraWulf invitó a una influencer a hablar de un evento. La enfrentó, la grabó y la dejó como aweoná a la “Un Thanksgiving Chileno…” Y TUVO QUE BORRARLO. Por suerte alcanzaron a grabar el video
Daniela Benavente retweeted
Chile President José Antonio Kast’s approval rating sank to a record low as a controversy over the early release of convicted child sex offenders added to anger over a stagnant economy bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Sobre Andrés Janones, el janonismo, el Ejercito de Lula y la victoria de Lula, un ejemplo de campaña para evitar que siga arrasando y (retroexcavando, eso lo digo yo, permitan la ironía 😉) la extrema derecha en el mundo. (Pero que la izquierda ajuste sus prioridades por favor.)
The New Yorker, is now interested to study the Brazilian working class. They look at André Janones and "Lula’s Army" and call it a "tech-savvy" miracle that reversed the far-right surge.
But they are missing the profound civilizational shift that just took place.
Let us look at the material reality of those three weeks between the first and second rounds.
For years, the empire and the domestic oligarchs treated the internet as their private property. They used Silicon Valley algorithms, dark money, and decentralized right-wing troll farms to isolate, exhaust, and manipulate the public.
When Flávio Bolsonaro took the lead in the first round, the left didn't just buy better ads. André Janones digitized the physical solidarity of the streets. He organized millions of ordinary Brazilians into "Lula’s Army," synchronizing their messaging to manually overpower the algorithm.
The strategy was so devastatingly effective that the Global North is now begging the Global South for the blueprint. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has requested Janones’s help, and in France, activists are studying "Janonisme" to fight the far-right.
Why is the institutional media in New York and Paris suddenly looking to a Brazilian politician to learn how to survive the digital age?
Because for a decade, the empire believed the working class was too atomized and too exhausted to fight back online. They thought the digital realm was permanently locked behind algorithms controlled by right-wing billionaires.
But Brazil proved a beautiful, undeniable truth: when ordinary people—the nurses, the bus drivers, the students—synchronize their dignity, no algorithm can contain them. The left didn't just "hack" a social media platform; they broke the empire's digital enclosure.
The Global North spent billions building a digital cage for the world.
But the Brazilian working class just figured out how to pick the lock, and now the rest of the world is asking them for the key.
Daniela Benavente retweeted
El MIT ha presentado un informe histórico, que suscribo, elaborado por su Comité Ad Hoc, sobre el uso de la IA en la enseñanza, el aprendizaje y la formación en investigación, en el que propone una reorganización profunda de su modelo académico/educativo ante el avance de la IA generativa, entre lo que destaca, entre muchos otros aspectos:
– Diseño inverso (Backward Design): Se insta a los profesores a definir primero qué deben saber, comprender y valorar los estudiantes, para luego decidir en qué puntos específicos la IA suma o resta al aprendizaje.
– Enfoque de aumento, no de automatización: La meta no es prohibir la IA, sino rediseñar los programas y cursos para que la tecnología apoye el pensamiento crítico sin permitir la rendición cognitiva (cuando los estudiantes recurren a la IA antes de intentar resolver por sí mismos un problema difícil).
– Nuevos métodos de evaluación: Se desaconseja el uso de detectores de IA, por considerarlos poco fiables y propensos a generar desconfianza. En su lugar, se propone un mayor uso de exámenes orales, evaluación continua, proyectos prácticos, portafolios con revisiones presenciales y componentes sociales en cada área temática.
El informe propone 8 principios medulares para guiar la integración de la IA generativa en la educación superior:
· Sé humilde (Be humble): Reconocer que el ritmo del cambio tecnológico es demasiado rápido como para establecer reglas permanentes, lo que requiere flexibilidad constante.
· Sé audaz (Be bold): Afrontar la situación de forma proactiva mediante el rediseño profundo de los planes de estudio, en lugar de aplicar parches defensivos.
· Pon a la humanidad en el centro (Put humanity front and center): Priorizar las relaciones interpersonales, el florecimiento humano y el valor de la educación residencial (de humanos enseñando a humanos).
· Sumérgete en el aprendizaje / Preserva el esfuerzo constructivo (Lean into learning): Entender que el esfuerzo cognitivo y la dificultad son esenciales para aprender; obtener una respuesta rápida de una IA no equivale a adquirir conocimiento.
· Enseña con intencionalidad (Teach with intentionality): Diseñar las clases con propósitos claros, evitando tanto las prohibiciones reflexivas como los mandatos ciegos de la IA.
· No hay una solución única para todos (No one size fits all): El nivel de formación importa; una política o herramienta adecuada para un doctorando puede resultar perjudicial para un alumno de primer año que aún está construyendo sus bases conceptuales.
· Aumentación, no automatización (Augmentation, not automation): Utilizar la IA para elevar el nivel de los problemas que un estudiante puede resolver (potenciar el pensamiento), en lugar de delegar por completo la capacidad humana de pensar.
· Piensa más allá del aula y del campus (Think beyond the classroom and the campus): Considerar el impacto de la IA en el desarrollo integral de los estudiantes como personas y ciudadanos en el mundo exterior.
PUEDE LEER EL REPORTE EN INGLÉS EN: bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.…
Daniela Benavente retweeted
El Estado ya comprometió ingresos mínimos garantizados al teleférico aunque vaya vacío
Entonces es mejor que esa plata financie viajes reales integrados con la Bip!
La pregunta no es cuánto cuesta integrar el teleférico, sino cuánto nos costará no hacerlo
Entrevista en @TVN
Daniela Benavente retweeted
🔴 #AlertaLT | Subsecretario de Justicia Luis Silva es removido de su cargo en medio de polémica por rebajas de condenas y tras publicar video sin informar latercera.com/politica/notic…
Daniela Benavente retweeted
Llega a ser inquietante lo contingente que es esta pregunta de Carolina Urrejola en el debate ANATEL de la segunda vuelta recién pasada (9 de diciembre de 2025).
Vale la pena escucharlo completo.
Me pregunto cómo reaccionaría el candidato Kast frente a la crisis del Pdte. Kast
Daniela Benavente retweeted
🔴 AHORA | Desempleo se dispara en Chile: llega a 9,8% y deja a más de un millón de personas sin trabajo adnradio.cl/2026/10/29/desem…
Daniela Benavente retweeted
Asociación de diplomáticos acusa grave retroceso: nombramientos políticos en embajadas llegan al 35%
adnradio.cl/2026/10/29/asoci…
Daniela Benavente retweeted
🔴 AHORA | Era peor: Superintendente de AFP, Joaquín Cortez, reconoce que las pérdidas de valorización de las AFP por operaciones en derivados ascienden a US$10 mil millones en todos los multifondos entre enero y septiembre
» theclinic.cl
Daniela Benavente retweeted
💰#PlazaPública700 El bolsillo está en su peor momento: Por primera vez las personas consideran que su situación economía personal y familiar es más negativa que positiva (50% vs 47%).
Daniela Benavente retweeted
1/n
Minutas de las AFP están engañando a sus afiliados. Les explico 2 trucos utilizados, bastante burdos y deshonestos.
A) Observar la evolución del Fondo E durante esta década, y vean la diferencia entre REAL (negro) vs NOMINAL (rojo). Primera trampa, las AFP usan NOMINAL.
Esta película merece sus 25 premios internacionales. Y la historia no se repite, pero rima (o más bien vuelve a desentonar). Recomiendo ir al cine, el ritmo pausado es parte del atractivo, como espectadores nos permite ponderar los cursos de acción, prejuzgar y juzgar.
Daniela Benavente retweeted
Esto me parece ser la mejor explicación de la crisis en Francia. Y por eso me opuse siempre al pilar solidario de la reforma de pensiones, le carga la mano a los jóvenes activos para darle a quienes ya tienen (la riqueza y sus rentas) y ya reciben (las transferencias de la PGU).
The ugly truth about France and some of the other European countries currently in turmoil - and which none of the politicians want to admit because it'd be political suicide - is that you can't solve the problem by going after immigrants (as the right asserts) or the rich (as the left asserts), but you could solve it by going after the old.
One extraordinary statistic for you: people over 60 in France, a quarter of the population, own 60% of France's wealth, non-financial and financial (ofce.fr/pdf/revue/2025/3-192…).
And here is another crazy statistic:
that same quarter of the population, those above 60, receive nearly two-thirds of all social spending by the French government (previssima.fr/actualite/prot…) - which is famously among the highest in the world (France's government spending is an insane 57.3% of GDP).
Last statistic: they make up about 40% of voters because they're a third of registered voters (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/266…), and they turn out far more than anyone else (franceinfo.fr/elections/sond…).
Put our 3 statistics together and there's almost a bit of an apartheid situation here: the old own most of the country's wealth, collect most of the social spending and have the political power to keep it that way.
Which makes them a de-facto rentier class, living off assets and transfers paid for by younger generations.
And, of course, at the risk of stating a truism, the future is built by the young. Yet France keeps effectively taking money away from them to give it to those whose working lives are already behind them - and need the money far less since they already own the country's wealth.
What about inheritance, I hear you ask? That's the funniest/saddest aspect: given that life expectancy has kept rising, the French now inherit a home at 54 on average. The most common case is someone in their 80s leaving it to heirs in their 50s, in effect the very old transferring wealth to the about-to-be old (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fic…).
You can add this to our earlier apartheid statement: on top of all the rest, even when the old finally let go of their wealth, it stays within their own "camp".
That's my personal situation, incidentally: I'm 42, my father is 71 and he is starting to look at ways to pass things on to me and my siblings, when our professional lives are already well settled, so it'll arrive when it changes things the least, which is pretty much the French system in a nutshell.
Now, I get that there'd be some unfairness in going after them: they paid into the system their entire working lives, playing by the rules of a social contract that told them if they paid up they'd collect at the end. Changing the rules now means breaking that promise, which is admittedly unfair.
But there's no magic wealth tree in any society: you can only take it where it is. That's the way most major societal transformations end up happening. They're often triggered by a catastrophic event (the so-called "four horsemen": mass-mobilisation war, revolution, state collapse, plague) BUT what really drives change is a transfer: wealth gets pried from the privileged class who've been sitting on it and handed to those who'll build what comes next.
So, in theory and in an ideal world, you can do without the catastrophic event and directly proceed with the transfer...
The fact that in France, and elsewhere in Europe, it's the youth protesting is probably no coincidence - even though they don't frame it as a generational fight. And even though, cruel irony, the left politicians many of them march behind promise to bring the retirement age back to 60 (lcp.fr/actualites/legislativ…), which would make the situation even worse.
Let's say they understand intuitively that the system is stacked against them, even if they haven't yet figured out how. And politicians are obviously doing what politicians do, meaning pandering to the people who actually vote, while pointing the young towards easier - and politically convenient - scapegoats.
To be clear I'm not saying it's the only problem in France, VERY far from it. I'm also not saying that all old people in France live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of younger generations: there are also plenty of very poor retirees who, if anything, would deserve more.
What I am saying is that it's probably the biggest elephant in the room: everyone can see it, nobody dares mention it - no politician, from any side, wants to run on cutting grandma's pension - and it makes every other problem harder to fix.
Esto me parece ser la mejor explicación de la crisis en Francia. Y por eso me opuse siempre al pilar solidario de la reforma de pensiones, le carga la mano a los jóvenes activos para darle a quienes ya tienen (la riqueza y sus rentas) y ya reciben (las transferencias de la PGU).
The ugly truth about France and some of the other European countries currently in turmoil - and which none of the politicians want to admit because it'd be political suicide - is that you can't solve the problem by going after immigrants (as the right asserts) or the rich (as the left asserts), but you could solve it by going after the old.
One extraordinary statistic for you: people over 60 in France, a quarter of the population, own 60% of France's wealth, non-financial and financial (ofce.fr/pdf/revue/2025/3-192…).
And here is another crazy statistic:
that same quarter of the population, those above 60, receive nearly two-thirds of all social spending by the French government (previssima.fr/actualite/prot…) - which is famously among the highest in the world (France's government spending is an insane 57.3% of GDP).
Last statistic: they make up about 40% of voters because they're a third of registered voters (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/266…), and they turn out far more than anyone else (franceinfo.fr/elections/sond…).
Put our 3 statistics together and there's almost a bit of an apartheid situation here: the old own most of the country's wealth, collect most of the social spending and have the political power to keep it that way.
Which makes them a de-facto rentier class, living off assets and transfers paid for by younger generations.
And, of course, at the risk of stating a truism, the future is built by the young. Yet France keeps effectively taking money away from them to give it to those whose working lives are already behind them - and need the money far less since they already own the country's wealth.
What about inheritance, I hear you ask? That's the funniest/saddest aspect: given that life expectancy has kept rising, the French now inherit a home at 54 on average. The most common case is someone in their 80s leaving it to heirs in their 50s, in effect the very old transferring wealth to the about-to-be old (insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fic…).
You can add this to our earlier apartheid statement: on top of all the rest, even when the old finally let go of their wealth, it stays within their own "camp".
That's my personal situation, incidentally: I'm 42, my father is 71 and he is starting to look at ways to pass things on to me and my siblings, when our professional lives are already well settled, so it'll arrive when it changes things the least, which is pretty much the French system in a nutshell.
Now, I get that there'd be some unfairness in going after them: they paid into the system their entire working lives, playing by the rules of a social contract that told them if they paid up they'd collect at the end. Changing the rules now means breaking that promise, which is admittedly unfair.
But there's no magic wealth tree in any society: you can only take it where it is. That's the way most major societal transformations end up happening. They're often triggered by a catastrophic event (the so-called "four horsemen": mass-mobilisation war, revolution, state collapse, plague) BUT what really drives change is a transfer: wealth gets pried from the privileged class who've been sitting on it and handed to those who'll build what comes next.
So, in theory and in an ideal world, you can do without the catastrophic event and directly proceed with the transfer...
The fact that in France, and elsewhere in Europe, it's the youth protesting is probably no coincidence - even though they don't frame it as a generational fight. And even though, cruel irony, the left politicians many of them march behind promise to bring the retirement age back to 60 (lcp.fr/actualites/legislativ…), which would make the situation even worse.
Let's say they understand intuitively that the system is stacked against them, even if they haven't yet figured out how. And politicians are obviously doing what politicians do, meaning pandering to the people who actually vote, while pointing the young towards easier - and politically convenient - scapegoats.
To be clear I'm not saying it's the only problem in France, VERY far from it. I'm also not saying that all old people in France live a lavish lifestyle at the expense of younger generations: there are also plenty of very poor retirees who, if anything, would deserve more.
What I am saying is that it's probably the biggest elephant in the room: everyone can see it, nobody dares mention it - no politician, from any side, wants to run on cutting grandma's pension - and it makes every other problem harder to fix.