Economist & political scientist @UChicago @HarrisPolicy studying conflict & organized crime. My book is Why We Fight: penguinrandomhouse.com/books…

Chicago, IL
Chris Blattman retweeted
I am going to write something below that should be seen as the musings of one who celebrated – and still celebrates – Lula’s victory over Bolsonaro Jr. Here it goes: I cannot for the life of me justify why o why Brazil’s courts had to demand of Bolsonaro that he hands over his passport the moment he lost the election. That he disputed the veracity of the election result is a sign of a faulty character, evidence that he is a bad loser. BUT, he had every right to being a bad loser; to dispute, rightly or wrongly, any result. As for the argument that he was being investigated for other misdemeanours or crimes, that doesn’t wash either: What would have happened if Bolsonaro had won the election? Would the judges also prevent him from travelling abroad, as President-elect? I very much doubt that – which means that the judges were conflating executive and judicial powers. To those who tell me that the Bolsonaro clan is a fascistic, criminal family, my reply is: You and I may very well think that. Alas, the judiciary has no right to use its powers to indict and to pursue someone because – or immediately after – they lost an election. It is shameful, to be precise. And it is also dangerous for those of us on the left who know what it means to be banned and hounded by rogue judges and police commissioners. But I also have a message to Bolsonaro supporters, or those sitting on the fence, who assume that Lula is somehow behind the judges. He is not! This is the same court that imprisoned, falsely, Lula himself. What we have in Brazil is a judiciary that overreaches and habitually crosses the line that ought to separate judicial from political power. It is such a shame that a judge took it upon himself to go after Bolsonaro on the eve of his defeat and, in doing so, to sully Lula’s stupendous victory. One last point that my comrades in Brazil should note: If Bolsonaro and Rubio wanted to mount a campaign against Lula and Brazilian democracy they could never have been aided better than by that judge’s reckless writ.
WHAT LULA’S RE-ELECTION TELLS US: The Class War Need Not End in Fascism On Sunday, Brazilians did something that the commentariat had told us was a lost cause. On the eve of his eighty-first birthday, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former metalworker, turned the Trumpist, evangelical, neofascist, Zionist tide in Latin America to get re-elected President of Brazil. Three weeks earlier, he had come second in the first round, behind Flávio Bolsonaro, son and political heir of the man who trumpeted the merits of fascism, who had embraced Trump as his lord and master, who plotted a cynical coup against Brazilian democracy – moreover, the main candidates that were eliminated were rightists whose voters were meant to move to Bolsonaro. Yesterday, Lula overturned this deficit and won with a margin of nearly four and a half million votes. I want to use Lula’s victory to tell a broader story. A story about a war, the class war that the few are waging against the many across the Western world. And a story about how that war need not end, as so many now fear, in a neofascist revival. THE HIDDEN CLASS WAR “There’s class warfare, all right,” Warren Buffett once said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Mr Buffett was not exaggerating. For almost four decades, Western governments and central banks have pulled every policy lever in the same direction: to make the assets of the few burgeon at the expense of the incomes of the many. Consider the numbers. Between 1952 and 1988, economic growth explained nearly all the gains of the West’s stock market. From 1989 onwards, growth explains only about a quarter. The largest share, around 40 per cent, came from income diverted from workers to shareholders. Another third came from cheaper money and lower perceived risk. That is not wealth creation. It is wealth extraction: a transfer from those who work to those who own, inflated by cheap money and paraded on the evening news as “a strong economy”. Then look at the rescues. 2001, 2008, 2020, the British gilt crisis of 2022, Silicon Valley Bank in 2023: each time, the state rushed in to save the asset holders. Together they reveal the rule: to save the economy, you must save the wealth of those who own it – not those who produce stuff, not even productive companies. In the United States, the top tenth own almost 90 per cent of all shares. The Fed and the US federal government insure it for them, doing ‘whatever it takes’ to prop them up whenever their prices tank. The rest of us in the West pay the premium, in the form of the austerity that always follows the bailout. And the owners need never sell. Why do billionaires pay so little tax? Because they do not earn incomes - they accumulate capital gains, taxed only when sold. So they borrow against their soaring assets at 1 or 2 per cent and live on the loan. Then they die and pay no tax on their capital gains, passing on the loot to their kids at ridiculously low inheritance taxes. Meanwhile, to pay bills and put food on the table, the worker borrows on a credit card at 20 per cent, her debts the mirror image of their fortunes. Then, a large chunk of these accumulating assets seek even higher rents in places like Brazil where the US government intervenes to ensure that the local governments will also place the defence of these assets’ values above all else. CAPITAL IS NOT A THING, NOT MERELY AN ASSET Why does austerity keep returning, even though it is economically self-defeating? Marx tells the story of Thomas Peel, who in 1829 sailed to Western Australia’s Swan River with £50,000 of provisions and three hundred working-class men, women and children. On arrival, his workers walked off into the bush and worked for themselves. Peel had brought money, tools and labour, but he could not bring capitalism along, because his workers had an alternative. Capital, Marx concluded, is not a thing but a social relation: the power of those who own to get those who don’t own to do things they’d rather did not do. Austerity is not an economic policy. It is a disciplinary device, keeping the many sufficiently insecure and indebted to accept whatever is on offer. The ruling class’s deepest fear is not inflation or debt. It is to end up like Peel: rich, but without the power to compel. IS FASCISM INEVITABLE? Here is the part of the story that keeps so many of us awake at night. When centre-left politicians, from Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Tony Blair to Gerhard Schröder, Francois Hollande and Andy Burnham abandoned the language of class, a void opened up in the working-class heartlands of the West. Into that void stepped a venomous storyteller with a century of experience in filling such voids: the recalcitrant far right, the rebranded fascists. They offer left-behind workers a story of dignity, then redirect their fury away from the owner who shipped their factory abroad or sold their council house to some fund and towards the migrant next door. It does not end the class war. It merely divides one side – the workers – to rule over them. It camouflages it. From the red suburbs of Paris to south Piraeus, from England’s red wall to Italy’s rust belt in Taranto, from the American rust belt to eastern Germany, the pattern seems relentless. And so, a fatalism has set in: the class war waged from above, we are told, must inevitably end in a neofascist, racist, misogynist revival. Brazil has just refuted this fatalism. Brazil knows the monster intimately. It lived through four years of Jair Bolsonaro, with his nostalgia for the military dictatorship. On 8 January 2023, his followers stormed the Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential palace. Brazil’s far right is not a fringe. Unlike Trump’s rag tag storm troopers, they had years of running a dictatorship. It won the first round of this election. They had the White House fully behind them, while the US Democrats, once again demonstrating their irrelevance, stayed mute. And yet, yesterday, they were defeated. How? Not by hand-wringing about “populism”, nor by a centrist promise to manage the status quo more efficiently. Lula won because he did what the Western centre-left forgot how to do: he spoke the language of class, and backed it with policies that shifted power, however modestly, from the few to the many. His government exempted those earning up to five thousand reals a month from income tax and paid for it with a minimum tax on the very richest. During Brazil’s G20 presidency, it proposed a global minimum tax on billionaires. When Lula tells Brazilian workers that the elites have rigged the game, he points his finger upwards, at the rentier and the speculator, not sideways, at the migrant or the poor. PIX – AN EXAMPLE OF AN ANTI-OLIGARCHY DIGITAL TOOL But the most innovative weapon in Brazil’s arsenal is one that few outside Latin America have heard of. It is called Pix. Every time you tap a card to pay for a coffee, a toll is levied. Visa, Mastercard and the banks take a cut, often 2 or 3 per cent, from every transaction. Multiply this by billions of purchases a day and you grasp one of the most lucrative rent-extraction machines ever devised. These are not profits made in competitive markets but rent extracted by those who own the digital rails on which our economic lives now run. It is part of what I call technofeudalism. Unlike Britain, Europe or, of course, America, Brazil’s central bank moved to limit this rabid exploitation. It launched an alternative: a public, instant payment system, free for individuals and with capped fees for merchants. A Brazilian pays a street vendor in Salvador or sends money to her mother in Recife, instantly, using Pix from her phone, with no card company or bank taking its slice. Brazilians took to it with astonishing enthusiasm. Last year, Pix processed almost 80 billion transactions and overtook credit cards as the most popular way to pay online. Pix is, in effect, the Swan River of the digital age. It gave tens of millions of Brazilians, including the poorest, who had never had a bank card, an alternative to the toll booths of Big Finance. And, like Peel, the toll collectors did not take it lying down. This summer, Washington imposed 25 per cent tariffs on most Brazilian exports, and its trade representative explicitly named Pix as a grievance, complaining that it “unfairly disadvantaged” American payment companies! The most powerful government on Earth deployed its trade arsenal against a free public service for being too successful at denying rents to Visa and Mastercard. Lula did not blink. He defended Pix as a Brazilian public good, and Brazilians rewarded him for it. Here, at last, is a concrete example of limiting the power of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech: not with slogans, but by building public digital infrastructure that removes the opportunity to extract rent in the first place. NOT A REVOLUTION, BUT AN AUSPICIOUS PORTENT Let me not romanticise. Lula is no revolutionary. His margin was narrow. Brazil’s Congress remains in the grip of agribusiness and evangelical blocs. Its central bank still keeps interest rates punishingly high, a weapon of the class war if ever there was one. Lula himself has compromised much too much with these vested interests, and lost support as a result. But Brazil has shown three things the rest of us must learn. First, the class war waged against the many does not have to end in fascism. Fascism wins only when the left vacates the battlefield of class. Second, a progressive government can win by pointing upwards, at those who extract rent, rather than downwards, at those who suffer. And third, Big Business can be defeated, at least forced to lose some battles, by building public alternatives to its rent-extracting machines. So, here is the challenge to Britain, to Europe, to the people of the United States. -Build your own Pix: public payment rails that end the tolls of Visa and Mastercard. -Tax capital gains, ill-gotten wealth that is, not just income. -Make every rescue conditional, with the public receiving real, permanent equity in return. -Create a public investment bank as an alternative to the bond markets. Restore the bargaining power of the workforce. And give working people what Peel’s workers found at Swan River: an alternative, and the freedom to say no. Buffett was right. There is a class war, and his class has been winning hands down. But yesterday, in Brazil, it lost a battle though not the war. It lost because a working-class president dared to name the war and fight it using weapons fashioned to defend the many. unherd.com/2026/10/why-lula-…
1,086
666
4,546
786,100
Chris Blattman retweeted
I usually just ask "How many QJE have you published in the last 5 years?"
For those hiring predocs and other quantitative research assistants, how are you doing advanced tests and interviews in the age of AI? We used to do a mix of coding and statistical tests, followed by interviews, and are trying to evolve. If you want to DM me or email me directly, I'll share collected wisdom with everyone who contacts me with their ideas or best practices.
2
5
188
14,004
Honestly, yes. The econ profession is extremely hierarchical and deferent to authority; few junior people will risk their careers by exposing errors by older, prestigious researchers. So doing it pseudonymously -- but checkably! -- makes sense.
Many people have valid criticisms of SZ, but something sits poorly with me here. An anonymous website, very limited information on prompts, data, etc, and suddenly broadcast by a popular blog...Is this really how we want Econ research to move forward? marginalrevolution.com/margi…
20
21
461
30,299
For those hiring predocs and other quantitative research assistants, how are you doing advanced tests and interviews in the age of AI? We used to do a mix of coding and statistical tests, followed by interviews, and are trying to evolve. If you want to DM me or email me directly, I'll share collected wisdom with everyone who contacts me with their ideas or best practices.
8
10
79
37,049
My own philosophy has a lot to do with what at UChicago we call "with, without, and about": demonstrating you can do tasks with AI, demonstrating you can do certain tasks without AI, and showing that you know about AI and how it works.
2
42
4,227
Now let's run the same experiment with managers and super capable employees. :)
This is one of the most important pieces of social science on human and AI interaction that I’ve seen in some time. Experts follow agentic advice the vast majority of the time (causally), but only a tiny fraction credit the agent—majority think they came to decision on their own volition. Reminds me of the classic Nisbett and Wilson study on people following outside influence without realizing it “ But as more work is handed to AI—including AI safety research—these judgment calls are the main levers for people's own values to influence outcomes. If people defer to AI without noticing, then "human in the loop" might provide less assurance than people expect.”
3
4
36
5,370
Chris Blattman retweeted
This is one of the most important pieces of social science on human and AI interaction that I’ve seen in some time. Experts follow agentic advice the vast majority of the time (causally), but only a tiny fraction credit the agent—majority think they came to decision on their own volition. Reminds me of the classic Nisbett and Wilson study on people following outside influence without realizing it “ But as more work is handed to AI—including AI safety research—these judgment calls are the main levers for people's own values to influence outcomes. If people defer to AI without noticing, then "human in the loop" might provide less assurance than people expect.”
New Anthropic research: How AI agents shape experts' judgment calls When experts delegate work to an agent, do they still make the key decisions? We tested this in a randomized trial with 50 professional data analysts.
68
308
1,950
156,330
Chris Blattman retweeted
Im trying to understand why Brazils largest laser hair removal company is down 30% today Has the Brazilian bikini wax gone out of style? Has the hair stopped growing? Is Lula bringing back the bush? These are the important questions Brazilian investors should be asking today
122
353
5,143
257,204
Chris Blattman retweeted
Last Wednesday I gave a talk at USC's Econ department on "Skills in Economics Research". I turned my talk into a YouTube video teaching the use of skills, and the 7 mistakes I see economists consistently making with skills. Here are the 7 mistakes: 1. Economists often don't make their own skills. Instead they look for libraries of skills made by other people. The skills they find only partially fit their use case. I show in the video that skills are typically very easy to make. 2. They make too few skills - often countable just on one hand. I have hundreds of skills across my projects. I suggest economists adopt a "rule of 3" with respect to skills: if you notice yourself doing the same thing three times, make a skill. 3. They make unnecessary skills. Often economists without significant pre-AI coding experience will make skills in situations a deterministic script is more appropriate. I explain through a case study of economics research on the "cereal industry" how one can understand whether their current problem is "skill-shaped". 4. They don't use their previous agent conversations to improve their skills. Both Codex and Claude Code store session transcripts on your computer. Your agent can use these to improve existing skills and identify useful new ones—I show how. 5. They don't clean up their skills. As projects evolve or new models get released, skills often "go stale", and start to work against you - costing you tokens and time rather than saving them. I explain a low effort mechanism to do a "spring cleaning" of your skills. 6. They don't use skills for project management. My two most useful skills are the skill to handle all my meeting transcripts and the one to handle my email. Especially for senior faculty who are not writing code, but are managing many projects - these project management skills are invaluable (see @cblatts' Claude Blattman). I show how to set up and use these skills. 7. They don't compose their skills. Skills can call other skills. For the ambiguous knowledge work which characterizes much of economics research, it's important to think carefully about whether a repeatable workflow makes most sense as one skill or several skills working together. I provide guidance on how to make that decision, with examples. If you've been following me for a while, this is without a doubt the best video I've made, and will hopefully be a lower bound for what is to come! Full video link: piped.video/BQahybA5lMg
10
52
316
29,472
Chris Blattman retweeted
Not sure I’ve seen a more beautiful thread on the labor economics of AI.
🧵1/10 Given the recent reactions of mathematicians over rapid advances in AI, I think it is important to remember that technological change has historically been a very personal event for people. Over the history of technological progress, looms have fallen silent, switchboards have gone dark, and factory lines have shrunk bringing with them a human crisis of identity and what it means to be a master of one's craft.
6
68
418
68,256
Chris Blattman retweeted
FT: In Brazil, "almost 2mn people, mostly men, now work full-time for transport or delivery apps — around 2 per cent of the workforce — with driver numbers climbing 37 per cent in three years, according to government research. The most common reason people work for the apps is that they could not find another job." The FT notes that in Brazil, the transport and delivery app economy has become a kind of unemployment insurance scheme, although one with declining "benefits". The same is true in China. It is hard to get good data, but the best estimates are that 12% of China's working population works in the gig economy, of which 7% work in the transport and delivery app economy – i.e. three to four times the share in Brazil. ft.com/content/3868b320-2c24…
35
265
1,250
100,496
Chris Blattman retweeted
The economist job market is up and running!  Last year the economics job market was the toughest in recent memory, as JOE listings were down 20%.  This was below even Covid levels.   A bit of good news for PhD economists this year in that I am noticing some green shoots in my discussions with employers!  And, in the data, we have a bit of good news as well: JOE listings are up 5.5% over this time last year (see below). Under the hood is where it gets interesting, however: **Full-time US academic jobs: +14.4%. Liberal arts colleges +16.1%, universities with graduate programs +13.8%. The segment that took the biggest hit last year is leading the recovery. **Full-time academic jobs outside the US: -12%. The rebound so far seems to be a domestic story. **Nonacademic jobs: +7.5% overall.  Yet, this hides a ton of heterogeneity. Consulting/research +21.6%, Banking/finance/industry -25%, US federal government: -44.4%. A side note is that for my entire career, the federal agencies were a stabilizer of this market, the last few years we have seen this buffer disappear. At this point, a candidate might ask: how should I respond to all this news?  Considering the data and my chats with people around several markets, I would still turn to the science.  Back when I was on the market it was difficult too (at least for me…I had 1 interview from 150 applications!).  The next year we studied the search market (paper downloadable here: ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura…). We compared a boom market to a bust market through the lens of optimal search across multiple markets. Candidates adjust on two margins: which markets they enter, and how many applications they send into each. In busts, we found graduates of elite programs broadened their search down the academic ladder, graduates of lower-ranked programs shifted toward the business sector, and employers everywhere raised their hiring standards. So far the data in 2026-27 is neither a boom nor the bust in our paper, it is both at once.  Today academia is loosening while government has effectively closed and finance has tightened.  Even with those changes, my advice is no different than it was back then: adjust both margins.  This means that you should re-enter markets you may have written off.  This is because the academic window is wider than many feared, especially at liberal arts colleges. In addition, perhaps redirect applications from DC toward consulting. In the end, the deepest lesson for me remains:  there is no “the market,” we live in the world of “many markets.”  Treat this like a portfolio problem, and thus the key question of the day is “how are YOUR markets doing?”
2
48
230
24,810
Unless…
Starlink Mini offers fast, reliable internet on the go—great for traveling, camping, exploring, boating, RVing, and more.
461
Chris Blattman retweeted
On AI in economics, from r/academiceconomics (mostly grad students and early career)
25
123
3,282
417,081
This is why it’s a pleasure to teach @uchicago undergrads
University of Chicago Students to Protest at Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Demand End to Federal Ban on Onion Futures Student-led group For Our Futures will rally Monday morning to call for repeal of the 1958 Onion Futures Act On Monday, October 19, at 8:30 a.m., members of For Our Futures, a student-led organization from @UChicago, will gather outside the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (@CMEGroup) headquarters to demand the repeal of the Onion Futures Act of 1958, a nearly 70-year-old federal law prohibiting futures trading in onions. The Onion Futures Act, enacted following allegations of market manipulation in the 1950s, singled out onions for a prohibition on futures contracts that remains in effect today. For Our Futures is calling on Congress to repeal the ban and restore the ability of onion growers, buyers, and traders to participate in a regulated futures market. Onions remain the only commodity banned from futures trading in the United States. The protest will feature a giant inflatable onion costume, protest signs, and dozens of students, and will take place outside the headquarters of CME Group, one of the world's largest derivatives marketplaces and the historic center of American onion futures trading. DM for details cc: @pointsnfigures1 @CharlesFLehman @matt_levine @nbcchicago @ABC7Chicago @cbsnewschicago @WGNNews @fox32news @WBEZ @Suntimes @BlockClubCHI @chalkbeatCHI @SeanCasten @mansourtarek_
5
4
219
13,350
Chris Blattman retweeted
Isto aqui é um baita bem público, parabéns ! 👇👇👇
1/9 E se eu falar que eu treinei um LLM do Zero, com dados 100% br, e feito sem gastar 1 real? Hoje decidi abrir publicamente o código, os dados e os pesos do meu projeto de LLM Legislativo Brasileiro. É um pipeline completo que vai desde a coleta de quase 1 milhão de documentos históricos do Congresso Nacional até o pré-treinamento de um Transformer causal próprio. Não usei pesos pré-treinados de ninguém. Não usei APIs fechadas. Não usei atalhos prontos como o Hugging Face Trainer. Fiz tudo do zero em PyTorch puro, com foco em reprodutibilidade e integridade matemática. Vou contar como estruturei isso no fio abaixo.
1
2
60
7,638
Chris Blattman retweeted
AI doing amazing things in LatAm politics
Brasil : elecciones en 12 dias Lo que sube lula : videos diciendo que Argentina es el peor pais del mundo y si pierde brasil va a ser asi Lo que sube bolsonaro :
2
24
9,722
This is incredible
This is, unreservedly, my favorite account of an ambassador behaving badly, from a diplomatic oral history site. I read this years ago and cannot forget it, and you won’t either. (If they made this a movie, it’d be R rated.) adst.org/2015/06/this-woman-…
1
39
41,259
Worth reading replies
This is the least surprising graph in the world if you understand how gradient descent works.
1
42
22,163
Chris Blattman retweeted
United is effectively getting rid of flight requirements for status. Every year it becomes more true that airlines are credit card businesses that also happen to fly planes.
United Airlines changes: The airline will stop counting the number of flights its MileagePlus members take and instead require them to focus on spending-based PQPs for status ⤵️ bit.ly/4jdO9xE
36
94
2,170
256,638