The war in Iran has once again put inflation at the center of economic debate. As already happened with the invasion of Ukraine, the rise in energy prices is beginning to spread to the rest of the economy and is once again straining the cost of living. The OECD announced this week an increase in inflation of around 3% for this 2026.

A few days ago, in the presentation of the Economics Note Speaking at the Catalan government's conference on shared prosperity, economist Branko Milanovic recalled an idea that helps explain many of the political tensions we are experiencing in the West. We have been talking for years about polarization, distrust in institutions, and the crisis of liberal democracies. But we often struggle to connect these phenomena with the economic changes that have shaped the world in recent years.

The universal child benefit has returned to the center of public debate. The discussion has focused primarily on its cost and budgetary viability. But while we look at the numbers, one fact remains constant: in Catalonia, more than one in three children and adolescents live at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Given this, perhaps the question is not only whether or not a new benefit is necessary, but also what model of public support for raising children we have, and who it serves.

In the wake of Greenland, Ukraine, and the future of NATO, there is much talk these days about the foreign policy differences between the United States and Europe. But we cannot overlook the widening gap that exists in domestic politics. At the beginning of the year, the Heritage Foundation, one of thethink tanksone of the most influential people in the US, published areport to "save America by saving the family"Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced a temporary freeze on federal funding for childcare services and family assistance. The time and cost of raising children are presented as a responsibility primarily borne within households, often by women, with increasingly limited public support.

We are experiencing a paradoxical start to the year. Politics—especially international politics—is increasingly unstable: open conflicts, blurred alliances, and decisions that strain the global order. At the national level, parliamentary fragility and the lack of a budget hinder any significant reform. And yet, the economy seems to be progressing with surprising calm. Markets remain stable, and growth, both in the United States and in Catalonia and Spain, has exceeded many forecasts.

It's very unlikely you'll win the Grossa lottery, but it's very likely you'll have a political argument on Christmas Eve. Specifically, you have a 20% chance of having a "heated" political discussion, according to the [unclear - possibly "lottery" or "political lottery"].Polarization Atlas 2025 From the organization More in Common. The landscape of social division that emerges from this and other research is worrying. One in four people in the country has felt "attacked or strongly criticized" for expressing their opinions in public.

Never before have we had so much information at our fingertips, so much data to understand the world, and so many tools to verify it. And yet, never before has it been so easy to get lost in fake news, biased headlines, and half-truths. This same contradiction has also taken hold in public debate: never before has so much evidence been produced and used to guide policy, and at the same time, never before have politicians been so polarized and so unwilling to listen to what the data says.

It happened to us two years ago with oil. Last year with chocolate. And now it's happening with eggs. With each trip to the supermarket, a recurring feeling: the most basic products in our shopping are getting more and more expensive. The price of eggs has risen by more than 20% in one yearAnd in some supermarkets, a dozen eggs already costs over €5.40 – up to €6.50 for organic ones. When a product as basic as eggs becomes a topic of debate in Congress, we know something is wrong.

In 2019 I completed a master's degree in economics in London. Shortly before I graduated, representatives of the British government visited the university to present their Fast Stream program for civil service accessIt was an attractive career path for young economists interested in public policy: a highly competitive, yet streamlined and competency-based entry process, with digital tests, joining the following year, an entry salary, and rotations between ministries while training to perform leadership and public management tasks.

Three years after the reform that was supposed to bring order to the self-employed regime, the Spanish government is once again stumbling over the same problem: the discomfort of a group that feels despisedThe proposal to increase quotas over the next three years was short-lived.

Catalonia is growing. Its GDP is growing at a faster pace than most European countries, and employment has recovered strongly after the years of crisis. But that dynamism does not reach everyone.: Every year, more and more Catalan households are struggling to make ends meet – today it's already one in ten. Wages have risen, yes, but the cost of living has done so moreWhile the economy expands, the purchasing power of a large part of the population stagnates. And this imbalance explains why, despite growth, we don't live better. But this reality is not the same for everyone. While one part of the population sees their salary lose purchasing power, another continues to accumulate income and profits. The latest report from the CNMV is a good example of this: the management positions of companies in The Ibex earns 55 times more than its employeesThis growing gap is not only a symptom of inequality: it calls into question how the benefits of growth are distributed. The real challenge is not to grow more, but to grow equitably.

We've always heard that Barcelona can't afford to build any more. On one hand, the Besòs and Llobregat rivers; on the other, Collserola and the Mediterranean Sea. A clear example of the law of supply and demand, explained in any first-year economics course: more and more people want to live in the city, but there's no land to build on. But it's not just Barcelona. It's not even the pressure of tourism or Airbnb apartments. The problem goes deeper: we don't have enough available housing and they are becoming more and more expensive.

Few issues generate as much unanimity today as the difficulty in accessing housing. It's a complaint that comes up on the street, at family meals, or at get-togethers with friends, and one that was confirmed this summer. the latest CEO barometerSince last year, it has been the main concern in Catalonia, ahead of discontent with politics, immigration, and insecurity. And nine out of ten people say that finding a home that suits their needs is a very difficult task.

The worst thing that can happen with public aid is that it doesn't reach the right people and, for those that do, it doesn't have the desired results. The latest evaluation of the Airef on the minimum vital income (IMV) It is published with this double warning: the benefit doesn't reach those who need it most, and when it does, it can have unintended effects. Only half of the families who could receive the IMV receive it, and it reduces the likelihood of those who do. However, this isn't an inevitable failure, but rather an opportunity to rethink the design—and function—of the IMV policy. If we want it to be a useful tool against poverty, it needs to be redefined with greater intelligence and confidence in the public.

Catalonia has been burning for days. The asphalt is boiling in the cities, apartments are suffocating in the densest neighborhoods, and in many towns, shade is a rare luxury. The heat wave is relentless, with record temperatures approaching day after day. But not everyone experiences it the same way. For some, it's a nuisance; for others, a threat.

"We must continue, and we will." That was Pedro Sánchez's blunt response when asked about the Koldo case and the crisis of confidence rocking his government. Continuing may be enough for the PSOE, but it isn't enough for a system that, if left unchanged, allows schemes like this to be possible. The UCO report reveals how Ábalos, Cerdán, and Koldo allegedly sought to "modify the bidding system," "gain greater control" over the auditors, and manipulate the technical process so that sympathetic operators would win with inflated scores. And we know all of this not because it was detected by any of the many anti-corruption bodies in Spain—neither integrity offices, nor transparency agencies, nor internal oversight courts (we have so many)—but rather by a judicial investigation that has required months of police work and evidence as clear as the recorded conversations between those involved.

The latest labor market data has once again exceeded expectations. and confirm a surprising trend: the Catalan and Spanish economies are holding their own in a cooling European context. In the Latest growth forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) The international organization highlighted Spain as the only major economy that will improve by up to 2.5% in 2025. The Airef and theOECDHowever, they warn that the repercussions of Trump's policies—and the uncertainty they generate—could reduce this growth, but never below 2.3%.

More than 460,000 Catalan children live at risk of poverty or social exclusion. That's one in three. The economy continues to grow—outperforming Spain's and Europe's—and with such a low unemployment rate. as we haven't seen it since before the 2008 financial crisis.

Tariffs are a very American temptation that has always ended badly. At least, when they are applied massively. As the Financial TimesIn 1828, the so-called abomination tariffs, designed to protect Northern manufacturing, nearly led to the secession of South Carolina. In the 1930s, tariffs imposed by an American administration that clearly didn't need them to protect competitive businesses—like those of today—worsened the Great Depression.

In April 2020, shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic, 159 million American households received a $1,200 check (plus $500 for each child). This measure, known as economic impact payments or stimulus checks, was repeated in December 2020 and March 2021. Within a few days, the Trump administration managed to reach a large majority of American citizens. And the first to receive the aid were those who already had their tax information registered because they had filed income tax returns in previous years. The payments went directly into their bank accounts. A swift measure that provided millions of families with a small financial reprieve at a time of extreme emergency.