Thursday, ARA put on its front page: “The expectation of a quick end to the war is encouraging markets”. Indeed, on Wednesday the Ibex-35 had risen by 3.16% because the conviction had spread that the war would end soon. However, on Thursday itself the index lost part of the previous day’s gains. This is tantamount to saying that the stock markets – that is, financiers – do not have clear ideas about how the war will impact the economy. Since the first bomb fell, the Ibex-35, like the American Dow Jones, has only fallen by 5%. To give us an idea of what the stock market does when a real crisis begins, at the end of 2007, and in a few weeks, the Ibex-35 fell by 33%, and did not begin to recover until seven years later. In contrast to the bewilderment of financiers, engineers show a solid pessimism. The International Energy Agency has published a ten-point plan of measures for governments to adopt to save energy, and the European Union commissioner has sent a letter to governments suggesting, among other things, rationing gasoline, promoting teleworking, and even prohibiting the circulation of private vehicles on Sundays (a measure in force during the energy crisis of the 70s). The basis for this view is that the energy infrastructures in the Persian Gulf have been so damaged that, even if the war ended today, supply would not be able to return to normal for several months.In this context, it is interesting to compare the Spanish government's response to that of the Chinese. The former has reacted by lowering the VAT levied on fuels, which has gone from 21% to 10%. This has meant that, despite the price of gasoline rising by 15%, the consumer only perceives a 4% increase. On the other hand, the Chinese government raised prices by 13% on the 23rd. The former, implicitly optimistic, tries to gain time, while the latter – prudent – prepares its population for the worst, and prefers them to start saving fuel from the outset.

The most precious asset of any society is its cohesion, and conversely, the worst threat is its fragmentation. The debate on immigration, which we are now beginning, must therefore focus on this issue.

"The Catalan bourgeoisie has always married off their daughters to Rioja wines," Miquel Torres lamented to me many years ago. Indeed, Catalonia produced enormous quantities of wine, but of mediocre quality. Priorat wines, for example, were bought wholesale to be mixed with other wines or simply with soda water. The situation has changed dramatically, but not by chance. The first Pujol government created an institute dedicated exclusively to improving the situation and established a school of viticulture and oenology. Later came the professorships, the designations of origin, and the efforts of a vast number of businesspeople, journalists, and restaurateurs united by the desire to create quality wines.

Last Tuesday, President Illa, interviewed on TV3, commented on the regional financing agreement reached between the central government and ERC in the following terms: "Is it a good agreement for Catalonia? No, it's excellent!"

The intense immigration process that Spain has been experiencing since the beginning of the 21st century is defining three clearly differentiated territorial realities:

In the last two weeks, a number of opinions have been published regarding the regional financing proposal agreed upon by ERC and PSOE. Many of these opinions have referred to the principle of ordinality, and I believe a clarification is in order.

On Friday, the Spanish Deputy Prime Minister publicly presented the proposal for a new financing model for the autonomous communities under the common regime. Outside of Catalonia, the proposal has sparked fierce opposition from the People's Party (PP) and the Socialist president of Castilla-La Mancha, both arguing that it not only excessively favors Catalonia but also represents a break with the system of solidarity that the State is meant to guarantee, and that this is because Prime Minister Sánchez has yielded to the blackmail of the Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC). Within Catalonia, many voices—including Junts per Catalunya and the employers' association Foment—denounce the proposal, adding that it falls short of the commitments made by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and the Catalan Socialist Party (PSC) in the investiture agreements. Who is right?

Last week I was summoned to Parliament to give my opinion on a bill, currently under consideration, that would amend the law on the tax on stays in tourist establishments (IEET). I would like to share my thoughts with readers, but first I need to provide a brief overview of our tourism sector.

On the 5th, the president of the employers' association Fomento, Josep Sánchez Llibre, proposed to Spanish society a social pact in favor of immigration, avoiding the ideological and partisan character that characterizes the debate and focusing it on the economic effects that the demographic evolution is having.

Four weeks ago I published an article in which he pointed out that low-paid immigration – the kind that attracts our tourism, our agriculture and our personal care services – undermines the welfare state, since the taxes and social contributions that these people bear are less than the cost of the services they will receive throughout their lives.

The Government has just approved a very generic "Catalan Railway Strategy", which gives rise to a comment on the challenges we face, which for reasons of space I will restrict to passenger transport.

One of the most valuable economic lessons I've ever learned came from one of the most important economists of the 20th century, Paul Samuelson. He explained that the economy works like a soda cooler, which consists of a tube open at both ends. You put a warm bottle in at one end, and the pressure forces a cold bottle out at the other. The idea is simple: you need to invest resources to get results. So far, so obvious. But what happens when a "populist" (that was his term) says that you don't need to put any soda in, but that you just need to put your hand inside the tube to pull out a cold bottle? And when it runs out, you repeat the process again and again. As long as the audience is willing to turn a blind eye to reality (and there are always many willing to do so), the populist will triumph politically. The problem is that when their term ends, those who remain will have to put in many bottles before they can pull out any.

Until recently, there was a political consensus in Catalonia in favor of immigration. On the right, because immigration provides a labor force—at home, in the fields, and in factories—without which wages would have to be raised, processes would have to be automated costly, or the government would have to fold. On the left, for the sake of solidarity and the history of the working class during the 20th century.

"This is how we build a country," the Minister of the Presidency declared immediately after the news of the failure of BBVA's takeover bid for Sabadell was made public. Undoubtedly, the outcome is positive for Catalonia, and politics has undoubtedly also had a lot to do with it.

Last Tuesday, the INE published the first estimates on the macroeconomic figures of the autonomous communities corresponding to the year 2024. The following day's ARA devoted two pieces: theeditorial (from which I took the title of this article) and another in the Economics section. The first, quite rightly, emphasized that GDP growth—which measures the size of the economy—is not as important as GDP per capita growth—which divides GDP by the population and therefore measures material prosperity. In plain language: GDP is how much we all produce; GDP per capita, how much we touch. Obviously, the important thing is the latter.

The negotiations over the one-off financing and the news about other negotiations regarding the Generalitat's participation in the management of Aena make it opportune to reflect on the relationship between Catalans and Spain.

"We will only overcome the division in Europe if the will for change receives broad democratic support. The decisions we face are too important to be resolved with technocratic solutions."

Attributing Madrid's recent economic dynamism relative to Catalonia to its status as the capital raises several problems: 1) Catalonia was more dynamic than Madrid during the Franco regime (…) 2) During the first decades of democracy (1978–2000), Catalonia maintained a dynamism comparable to that of Madrid. 3) Catalonia's relative decline began in the 2000s and accelerated from 2012 onwards. (…) Any explanation, therefore, must focus on what changed in 2000 and, above all, in 2012. (…)

""Sequels were never good"