A record summer is expected both in Barcelona and throughout Catalonia. Given this scenario, it is difficult to understand why the tourist tax has not increased even more. Since April 1st, up to 12 euros per person per night are paid in the city of Barcelona, depending on the type of establishment. What often goes unnoticed is that part of this collection has a specific destination: 25% is transferred to the Generalitat for housing policies and the remaining 75% is allocated to the Fund for the Promotion of Tourism.The reality is that the tourist tax is inelastic. It is difficult to imagine a visitor stopping coming to Barcelona due to a moderate increase in the price per night, especially in the case of high-end establishments. Meanwhile, the city faces a growing deficit in services, infrastructure, and public space maintenance. Giving up this revenue stream is, in essence, equivalent to wasting necessary resources.It is true that it can also be argued that the tax affects local tourism and residents also suffer the consequences. But precisely for this reason the system should be reformulated: establish bonuses or reductions for residents in Catalonia and orient the tax towards a fairer redistribution of the costs generated by tourist activity. However, the debate cannot end with the amount collected. The central question is what is done with this money. If citizens perceive that the tourist tax serves to strengthen public transport, expand the affordable housing stock, improve cleaning, or reduce pressure on the most saturated neighborhoods, social consensus will be much broader. The problem arises when the collection is diluted without a visible return or a clear strategy. Who knew what their funds were intended for?

While international bodies this week called on Spain for stricter criteria for granting mortgages, the Bank of Spain has toned down the debate, assuring that it is not urgent and that if action is needed, it will be done in a “ surgical ” manner. But, at what point are we really?In theory, in Spain mortgages are limited to 80% of the lower value between the appraisal and the purchase price of the property. In practice, however, some entities finance up to 100%, especially for young people, in exchange for a higher interest rate or demanding additional guarantees. And this has a very high cost: an increase of one or two percentage points on a 25 or 40-year mortgage can end up costing tens of thousands of euros more in interest. Furthermore, unlike in other European countries, very long terms continue to be common in Spain, as they are not limited in years.And what about the rest of Europe? France, Germany, and Italy also typically limit financing to 80%, but with maximum terms of between 25 and 30 years. The United Kingdom raises the limit to 95% with a 30-year term, and the Netherlands is the most permissive case, with mortgages that can reach 100% of the property value. This comparison shows that Spain is already among the European countries with the most demanding criteria for granting real estate credit.The debate, however, is not only financial but also social. In a context of soaring housing prices and salaries that are not growing at the same rate, further tightening mortgage conditions could make it difficult for a generation that already has increasing problems to become independent to access homeownership. This time, I agree with the Bank of Spain when it says that this measure would put even more pressure on rental prices.

A 66.5%. This is the accumulated inflation we have suffered between the years 2000 and 2025. In only two of these years, the value of money has remained or increased. The rest of the time, our savings have been losing purchasing power. And you don't need to look twenty-five years back to notice it: you just have to think about the last five. The price of houses, cars, or even eggs has skyrocketed.

Summer is approaching and with it, holidays. But this year, the combination of persistent inflation and sky-high oil prices will make travelling more expensive than ever. The impact on flights is direct and unavoidable. Fuel is the main operating cost for any airline, and with oil prices practically doubling since February, their margins have plummeted. The logical consequence is that tickets will go up in price.

The truth is that in January everything looked good: sales growth, controlled inflation and interest rates falling. It seemed like a perfect year from an economic point of view. Today, however, it couldn't be further from reality. Oil at $100 – even if it was only for a month or so – has altered everything. You already know: when energy goes up, all prices go up. And, even though the conflict has cooled down, the price isn't coming down. It's raining on a wet field and we are amplifying inflationary pressure.For families, the impact is increasingly serious. Not only is there inflation, but Euribor has also risen and, consequently, mortgages will become more expensive. Furthermore, interest rates have not fallen and, right now, the best news would be that they do not rise again in the coming months.Meanwhile, stock markets have turned a page on the conflict and are once again marking historic highs. Two months ago it seemed like the world was ending and that no company was worth anything; today, on the other hand, the vast majority are, apparently, essential again. And it is here where the big unknown appears: what has really changed in just a few weeks? The conflict has cooled down, yes, but its effects remain fully in force in the form of high energy costs and pressure on prices. Rarely have I seen the stock market and oil at their highs at the same time.In the current context, not everyone is winning. Energy and banking benefit from high prices and high rates, while families, especially indebted ones, suffer the consequences. Inflation and the rising cost of mortgages reduce consumption and accentuate growing inequality. And, in the end, families keep taking economic blows, one after another, in a situation that has long been critical. I'm sorry, 2026 will not be better.

It seems that artificial intelligence has arrived to stay. As happened with other technological revolutions, the fear has set in that it will end up destroying jobs massively. Nothing new. When the internet appeared, the end of many professions was also announced.Beyond opinions, recent studies point in another direction: AI increases worker productivity by around 4% and, in the short term, no significant job destruction has been detected. This does not mean, however, that there will be no changes. There will be, and many.AI will transform tasks, redefine professional profiles, and force adaptation. Just fifteen years ago, almost no one imagined the current demand for artificial intelligence experts. Similarly, today we don't know what the key jobs will be in fifteen years. And this is not an anomaly: it is the usual functioning of technological progress. However, this impact will not be uniform. Medium and large companies start with an advantage, as they can better afford the initial implementation costs. The question is not whether AI will change the labor market, but how and who it will benefit most.The core issue, however, is whether this increase in productivity will translate into better wages. Recent experience suggests skepticism. In other technological revolutions, gains have been unevenly distributed: more qualified profiles have emerged stronger, while workers with more routine tasks have seen their bargaining power reduced.The challenge, therefore, is not only technological, but also social and political. If the benefits of AI are concentrated in a few companies or profiles, the result will be a more unequal labor market. If, on the other hand, it is accompanied by training, adaptation, and certain guarantees, it can become a tool for shared progress.

Now that we have the draft of the disposable income, I often remember a phrase from a professor of mine many years ago: “I always hope it turns out to be payable.” At that time I didn't understand it. Now I do.

Until 2022, and for more than 10 years, a hamburger chain sold one of theirs for 1 euro. Today, one costs 1.85. This is one of the clearest examples of inflation. And your salary, has it increased by 85% in 3 years? This is one of the best examples of the loss of purchasing power.

When the conflict with Iran began, I warned that the impact on the markets would probably be a matter of days. And, with the information we had then, it was a reasonable assessment: both investors and analysts (like me) expected a short conflict. The reality, however, is quite different.

I wish I could wrap up this series on Iran and our wallets soon. But reality is stubborn: the longer the conflict drags on, the deeper the economic consequences could be. For the moment, there's some respite. The price of fuel has fallen by nearly 20 cents per liter after the VAT reduction (after reaching €2). A great move by the government.

One of the most immediate effects of the war in Iran is the increase in mortgage costs. At first glance, it might seem that a distant war has no relation to the monthly payment of a mortgage loan, but the benchmark index for most variable-rate mortgages, Euribor, maintains a high correlation with interest rates, that is, with the cost of money.

We might think that the war in Iran is far away and doesn't directly affect us. But nothing could be further from the truth. This type of conflict has global economic consequences, and in this case, one of the main ones is the increase in the price of a key commodity: oil. When oil becomes more expensive, fuel also becomes more expensive—something you've probably already noticed—and, consequently, many other prices in the economy end up rising. In fact, this situation could generate inflation of 4% again at current prices.

Lately, we've been witnessing a military operation every month. This time in Iran. Coincidentally, they almost always happen on weekends, with the financial markets closed. But then Monday comes and the stock exchanges reopen. Should we be alarmed?

Today, there are 35 million cryptocurrencies in the market. In the last 24 hours alone, 162,932 new ones have been created. These are all called altcoins and represent alternatives beyond Bitcoin. The total value of the cryptocurrency market—that is, the capital currently invested—amounts to €1,902,400,000,000. A lot of zeros, right? To put it in perspective, this figure is approximately 10% higher than Spain's GDP (an indicator that measures the wealth generated in a territory). Six months ago, it exceeded €3 trillion.

Sometimes politicians surprise us, and not just in our country. This week's financial news comes from the Netherlands: capital gains—such as stock market profits—will be taxed at 36% even if they haven't been realized through closing the position. This measure represents a profound change from the traditional system, under which taxes are only paid when assets are sold. Even in Spain, for example, losses can be offset against future profits over a five-year period. The implementation of this new model could generate significant deviations in financial management and investor behavior.

A dark week in the markets (for some). Gold, silver, bitcoin, technology companies... It seemed like no one was safe. Silver fell 30% in a single day, and Bitcoin plummeted 50% in three months. Everything was in the red. It felt like the end of the world. And a phrase that made me laugh: "I used to lose 5% a year to inflation, and now I'm losing 20% ​​a month investing."

The topic of the week has been the regularization of half a million immigrants. Although you might think it's not an economic issue, it's a topic that comes up in all my economics classes.

The country is experiencing chaotic times, and we can't look the other way. Given the situation with the commuter rail system, a direct consequence of the territorial inequality accumulated over the last fifteen years, I ask myself a simple but uncomfortable question: who really pays for these costs?

Every three months, publicly traded companies must report to the market. These quarterly presentations reveal their financial health: liquidity levels, debt, profits, and growth. It is undoubtedly the moment of greatest uncertainty for investors, as everyone wonders where the stock price will go.

The Christmas and January holidays represent a peak in household spending. Given this reality, the key is not only to have planned ahead, but also to take advantage of the start of the year to establish a solid monthly budget. We're often told to cut back on "small expenses"—like coffee at the bar—but the goal isn't to deprive ourselves of little pleasures, but rather to better manage the big picture. To improve our financial health, there are only two paths: increase income or reduce expenses.