"The United States innovates, China manufactures, and Europe regulates." With deceptive simplicity, the phrase attempts to summarize a supposed division of labor in the global economy that relegates Europeans not only to a secondary role, but clearly to the most unsympathetic one. According to this view, the United States would continue to play the pioneering role that history seems to have reserved for them (aided, in the vision that Trump is imposing, by a military power capable of intervening without legal restraint throughout the continent), while China would have become the world's factory (not always through its own merits: another version of the phrase says "China copy" rather factoryAnd Europe appears determined to hinder the free market while sinking into ineffectiveness. But the truth is more complex.

A new regulation of the housing market has been approved in the Parliament of Catalonia with the aim of making renting more accessible. The entire regulation exudes the belief that the market belongs to someone who controls it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real estate market and the rental housing market are among the most competitive markets in existence, meaning that the prices agreed upon in transactions are not the result of any position of power on one side, but rather an equilibrium derived from supply and demand. Yes, the dreaded supply and demand, so hated by many, but the most equitable mechanism in competitive markets. So much so that all legislation guaranteeing competition in markets is always seen as consumer protection. Every real estate transaction is based on agreements that are not protected by any monopoly. If someone doesn't want to accept a price, they can go elsewhere to find a lower price. If there is a conflict over a specific location, it means that the dispute is not about a property itself, but about a location. In other words, the parties involved aspire to the small monopoly power that that property represents. Everyone: buyers and sellers. In the real estate market—buying or renting—everyone speculates, since everyone expects a profit. Buyers and renters alike expect a profit. When rent regulation is demanded, it means that many expect a profit, which will come at the expense of another person or company. This is called redistribution, not a market. Let's set aside the term speculateEveryone's a speculator, starting with those who want to influence housing prices through political pressure or regulatory changes. This is textbook speculation: changing the rules to change the price.

The center of Barcelona is full of nail salons, some even just a few meters away from each other, but it's always necessary to make an appointment in advance to ensure a shot, as there's high demand. Just a few blocks from the Sagrada Família, more than a dozen are gathered, and most have customers queuing to be served. As of this week, these shops are no longer allowed to use two products that the European Union (EU) considers toxic and that are present in some semi-permanent nail polishes. Even so, the ban on these chemicals seems to have gone unnoticed by workers and users of some salons in the Catalan capital. Whether because the shop already used non-toxic nail polishes or because they pretend to feel like it's raining, the change in regulations hasn't prevented manicurists' schedules from continuing to be packed, regardless of the products they use.

Death The recent video by Jean Pormanove, a French strummer known for broadcasting marathons of humiliation and abuse on the Kick platform, has been shaking Europe for days. In this case, we have been able to see how suffering, broadcast by the thirst for likes, ceases to be a human experience and becomes a commodity. The images, broadcast live in front of thousands of viewers, confront us with uncomfortable questions about regulation and civilization. Is life turned into a spectacle, in the purest style of gladiators in combat, the kind of digital society we want? Let's ask ourselves carefully and in all directions.

Neoliberalism was neither new nor particularly liberal when it was imposed fifty years ago. Its great advantage was its marked departure from classical liberalism: although it deferred to liberal thinkers, it shared neither their method nor their idea of the market. Today we are on the verge of another equally profound ideological innovation.

Trump's first victory—then an unlikely candidate—was by a narrow margin. His second victory—after it became known what he wanted to do—was uncontested. Now the tariff war and other measures of the Trump administration may surprise us, but it's not credible that American voters are "primary" people who don't understand the consequences of their actions.

One of the keys to the legislature will be how pro-independence parties act in Parliament in response to court decision. This is not only related to resolutions regarding the Independence bid, but, above all, in relation to pending court cases that could end up with disqualifications, As published on Monday by ARA , there are several pro-independence MPs who run the risk of losing their seat after being disqualified by a court, as happened to ex president Quim Torra. Another possibility is that they are dismissed by the parliamentary Bureau, which has the obligation to suspend any member who is stands indicted of corruption. Parliament Speaker, Laura Borràs, can be affected by either situation and, as already advanced on Sunday in an interview with ARA, this Monday Junts per Catalunya has assured that there is a "pre-agreement" with Esquerra to maintain the rights of the deputies until there is a firm court ruling. "At least to be able to maintain the presumption of innocence before the Spanish injustice," said party spokeswoman Elsa Artadi at a press conference