As in the Middle Ages God dominated, in modern times we live under the market and its rigid laws. The high level wages are determined by the market, as the prizes of the CEOs of Iberdrola or BBVA mark the markets of their sector, although they take 300 times more to the bag than a simple employee. This rule became clear when Rodrigo Rato was asked why the boxes were so bad: “It’s the market, friend.” Meanwhile, most of the savings bank rulers took home a lot of public and private money, so many ended up in prison.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) clearly tells us that with the free market the world economy would be better, that the consumer would have more capacity to buy goods and services and that improvements in employment would also be known. After all, the WTO only explains some of the truth to us, while hiding the reverse.

For the market to be effective, working people, goods, capital and services must move freely around the world. That is what the globalised economy requires, that border taxes should disappear and that legal, physicosanitary rules should be brought into line between countries. Otherwise, the markets are not effective and it is detrimental to everyone.

The ideal space for increasing the efficiency of free markets is that of the EU. On the EU market, however, capital trafficking is not out of step with obstacles. We have a clear example of this in the case of Talgo. They have used a Hungarian capital fund ready to enter the social capital of Talgo and a banal argument to get rid of that new property: that this fund is related to Russian capital and that Russia is on the ‘axis of the evil’, has been sufficient to quell the fresh capital of the Basque company. The other case was to prevent the merger between Commerzbank (German) and the Italian UniCredit, both banks of the European Union (EU).

Goods do not circulate freely. Until now, the WTO forced all countries, especially the poor, to reduce taxes on goods. Thus, developed countries could easily access poor countries of destination. Developed countries set their own rules to the detriment of the poor. But what happens when our merchandise begins to produce a country like China, better in quality and price than developed ones?

This case is currently taking place in electric cars, steels, household appliances, etc. Of all goods, the most striking is that of electric cars. To make automotive more profitable, many companies moved to China from the EU or the US, which has meant a great development of the automotive industry in China, where electric cars are cheaper than those in here and are also as attractive as ours in terms of technology and physical aspect. In order to protect the EU or US electric car industry, limits have been imposed on Chinese passenger cars: Canada and the United States around 100%, the EU 38%…

Worse still, for example, if EU companies want to avoid US sanctions, they will not be able to sell machinery to Chinese companies, if these machines have electronic components produced in the United States, all in the name of security. Hidden away, it is intended to curb China’s economic development, as happened in the 19th century with the Opium War.

Consequently, in the short term, excessive consumption among us could be reduced and the environment would appreciate it. Sure.