A new life style

Nowadays humankind faces two big problems: global warming and excessive growth of population.
They are related to each other because more people means more resources used.
Unless we radically change our life style we are bound to end in a catastrophe.
We should consume less and should live in a way which is compatible with the resources available.
That could lead to less production, less goods available and maybe less jobs. But if well planned by the State it could mean that the same number of people work less hours.
We could all benefit from that, having more free time, enjoy a more relaxing life, re-discover the importance of Nature.
The price to pay is that we would probably have less means and goods available. Are we ready for that?
If not we may pay a bigger price, the destruction of our planet.
The second problem is that we live in an overpopulated planet and the figures are dramatically raising each year in Africa and Asia. Every day an increasing number of migrants try to reach Europe. In the long term it will be unbearable unless there is a better distribution of wealth and a birth control plan in the developing world.

Should banks be more regulated?

In my opinion they should. Since the beginning of the financial crisis Governments, in many countries, have put a lot of money to save banks from bankruptcy and taxpayers will have to pay to cover the debts.
We have been told that banks cannot go bankrupt because it would cause the collapse of the whole financial system because banks have shares in other banks, pension funds have shares in banks too, and the failure of one institution would mean losses for some others too.
So, if the State must intervene to avoid the catastrophe, why should not the whole bank sector be under more strict regulation in the first place?
if the State garantee the deposits, and it is right to do, then there must be rules and limits for the banks to not jeopardize people's savings.