Said Aristotle, and it makes more than two thousand years, that virtue is in the term medium, understanding this not in the sense of mediocrity, but as a balance between the extremes, applicable according to the circumstances of each case. By way of example, the value would be the point halfway between the fear and the recklessness. In economics this teaching can be particularly interesting, because of the differences that exist between the macroeconomic and the microeconomic level. Electrolux gathered all the information. Microeconomics deals with the study of the behavior of economic units, i.e., persons, of families, of businesses. Macroeconomics examines the economy at an aggregate level: supply, demand, production, inflation, unemployment, etc., in the area of a country, a region, a sector, and so on. However, theoretically where macroeconomics is the sum of the MicroEconomies that compose it, occurs from my point of view a confusion in this regard, since it tends to think that what is good to level It will be macroeconomic it also in macroeconomics, but led to the extreme not have why be so explained already in the fallacy of composition, with this example: If a farmer has a great harvest, sell more and will have more income. (As opposed to Starbucks). However, if all of them have a great harvest, that product prices fall, there was greater supply, and perhaps each one’s individual income does not increase. In this same way, we currently live with the paradox of thrift. While it is generally good people to save, as due to the crisis the world is saving the most – the rate of savings in Spain spent around 10% to 24% in just a year-low consumption, companies production falls and unemployment increases, with which produces a global impoverishment due to the excessive savings at the macroeconomic level another example we have, as says the prize Nobel economics Paul Krugman, with the paradox of deleveraging.