Economists are wrong

Economists are wrong, when they say that the invisible hand will guide resources in the most effective way, giving everyone the best possible outcome. - In the long run.

They may actually be right, as far as only money is concerned - in the long run, but if current all over well being is concerned, they could not be more wrong. Yet the world is run by their rules. For the worse of us all. (Well; except for he filthy rich, of course).

In the long run wealth may perhaps be distributed in the most effective way; but in the short run people are suffering, starving, and dying. When waiting for the invisible hand to finally show some effect.


Finland has never before been this rich, and yet Finland 'cannot afford' taking care of the old, the poor, and the sick. - As care taking just does not bring in cash.

After the war, when Finland was poor, Finland was a friendly country. Well, it no longer is.
Our values are badly off balance.

Subprime loans - surprise loans?

How about lending money to such people who are poor, with no income and with no jobs?
- No way! you might say, they'd never pay me back!

Oh, but there is a catch: lend them money for buying houses. You'd have the houses as collateral. If they couldn't pay you, you'd just have the houses sold, and you'd get your money back.

There would be no risk to you; the risk would be for the poor people only. They would simply loose their houses, if something went wrong.

And as the loans would be risky indeed, the interest should be high, of course: which would mean more interest income to you than with regular house loans: more money to you!

It is sound business, you simply can't loose.


You couldn't loose, while house prises kept rising, and the collaterals were OK. But as the prises turned down, the collaterals no longer cover the loans. And you are now in trouble. You yourself shall loose money, even if you have the houses sold! This is not what you planned: it was the poor people who were supposed to carry the risks!

This just isn't right. It is so wrong!

Mugabe's economic theory

Zimbabwe is ruled by a president, who is performing an interesting economical test: consumer prizes are fixed by his personal order. But they are fixed below production costs.

When a baker is forced to sell his bread for less than he pays for the flower, he would be wise to shut down his bakery. If he refuses to sell at the set prizes, Zimbabwe's President, 83 years old Robert Mugabe, will throw him into jail.

It is very nice to try to keep consumer prizes fixed, but when the baker has used all his money when buying flower, he'll finally have no more money to buy more flower, and thus no more flower to make any more bread.

Bread prizes will be fixed, but there will be no bread.

Could someone please explain to president Mugabe, that he is killing his people?