When my neighbor said, “a fallacy is an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference,” I decided to analyze it. After I went back inside, I grabbed a dictionary. I found “fallacy” to mean: “a false or mistaken idea;” “plausible” to mean: “appearing worthy of belief, but often specious.” I then found “specious,” to mean: “having deceptive attraction or allure;” and “argument” to mean: “discourse intended to persuade.” Then, “false or invalid” to mean: “not genuine or being without force in fact.” Finally, I found “inference” to mean: “conclusion.” I put it all together. The result was:“a fallacy is an idea that appears believable on the surface, but it’s concerned only with the obvious. It’s deceptive. It’s not a fact.” The next morning, I saw my neighbor out checking his mail. “Okay, Neighbor,” I said, “You’d better explain just what you meant yesterday by ‘common.’”
“Government continuously borrows,” he replied. “The amount government collects in taxes is less than the amount government spends. The difference has to be borrowed. But, my real point is not just about borrowing. As you found out when you asked around, economic fallacies are so common almost everybody accepts them as truth. In fact, the situation is so bad that there’s not a major government in the world whose economic policies are not strongly influenced, or even determined, by the economists and politicians buying into some of these fallacies.
I’m now agitated. I pop him with, “How is it possible all those government economists can accept economic fallacies as being fact? They are educated people. What I hear you saying is that their wonderful sounding pronouncements have no sound economic basis, right?”
He pops back with, “Exactly, right. Some of their ‘brilliant’ ideas are really nothing but errors of the past brought forward and recycled. Everywhere in this world, there’s no more persistent and influential faith than that government spending is a panacea for all economic ills. Starting with that, an enormous, intricate network of fallacies that mutually support each other has been developed.”
“How can this be,” I asked.
“Simple. A lot of people want something for nothing. The world is full of economists who come up with schemes to give it to them. All of these are empty promises, though. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Those economists say that government can spend and spend, continuing to pile up debt without ever paying it off, because, as you said before, ‘we owe it to ourselves.’ If you don’t believe me, just check out the economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, for just a few.”
“But, wait,” I threw in, “you have to admit that when the government spends money, it does go into the economy. What could be wrong with that?”
“What’s wrong with that? It’s a bad dream. That’s what. Whatever else it might do, it’s an historical fact that uncontrolled government spending has always been followed by national bankruptcy or runaway inflation. There is absolutely no way out of those results. There is no free lunch.”
“Oh, no,” I howled. As I said it, I realized that I sounded just like Ray Barone’s Cousin Gerard.
“Government continuously borrows,” he replied. “The amount government collects in taxes is less than the amount government spends. The difference has to be borrowed. But, my real point is not just about borrowing. As you found out when you asked around, economic fallacies are so common almost everybody accepts them as truth. In fact, the situation is so bad that there’s not a major government in the world whose economic policies are not strongly influenced, or even determined, by the economists and politicians buying into some of these fallacies.
I’m now agitated. I pop him with, “How is it possible all those government economists can accept economic fallacies as being fact? They are educated people. What I hear you saying is that their wonderful sounding pronouncements have no sound economic basis, right?”
He pops back with, “Exactly, right. Some of their ‘brilliant’ ideas are really nothing but errors of the past brought forward and recycled. Everywhere in this world, there’s no more persistent and influential faith than that government spending is a panacea for all economic ills. Starting with that, an enormous, intricate network of fallacies that mutually support each other has been developed.”
“How can this be,” I asked.
“Simple. A lot of people want something for nothing. The world is full of economists who come up with schemes to give it to them. All of these are empty promises, though. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Those economists say that government can spend and spend, continuing to pile up debt without ever paying it off, because, as you said before, ‘we owe it to ourselves.’ If you don’t believe me, just check out the economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, for just a few.”
“But, wait,” I threw in, “you have to admit that when the government spends money, it does go into the economy. What could be wrong with that?”
“What’s wrong with that? It’s a bad dream. That’s what. Whatever else it might do, it’s an historical fact that uncontrolled government spending has always been followed by national bankruptcy or runaway inflation. There is absolutely no way out of those results. There is no free lunch.”
“Oh, no,” I howled. As I said it, I realized that I sounded just like Ray Barone’s Cousin Gerard.
No comments:
Post a Comment