B. More frequently we find these, where the fallacies are more subtle:
“The country’s top economists are in agreement that the Federal Reserve is necessary for economic prosperity.”
“The country’s leading experts agree that X is harming the environment. Therefore, the government should regulate or ban X.”
Let’s address the first statement found under B.
Is it true? In a literal sense, yes — the top economists wouldn’t dream of doing without a central bank. Or if they did it would be considered a nightmare.
So is our work finished? Do we affirm it as true and move on?
No, because the statement suggests that unless you’re a top economist, you have no grounds for disagreeing. I call it the “Who are you?” (Quis es?) fallacy. History tells us experts can be dead wrong, so let’s at least mount a challenge, shall we?
The country’s top economists hold advanced degrees from universities that support central banking. The universities, in turn, receive funding from the federal government, which created the federal reserve system and relies on it heavily for monetary support. Is it odd the universities would promote the Fed as an essential economic institution?
With regard to funding, many of the top economists themselves are deriving at least a portion of their income from the Fed. Is it a stretch to imagine these economists are reluctant to turn against an institution they’ve been trained to salute? Is it possible their bank accounts play a role in their refusal to cast a critical eye?
And do the ones on top belong there? If they’re the best and brightest, how did the bust of 2007-2008 explode in their faces? Almost none of the “top” economists saw it coming, including the leading ones on the Board of Governors. The same blindness prevailed before the stock market crash of 1929, with one notable exception.
In economics as in other crony (government-connected) professions there is a pay-to-play aspect, where the payment is an unstated agreement never to question certain assumptions.
Perhaps the economics the top economists learn is flawed. In school they are taught that low interest rates are necessary for economic growth. Since the central bank has the exclusive power to increase the money supply and thereby (indirectly) lower the rate of interest, it is therefore a pillar of prosperity.
The idea that the economy is harmed by changes in the money supply, that any increase in money available for lending should come from real savings, is given little or no hearing in classrooms or policy discussions. Not coincidentally the few economists who adhere to these views, who for this very reason are not considered “top,” had claimed a crisis was “baked in the cake,” as some put it.
I should also mention that if the Fed is necessary for prosperity, how did we ever prosper before November 16, 1914 when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York opened for business? And if the Fed is needed to control the business cycle — the booms and busts — how is it we’ve had some of the biggest economic crises since the federal government imposed it on us?
So, returning to the original statement, we find the country’s top economists to be incompetent, grossly so, while the Federal Reserve has been anything but a facilitator of general prosperity.
I leave the second example in B for you to dissect as an exercise.