- Position‹4 of 4
- Global economic collapse has been coming for some time
- Argument‹2 of 2
The crash was predicted by blind Bulgarian prophet Baba Vanga in the 1970s
Field experts from former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, have long said a global economic crash is on its way.
The argument
Baba Vanga was a blind mystic who proved her ability to foresee the future. In 1996, she predicted the outbreak of the coronavirus. In the 1970s, she predicted the economic collapse that would come from a crisis. It is clear that the crisis caused by the coronavirus incited the looming economic crash. Vanga’s predictions align with the field experts from the UK, who have said a global economic crash would occur for a long period of time. With the negative economic effects of the coronavirus and predictions from Vanga and field experts, a global economic collapse is inevitable. Even if Baba Vanga has not been right about every one of her predictions, this particular prediction has a good chance of coming true given the economic limbo that the world is in. With no vaccine to safely pull us from the grips of a recession, the economy will get worse before it gets better.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Although people claim that Baba Vagna was a prophet, she did not say anything about the coming of the coronavirus. Since she said nothing about the coronavirus, it seems skeptical at best to think that she said anything about a financial crisis. She also shared prophecies that did not come true, such as Barack Obama serving as the last president, and war decimating Europe. The failure of her prophecies deems her as an unreliable mystic. Therefore, her claims about a financial crisis are null.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The central claim cannot be checked. Baba Vanga, who died in 1996, left no written record; what circulates is attributed after the fact by others and phrased loosely enough to fit many outcomes — "an economic collapse arising from a crisis" would match almost any decade. The predictions specific enough to be tested failed, including that a named president would be the last and that Europe would be laid waste by war. [Rejecting P2] Agreement with forecasters is not corroboration, and it inverts the reasoning. Economists reached their view from output, employment and trade data, so the overlap shows that the prophecy agrees with the evidence rather than that it was a source of it — and once the economic case is doing the work, the prophecy adds nothing to it. [Rejecting P3] This is the only premise bearing on the conclusion, and it was a forecast rather than a fact. It was also overtaken by events: vaccines were approved within months, and the sharp contraction of 2020 was followed by recovery rather than collapse. The argument's own hedge — that she was not right about everything but has "a good chance" here — concedes that the prophecy carries no predictive weight.