When an Economist says something like “stock markets do better under Democratic presidents” can you assume that that difference between the performance of the stock market when there’s a Democratic versus a Republican president is statistically significant. I mean, can you assume that that conclusion (given without context or substantiation) was made after much analysis. Should you be able to assume that?
This is the Fallacy of Authority… You assume an authority in a particular area has done his/her homework; you assume that there is some substance behind their conclusions. The fallacy says that you can’t make these assumptions and therefore you shouldn’t trust authority.
At the same time, this seems inefficient. I should be able to trust statements made by authorities, such as “stock markets do better under Democratic presidents”, are made objectively and with rigorous analysis. If I had this trust, I could use that conclusion as a given in future arguments I might make.
Partisanship (Krugman and Delong are two examples) has ruined my trust in Economists as authorities and as a whole any of their conclusions as givens. It’s too bad.