ShareThis Page
George Will

George Will: The fatal conceit of future planning

| Saturday, Oct. 21, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Kevin Hassett, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (AP Photo)
Kevin Hassett, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (AP Photo)

WASHINGTON

Kevin Hassett evidently has not received the memo that economics is “the dismal science.” The ebullient chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers is relishing the intellectual feast of applying to policymaking the predictive tools of a science that the Great Recession blindsided.

Economists, like other scientists, learn things even when — actually, especially when — they are surprised. What must surprise Hassett today is that acrimony has infected even economists' arguments. When he predicted that 2017 would be “the biggest supply-side policy year in American history,” he was not just thinking of deregulations, which proceed apace, but was counting an unhatched chicken — tax reform. Concerning which:

Speaking recently to the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation — left- and right-leaning, respectively — Hassett defended the administration's tax plan. He criticized the TPC for a premature analysis that used “imagined numbers” to anticipate the consequences of a bill still being written. He said that while the plan allows for a $1.5 trillion revenue loss in a decade “statically scored” (i.e., not allowing for stimulative effects), the TPC analysis “ignored any growth effects from tax reform and suggested there would be none,” and “makes assumptions that would deliver” a $2.4 trillion revenue loss. He questioned the TPC scoring for this number “when there is agreement that the bill has to score” $1.5 trillion.

While praising “civility in public policy debates,” Harvard professor and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers poured vitriol on Hassett, calling his analysis “some combination of dishonest, incompetent and absurd.” He was incensed about this Hassett contention: If cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent would mean that corporations would bring home the 71 percent of foreign-earned profits now kept abroad, over eight years “the median U.S. household would get a $4,000 real income raise.” Summers says Hassett's assertion that the corporate rate cut “will raise wages by $4,000 in an economy with 150 million workers is a claim that workers will benefit by $600 billion or 300 percent of the tax cut.” Hassett's comparatively laconic and heroically patient response is:

The ‘deadweight loss'

Summers ignores the “deadweight loss” from taxes on production — economic activity that does not happen because of those taxes. Because Summers mistakenly assumes the only economic factor affected by cutting corporate taxes is government revenue, he mistakenly considers it impossible to reduce government revenue by $1 and have workers gain more than $1. But corporate tax reductions are not transfers of money from government to workers; they are catalysts for increased economic output, making America more competitive and attractive for investment. The economic pie's size isn't fixed.

Hence bipartisan support for aspects of Barack Obama's 2012 proposal for cutting corporate taxes. And Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer supports some cuts because workers gain from increased competitiveness. The debate is about not whether but how much heavy corporate taxation suppresses workers' compensation by blocking various channels to wage growth.

Hassett and the Council of Economic Advisers' platoon of Ph.D.s — perhaps America's best economics “faculty” — might be mistaken about this or that. Dealing with a dynamic economy's multitudinous variables, they understand the fatal conceit of thinking that even the immediate future can be planned. The federal government long has planned the long-term knowledge, skills and infrastructure prerequisites for economic growth. These, however, are — even given economic change's accelerated velocity — easier to plan than are fiscal and monetary policies' short-term consequences.

In her prepared remarks to University of Virginia Law School graduates last May, Catherine Keating, CEO of Commonfund, said: “Don't count too much on your plan. The world just moves too fast today.” It used to take 25 years for a new product, like the automobile or the TV, to reach 25 percent of the U.S. population. “Facebook did it in five years, and some mobile games have done it in months. It took Hilton Hotels almost 100 years to acquire 800,000 hotel rooms. Airbnb acquired a million rooms in just six years. How do you plan for that? You can't. Don't even try.”

Hassett's job is to try. And the stakes are as high as America's political temperature: If growth does not surge, distribution conflicts will.

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me