I used to run into Richard Burkhauser at economics meetings occasionally and always enjoyed talking with him and hearing about his research. I believe Richard’s activity in the first Trump administration makes sense: if tariffs are going to be imposed, do them in a way that minimizes the damage to the economy. Although not mentioned in the article quoted below, I am sure Richard also did what he could to further the part of Trump’s agenda that was positive for he economy: reducing regulations so entrepreneurs can innovate and create jobs, and downsizing the government so taxpayers can keep more of their earnings.
(p. 1) Partway through a panel discussion at a recent economics conference in San Francisco, Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, turned to Kimberly Clausing, a former member of the Biden administration and the author of a book extolling the virtues of free trade.
“Everyone in this room agrees with your book,” Mr. Furman said. “No one outside of this room agrees with your book.”
The academics and policy wonks gathered in the hotel conference room laughed, but the comment captured something real: After decades of helping to shape policy on weighty matters like taxes and health insurance, economists find that their influence is at a low ebb.
. . .
(p. 6) Mr. Trump, in his first term, had few economists in top roles, and perhaps the most prominent exception — Peter Navarro, a Harvard-trained economist who was an adviser on trade policy — held skeptical views on trade, particularly with China, that put him far outside the economic mainstream. (In a 2016 survey of academic economists, not a single respondent said putting tariffs on China to encourage domestic production would be a good idea.)
Economists who held more mainstream views had limited influence. Richard Burkhauser, a Cornell University professor who served on Mr. Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, said he and his colleagues quickly understood that there was little point in trying to talk Mr. Trump out of imposing tariffs.
“The most forlorn economists at the C.E.A. specialized in trade,” he said. If they had tried to fight tariffs, he said, “that would have been the last meeting we were at.”
Instead, Mr. Burkhauser said, economists focused on a different question: If the administration was going to impose tariffs, how could it do them in the least painful way possible?
For the full story see:
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 10, 2024, and has the title “Economists Are in the Wilderness. Can They Find a Way Back to Influence?”)