Summer’s Remarks

I want to thank Scott Sumner for bringing economist Lawrence Summer’s remarks from a lecture at Harvard to our attention. He takes note of “misconceptions” including

  • the objective of economic policy is to maximize the number of jobs
  • these have not been good decades
  • the world hasn’t done well
  • trade liberalization has caused problems for us
  • the reindustrialization of the United States is the most important issue for the U. S. going forward

There is some confusion in the cited passages due to Dr. Summers’s switching back and forth unexpectedly from misconceptions to assertions but the piece is certainly interesting.

I would love to debate Dr. Summers. For example, riffing on the quoted passages

RESOLVED: the objective of economic policy at the federal level is to maximize the availability of goods at low
cost to consumers and firms

or

RESOLVED: for the last two decades economic policy has resulted in net benefits for the lowest third of income earners

I would say that welfare policy has been good for the lowest third of income earners but not economic policy which has been bad for them.

I agree completely with this claim:

And in some ways most fundamental and important, this month, we celebrate the 78th anniversary of a situation where there has been no direct war between major powers. You cannot find a period of 78 years since Christ was born when that was the case. So, the idea that we’ve been doing it all wrong is, I would suggest, a substantial misconception.

but I would attribute it to the preeminence of U. S. economic might over that period. Will that continue without the U. S. reindustrialization he dismisses as unrealistic?

I would promise not to take advantage of Dr. Summers’s youth and inexperience.

One thing I should mention. I think there is a difference between “net benefits”, “average benefits”, “median benefits” and so on unappreciated by Dr. Summers.

2 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    I read that a few days ago and it was a lot to digest, but I think one key point of departure that I would look at if I re-read it was the primacy he gives to this being an “economic debate.” What is economic and what is not-economic, and where does Summers draw the line and where should the line be drawn? What about a national security debate? A human rights debate? Global warming debate? Welfare debate (i.e., what are the trade-offs for cash-transfers in lieu of jobs)? Should America protect intellectual property rights?

    (He certainly alludes to national security issues at the end, but it seems largely to dismiss those concerns)

  • steve Link

    I disagree with some particulars but his tenor is correct. Things arent as bad as is portrayed by so many pundits/analysts. Along that line, Curell at National Affairs wrote an interesting article showing that college tuition really hasn’t changed very much over the last 30 years when you account for inflation and low at what people actually pay. Schools have high list prices but give discounts, they call them grants or scholarships so people feel like they are special and getting a great deal, but the result is that the average amount paid has changed very little. A bit surprising since everyone “knows” tuition costs are out of control. Link to Currell. Drum has easy to read charts.

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-truth-about-college-costs

    Steve

Leave a Comment