Business acumen, by itself, produces little insight into these questions. Take the example of military downsizing. Surely corporate executives have some insight into the process; they may even have managed a downsizing or two. For example, Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary nominee, specialized in buying distressed assets such as firms in bankruptcy. He would provide a valuable perspective, correct?

Yet at the same time, this kind of experience does not speak to broader, systemwide consequences. What is known about how to minimize the effects on the towns surrounding military bases? For example, should new companies be recruited to these towns? Should people be encouraged to look for work elsewhere? If there are “short run” costs, will they last a year or a decade?

Or take tax policy. Companies spend vast amounts of resources navigating the tax system. Businesspeople know the loopholes and the kind of incentives and tax breaks that might be attractive for their own operations. After all, this was implicit in Mr. Trump’s assertion that, “I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them.”

Even if Mr. Trump were to follow through on this promise, there is more to tax policy than fixing loopholes. Any discussion must recognize how taxes distort behaviors and choices: For example, even a high income tax without loopholes might cause some people who would like employment to decide to stay out of the work force. The discussion must also examine who actually will bear the brunt of the tax. These are the questions the council focuses on.

But the council brings more than just a different kind of expertise.

While cabinet members serve the country, they also have their private interests and ambitions. For some, these are primarily political. For others, they may be mainly business interests.

It is hard not to let these ambitions color policy making. Even when intentions are admirable, the mind is effective at warping perspectives to line up with self-interest.

The academics serving on the council have their own biases. They, too, have political preferences and party affiliations. In recent years, there has even been concern that academics’ research and policy advice are polluted by their business ties or speaking fees. But by and large the largest bias of academics lies elsewhere.