You don't have to be my age to remember when Route 128 powered the “Massachusetts Miracle” — the regional computer-technology boom created by first-rate science education and visionary entrepreneurship. And you don’t have to be a cancer survivor (as I am) to see in contemporary biomedical research the prospect of miracles in medicine powering a Boston-based biomedical boom.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that there is a renaissance of populist authoritarianism

I have just come across an International Monetary Fund working paper on income polarization in the United States that makes an important contribution to the secular stagnation debate. The authors — Ali Alichi, Kory Kantenga and Juan Solé — use standard econometric techniques to estimate the impact of declines in middle class incomes on total consumer spending. They find that polarization has reduced consumer spending by more than 3 percent or about $400 billion annually. If these findings stand up to scrutiny, they deserve to have a policy impact.

I had high hopes for the Federal Reserve’s annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo. The conference was billed as a forum that would look at new approaches to the conduct of monetary policy — something that I have been urging as necessary, given secular stagnation risks and the sharp decline in the apparent neutral rate of interest. And Chair Janet Yellen’s speech in a relatively academic setting provided an opportunity to signal that the Fed recognized that new realities required new approaches.

The Federal Reserve system and its chair are to be applauded for welcoming challengers and critics into their midst. The willingness of many senior officials to meet with the "Fed Up" group is also encouraging. And it's important for critics like me to remember that the policy explorations of today often become the conventional wisdom of tomorrow. In this regard, the fact that the Fed has now recognized that the decline in the neutral rate is much more than a temporary reflection of the financial crisis is a very positive sign.

On balance, though, I am disappointed by what came out of Jackson Hole judging by news reports, as I was not there. First, the near term policy signals were on the tightening side, which I think will end up hurting the Fed’s credibility and the economy. Second, the longer term discussion revealed what I regard as dangerous complacency about the efficacy of the existing toolbox. Third, there was failure to seriously consider major changes in the current monetary policy framework.

Issues of inequality, fairness, middle-class living standards and job creation have been central to the US presidential campaign.

Rightly so.

For many years, the incomes of all groups tended to move together. Indeed, as a graduate student in the late 1970s, I was taught that it was a “stylised fact” that the shares of US total income going to profits and to wages, and to the rich and to the poor, was constant.

All of this has changed. It is totally appropriate that widening inequality and the associated stalling of middle-class living standards should become an urgent political issue.

It is clear after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump's victory in the Republican presidential primaries that voters are revolting against the relatively open economic policies that have been the norm in the US and Britain since the second world war.

The U.S. 10- and 30-year interest rates on Wednesday reached all-time lows of 1.32 percent and 2.10 percent. Record-low 10-year interest rates were also registered in Germany, France, Switzerland and Australia. Notably, Swiss 50-year interest rates are now for the first time negative. Rates out 15 years are negative in Germany and nine years in France.

Brexit is in progress. If journalism is the rough draft of history, instant blog responses are even cruder responses to events. Nonetheless, here are some thoughts prior to markets opening in the United States.

As the Federal Reserve meets today and tomorrow, I am increasingly convinced that while they have been making reasonable tactical judgement, their current strategy is ill adapted to the realities of the moment. Exuding soundness is the task of policymakers. Provoking thought is the task of academics. So here are some not-entirely-formed reflections.

On June 23, the UK will vote on whether to remain in the EU. On November 8, the US will vote on whether to elect Donald Trump as president. These elections have much in common. Both could lead to outcomes that would have seemed inconceivable not long ago. Both pit angry populists against the political establishment. And in both cases, polling suggests that the outcome is in doubt, with prediction markets suggesting a probability of between one in four and one in three of the radical outcome occurring.