Populist politicians, among others, have claimed in recent years that monetary policy is too easy and that it is hurting ordinary workers.   But raising interest rates is not the way to address income inequality.It is a strange claim for anyone to make, but especially for populists.  Low interest rates are good for debtors, of course, and bad for creditors. Throughout most of US history, populists have supported easy monetary policy and low interest rates, to help the little guy, against bankers, who had hard hearts and believed in hard money.

The train of American electoral politics has gone further and further “off the rails” in recent decades.  A number of suspected culprits have been identified as the specific fundamental flaw in the system that needs to be fixed.  Gerrymandering.   Campaign finance.  Economic inequality.  “False balance” in the media.  It is strange that the public debate gives so much attention to these four explanations — and a few others like them. Those diagnoses don’t offer a ready remedy that is in the hands of the people.

One can’t blame the Financial Times for publishing an opinion piece by Wilbur Ross, if he is indeed a senior policy adviser to Donald Trump (“Trump campaign benefits from criticism of trade imbalances,” 29 August).   It is hard to judge the Republican candidate’s positions from his own words, because of his famous “shoot from the lip” style.   Does Trump really believe, for example, that American workers’ wages are too high, as he said in the Republican debates?   Many had been waiting to see who his economic advisers would be, in part so that we could have clear and precise language by which to judge what are the candidate’s positions.

 This year’s US presidential election campaign differs radically from past patterns, including in the departure of the Republican nominee from many of the policy positions traditionally taken by his party.  Examples are his lack of support for international trade, military alliances, or the institution of marriage.   But when Donald Trump released some positions on tax policy recently, the differences with Hillary Clinton’s proposals fell very much along usual party lines.  His is the kind of tax policy that has long been favored by Republican presidential candidates and congressmen:  tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich and that are not accompanied with any plans to pay for them.

When asked July 24 about US unemployment numbers, which have fallen steadily since 2010, Donald Trump Jr., replied “These are artificial numbers. These are numbers that are massaged to make the existing economy look good, to make this administration look good when, in fact, it’s a total disaster.”  His father has made similar statements.PolitiFact asked a variety of experts about the quote.   Their bottom line:  the quote from the younger Trump was a “Pants on Fire” lie.  The truth is that presidents don’t and can’t manipulate the jobs numbers.

Observers have pointed out many parallels between the June referendum on Brexit in the United Kingdom and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in the US.  One parallel is that both the British movement to leave the EU and the Trump campaign for the American Republican nomination achieved success that few had expected, particularly not the various elites.  In both cases, the general interpretation is that the elites underestimated the anger of working class voters who feel they have been left behind by economic forces in a fast-changing world, and in particular by globalization.

I see a possible way out for the trap that Brits now find themselves in, a way to keep Great Britain great.  The Scots, under Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland), would decide immediately that they will hold a new referendum on independence.  This referendum would state explicitly that if the United Kingdom decides to stay in the EU then Scotland will stay in the UK, but if Britain leaves the EU then Scotland will leave the UK.  The decision to hold a referendum on conditional Scottish independence would be approved by the Westminster parliament.

Hillary Clinton has been saying that the US economy does much better when a Democrat is president than when a Republican is.  When the press goes to fact-check the claim, they can be forgiven for having  a presumption that it can’t be 100 per cent true.  After all, if it were completely true, then wouldn’t we all already know it?Well, there is no other way to say this: The claim is 100 per cent true.The qualifier is that the president is only one of many influences of what happens to the economy.

I recently visited Algeria and Morocco.  Like so many other developing countries, they are dealing with the sharp decline in global commodity prices that has taken place over the last few years.  In meetings in Algiers and Casablanca, I offered four concrete ideas for policies to help commodity-exporting countries deal with global price volatility.  The four proposals, very briefly, are: (1) hedging with options (as Mexico does), (2) commodity bonds, (3) countercyclical fiscal institutions (like Chile’s), and (4) central bank targeting of a currency-plus-commodity basket.