This is yet more Elite apologia. On the most critical issue of all the two parties are as one: they BOTH oppose giving citizens a free choice in deciding the FORM of government they prefer for their country. They are BOTH committed to the "constitutional mortmain" which gives Establishment politicians a deadman's grip on the levers of power.

We know from work such as that of Bower et al ("Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies", 2007) that:

a) in almost all countries a clear majority of respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement “Thinking about politics in [COUNTRY] . . . . Referendums are a good way to decide important political questions”;

b) in countries where there is no outright majority support, a strong plurality of respondents agree or strongly agree (with some having no view); and

c) support is STRONGEST in that country (Switzerland) where people have the MOST experience of such decision-making.

We know from the historical record that where citizens have been given a free choice (e.g. about half of US states, German lander, some other jurisdictions) they almost invariably vote for the adoption of such a system.

Most importantly, we know that where citizens enjoy democratic rights they never vote to repeal them, even though it's a straightforward process to initiate a referendum for that purpose. (In some jurisdictions the attempt has been made . . . and defeated at the ballot box!)

Unlike the corrupt system of elective government, genuine Democracy demonstrates the ongoing consent of the citizens being governed.

Those who oppose Democracy are the Elitists, those who would accept any form of government - no matter how bad, no matter how corrupt - rather than accept the Stinking Masses, riff-raff, hoi polloi (in general those whom they regard as their "inferiors") having any effective say in the government of their country.

We are left to ask the questions:

a) when did Mr Frankel acquire a Monopoly on Wisdom in these matters?

b) when was Mr Frankel granted a "Charter from Heaven" to decide the most important issue of all on behalf of the citizens?

They're not the same, but the differences are not worth giving up the opportunity to chip away at the biggest roadblock to progress on inequality, the two party system itself.

Of the differences listed by J Frankel above, a more progressive income tax for individuals is the only item on which is believable. Both D and R parties are fully on board with shielding big business from having to pay much taxes via a myriad of loopholes.

Universal health insurance is something that we have already, Obamacare - modeled on Romneycare - and is structured to be a gift to the insurance industry. The most basic plans which you can get if you have low income have prohibitive deductibles. Anyone who has "regular" insurance can also tell you that rates have gone up dramatically.

And last but not least, higher minimum wage was a result of Sanders, and a quick looks shows Clinton was going for $12 (vs $15). This policy is again at odds with the party's basic obligations to big-money sponsors.

@ Jeffrey Frankel - they are aware of the obvious differences, but they are implying that they are akin to a mask - behind the visage lies the true candidate and they are the same - none will do anything of enough significance to be other than a general continuation of the status quo with minor differences in flavor.

With all due respect, Mr. Frankel, all I am reading from you is platitudes, and no substance.
Restricting immigration is the most sure thing to increase wages, protect the environment, maintain high living standards and a high quality of life, etc. for Americans.

Even Bernie Sanders knows this:
'' Sanders responded that it the idea is “a Koch Brothers proposal,” a “right-wing proposal” (he presumably felt that Klein, a former Democratic blogger, was not a right-winger), and added that

“It would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state…

“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

“You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? … You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?”'' - https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/

Why is Wall Street overwhelmingly backing Hillary Clinton?
Why are all the Neoconservatives abandoning the Republican Party and are declaring, that they will be voting for Hillary Clinton?

''Twilight of American Jewry''
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Twilight-of-American-Jewry-467862

''This week the Intelligence Squared debating society held a public debate in New York. The debate was posted on Real Clear Politics website.

Two sides debated the proposition that the American elites are to blame for Trump’s rise. Arguing in favor of the proposition were two Christian journalists – Tim Carney and Ben Domenech.

Arguing against it were two Jewish journalists – Bret Stephens (a former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief) and Jennifer Rubin.

Both Rubin and Stephens voiced their support for Clinton’s controversial assertion that half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable, unworthy of attention, un-American and irredeemable.

For their part, Domenech and Carney argued that Stephens and Rubin were ignoring the social and economic dislocation of the lower middle class. They argued that the suffering of members of this group has caused millions of Americans to feel betrayed by their political elites and turn to Trump to put a stop to a political game they believe is rigged against them.

Two-thirds of the way through the event, Carney brought up religion.

Carney allowed that many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bigoted. However, he said that “as a Christian,” he couldn’t accept that they are irredeemable because Christianity teaches that all men can be saved.

Rather than grant his point or simply ignore it, Rubin chose to respond in the name of Judaism. In so doing, she turned the debate into a contest between Christianity and Judaism.

Incorrectly arguing that Judaism does not believe in repentance as a road to redemption, Rubin pointed to herself and Stephens and said sardonically, “We Jews just believe in good and evil. We don’t believe that everyone is redeemable.”

The Christians won the debate in a knockout.''

Unfortunately, I see the same black-and-white thinking from you, Mr. Frankel.
I am afraid to say, that you have a YUGE blind spot when it comes to Hillary Clinton, which is a pity, because we need as many rational, unbiased, and non-partisan thinkers and academics - through these coming trying times - as we can get. I hope you can be one of them, but you are not one yet.

Dear mr Frankel, unfortunately for you and your masters in Washington and Wall street people have finally realized that the promises of the political class, left and right, are not even worth the paper they are written on. So it really doesn't matter to average Joe what the respective candidate is going to write in his political platform, because at the end when the time comes to choose between the interests of the average voter and the interest of the financial/political/military industrial complex the voter is always going to be the one thrown under the bus. The current US president is the perfect example. He was going to close Gitmo, he probably too had a bunch of policies for addressing inequality, he was going to reverse the Republican warfare diplomacy, they even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize (i guess the Noble Prize simply is not what it used to be as much else) and look what happened. Inequality shot up through FED's policies of showering the big banks and corporations with free money, Gitmo is still there, Obama's administration has actually increased the drone operations as compared to the Bush administration and so on.... So now you wonder why people don't buy the political class's message any more, really. What the so called elite, which includes you should understand is that just because someone does not have a Harvard degree does not mean he is a muppet that you can fool over again and again and again. Last but not least bear mind that eventually the people are going to change things around, and if you and your "elite" buddies don't shape up, that change might come in a French Revolution style.

Jeffrey, none of the commentators has missed anything, the figures speak for themselves. Inequality, across the board has gone totally out of control, some businesses paying next to nothing in taxes, whilst others are payingtover two thirds of their revenue in direct and indirect taxes. WQEand other money printing by central bankers have gone only to the 1%, whilst everyone else has been excluded. Austerity measures against the masses whilst unlimited spending on defence and the expenses of the political and financial elites and their cronies. One can write 10000 essays on inequality. Obama was never in charge, the Clinton team have been in control all along. A fifth term of the Clinton administration is more than guaranteed to finish off anything that islet standing. If the the democrats under Obama had their own agenda, a truthful agenda, the world would have been in a better shape today.. Trump is what he is.When e the voters are giving the choice between standing in front a firing squad (the democrats / QuaddafiQuaddafi Style) or hanging from a rope (the Republican / Sadam style), the outcome shall be exactly the same, more misery, more destruction and more inequality.and much more deaths.

Hi Jeffery
Thank you for your response, although I would prefer that you seperated answers to me and Mike

Firstly I have not suggested that you are not serious, simply questionable. If you are correct then your position will take questioning easily, if not then it remains questionable

I am well aware of cyclic economic events

GR remains a very poor piont to make as it cannot move significantly due to the FX issue outside its control. It is also the first developed country to be in this position so is not sensible as a poster for anything other than a failed common currency with no transfer mechanism. It certainly is not relevent to the developed world group known as the G7

With regard to the US the fact remains that return to baseline has only just happened and US nominal national debt has doubled in the interval. As it happensd I think BO has done a good job. However I think that debt will cause problems, the war chest is low on ammo and there is apparently no wriggle room

I can understand the message is wanted to be gotten out that everything is on the up in the US but I do not think a return to baseline dragging a doubling of debt is a success. That the US is probably in the best shape of all of the economies and has that baggage is worrying

Its a bit rich going back to the last century to claim success, the situation was differnt then was it not. Nobody is interested in yesterday, they are interested in tomorrow

The point remains that almost everytime I read about guvtn policy proposals it entails the idea more tax is the answer. The claim a creeping tax increase of a few percent spread over over 20 years is going to motivate people to buy is a bit thin to say the least. It will have effectively no impact YoY to the individuals decision making process but will collectively remove disposable income from the economy

But keep posting, I am always open to all points of view
And good luck

Regards Steve

" Trade Promotion Authority", or fast track, or a way to reach the TTP without democratic process (parliamentary discussing it in the national congress). I am contesting that it is a threat to the "US leadership", unless the US are represented by the top 1%. I am saying instead that a real leadership would be to unilaterally set high environmental and social standards. This is a historical opportunity to establish world standards and to go beyond nations/countries and towards mankind.

On other issues: yes, a GOP controlled congress is a terrible thing for international politics. But let's not forget it's better to be too isolationist (sanders on Mexico bailout) than too expansionist (Hillary on Irak war and the disastrous consequences for millions of poeple in Irak, Syriah, France, Belgium, ...).

So the accomplishment of persuading congress to give the execute branch TPA is not directly related to TPP?

Mr. Frankel what you call President Obama's accomplishments are not necessarily so. Iran and Cuba? You call this success? Two countries that continue their rogue behavior in our world order? If these are achievements one can only wonder what failures truly are...

Mr Frankel, I'm not against helping the poor. I'm against taking a job from one person and giving it to a poor person while telling the job loser that you can always find another job and if you can't we will put you on welfare . With regard to environment, workers rights etc. I'm well aware that the treaties have clauses ostensibly addressing these issues. Note the recent story in the NY Times, TransCanda suing the U.S. government for $15B for cancelling Keystone .
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/business/international/transcanada-to-sue-us-for-blocking-keystone-xl-pipeline.html
Has the U.S. government ever sued any government for non-enforcement of workers rights or lack of enforcement of environmental laws?

The idea of combining “free trade” deals with “a more strongly progressive tax system (along with improved education, infrastructure spending, and a few other win-win policies)” is absurd. If trade deals (NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, WTO, etc.) were combined with increases in progressive taxation, they would all fail in both houses of Congress. Essentially zero Republicans would support such an approach, and a majority of elected Democrats would remain opposed to “free trade”. The only way these (disastrous) deals have ever been approved is by making them a free lunch for corporate interests (all of the profits and none of the taxes) and simultaneously attracting a smattering of centrist/liberal cosmopolitans (the Thomas Friedman crowd).

However, the deeper point is that Frankel’s idea of combining “free trade” treaties with progressive taxation is a fraud. The likes of Jeffrey Frankel will always support any “free trade” deal no matter how much it hurts the America people. If Frankel was even halfway serious he would insist on progressive tax hikes as a condition of his support for “free trade”. However, Frankel has repeatedly supported “free trade” agreements that did little more than “make the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer”. Pretensions notwithstanding, Frankel is a corporatist and a cosmopolitan down to his toenails.

I am sorry Jeffery but what you plain do not seem to be able to get your head around is the simple fact that youth are asked to invest effort and cash aka debt in gaining entry into a career. In a knowledge based economy that is the only route for the majority. For most that is a one off investment, it is unabe to be repeated even if there is the desire. For society to encourage such investment then wholesale encourage the offshoring of activities simply leaves a number of those who have made that long term structured investment washed up on an economic desert island with little or no work and living on coconut income

You cannot do this without backlash. There is an imbalance between longterm personal investment and career routes and short term profit grabbing via offshoring. Follow this route long enough and all personal investment ceases, because it becomes pointless. I am not advocating automatic employment linked to personal investment but a broad expectation has to remain for investment to remain. Destroy that investment motivation and very quickly you will not have a knowledge based economy

Finally you claim trade is the answer but fail completely to show how this trade has benefited the West, all the evidence is it hasnt. Debt both private and public has rocketed as a byproduct

You claim this article is a fine one 'excellent'. In my opinion it is a lousey detatched one which shows little understanding of the effects on the ground. I am absolutely convinced you and t'other guy would sing a very different song if you got the boot and found your transferable skills were none existent and any work you were suited to had disappeared down an internet cable. How would you react to having to dumpster dive or flip burgers off into the future. With joy no doubt

First and foremost a guvnt is elected to look after its citizens and western guvnts have been just plain bad with this, and if they have been listening to the idea offshoring is a good thing it is no surprise

If you cannot recognise that thru the policies you advocate that 'growth' for many people is limited to debt and youth unemployment then there is a problem

To Oeufs Bruns,
You disparage “helping raise a tiny slice of the third world from near starvation.” But the percentage of the developing world’s population living in extreme poverty fell from 43% in 1990 to 21 % in 2010. That’s well over a billion people lifted out of extreme poverty (income below $1.25 a day). Not a tiny slice, but a historically important development. Trade played a major role.
I am much more sympathetic to your disparagement of the US “exporting chaos,” assuming you have in mind in particular the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Jeff Frankel

I still point out Tax & Education reform are NOT going to happen. Progressive Tax reform ? Our parties can't even agree that the sky is blue! Progressive tax reform, Improved education, infrastructure spending are all pipe dreams. Not gonna happen. My big problem is economists in general assume one man makes a million dollars and 99 men l lose 10 thousand each it's a good result. Which it is for 1 man the other 99 tough luck. The current "Free Trade/Globalization" may have provided a net cash win but it provided it to very damn few. On a sheer number of people basis the losers out number winners 1000 to 1. Yes it helps the country or at least those who are already winners do better the rest of us not so much. Quick question as I am an American should I expect MY government to be considering me and children's long term interests or China &Malaysia's? As I see so often the recommended solutions such as "Progressive Tax reform & Education reform" that everyone who pays enough attention to read these articles knows will never happen. When you Ivory tower propose a solution that may actually happen instead of pie in the sky maybe I'll consider supporting free trade agreements. Until then they are merely eye catching toilet paper and I surely will NOT vote for people who support it!

Mr. Frankel, Prof. Rogoff's article was about "anti-trade America," hence the comments vis-a-vis the U.S.

Also, you assert, but do not demonstrate, "that trade is good, not just for the foreign country (particularly the developing countries that Rogoff emphasizes) but also good for the domestic country overall ...." As if this were self-evident, it is presented as a matter of faith, held by a "wide swathe of economists." That should be enough to squelch any argument, right?

To the uninitiated observer, modern economics resembles religious dogma more than science. And Harvard may very well be the most elegant defender of the true faith. The academy's primary mission is to safeguard and extend the catechism of economics, and to defend its dogmas. It offers normative arguments because it lacks rigor. But these arguments serve vested interests. The academy has not, nor can it, explained the current crisis any more than it could predict it. Nor can it offer any policy response. Instead, we get wild monetary-policy experimentation that no one can foresee the consequences of, and zero in the way of tax- and fiscal-policy recommendations, other than some arcane debates in journals no one reads.

Why would anyone bother to listen to the academy or entrust it -- and its high priests -- with devising policies that affect the entire economy and society, given its performance in the GFC (before and after)? How has it earned anyone's trust, other than the vested interests is so transparently serves.

I commend, for your viewing pleasure, "Inside Job," particularly its revelations re the academy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk

And the signatory of TPP and the corporate helpers say "Trust me, we have the US citizens' best interest in mind!". What's good for GM is good for America. I get that.

It's all about the winners and losers in what has come to be called free trade in the US. The capitalists and there stenographer acolytes win and the rest of us lose although comforted by the fact our increasing penury is helping raise a tiny slice of the third world from near starvation. Oh, and creating some great fortunes in China.