So one commentator says my proposals are just the status quo, while another says they have zero chance of being enacted! The truth is that these are sensible practical proposals, most of which are situated on the front lines of the see-sawing conflict between Democratic politicians and Republican politicians. Lately the latter have been rolling back health insurance, financial regulation, and much more. These policies are eminently winnable and eminently losable. In some presidential election years, for example, a few thousand votes in the right states could make the difference. JF

Right, they can't get through the current Congress. But did you get that the list of policies was explicitly proposed as part of a Democratic election-year campaign to take back the House? It could well happen. Maybe the Senate too, but less likely, of course. It could certainly happen if people turn out to vote and pay attention to what policies/politicians they are voting for. JF

M M, You are right about "perceptions," if the proposition is that (since the turn of the century) the economic gains have gone to the rich and typical workers have been left behind. That is not just a perception but a reality: real median family income is barely above where it was in 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in office. But if the proposition is that the reason for this stagnation in median income is international trade (as opposed to a long list of reasons, starting with technological change), then I disagree, and call that a perception rather than a reality. Personally, I think Hillary Clinton would have done a competent job. (I don't have to say "compared to you-know-who." Trump isn't even competent at promoting his own bad policies.) I don't see how we can expect her to have calculated that although she would win the popular vote she would lose the Electoral College (possibly in part due to Russian interference) and therefore expect her to have groomed somebody more competent to take her place. (Who?) JF

Reply to Steve Hurst: No matter how many times I hear this argument, I still don't fully understand it. I do get the part about how the median American worker is upset that his wages, employment and health have been stagnating. What I don't get is the part about how that anger leads to support for Donald Trump, who stands for everything that will worsen those problems. How do tax cuts for the corporations help these people? Or taking 20 million of them off health care insurance? The economists' proposals that you claim not to have heard are the Affordable Care Act, infrastructure spending, progressive taxation, Earned Income Tax Credit, universal pre-school, CFPB, and so forth. JF

Actually, I'd say that it is much more likely that the tax-cut-induced budget deficit will lead to a trade deficit and more imports, than that it will lead to dollar depreciation and fewer imports. It's the old twin deficit, as played out in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. See, for example, https://nyti.ms/2jzZRGQ. JF