As Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and their allies work frenetically to shore up support ahead of Tuesday's U.S. presidential election, the candidates have ratcheted up their nasty personal attacks and ignored their policy playbooks.
Over the course of an interminable campaign, neither has had very much to say – beyond the usual promises and bromides – about such key economic issues as soaring public debt, worsening demographics, widening income inequality, the direction of monetary policy or the challenges related to the "new normal" of slower U.S. and global growth.
Editorial: Dear America: Please don't vote for Donald Trump
These concerns will persist regardless of who occupies the White House or which party is in control of Congress.
Here's a look at a few of them.
Fiscal policy
Even the most popular of U.S. presidents can't turn tax or spending promises into reality without strong congressional backing, as Barack Obama can attest and either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will soon discover.
If the House of Representatives remains firmly in Republican hands after Tuesday's vote, as is widely expected, a Clinton administration can forget about dramatically increased fiscal spending to boost job growth and speed the recovery. And her chances of getting tax hikes through Congress range between slim and none.
Conservatives who support higher taxes or opening the public purse don't tend to get re-elected.
"You might see some shifts, but game-changing policy moves would be very difficult," Ross Hambrick, an analyst with U.S. investment firm William Blair & Co., said in a recent note.
A Trump presidency wouldn't fare any better on the spending side, although his proposed tax cuts for corporations and individuals would meet a more receptive audience, at least from Republican lawmakers.
And here's something politicians never mention: Governments are addicted to cheap money. But piling on more debt to cover increased spending is "dependent on foreign investors being comfortable with the conditions. And these, as we have seen [with the drop in the Mexican peso], can change in a hurry," said David Prince, president of Harbinger Capital Markets in Toronto.
In total, Mr. Trump's proposals would actually do more damage to the battered U.S. fiscal house than those proffered by Ms. Clinton, according to neutral analysts.
Her plan to jack up taxes on corporations and wealthy U.S. households would pay for a big chunk of the $1.65-trillion (U.S.) in increased spending she advocates over the next decade on education, infrastructure and paid family leave.
The latest Trump package would slash federal expenditures by about $1.2-trillion in the next 10 years, but his hefty tax cuts would slice revenues by $5.8-trillion, the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated in September. Public debt would soar to 105 per cent of GDP by 2026, compared with about 86 per cent under the Clinton proposals.
"Unfortunately, both candidates' plans to increase the debt come on top of current law projections that already estimate that debt will grow by $9-trillion over the next decade," the CRFB said in its report.
"The 10-year [debt] outlook is catastrophic," Chicago-based political economist Andrew Busch said.
Trade
Few parts of the economy are more open to presidential meddling. Without ever consulting the legislative branch or affected state governments, a determined leader could accomplish pretty much what Donald Trump has been vowing to do for months.
He could slap heavy duties on imports from China, cancel bilateral free-trade deals, pull out of the World Trade Organization and, with six months' notice to the other partners, signal his intention to take the United States out of the North American free-trade agreement.
Ms. Clinton has no such plans. But she has also veered toward more protectionism, as a large swath of the electorate has soured on trade deals, blaming them for the loss of manufacturing jobs and a decline in incomes.
"Don't underestimate the ability of a president to do a lot of things," said Mr. Busch, who has done extensive research on the subject.
If elected, Mr. Trump could moderate his tough stance when faced with the harsh economic consequences that would result from such a policy, including higher consumer costs, major job losses and a possible recession. But in the final days of the campaign, he has cranked up the volume on his fiery trade rhetoric during stops in the Rust Belt states.
"Maybe it's all a bluff, but he's going to scare the market," Mr. Busch said in an interview. "Without question, he has the latitude to do it as president."
And even if existing free-trade deals remain intact – neither candidate would sign the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement – we could see more non-tariff barriers as industry lobby groups gain more influence, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
Economy
The U.S. economy expanded at 2.9 per cent annually in the latest quarter, its fastest clip in two years. That was a sharp upturn after a dismal advance of just above 1 per cent in the first half of the year.
The improved performance was underscored Friday by healthy October jobs data, including a slight drop in unemployment to 4.9 per cent and an important boost in average hourly earnings.
Yet for all that, the U.S. recovery has been underwhelming by previous standards, and there are plenty of signals that it will remain that way. Business spending, a key indicator, has fallen for four quarters in a row.
Economy watchers cite a variety of reasons for the malaise, a slowing Chinese economy, reduced global demand and unfavourable demographics.
It's all part of what some economy watchers have dubbed "the new normal" of weaker growth across the industrial world.
But an aging population, slower productivity gains, weaker foreign markets and other proposed causes don't fully explain why the U.S. recovery has been stuck in low gear for so long.
"We're not sure why," said economist Peter Perkins, global strategist with MRB Partners in Montreal. "They are theories in search of empirical evidence."
Both candidates tout job creation as a cornerstone of their platforms, and their solution is higher infrastructure spending along with tax and other incentives to spur more domestic activity.
But even if they could steer such plans through a Congress that is fixated on austerity, it wouldn't be enough to unleash strong demand. And both are capable of making a tough situation worse.
Willem Buiter, Citigroup's outspoken chief economist, summed up the current situation during a recent panel discussion in Washington.
"It's simply appalling that the political system ends up with these two candidates. One of whom addresses some of the issues and comes up with all the wrong solutions, and the other one who doesn't address any of the real issues."
Monetary policy
Donald Trump has slammed Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen for "doing political things" by deliberately keeping interest rates so low. Just a few months earlier, he lauded her, saying that raising rates "would be a disaster."
We have grown used to Mr. Trump's outlandish and often contradictory claims. And he is not the only critic who has questioned the Fed's integrity.
Still, such an unprecedented attack by a presidential candidate risks undermining the credibility of the world's most important central bank.
More insidious, though, is Mr. Trump's less-trumpeted belief in a rules-based approach to monetary policy.
With set rules and other restrictions sought by conservative lawmakers, the Fed would be stripped of the flexibility to intervene in the markets and adopt unconventional policies in times of crisis.
Specifically, it would mean adopting a version of the rule formulated by economist John Taylor in 1993 setting a predetermined value for the real short-term interest rate, adjusted only for inflation and slack in the economy.
"It's underappreciated that Mr. Trump has embraced this quite dramatic change in the Federal Reserve's policy framework," Mr. Perkins said. "Whether he really means it, we don't know."