Last night, I watched a really interesting political debate, in which the candidates engaged one another substantively about their vision for the country’s future.

The candidates demonstrated deep understanding of economic statistics. They talked about how to define a recession, whether rosy-looking job growth statistics ought to be adjusted for population growth, and whether more recent job market weakness could be ascribed solely to the effect of falling energy prices — a good trend in the long run.

They had nuanced disagreements and offered economic rationales for their positions. A moderate candidate, the son of a respected former national leader, warned that raising corporate taxes would discourage job creation and called for higher personal income taxes on top earners instead; his farther-left opponent surprisingly argued that personal income taxes shouldn’t be raised because they’re already very high on top earners, and raising them more would make it hard to retain doctors.

The candidates discussed the relative merits of competing policies, like balanced budgets and fiscal stimulus, without resorting to too much demagoguery. They acknowledged hard trade-offs; for instance, building pipelines might lead to more greenhouse gas emissions, but blocking their construction might just mean the shipment of oil by more environmentally risky means. They suggested creative means to expand the economy, like tearing down barriers to trade within the country.