The Russell Roberts-John Papola team behind the last Hayek-Keynes rap, which we wrote about here, has a new rap out. Video embedded below. Hayek: "It must be a little awkward for your side. All that stimulus and not a lot to show for it....Two years have passed and we're still in a ditch." Professor Roberts's comments after the rap are well worth listening to, as well; he replies to a question from an Economist moderator asking why Hayek is back so big by saying the real puzzle is why Keynes is back.

In today's New York Times, Bob Herbert has a column bemoaning the prosperity of the prosperous:

This hyperconcentration of wealth and income, and the overwhelming political clout it has put into the hands of the monied interests, has drastically eroded the capacity of government to respond to the needs of the middle class and others of modest income.

Nothing better illustrates the enormous power that has accrued to this tiny sliver of the population than its continued ability to thrive and prosper despite the Great Recession that was largely the result of their winner-take-all policies, and that has had such a disastrous effect on so many other Americans.

First of all, "the monied interests" are the ones that employ Mr. Herbert — the New York Times is financially backed by Carlos Slim, a Mexican described by Forbes as the richest man in the world. Second, Mr. Herbert seems genuinely to be disappointed that "the rich" are thriving and prospering. It's as if he wishes them ill, or prefers that they were wallowing in misery. He writes:

Under the headline "Tulips for Mike Allen," a post here on Friday noted the trend in the election predictions of the influential Politico Playbook, a daily morning email from the indefatigable Michael Allen:

Playbook, October 20: "PLAYBOOK ODDS FIXING: If the election were held today, we forecast a Republican pickup of 47 House seats (39 needed for majority; net gain could reach 55)"

Playbook, October 26: "PLAYBOOK ODDS FIXING: Republicans net 51 House seats (39 needed for control)" Mocks as "Tulip Craze" Republican predictions of gains of 62 or 64 seats.

Playbook, October 29: "PLAYBOOK ODDS FIXING: GOP gains 59 in House (39 needed for majority)."

Nine Ways the Democrats and their Friends in the Press Will Spin the Election Results

In the context of historic midterm elections, it's not that big a deal. Expect to hear a lot of this one if the Democrats hold on to control of the Senate. In 1994, President Clinton and his Democratic Party lost both the House and the Senate to the Republicans. And Mr. Clinton didn't even get his health care bill passed. As recently as 2006, President George W. Bush and his Republican Party lost control of both the House and the Senate. In 1946, Harry Truman and his Democratic Party lost both the House and the Senate to the Republicans. And in 1954, Dwight Eisenhower and his Republicans lost both the House and the Senate to the Democrats.

"A Muddled Manifesto for America" is the headline the Financial Times runs over its review of a new book, Seeds of Destruction, co-authored by the dean of the Columbia Business School, Glenn Hubbard, who served in the George W. Bush administration. The review says the book is "not always convincing" and faults the book's "sometimes overzealous tone," which can be "far too harsh – and needlessly confusing" as well as "off-puttingly militant."

The publisher of the book? The FT Press.

If the FT thinks this book is so off-putting and muddled, why did it publish it?

Gao Zisheng, whose torture was described here in the post China's Human Rights Lawyers, has been disappeared, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The latest YouTube video.

M & T Bank Corp. will acquire Wilmington Trust Corp. for $351 million, a Bloomberg News article reports. The article reports that "The U.S. Treasury, through its Troubled Asset Relief Program, bought $330 million in preferred equity in Wilmington Trust in December 2008. M&T said it agreed to assume responsibility for the preferred stock."

What the article doesn't say is that M & T itself still owes the government $751.5 million it was given under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Or that Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is a big investor in M & T, which will now be operating with $1,081,500,000 of taxpayer capital.

You'd think M & T might want to pay the taxpayers back the $751.5 million before spending $351 million on an acquisition.

Bloomberg News has a long article by Daniel Golden about how the Washington Post Company's Kaplan University "ensnares" veterans in its "quest for profits at taxpayer expense." The article says Kaplan's admissions officers traded on the reputations of Washington Post Company directors Warren Buffett and Melinda Gates:

Robinson, the admissions adviser, told Melvin that Kaplan was connected through its parent company to such luminaries as Post directors Warren Buffett and Melinda Gates, Melvin said.

"I was more familiar with Jimmy Buffett than I was with Warren Buffett," he said. "I looked into it" and was impressed by Buffett's investment acumen.

Invoking Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is a common Kaplan tactic, Huff said.

A news article in the New York Times under the headline "Both Parties Play the Wall Street Card, Sometimes From the Bottom of the Deck," reports:

Another Democratic ad notes that Mr. Toomey, while serving in the House, called derivatives "an enormous good" during a 2000 hearing. But both parties overwhelmingly agreed that year to exempt over-the-counter derivatives from strict regulation, in what is now commonly regarded as a mistake.

A Harvard-educated Boston community organizer and six-term city councilor, Chuck Turner, was convicted on all charges after a federal trial related to accepting a $1,000 bribe to help a businessman get a liquor license, The Boston Globe reports.

If you didn't need permission from the government to sell liquor, it'd reduce the opportunity for this sort of corruption.

Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen, who describe themselves as "traditional liberal Democrats," write in the Washington Post:

We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon....

Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.

Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign....

An editorial in this morning's New York Times, "Drowning in Campaign Cash," laments how much money is being spent on politics. "The amount is staggering: Nearly $4 billion is likely to be spent once the final figures are in," the Times complains.

It reminded me of the December 3, 2007, editorial of the New York Sun, "The Bargain of Democracy," written in response to a similar New York Times Sunday editorial lamenting the money spent on the 2008 election, which at the time the Times editorialists were estimating at $5 billion.

The 2007 Sun editorial noted that on a per capita basis, "The billions in projected spending may correspond to a scant $17 for every American, or about $8.50 a year, less than a movie and about the same as two venti peppermint mochas at Starbucks." It went on, "Nevermind that for this, Americans get democracy. At $5 billion, democracy is a bargain."

Politico's Mike Allen notices a last-minute Democratic National Committee commercial airing on MSNBC and BET and featuring president Obama. On screen type: "If Republicans win: No Accountability for Wall Street. More Power for Oil and Insurance Giants."

Just as the economic downturn of the late 1970s/ early 1980s gave rise to Ronald Reagan's campaign against welfare Cadillac, and the economic downturn of the early 1990s gave rise to Bill Clinton's promise to end welfare as we know it, the economic downturn of the late Bush/early Obama years is feeding the stirrings of new political moves to limit welfare programs. First Mayor Bloomberg's administration, backed by the New York State health commissioner, Dr. Richard Daines, asked Washington for the authority to bar food stamp recipients from spending their benefits on sugary drinks such as Coke and Pepsi. (See the earlier post here, "No Food Stamps for Soda.")