I came across this editorial in the WaPo . Regardless of your political persuasion, the editorial makes an honest point. It's not a biased point, not a political point and not an ideological point. It's the unsexy truth that shouldn't get in the way of how we choose to view the financial matters that have dominated headlines in recent weeks.

And I'm actually quite happy about it. What is this new GOP? It is the GOP centered around an oft-repeated idea (at this blog and elsewhere) of National Greatness Conservatism.

Why am I happy about it? Well, because I believe this is the real GOP and always has been all along during my lifetime of 35 years and well before. It is the heart and soul of the party...and while it gave an appearance of being otherwise (libertarian, for example) from time to time, it was simply a marketing ploy to put a different spin...however incoherent...on the true driver of party ID.

Mark Thoma has a a post about the possible corollary between income concentration and bubbles with the idea of one causing the other.

Bubbles – the devastating kind – seem to occur during a period of time when income is becoming increasingly concentrated at the top.

That then raises a question. Do large bubbles cause income to become more concentrated, or does the concentration of income cause the bubbles?

Hat tip to Reason Magazine:

Hat tip to The Liberty Papers :

Economist Mark Thorton explains with the graphs and an interesting video.

Here's the biggest culprit in the current climate:

Adjusted for inflation, we had negative interest rates during a period of time. That would mean something along the lines that less than NOBODY wanted loans in supply/demand driven rates and thus that we were paying people to take loans. Hmmm. Hardly the case in reality.

This is silly on the part of Ezra.

He links to CEPR table of stats that runs on the theme: Are you better off than you were 8 years ago? Edit: image moved below the fold

Hat tip to Mises .

First video is Paul addressing Bernanke. Excellent.

Second Video is on Fox News. Even better.

Matt Welch of Reason is perhaps one of the biggest McCain-despising libertarians around. He even wrote a book about it. He has given many very good reasons to vote against McCain or simply to stay home on election day.

That said, he makes a grudging effort to find a silver-lining in a McCain presidency. I think his points are well-founded and even though he does too, he says his own reasons are not enough to convince himself to vote for the guy.

Russ Roberts, one of my all 'round favorite bloggers of Cafe Hayek fame and professor of economics at George Mason University has a great article in Forbes .

Here Obama's 10 Worst Ideas .

Here's McCain's 10 Worst Ideas .

I think they are generally on the mark though I have some quibbles.

On Obama's, I'm not so sure how bad Number 4 is. Meeting with the Iranian President, by itself doesn't seem so bad to me. However, FP adds that Obama said he would do this "without precondition". Perhaps THAT isn't wise. I'm not sure. But according to a Carnegie Endowment expert on the matter:

I'd heard about this survey a while back. And now, it's done.

Hat tip to Tyler Cowen for alerting me to the results.

I am actually as surprised as Cowen, a libertarian independent like me, that the polls were as close as they were on a general level considering the personal politics of Economists to skew "liberal" (despite that, as a group, those liberals tend to skew "Right" compared to others in Academia)

Obama won the general vote by a count of 59% to 31%.

As I've stated on several occasions, I find the resurgence of McCain and the GOP from the jaws of inevitable defeat to be simply astounding. In a way, the feeling is like when I, as a Phillies fan, watched the Red Sox improbable run towards a World Series victory when they were one out away from losing down 3 games to none to the Yankees in 2004. I was amazed. Not really sad, not really elated....just amazed. I was witnessing an improbable historic run.

As I watch McCain do nothing while surging ahead of Obama in the polls in a country that hates the Bush Administration, I'm intrigued.

From Megan McArdle :

Sandra Tsing-Loh is shocked and hurt that Obama sends his daughters to an expensive private school rather than the local public schools.

Said Sandra:

Hat tip to Ka1igu1a over at Freedom Democrats.

This isn't so much a diary as it is a special post. Following up on this recent diary I wrote about the Sarah Palin speech, I present a posting today by Democrat and economics professor Mark Thoma titled Do Democrats Need to Learn Some Respect? .

As we head into election season with rhetorical and hyperbolic guns ablazing, I find this short piece by Arnold Kling to be somewhat correct and refreshing.

Kling asserts that, for the most part, the difference is more rhetorical than anything else.

Says Kling:

Hat tip to Arnold Kling

An article in the WaPo looks at a debate going on at the state level in RI over Medicaid spending. Its state budget bursting at the seams, the state legislature is embattled over what to do with Medicaid, which comprises about a quarter of state expenditures.

And let's be clear : It was indeed a performance. These things always are.

She did well. Very well.

Now, I can disagree with a lot of what she said and for various reasons and still acknowledge that.

First of all, I disagree with her foreign policy tone. And no amount of rhetoric is going to change that. Not so sure how that plays with vast majority of undecided voters who are at best part-time status quo political spectators.