The title says it all.

And PZ points to another columnist eviscerating Stein. Maybe he should have stuck to acting.

or writing speeches for criminal presidents.

Is it really fair to call it acting when all he does is read a script in his boring monotone?

Bueller? Bueller?

I haven't even read the post in full yet, but I want to say this already -

It would astound me if Stein is NOT a climate change denialist. He almost certainly is. I would bet multiple bottles of single malt Scotch on that. (And I don't work at a Baptist university, so I can drink Scotch with a clear conscience.)

I would put better than even odds that he is an HIV denialist as well.

He's a standard issue kool-aid drinking American right wing authoritarian who claims, not necessarily convincingly, to be religious.

It makes sense that science denial follows from authoritarian political positions, as I've noted so often. Science by its nature questions authority and dogma (in the spheres to which scientific inquiry applies)

Of course, the converse doesn't work as well - great scientists have sometimes supported authoritarian regimes.

I first heard of Stein a year ago by reading a financial column of his. It was so stupid that I made a special note of his name so as to never waste 2 minutes again.

Not sure what is going on here except that his traders pushing the market around theory is laughable in the present environment. Oil is $91/barrel, gas is $3.25/gallon, the dollar is collapsing, inflation picking up, and the subprime mess is taking the housing industry and banks and financial sector down hard. We are looking at a probable recession and it may be a severe one. Or not. People in front of a moving train have a habit of running first and worrying about its mass and speed later.

My guess, having very diligently not followed Ben Stein's financial babbling is that he failed to anticipate the economic problems and stock market directions. That anyone who followed his advice to "don't worry, be happy" is taking big losses right now. Of course, for weaker minds, gains are always due to their brilliance and maybe even god's and Jesus's plan. Losses are due to demons and "them", demons, traders, and Wall Street Plutocrats etc..

Stein is just a no talent bottom feeder, doing anything for a few bucks. I doubt he believes ID or even cares. A troll but a hustling, energetic one. Nothing wrong with supporting oneself, we all have to eat. But taking a bottom feeding troll seriously can get one in big trouble.

This guy is simply nuts. There is this simple thing called Price Earning Ratio, known to everyone from the newbie stock traders to the wise old trade-nothing-but-index-ETF Bogelheads. For the S&P 500 index it is currently 15, last year it was slightly under 20.

For every penny of profit made, the stock price was 20 cents, (or now it is 15 cents). It means straight away, for a 100 Billion dollar loss, the stock price should fall by 2 trillion dollars at P/E=20 from last years prices! With P/E dropping from 20 to 15, and the profits falling by about 100 B$, the financial sector alone could explain the 2.5 T$ loss of valuation. In fact some analysts think the second level effects of subprime debacle (erosion in home values, reduction in consumer spending, etc) have not yet been fully priced into the market yet.

But to be fair, there are traders who plant stories and false leads in the media for the consumption of chumps. They are Ben Stein's cronies. There are journalists who would willingly purvey these stories. They are people like Ben Stein. While the chumps do a double take "may be there is something to it. Things are not bad after all" for a while before reality hits them hard. By that time Ben's cronies would have
unloaded all they want to unload and leave the chumps holding the
bag.

As I see it, this is what traders do all day long — and especially what they’ve been doing since the subprime mess burst upon the scene. They have seized upon a fairly bad situation: a stunning number of defaults and foreclosures in the subprime arena, although just a small part of the total financial picture of the United States. They have then tried — with the collaboration of their advance guards in the press — to make it seem like a total catastrophe so they could make money on their short sales. They sense an opportunity to trick other traders and poor retail slobs like you and me, and they generate data and rumor to support their positions, and to make money.

It would astound me if Stein is NOT a climate change denialist.

Cybercast News Service: This reminds me of the global warming debate. The Union of Concerned Scientists, exactly one year ago, put out a report on Exxon Mobil for their position on global warming, and in their report they say too often journalists' inclination to provide political balance leads to inaccurate reporting - and that members of the media should not quote ExxonMobil officials or anybody who questions the scientific consensus. Ben Stein: Yes, that is precisely the analogy. Very well done. I totally agree. There are still plenty of scientists who question fossil fuels' role in global warming, but you're not allowed to question that anymore.

There are still plenty of scientists who question fossil fuels’ role in global warming, but you’re not allowed to question that anymore.

He’s a standard issue kool-aid drinking American right wing authoritarian who claims, not necessarily convincingly, to be religious.

— harold

Is it true what they say? That Ann Coulter is Ben Stein's love child with Phyllis Schlafly????

Ok, I'm in the dark.

I read Stein's piece Can Their Wish Be the Market's Command. Nothing about Evolution here. And I would argue that there were no / little statistics.

I read Ehoenberg's article How to Lie With Statistics aka Ben Stein's MO. Nothing about Evolution here. Also, no statistics.

"So Stein’s an Evil Darwinist Conspiracy theorist and an Evil Traders Conspiracy theorist. I wonder if he’s an HIV denialist or a global warming “skeptic” to complete a woo trifecta." - R. Hoppe

Why is Hoppe's article posted?

Ehoenberg criticizes Stein about his "statistics", but actually was less about his Statistics, and more a criticism of his general attitude toward business ethics. I'm not sure that we should "dis" Stein's impression.

Here, Hoppe compounded things with statements about Stein being an Evil Darwinist Conspiracy theorist which may be true but not mentioned in the two articles.

The Evil Traders Conspiracy theorist moniker was then added, presumably because R. Ehoenberg disagreed with B. Stein's image of modern business ethics - sans statistics.

Ok, then why not just add a couple more things not related to what Panda's Thumb is all about and question Stein's beliefs about HIV and Global Warming, and Poof... with a very few key strokes, and obviously No thought, R. Hoppe has wasted everybody's time.

I feel like I came to the hanging late and just saw the dead body.

It's not about an "attitude toward business ethics". It's about an absurd conspiracy theory which is completely contradicted by the facts - ie the institutions who are supposed to have made lots of money by shorting the market at the expense of retail investors have, in fact, lost billions upon billions of dollars. The reason for posting it is because Panda's Thumb readers are interested in Stein, and especially his wacky conspiracy theories, as he has made a wacky conspiracy theory film about intelligent design.

All this may be true, but "Win Ben Stein's Money" was still a fun game show.

Mr. Stein's history of being Pro-Intelligent Design aside.

My comments criticized the absurdity of one person making a mountain out of mole-hill, out of another person making a mountain out of a mole-hill, about somebody's article that is probably not too far from the mark.

There is no conspiracy theory about the many scandals concerning stock market manipulations. The SEC was created to prevent problem and is working hard to prevent problems today, but as recent history shows, problems still occur. And has, in fact, involved billions of dollars.

If Mr. Hoppe desires to skewer somebody else in the future, I would hope he would do it in a less circuitous manner, address an issue, and give some kind of validation to his view.

I enjoy Panda's Thumb. It addresses an issue that I care about, and I don't want the articles turned into inane battles like what I see in response to Trolls.

If Mr. Hoppe desires to skewer somebody else in the future, I would hope he would do it in a less circuitous manner, address an issue, and give some kind of validation to his view.

There is no conspiracy theory about the many scandals concerning stock market manipulations. The SEC was created to prevent problem and is working hard to prevent problems today, but as recent history shows, problems still occur. And has, in fact, involved billions of dollars.

The point was, Ben Stein is a polykook polymoron. It is not unusual for someone who believes an impossible thing before breakfast to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast.

If you disagree fine. It is relevant because Stein is shilling himself out to the IDers. He is an actor, just his job but we are allowed to laugh at bizarre comedians who will do just about anything for money.

Befuddled Theorist,
I think most of the problems you refer to are more because of salesmen selling instruments that the customers don't understand at inflated prices. The buyers of the sub-prime mortgage bonds is the latest scandal in this area. Read Liars Poker and FIASCO.

Traders if they are large enough can temporarily move markets but other traders start getting on the other side of the trade if they see the market moving out of whack.
Blaming the short-sellers has a long tradition amongst the wingnuts. After the 1939 stock market crash rules were put in place to limit short selling of stocks, even though short sellers add liquidity to a falling market as they are the only buyers. The wing nuts cannot let it be seen that the current problems are due to short sighted governments and corporate America.

Traders have moved on the short side because it is obvious that the market is tanking and is going to continue to tank for a while yet.

So yes Virginia his finance wisdom is at the same level as his science wisdom.

Losses are due to demons and “them”, demons, traders, and Wall Street Plutocrats etc..

Nah. It's all due to some bull's ass in Mumbai.
Sounds as likely as Stein's claim, and the jokes just write themselves....

harold said: It would astound me if Stein is NOT a climate change denialist. He almost certainly is. I would bet multiple bottles of single malt Scotch on that. (And I don’t work at a Baptist university, so I can drink Scotch with a clear conscience.)

He’s a standard issue kool-aid drinking American right wing authoritarian who claims, not necessarily convincingly, to be religious. It makes sense that science denial follows from authoritarian political positions, as I’ve noted so often. Science by its nature questions authority and dogma (in the spheres to which scientific inquiry applies) Of course, the converse doesn’t work as well - great scientists have sometimes supported authoritarian regimes

I have not seen enough unbiased data...

— MememicBottleneck

I have not seen enough unbiased data (a lame film by the inventor of the internet doesn’t count) to come up with a convincing argument for either stance.

Apropos of the climate change derailment, Nobel Intent has a relevant post up.

Ben is shrewd enough to know that if you want to sell columns and books, there's nothing better than conspiracy theories. So, no, Ben Stein is not an idiot. Unless he actually believes that the global market declines have been caused by a few self-interested windbags--in which case he's delusional.

MememicBottleneck: I have not seen enough unbiased data ... to come up with a convincing argument for either stance.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from being any kind of authority in climatology. Most of what I get from this area comes from the news, as it isn't a topic that holds much interest for me. However, I tend to be very skeptical of claims when personal interests are involved.

To me, Al Gore is possibly the worst spokesperson for global warming. He has a hugh carbon footprint, and justifies it by buying "carbon credits". I've read he buys these from an LLC that he is the majority owner. Furthermore, you must be very wealthy to be allowed to purchase shares ... errr credits, from this LLC.

I can't say that I have a "data threshold" or a "trusty source", but over the last several years I've seen a number of articles like the one below that generally don't get a response from the "man made" warming crowd.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html

I've also not seen any data that shows that this is not a normal climate cycle. During the dust bowl in the 30's, the average temp was higher than it is now. There have been other warmer and cooler cycles during human history.

In short, (I know, too late) I'd like to see studies that show why other sources of warming are not the problem, and that it is only carbon that is.

If the earth continues to warm, and it becomes a long term problem, it doesn't make sense to destroy the world's economies on a guess, or because it fits well with someones ideology. Humanity is better served by finding the actual root cause and trying to develop a workable solution.

What does “unbiased data” mean? Data are data. Interpretations of data may be biased, and to be sure scientists are human and have biases, though one makes efforts to dilute the effects of those biases. Peer review and the desirability of intersubjective replicability are directed at reducing the effects of idiosyncratic biases on interpretations of data. But what are “biased data“?

MememicBottleneck said: I’ve seen a number of articles like the one below ...

Most college campuses have left wing authoritarian political positions.

I’ve also not seen any data that shows that this is not a normal climate cycle. During the dust bowl in the 30’s, the average temp was higher than it is now.

Most college campuses have left wing authoritarian political positions.

RBH-

Temper, Temper Mr. Hoppe.

"Finally, that Befuddled Theorist mentions the SEC in this context is indicative of the appropriateness of the first word in his nom de net. The SEC is irrelevant to the derivatives markets where the current writedowns are occurring."

First - the SEC is relevant concerning market manipulations. Stein's article wasn't directed to any particular part of the derivative market.

Second - Please use proper etiquette. I criticized your article only as unnecessary and inappropriate for Pandas Thumb. I still believe that. Lets keep articles relevant, informative, clear, concise, and not merely inflammatory. If you had a good article written, I would have waited for the re-write to read it, and probably enjoyed it.

Erm, do you even know what falls within the purview of the SEC and what doesn't? None of the trading of the various instruments related to the current subprime debacle is regulated by the SEC. Virtually all of it is OTC. Some hedging and spec trading occurs on exchanges regulated by bodies other than the SEC, for example the CFTC for U.S. exchange-traded futures and options. The movements of the stock markets (regulated by the SEC in the U.S.) are secondary to the much larger volumes moving in the various derivatives markets, some regulated, some not. I trade in those markets for a hedge fund, and the SEC is irrelevant to my derivatives trading.

Based on Stein's column, I doubt that he knows the first thing about trading in those markets, which ignorance is on a par with his knowledge of evolution. He's a purveyor of nonsense in both domains.

RBH

Are you saying that the current changes are absolutley, positively, undeniably attributed to the burning of fossil fuels? If so, I’d say your belittling tone is an impediment to good science. During the 1970’s, many of the “leading climatologists” were saying that a mini ice age was beginning.

What did they attribute it to? Burning of fossil fuels.

I’ve also not seen any data that shows that this is not a normal climate cycle. During the dust bowl in the 30’s, the average temp was higher than it is now.

I stand corrected. I do not consider myself qualified to interpret the data, so what I really meant was an unbiased interpretation of the data.

To me, Al Gore is possibly the worst spokesperson for global warming.

I can’t say that I have a “data threshold” or a “trusty source”, but over the last several years I’ve seen a number of articles like the one below that generally don’t get a response from the “man made” warming crowd.

Further, the sheer size of those markets makes it implausible that a coterie of traders could generate the kind of behavior we’ve seen.

RBH

Stein's story was about a Bear run on I.B.M. stock, not derivatives, in the wake of the subprime mess. The SEC, as far as I know does oversee the securities market. Stein seem to be pushing things a little when he said that the press was helping traders to push runs on stocks, but I chose not to visualize a Conspiracy.

Stein's comments:
"They (traders) don’t act on the basis of what seems to them the real economic situation, but on what’s in it for them..." "As I see it, this is what traders do all day long (Bear runs) — and especially what they’ve been doing since the subprime mess burst upon the scene...." "MORE than that, they trade to support the way they want the market to go. If they are huge traders like some of the major hedge funds, they can sell massively and move the market downward, then suck in other traders who go short, and create a vacuum of fear that sucks down whatever they are selling..." "Note what is happening here: They are not figuring out which way the market will go. They are making the market go the direction they want."

Apparently I didn't read the article the same way you did. I don't think Stein was saying that traders are influencing the subprime problem, just the securities market in the wake of the subprime problem.

MememicBottleneck: I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from being any kind of authority in climatology. I can't say that I have a "data threshold" or a "trusty source", but over the last several years I've seen a number of articles like the one below that generally don't get a response from the "man made" warming crowd. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html I've also not seen any data that shows that this is not a normal climate cycle. In short, (I know, too late) I'd like to see studies that show why other sources of warming are not the problem, and that it is only carbon that is. Humanity is better served by finding the actual root cause and trying to develop a workable solution.

The thread running through Ben Stein's work is his own gullibility.

He listens to his parents talk about monetary policy at dinner, and becomes convinced that he's a whiz at economics.

His brother-in-law Melvin casually mentions the term "legal realism", and Stine suddenly realizes that law is "all show business and personal bias".

An egotistical trader boasts that the market trembles at the trader's slightest breath, and Stine buys it lock, stock, and barrel.

An scientist who spends too much time on his ID hobby rather than his science job tries to blame his poor job evaluations on the bias of others rather than on his own poor performance, and Stine swallows this story too.

Stein’s story was about a Bear run on I.B.M. stock, not derivatives, in the wake of the subprime mess. The SEC, as far as I know does oversee the securities market. Stein seem to be pushing things a little when he said that the press was helping traders to push runs on stocks, but I chose not to visualize a Conspiracy.

Just as a tiny example, years ago a close friend, now deceased, was a trader in London for a big financial house. As he told it, one day I.B.M. came out with stellar numbers. The boss of the trading floor said, “O.K., the guy who’s getting the prize is the one who can make us money selling I.B.M. short.”

To my humble eyes, this is what we have seen recently on world markets. Note that the losses in United States markets alone are on the order of about $2.5 trillion in recent weeks. How can a loss of roughly $100 billion on subprime — with some recoveries sure to come as property is seized and sold — translate into a stock-market loss 25 times that size? The answer is trader realism.