Ben Stein How Not to Ruin Your Life

Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, February 2, 2009, 11:59AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Wow, Ben doesn't understand how California setting emissions standards can effect the overall environment? OK, here's the simple answer for people (like Ben) with no common sense. If California requires cars to have lower emissions, the automobile manufactures are going to find a way to meet California's requirements. They're then going to sell the same cars EVERYWHERE. They're not going to have non-California versions with extra smog just for fun. California setting lower emission standards will therefore cause the US to create less pollution, thereby putting us in a better position to put pressure on other countries to follow. That's the reason the previous regime passed the law limiting states from having their own emissions standards, Bush and co. love the pollution! By the way Ben, aren't you one of those right-wing-states'-rights extremists? Or should states only get to make their own rules as long as it agrees with the conservative agenda? And don't pretend that you hate pollution, if you did YOU WOULDN'T BE STUCK IN A TRAFFIC JAM IN YOUR OWN CAR!! Get a bike or a bus pass.

Lester - Monday, February 2, 2009, 10:40AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

;Why let one company put out more just because another restricts, does that reduee the emmissions. Who knows the saturation point????

Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, January 31, 2009, 9:55AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Pure drivel. Only way to eliminate the pollution problem is to eliminate un necessary use of fossil fuel and eventually eliminate the use of the fuel completely. There will come a time when it will become necessary globally to do this. So, get ready. Anyone remember the dangers of DDT and other insectacides? How about lead, mercury etc... Fossil fuel burning will get us all too, sooner or later. There will most likely be wars to eliminate it's usage. Meantime, enjoy your ride.

bierterrasse - Saturday, January 31, 2009, 9:38AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

The answer to Ben's question, "What is a credit worth?" is actually fairly simple. You simply take the cube of the world supply of hymens divided by the square root of the world supply of peckers times the total volume of the atmosphere below 28,000 feet divided by the total lung volume of the human population and subtract the total number of tree rings on earth the number of gallons of potable water minus annual acid rain vapors and factor this result by the number of cattle butt holes times the price of 1 ounce of crude oil at $US/Euro plus the cost to the US economy of 1 hour of factory worker procrastination plus the AD digit equivalent of W's birthday. This formula gives a fairly accurate value to a CO2 credit, although the standard deviation depends on the lag in number of years between the creation of new jobs in China and Congressional approval of tax deductions for those with incomes greater than their tax loopholes and for corporations without municipal tax free status less the number of paid national holidays for US Civil Service and Military personnel and less the number of weeks of annual paid vacation for rank of E13 less the sum total of EIC payments and then increase this by a percentage equal to the current year increase in Congressional salaries divided by the inflation rate less the annual percentage increase in the money supply. It doesn't even take a calculator to run this equation, although a computer certainly makes it easier, so the government does not need to be involved in the auction process at all, which should after all be the result of free market supply and demand.

JohnS - Saturday, January 31, 2009, 2:18AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Pretty good take on things. I too have often wondered about how the caps will be set. While cap and trade can create a free market that sets the price of carbon (which would be good) the governments around the world will have entirely too much power. It would be better to cap and trade human births. Each woman can have two children. If she wants more she can purchase the right to another child from a women who doesn't want a child. Think of it. You help the environment by stopping the growth of humanity which if evergrowing will eventually lead to every forest being cleared for farm land. Plus those who can afford to have more children will be the ones multiplying versus the poor who breed like rabbits. This of course leading to more dummies in the world. I know this is harsh but keep in mind it just a generalization. Sad that its true.

erikh - Friday, January 30, 2009, 9:18PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Ben Stein. Wrong on the economy, and now Wrong on the Environment. Yahoo needs to LOSE BEN STEIN and bring back experts with some worth, like Harold Maas and his excellent 'Best of Today's Business' Column!

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 30, 2009, 6:10PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

Cap and Trade will enrich those who figured out another way to the wallet of Americans. Pollution is bad , most large corporations can tell you that. Direct linkage to a green house effect has not been proven beyond any doubt.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 30, 2009, 11:28AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

I truly love this financial column. Every week I log in to see Ben get stupider and stupider. Losing all that money on Merrill Lynch must have severely damaged his tiny brain. The other thing I love to do is read all the 5-star reader comments. Take Kappy for example, this poor loser still thinks that the shorts were responsible for the current financial crisis. Hu-llo, I haven't read such tripe since the longs vs. shorts postings during the dot com bubble. Earth to Kappy, they banned the shorting of financial stocks last year and those stocks have since gone even deeper into the crapper.

Ken - Thursday, January 29, 2009, 7:04PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

I have a great solution to the massive shorting that still goes on in financials ultimately breaking the banks. The selling is indiscriminant and hurts our financial system. PICTURE THIS: Give the shorts a taste of their own medicine. Have the government buy stock strategically and without notice of a financial stock that can really use the help. Have them buy then buy more, then buy even more. Buy until it hurts the shorts so badly that it causes a massive short squeeze. The government WILL need to be strategic and go until a tipping point is reached that causes a mother of all squeezes. Like volkswagon squeeze recently that made the market cap exceed the biggest company in the world for a day or two. What this will do... 1. Create fear of shorting in the future. 2. Make valuations more reasonable. Not every stock should be in fear of going out of business. 3. Allow hurting companies to dilute their stock at high levels to raise much higher levels than they could ever do now to help their capitalization. 4. Allow the government to get out at the top and at least break even on ther long positions. 5. The govenment can save the banks without the use of the publics money. 6. Banks can get recapitalized. 7. The wealthy that were shorting the banks "the smart money" will have to dust off their treasuries to pay off the margin calls on their shorts. 8. AND MOST OF ALL and a repeat of #1 above......this will place fear in the market not to do their shorting scam again. Let me know your thoughts on my shorting plan.

Lucas R - Thursday, January 29, 2009, 4:45PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

rargyll, Ben explained in the article why CO2 is different than sewage. Sewage from India doesn't seep into the US, CO2 can and probably does. You should read the entire article before assailing the author with personal attacks. Can you at least comprehend the difference between liquids and gases? I hope so. His points are valid, the largest of which is that carbon output is not measurable. Wake up people! The government is trying to get you to care about it so that they can scam you.

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, January 29, 2009, 4:20PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Cap and Trade exists to enrich Wall Street. Beyond that, it has no value.

whimteeler - Thursday, January 29, 2009, 2:14PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Ben, from your editorial you muse: "I keep wondering why we would bother to do these cuts at all unless we can get global enforceable accords with no exemptions. Perhaps someone out there can answer that one for me." Wake up; we are one of the largest emitters of these gases. Why is it that someone else should lead the way? Country's that are always grousing about how others should act have no moral authority unless they talk the talk and walk the walk. It's time to lead by example and stop whining about what others are doing.

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, January 29, 2009, 1:36PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Whatever Ben Stein says or thinks - DO THE OPPOSITE. You will be successful and right. He is the like the movie - the Cooler. He is a jinx. Read all of his articles over the last several years. There are solutions to this climate change problem and America can lead the way. Invest 80 billion in building fixes -- 40% of the problem is in building architecture -- and you will revitalize the construction industry. Fix the automobile industry. Attack our energy issues even if it means going to nuclear, solar, wind, etc.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 9:55PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Economists should probably stick to what they know, even if it doesn't work there either

RichardA - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 7:10PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

You don't see how lowering carbon emissions in one state will do anything for the health of the planet if they are not lowered elsewhere? Tell you what...some people dump their sewage in the street and keep garbage in their house...since they are doing this why don't you? Do that for a year or so and tell me how it works out. And if you do decide to take out the garbage what would be the best method? Can someone answer me that? Should you dump it in a hole in your backyard? Should you use plastic bags? Should the community organize a pick-up service and a well tended county dump? Oh me, oh my,, I don't know what to do, so why bother. Just let it fester and smell because not everyone throws out their garbage. There's a village in India where raw sewage runs down the street so let's not clean up our neighborhood. But then I am the dumbest son of a gun in the Valley and I always had annuities left me by my parents to take care of myself. If only all these other people would stop polluting then I'd be fine driving my car.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 6:13PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Yahoo! Finance User... you say, "When the plant dies & breaks down, this C stays in the soil" Let's think about this... when I eat a sugar cube (a hydrocarbon, like wood is) the sugar goes to my extremities where it is metabolized... it is burned to create energy so that I can move my muscles. This burning takes in oxygen, and converts the sugar to CO2 and H2O (much like a gasoline engine). I expel the CO2. Same thing with trees. Termites (for example) eat the wood and expel CO2 into the atmosphere. The C does not necessarily get "sequestered". Al Gore should be fighting termites (Orkin is hiring)

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 12:37PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

To "embur87@sbcglobal.net" who said: "Where do you think the co2 in that wood goes as it breaks down in the forest, or your yard? Better to turn dead trees into fuel than let them rot." You have it dead wrong. Study biology and chemistry. Most of the carbon (solid C compounds) that makes up a plant come from the CO2 they "breathe" in. Plants release the O2 and the C stays in the plant. When the plant dies & breaks down, this C stays in the soil. You should've learned this in jr. high school. Millions of years of this have sequestered lots of C in the ground. That's where fossil fuels came from. Now we're extracting this C from the ground (coal, oil) and releasing it into the atmosphere again. Burning those C compounds combines it with O2 again (flame is an oxidizing reaction), resulting in CO2. The C stays there. The only large scale way to separate the C and O2 again are via plant life. Rain forests do that extremely well, but we're getting rid of those. Burning tree-farm-grown trees may be less impactful, since the carbon that recently went into the tree goes back into the environment. Coal contains a lot more carbon, so releases a lot more CO2. That is carbon that's much "older" however. So do you really think we can burn this much carbon compound, produce this much pollution, and NOT have an impact on our environment/climate? You all need to bone up on your science a little more! Oh that's right, Ben & his sheep think science is evil.

nysuperfudgebaby - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 10:54AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

So, if an issue is too complex for an economist with no experience in climatology studies, then your strategy is to CONTINUE to spout the "there are too many unknowns, so do nothing" approach. I think the naysayers approach is to continue to cling to the FRINGE studies and meteorologists denying anthro-induced climate change (your local weatherman or accuweather fools are interpreting and applying Discovery-channel level armchair science as bad as Joe the unlicensed Plumber applies his understanding of tax law) and then argue that it's "too late to do ANYTHING" once the few FRINGE "studies" become "flat-earth" in the years to come as evidence continues to mount. I'll call this my "GM approach that efficient cars are a fad for hippies and sissys. Oops." Controls on CO2 and other greenhouse gases also reduce ozone (smog) and particulate (soot) precursors. I don't think anybody wants a return to the crappy air of the pre-Clean Air Act. We can either lead a new economy with more efficient and electric vehicles and cleaner electricity or let the dirty countries like China and India do it first and then we can buy their technology, and call them for techincal support on how to use it. We'll just add that to our bill after the money allocated to bail out the system BS so dearly clings to ;)

JamesD - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 10:47AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Well, I guess that Ben can't continue to admit that he knows nothing about investing, and he already has acknowleged that the almight is running the stock market. I think he means, God not Obama, (although they both will get plenty of the blame, eventually.) So now he's moved onto the environment? I guess he's moved on from shilling annuities to shilling for big oil. (Did he load up on Exxon stock recently?) Global warming or not, this is the only world that we're going to be able to live on and mess up for a long time. Few remember the vast amounts of pollution that was around in the 70's. The rivers around Pittsburgh were so polluted that one of them caught on fire and burned a bridge. We had smokestacks belching smoke 24-7 and the skies and water in many areas were brown, not blue. I know that Ben doesn't swim at the Jersey shore, but garbage and medical waste came onto the beach regularly. The Hudson and East rivers were unfit for swimming - or fish. You can't do all this damage without some consequences. Now China and other countries are following our wasteful example. Bush, (a big proponent of big oil) just ridiculed any country or organization that wanted to reduce greenhouse gasses, (much like Ben ridiculed those who predicted that sub-prime would be a much bigger problem than he believed) So, just like the big banks and brokerages (and Ben) underestimated the risks of subprime, we don't want to underestimate the risks to our environment. With subprime, many lost our wealth, but with the environment, we could lose our health, or a lot more. So, Ben, you should stick to topics that you know well, like "SHILLING FOR PROFIT" and "HOW TO MAKE A LOT OF BUCKS BY BEING A YAHOO EXPERT". I wouldn't mind learning how to earn some easy money, so write something that we can actually use to make our lives better that you actually know something about.

Mr D - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 10:07AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Some clarity is needed on this issue and I am happy to provide it. Global warming is a hoax. The world has been warmer (Greenland used to be green) and the world has been colder. (The world was colder in the Ice Age.) We can only estimate within centuries how quickly these changes took place. We have only about one century of reliable data, therefore we don’t even know if we are in a long term warming or cooling trend. Let’s move on to CO2. The earth’s atmosphere is about 4 parts per 10,000 CO2 in 2007; about 1 part per 10,000 more than the most pessimistic tree hugging “scientist” estimates was the case in 1800, about the start of the industrial revolution. Therefore the warming wacos are saying that we should impoverish ourselves on the possibility that the world is warming long term, that possible warming is caused by a possible 1 part per 10,000 increase in Co2, the 1 part per 10,000 increase was possibly caused by man, we can stop or reverse that increase by cap & trade or taxes when there is no conclusive evidence that any one link of that chain is true! I give Ben 5 stars because he is willing to approach this logicly even though he doesn't come up with the right answer.

Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 8:49AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Ben asks the right question--why do Californians sacrifice when others don't have to make any change in their quality of life to address? That includes here in the US as well as in China, who for the record has passed the US as the largest emitter of CO2. The Global Warming fanatics don't get this 'observations and enforcement part' and the Global Warming skeptics hate a 'carbon tax' The best thing to bring the parties together is to build a robust observing system like the did for acid rain, establish a baseline, and measure progress towards goals so citizens here and abroad can see improvement or decline. Sadly, this is not 'political' enough for either side to endorse so I doubt it will get done.

Georg - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 11:06PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

I gave BS one star for showcasing his ignorance and chutzpa so well. I believe BS retains his employment by virtue of his seniority in the Shills union.

Mark B - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 10:24PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

b...k@sbcglobal.net Where do you think the co2 in that wood goes as it breaks down in the forest, or your yard? Better to turn dead trees into fuel than let them rot. Many wood burning stoves are fitted with catalytic converters that help them run very efficiently. I would much rather see people in the northeast heat with wood than fuel-oil (diesel). Now that is a waste of resources!

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 9:30PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

We see alcohol, tobacco as costing society so we tax the crap out of it. The largest portion of our trade deficit is spent on oil imports, and that's bad for our economy, correct. And maybe the release of all the CO2 that oil contains is bad so tax it. Don't tippy toe around with cap and trade which is a tax if it's set at a meaningful level, and worthless if it isn't.

Gumby - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 7:09PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Firewood is by the far the worst air pollutant of all ... Coal is not even close.. Living next to a neighbor who uses firewood is the worst thing that can happen to you.. I dont mind occassional users like a few times a year, but a daily hard core user of firewood is a big difference. Millions are using firewood daily around the world. Everyone is blaming carbon dioxide for climate change. Many people get sick and doctors often are puzzled about causes. Is it possible that firewood is one of the causes? Ben, where are you thinking you are going? Oh, you dont want to hear any more of it??? not surprised..

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 6:48PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

I give this article five stars for the sole reason that it drove all the freaks weirdos and conspiracy nerds out of their closets to pontificate on their pseudo scientific and spurious theological theories. Love it! All right dudes get back in your closets with your stored-up can foods and your tin foil caps. The end of the world is here!

S - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 6:33PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

cool, testing with spt75/76

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 6:09PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

Ben, Ben, Ben......You are a "Day Late and a Dollar Short"......Where were you when the Big 3 US Automakers were asking for a "federal bailout"........I think I remember the phrase "We can't let them fail"..........Well guess what........just watch an entire sporting event and see how many commercials Chrysler, Ford and GE spend to advertise gas-guzzlers!!...That's where "our" bailout money is going......not to produce vehicles with higher mileage and lower gas emissions............Maybe you can get T.Boone Pickens follow through on his massive public relations blitz he came out with during the campaign and have him put his money where his mouth is and buy all his "Swift Boat Vets" buddy's a new Chevy Volt!!

Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:56PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

Look up "Acid Rain Program" on wikipedia and read all about the market based system for sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power plants. There's your model for a market based pollution reduction program. Can't believe this wasn't even mentioned in the article. Here's the problem: burning hydrocarbons to produce energy means this basic reaction (simplified): Hydrocarbons Oxygen = CO2 H2O energy. The only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the hydrocarbons burned in the first place, which reduces the energy produced. You can increase the efficiency with which the energy is used or get the energy from a non carbon source like wind or solar, but a pound of coal or gallon of oil only has a certain amount of energy in it and that's where we currently get most of our energy. Thus, any carbon tax is really a tax on energy consumption. Why not call it what it is?

Cj - Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 5:16PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

2 stars is 'Good'? What does it take to get a 'Pathetically Bad' rating?