Revisiting Ben Stein’s Vicious NY Times Article

December 11, 2007 at 10:07 am  ·  Category: Business Culture and Current Events

“Why, then, is his document circulating? ….. To me, his paper seemed like a selling document in the real Wall Street sense of selling – namely, selling short.


Here is my humble hypothesis …. : Is it possible that Dr. Hatzius’s paper was a device to help along the goal of success at bearish trades in this sector and in the market generally?  His firm says his paper, like all of its economists’ work, was not written to support any larger short trading strategy.  But economists, like accountants, are artists.  They have a tendency to paint what their patrons, who pay them, want to see.”

– Ben Stein, “The Long And The Short Of It At Goldman Sachs”The New York Times, Sunday December 2

Two Sundays ago, Ben Stein made what I consider to be a vicious attack on Goldman Sachs Economist Jan Hatzius for Hatzius’s argument supporting his recent call for a 40-45% chance of recession.

In addition to calling Hatzius’s logic “an estimation based upon a guess” and “not really what I would call a serious overview of the situation”, Stein went so far as to question Hatzius’s integrity in writing the piece, as the above quotes show.

I was reminded of this article this morning as I read Morgan Stanley Economist’s Richard Berner’s piece from yesterday, “Recession Coming”.  The piece is well argued, in my opinion, and I assume Hatzius’s piece was as well.

One wonders whether the real bias in the whole situation is Stein’s bullish take on the whole housing/mortgage situation and his view that it won’t matter much, won’t push the US into a recession and won’t cause a bear market in stocks. 

I have no problem with bulls who see things this way.  But to attack the bear’s argument as an “estimation based upon a guess” and “not really a serious overview of the situation” and to go so far as to attack their motives strikes me as crossing the line of what is morally acceptable.  In fact, the charges he directs at Goldman border on criminal, given the “Chinese Wall” and the analyst scandals of the tech bust.

Posted by Greg Feirman  ·  Trackback URL  ·  Link
No Responses to “Revisiting Ben Stein’s Vicious NY Times Article”
  • How can an economist that gets paid by Goldman Sachs not be biased? How can the economist from the National Association of Realtors not be biased? Notice how they continue to let us know that things are not as bad in housing as they seem. They’ve been saying it for months, and things are getting worse and worse. I don’t see this as being much different except that someone (Stein) is calling them out on it.

    Brian  ·  Dec 11, 2007 at 2:35 pm  ·  Permalink
  • Brian,

    Yes, the former Chief Economist of the National Association of Realtors, David Lereah, was extremely biased and I called him out in April:

    And the analogy you make to Goldman Sachs is certainly logical on the face of it.

    What it comes down to, for me, is that I’ve read some quotes by Hatzius and, being somewhat familiar with his work, I just don’t think it has the ring of a shill – in the way that David Lereah’s comments always do.

    This is a judgment call that each of us has to make for ourselves.

    One interesting difference, though, is that other credible sources are singing the same tune Hatzius is, for instance Morgan Stanley’s Richard Berner yesterday.

    Greg Feirman  ·  Dec 11, 2007 at 10:21 pm  ·  Permalink

Leave a Comment

Name required
E-mail required, won't be published
Web site
Web site