We don't usually single out individual columns like this, but when Ferris Bueller's economics teacher has something to say, we are usually entertained, if not informed. That's not to say we always agree with the former Nixon speechwriter, because we rarely do. He's kind of like George Will in that while everything is always well-written, a lot of it just happens to be kind of nutty.

Anyway, Stein had a column in yesterday's New York Times business section titled "Exxon Mobil Needs A Hug". He writes how the company and its staggering profits have become an easy and often-used target for candidates -- especially Obama and Clinton -- to play up their populist image with blue-collar America.

Stein thinks the candidates should reconsider the attacks on Big Oil and aim elsewhere, arguing that "envy is simply not good economics" and that those huge profits are benefiting more than just a few Texas billionaires.

"Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares ... When Exxon Mobil earns almost $12 billion in a quarter, or $41 billion in a year, as it did in 2007, that money does not go into the coffers of a few billionaire executives ... It goes into the pension and retirement accounts of ordinary citizens. When Exxon pays a dividend, that money goes to pay for the mortgages and oxygen tanks and in-home care of lots of elderly Americans."

Interesting points, though Stein conveniently neglects to mention anything about our long-term energy future or the environmental consequences of continuing to follow the XOM doctrine. Big oil may be, as Stein says, "Big us" in 2008, but that sounds like a bad philosophy to pursue in the long haul.