There's an old academic joke that goes, 'Put two economists in a room and you have a conversation. Put three economists in room and you have enough for a new world order, or disorder.'

One of the topics that came up at a recent economists chat attended by yours truly concerned not the global economic order, but the state of corporate America and moral hazard.

Is 'gov' insurance encouraging corporate abuses?

Most economists agree that banks and comparable financial institutions (FI) critical to the financial system should be backstopped by the U.S. Government, at least to some degree. A backstop is particularly critical if a bank failure would create systemic risk, i.e. jeopardize the financial system. The recent bank rescue and AIG (NYSE: AIG) takeovers are two examples.

More recently, however, a push has been made by various lobbies (corporate, labor union, regional states, among others) to rescue key industrial institutions, with the ailing auto companies, General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F), and Chrysler being front and center. Moreover, the logic of an auto sector rescue is reasonable enough: the economic and social consequences of a failure by one or more auto companies would be far worse than the costs of a government rescue.

For those of us who spend countless hours sitting in front of a computer screen, getting fat eating cheese danishes and washing them down with cup after cup of coffee, there is hope. A new trend is taking shape across the U.S.: company wellness incentives.

According to a CNN Money report: "Employee programs that promote healthy lifestyles with monetary carrots and sticks are becoming increasingly popular. In fact, 46 percent of employers offer incentive-based wellness plans, according to a recent study by Watson Wyatt and the National Business Group on Health, and that proportion is expected to grow to 70 percent by 2009."

Employers have figured out that giving financial incentives to keep their workers healthier actually saves them tons of money as employees call in sick much less. This is a classic win/ win situation; employers save money and employees get healthy.

Of course, there are those critics who warn that this could constitute a hostile work environment and is illegal. After all, no one can force an employee to lose weight or lead a healthier lifestyle. To those critics I say, lighten up! (couldn't resist).

For investors, companies like Healthways (NASDAQ: HWAY) are in this space. Aside from working with individuals, Healthways is also working with employers to create tailored-made programs for staff to help make them healthier.

With obesity a growing problem, it seems that employer wellness incentives are going to be more common place.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 7/7/08.

The ever-incisive FT columnist Martin Wolf reminds us that while globalization's prize is plus-sum (everyone gains), as opposed to zero-sum (Country A gains only if Country B loses), it is not perfect sum (there are costs) nor egalitarian sum (everyone gains equally).

The biggest advantage of globalization, in Wolf's view? The spread of prosperity, including a wider distribution of innovation and bigger opportunities for profitable exchange/trade. Also valuable, although not guaranteed, Wolf says, is increased political stability in previously impoverished countries.

Globalization marches on

Further, in the globalization era's first decade, the United States can't do anything to halt the flow of ideas, and the diffusion of knowledge, skills, technology systems, and so forth, Wolf argues. Or at least the United States can't do anything decent to stop globalization.

This post was part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007 feature. The voting has now closed and readers have chosen Google Inc. as the company of the year. Be sure and let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

Corporate America, the markets, and Wall Street are lumbering through a so-so year -- one likely to be characterized by mediocre U.S. GDP and earnings performance, along with ample portions of market volatility.

To be sure, no one will confuse 2007 with a peak year during the "Roaring '20s" or even the "Roaring '90s." Still, there were several standout performances, which we summarize in our "Company of the Year" award.

Facebook

Facebook deserves an honorable mention. The online directory shows considerable promise as an online community and networking device. Provided information is kept confidential and is not released or sold to unauthorized third parties, the business model can serve as another meeting room for groups that might not otherwise be able to meet for geographic or other reasons.

Why is corporate America so incompetent as a whole about the way it provides customers with services and products? Although many would argue that the corporate environment in the U.S. is the best in the world (look at the consumer economy!), it's because the majority of consumers are trained to accept inferior products and don't ever tell the companies that make them, "this isn't good enough."

If wireless companies were competent, they would not train customers like baby seals for those "free phones" and long-term contracts. They would provide a fair price for the product and provide a decent service level for the actual service. How about concentrating on existing customers instead of new ones? This is something of a pet peeve of mine, but in the short-term nuttiness on Wall Street, the only thing that matters is growth (profit being a far-behind second) -- and that comes from new customers, not old ones. Hogwash. But, that's the Street for you.

One last area that finds me in agreement with this author is the lack of standards in so many industries that virtually guarantees companies a lucrative environment of proprietary functions which lock the customer in. I realize that standards create a commodity environment more often than not, but it also forces innovation and ensures companies will do anything to make their own, unique product stand out from the crowd.

A confusing swirl of proprietary standards may be in the best interest of the companies, but it's certainly not for the end customer. Yet, every market from the digital audio player to the cellphone to the DVD market is rife with a dizzying and ridiculous array of non-compatible standards. Guess the customer is absolutely not first here, right?