I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?

The vague phrase "Current economic policies" implies that the current set of problems was caused by the current occupier of the White House. If I presume incorrectly, my apologies and I'd love to hear some specific examples from you.

Meantime, I think that the only rational belief about the current set of economic problems is that The Economy is far too large and complicated to be totally screwed up by any one President or even Congress. Wall Street, on the other hand, damaged this country by speculation run rampant and is very capable of derailing not only one economy but an entire economic system. The total lack of regulation lead to the financial crisis we now experience. Stock markets are the ones systematically and coldly damaging the American economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their global clients (outsourcing and slashing wages and benefits, etc.). It's hard not to get lost in all the smoke and mirrors in an election year, but we still have no answer for how to get this country's job engine going again and the stock market speculators of public companies like that just fine. Yet, the number of people working today is still below what it was twelve years ago!!! See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png

Too bad the complex financial disaster of run-away capitalism (greed) and the value average Americans place on overly-partisan politics that dominate debates today will require much more time to improve, let alone fix. Could they ever be fixed as long as so many Americans suspect and dis peer-reviewed scholarship and facts over ideology?

-Debra

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

The Stock Market is much more than you indicate - it is global in nature and it is anational and apolitical. It is NOT the sum of the services and goods that are produced in this country every day and it is hardly driven by only Americans. The Stock Market is a shell game of fantasies devoid of goods or services and which has no desire to be regulated or overseen in any way shape or form. It has nothing to do with reality or with the real economy but affects it tremendously. In fact, the Stock Market could care less if its money is in an American company or a Chinese one - only that it profits more and more, again and again. In order to satisfy the profit interests of the shareholders, this funny-money system is running roughshod over any real market economy of goods and services, which suffer terribly because of it.

It's not the whole problem but a big part of it. In the us-versus-them rhetoric of the political campaign, which side is speaking more for oversight and equity for The Market forces that would prefer no one look too closely? It's not one administration or another that caused the problem. The election is important because who is elected sets the laws and through law is the only way we can begin to fix or exacerbate the economic problem facing us.

A random thought here. In about, 2008 the CEO for Wall Market was paid roughly $26 million, and the CEO for Costco was paid $400,000. See any disconnect here? Who's workers are better paid of the two? How much is enough? These are just two comparisons. Bottom line, jobs suffer with the current situation and the more we can call out the politicians and the media when they don't call out the inconsistencies, the better. Bravo for the article that called out the economic debate sham.

-Debra

Actually Costco's CEO was paid $3.8 Million dollars in total compensation for 2008. $400K was his monetary salary.

I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?

The vague phrase "Current economic policies" implies that the current set of problems was caused by the current occupier of the White House. If I presume incorrectly, my apologies and I'd love to hear some specific examples from you.

Meantime, I think that the only rational belief about the current set of economic problems is that The Economy is far too large and complicated to be totally screwed up by any one President or even Congress. Wall Street, on the other hand, damaged this country by speculation run rampant and is very capable of derailing not only one economy but an entire economic system. The total lack of regulation lead to the financial crisis we now experience. Stock markets are the ones systematically and coldly damaging the American economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their global clients (outsourcing and slashing wages and benefits, etc.). It's hard not to get lost in all the smoke and mirrors in an election year, but we still have no answer for how to get this country's job engine going again and the stock market speculators of public companies like that just fine. Yet, the number of people working today is still below what it was twelve years ago!!! See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png

Too bad the complex financial disaster of run-away capitalism (greed) and the value average Americans place on overly-partisan politics that dominate debates today will require much more time to improve, let alone fix. Could they ever be fixed as long as so many Americans suspect and dis peer-reviewed scholarship and facts over ideology?

-Debra

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

The Stock Market is much more than you indicate - it is global in nature and it is anational and apolitical. It is NOT the sum of the services and goods that are produced in this country every day and it is hardly driven by only Americans. The Stock Market is a shell game of fantasies devoid of goods or services and which has no desire to be regulated or overseen in any way shape or form. It has nothing to do with reality or with the real economy but affects it tremendously. In fact, the Stock Market could care less if its money is in an American company or a Chinese one - only that it profits more and more, again and again. In order to satisfy the profit interests of the shareholders, this funny-money system is running roughshod over any real market economy of goods and services, which suffer terribly because of it.

It's not the whole problem but a big part of it. In the us-versus-them rhetoric of the political campaign, which side is speaking more for oversight and equity for The Market forces that would prefer no one look too closely? It's not one administration or another that caused the problem. The election is important because who is elected sets the laws and through law is the only way we can begin to fix or exacerbate the economic problem facing us.

A random thought here. In about, 2008 the CEO for Wall Market was paid roughly $26 million, and the CEO for Costco was paid $400,000. See any disconnect here? Who's workers are better paid of the two? How much is enough? These are just two comparisons. Bottom line, jobs suffer with the current situation and the more we can call out the politicians and the media when they don't call out the inconsistencies, the better. Bravo for the article that called out the economic debate sham.

-Debra

Actually Costco's CEO was paid $3.8 Million dollars in total compensation for 2008. $400K was his monetary salary.

Yea, that sounds right. I was going off of memory - a dangerous thing at my age!!! So, $26 mil Walmart CEO to $3.8 mil Costco CEO. Comparison and questions still stand. :-)

-Debra

lol Actually, it still doesn't.

Costco gross revenue for 2008 = $71 Billion dollars

Walmart gross revenue for 2008 = $375 Billion dollars


Walmart is 5.28x larger than Costco based on Total Revenue, as can be seen above.

Costco CEO makes $3.8 Million x the mulitplier of 5.28 and you get $20 million dollars, comparatively speaking.

Walmart CEO makes $26 Million which is roughly 23% more than the Costco CEO, when taking the size of the company into consideration.

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?

The vague phrase "Current economic policies" implies that the current set of problems was caused by the current occupier of the White House. If I presume incorrectly, my apologies and I'd love to hear some specific examples from you.

Meantime, I think that the only rational belief about the current set of economic problems is that The Economy is far too large and complicated to be totally screwed up by any one President or even Congress. Wall Street, on the other hand, damaged this country by speculation run rampant and is very capable of derailing not only one economy but an entire economic system. The total lack of regulation lead to the financial crisis we now experience. Stock markets are the ones systematically and coldly damaging the American economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their global clients (outsourcing and slashing wages and benefits, etc.). It's hard not to get lost in all the smoke and mirrors in an election year, but we still have no answer for how to get this country's job engine going again and the stock market speculators of public companies like that just fine. Yet, the number of people working today is still below what it was twelve years ago!!! See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png

Too bad the complex financial disaster of run-away capitalism (greed) and the value average Americans place on overly-partisan politics that dominate debates today will require much more time to improve, let alone fix. Could they ever be fixed as long as so many Americans suspect and dis peer-reviewed scholarship and facts over ideology?

-Debra

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

The Stock Market is much more than you indicate - it is global in nature and it is anational and apolitical. It is NOT the sum of the services and goods that are produced in this country every day and it is hardly driven by only Americans. The Stock Market is a shell game of fantasies devoid of goods or services and which has no desire to be regulated or overseen in any way shape or form. It has nothing to do with reality or with the real economy but affects it tremendously. In fact, the Stock Market could care less if its money is in an American company or a Chinese one - only that it profits more and more, again and again. In order to satisfy the profit interests of the shareholders, this funny-money system is running roughshod over any real market economy of goods and services, which suffer terribly because of it.

It's not the whole problem but a big part of it. In the us-versus-them rhetoric of the political campaign, which side is speaking more for oversight and equity for The Market forces that would prefer no one look too closely? It's not one administration or another that caused the problem. The election is important because who is elected sets the laws and through law is the only way we can begin to fix or exacerbate the economic problem facing us.

A random thought here. In about, 2008 the CEO for Wall Market was paid roughly $26 million, and the CEO for Costco was paid $400,000. See any disconnect here? Who's workers are better paid of the two? How much is enough? These are just two comparisons. Bottom line, jobs suffer with the current situation and the more we can call out the politicians and the media when they don't call out the inconsistencies, the better. Bravo for the article that called out the economic debate sham.

-Debra

Actually Costco's CEO was paid $3.8 Million dollars in total compensation for 2008. $400K was his monetary salary.

Yea, that sounds right. I was going off of memory - a dangerous thing at my age!!! So, $26 mil Walmart CEO to $3.8 mil Costco CEO. Comparison and questions still stand. :-)

-Debra

lol Actually, it still doesn't.

Costco gross revenue for 2008 = $71 Billion dollars

Walmart gross revenue for 2008 = $375 Billion dollars


Walmart is 5.28x larger than Costco based on Total Revenue, as can be seen above.

Costco CEO makes $3.8 Million x the mulitplier of 5.28 and you get $20 million dollars, comparatively speaking.

Walmart CEO makes $26 Million which is roughly 23% more than the Costco CEO, when taking the size of the company into consideration.

---

If I understand correctly, you believe that the higher gross revenues earned by Walmart justifies them paying their CEO more than Costco pays their CEO. If your logic stands, than Walmart should also pay their employees more than Costco because Walmart earns so much more. The facts, however, do not support your reasoning.

In the Harvard Business Review a few years ago, the following comparison data was reported (sorry but the tabs and spaces disappear when this is posted!!!).

COSTCO / WALMART
AVG HOURLY SALARY - $17 / $10
% EMPLOYEES HEALTH INS - 82% / less than 50%
% HEALTH PREMIUM PAID
BY EMPLOYEE - 8% / 33%


And there's more damning news. See the full article at http://hbr.org/2006/12/the-high-cost-of-low-wages/ar/1

So, sir, the question still stands for you and anyone else justifying rampant greed by CEO's and others running corporations versus their ethics of employment practices. Who is robbing who blind?

-Debra
[/quote]

So I take it you feel running a company 1/5 the size still warrants the same compensation as the larger entity? By your logic, why not pay the manager of a convenience store the same as the manager of a Walmart. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Costco and Walmart employees have similar skill sets for which they are being compensated for. What justifies a higher wage in Costco's example? Well, you failed to mention that, roughly, 1/6 of Costco's employees were part of a union which you must know, artificially inflates labor costs. I believe you give Costco a bit too much credit. There starting wage is $11 vs Sam's club(a true competitor) starting rate of $10.50. The reason you see such a discrepancy in average wages, when compared to Walmart, is because Walmart has a substantially higher turnover rate. This results in lower average wages because the new employees always start at the bottom of the wage curve.

Yes it is obvious Costco pays better but it is apparent that it is not out of sheer generosity. The skill set required of a Costco employee is no more valuable than that of a Walmart employee. When you involve a union you will see labor costs artificially inflated. It is what they do. You're also comparing a company with over 2.1 million employees(Walmart) and Costco which has 130,000 employees. Again, not exactly apples to apples.

To answer your question. No one is robbing anyone blind. Those who choose to work for Walmart do so by their own free will.....all 2.1 million of them.

Workers have free will? Does a human have free will to need to eat - no! The need to eat is determined by biology and free will is nil. A job is the only way in today's system to have a steady meal. So, give me a break. Since most of the good jobs have been taken away - respond to the jobs chart! - people will take whatever they can. Do you think people like being treated like 2nd class citizens, required to work part-time so the employer doesn't have to pay benefits, etc.?

Alpha2Omega, you seem to only value the dollar cost of goods, instead of the good value of productive industry. There are other things in this world besides gross business profit. A healthy economic model can exist again but people like you have to quit perpetuating the same old ME-MINE-SCREW THE OTHER GUY mentality that has not only tripped up this country but is the biggest risk faced by the global economy that runs on the same system. You want people to still buy these cheaply made products but you don't think the corporations have an obligation to pay a living wage? You think consumerism is a patriotic trait?

I mean really, how can you ignore so much. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY does not make the world go around. And, ultimately, you can't take it or anything you buy at said stores with ya.

-Debra

Last I checked, employees at Walmart were not chained up to the registers or kiosks so yes it is absolutely a choice. A better job is only a new skill set away whether it be acquired through experience, trade school or the furthering of one's education, which the government would help pay for. I'm always amazed how "highly" liberals think of the working poor. As if they are incapable of bettering their situation without the government coming to the rescue. None of the the individuals who are enslaved, I mean, employed by Walmart have to accept their economic situation as permanent. That is the beauty of living in this country.

Your argument is that no matter how simplistic or easy a job may be, an employer must pay a "livable" wage. It seems you are advocating the raising of the minimum wage. What should that wage be?

I mean when did having higher education or experience become a negative thing?

When the facts started conflicting with people's ideological beliefs or political agendas.

This clause was adopted in the Texas Republican Party Platform in 2012 (later removed when someone sane read it and said "WTF?")

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

I can intellectually understand wanting to repeal Obamacare, but I never thought I'd live to see the day when groups wanted to repeal the whole Enlightenment.

(I suspect there is more to this story, so, while it makes for a great joke, I am curious what our Texas friends have to say about it).

Wow. Just...wow. Our education system has pushed what to think and not how to think, but I can't believe they actually put it in writing, bold as you please.

The sad thing is, many otherwise intelligent religious people applaud this, for fear their children will come home and start questioning the family faith.

Our society is in desperate need of an education system that teaches logic, debate, and ethics, and it will never happen so long as little Timmy is more likely to come home and ask Mom, "If a book told you pink unicorns live in the sun, would you believe it just because it said so? No? Then how do we know there is a God because a book says so?" and then to make it worse successfully defend his argument against the necessity of eating broccoli with dinner.

Last I checked, employees at Walmart were not chained up to the registers or kiosks so yes it is absolutely a choice. A better job is only a new skill set away whether it be acquired through experience, trade school or the furthering of one's education, which the government would help pay for. I'm always amazed how "highly" liberals think of the working poor. As if they are incapable of bettering their situation without the government coming to the rescue. None of the the individuals who are enslaved, I mean, employed by Walmart have to accept their economic situation as permanent. That is the beauty of living in this country.

Your argument is that no matter how simplistic or easy a job may be, an employer must pay a "livable" wage. It seems you are advocating the raising of the minimum wage. What should that wage be?

Retail clerks are the least of my worries. Most of them take these meager jobs because jobs in their own sector are no longer available (i.e., construction or manufacturing). The foundational problem, which you are determined to ignore either wittingly or unwittingly, is the immoral mass wealth redistribution the last thirty years from the bottom to the top. You think it is perfectly fine, earned in fact; I believe it is robbery and that the economic theft from the most vulnerable has created more suffering in America than any other issue, including gun laws. You won't even acknowledge that Americans are working longer hours (the most in the industrialized world) more productively (with a 75%+ increase of productivity in the past 30 years) for ever falling wages.

Your values clearly indicate that MANAGEMENT is the most worthwhile of activities, not actual service (teaching, caretaking, safety, etc.) or labor (building, etc.). You have no remorse for the loss of or shrinking middle class in this country or the expanding poor. You are quite happy with the status quo, a government climate that favors the corporations and to hell with the people.

I value the complete opposite.

Would you even consider allowing employees of private and public businesses and corporations to sit on their boards? This has met with some measure of success in large corporations in both Germany and Sweden. Although it is hardly a perfect idea when I believe there is something intrinsically wrong with the definition of what makes "value" today, still I believe in improved communication and cooperation. Managers need to not only hear their employee concerns, they need to listen to them and abide by obligations too. Certainly workers at the seat of a board table won't approve shipping off jobs or lowering wages and benefits.

-Debra

Can you please elaborate on the immoral mass wealth redistribution that has been occurring for the last 30 years? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Yes Americans work long hours. According to the IMF, we had the 6th highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world, in 2011. This measure takes into consideration cost of living and inflation rates so all of our hard work is paying off by giving Americans one of the highest standards of living in the world. Just for comparison, China has the 2nd largest GDP in the world yet they rank 92nd out of 183 in GDP(PPP) per capita. As far as falling wages, the average household income has risen by almost 19% (adjusted for inflation) when comparing 2011 to 1967. It has fallen in recent years where it peaked at 23% gain in 2007 vs 1967. In 1967, the average home price was $22K with the average household income being about $7K. The average home price in 2011 was $165K and the average household income was $49K. The rate of inflation for both is relatively the same. Your criticisms are legit; you just have the wrong country.


I don't see how you make that assumption. I value personal responsibility whether it’s from a janitor or the POTUS. I have no remorse for apathy.


What is great about capitalism is that it promotes competition. It is in the best interest of all companies to have a happy workforce. If one company fails to do that, there are many more companies looking for talented individuals. Case in point, Toyota has been manufacturing cars in the US for years without a unionized labor force. Why is that? It is because they treat there employees well and they are compensated well.

That is not nor has never been true. Companies, before laws were passed to stop them, used to keep their employees impoverished, miserable, and trapped. Every hear of mining towns? Immigrant child labor in places like meat packing plants where they only hired young women and little kids so they could pay them less and get less fuss out of them? The National Guard called out to violently put an end to strikes for higher pay and better working conditions?

When Americans (many of them wealthy women fresh from the abolitionist movement) got fed up with the way businesses were treating workers, they forced laws to end the worst abuses.

So now companies move jobs overseas to abuse workers who don't have our protections. Then pundits have the audacity to suggest we must compete with their poor workers somehow.

Competition within reason is okay, but unfettered free market capitalism has always been horribly abusive to workers.