You know how it is –- you’re in a strange city, maybe a strange country, tired, hungry, missing home, it's kind of late. You walk into that little (in my case, Chinese restaurant), there are teeth marks on the chopsticks, the floor is kind of sticky, and on the menu is the house specialty: rabbit face. Not quite what you wanted, but as luck would have it, just down the road you can see it in the distance – the golden arches, sitting high and proud calling to you.

OK, this might be (in my case) China, but you know that somehow, once you walk through those doors, there on the menu will be a cheeseburger, a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder and fries. And for the most part the food will taste pretty much like the Mickey Dee’s on Santa Monica not far from my old apartment in LA.

So, when I buy my Big Mac here in China, it’s just over 12 RMB, or $1.76. When I buy a Big Mac in L.A. it costs around $3.50. The great thing about a Big Mac as far as economists are concerned (wel, the ones at “The Economist” magazine, anyway) is that it's pretty much the same wherever you go . . . two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.

And that means for economists it’s a great way to compare currencies. Much like the Big Mac itself, it’s not perfect – wages, rents and other costs vary, as well as the size (I have noticed the Chinese burgers a little on the small side). But for more than 20 years the people at “The Economist” have been doing this exchange rate comparison, and – surprise, surprise – they found Asian currencies under-valued, European over-valued.

In the case of China, by about 40 percent undervalued – this is at the far end of the spectrum as far as many critics in the U.S. are concerned. They accuse Beijing of deliberately manipulating the currency, keeping it undervalued. That means exports from China are a lot cheaper, giving exporters here an unfair competitive advantage, they claim.

Imagine if you could go to that McDonald’s in L.A. and instead of paying $3.50 or so for the American Big Mac, you could pay $1.76 for the Chinese version, knowing the ingredients are the same.

LONDON, England – The nomination of Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve comes as no surprise. The surprise would have been if U.S. President Barack Obama nominated someone else. The financial markets are satisfied with the job Bernanke is doing. In the middle of a crisis, you don't want to be changing the man responsible for steering the economy back on course.

U.S. President Barack Obama has again nominated Ben Bernanke, left, as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Does it mean that Bernanke has done everything right? No, of course not, he hasn't - and he has admitted that he was mistaken early on in saying that the subprime crisis would be contained. But once he recognized how severe the crisis was, he and the Fed acted with boldness and innovation.

Bernanke also came under criticism for, among other things, allowing the failure of Lehman Brothers. But he defends the decision, saying the failure was unavoidable, that a buyer couldn't be found and that Lehman didn't have enough collateral to meet the criteria for a large Federal Reserve loan to stay afloat.

One area of concern is the massive amounts of liquidity the Fed has pumped into the system and whether those will lead to a re-emergence of inflation further down the road.

Bernanke is acutely aware of those concerns, and today pledged to work to the utmost of his abilities to "help provide a solid foundation for growth and prosperity in an environment of price stability."

His nomination to another four-year term still needs to be approved by the U.S. Senate. He will receive some tough questioning at his confirmation hearings, including why the Fed didn't do a better job of supervising the banks that got us into the subprime mess to begin with. The Fed's exit strategy from its ultra-loose monetary policy will undoubtedly be another area of questioning.

But at the end of the day, Bernanke will be reconfirmed. He has steered the Fed and the U.S. economy through unchartered territory. It's a long way to a full fledged recovery, but at this point, Bernanke deserves the chance to finish the job.

But what do you think – should Bernanke be reappointed? What is your biggest concern regarding the Fed as it goes forward?

LONDON, England –It's obvious General Motors is having second thoughts about parting with its European silver. For sure, it may still go through with selling a (large) stake of Opel to Canadian car parts maker Magna and Russian interests - but not on the terms that up to now have been reported in the press.

GM Motors has emerged from bankruptcy –- but what should it do about Opel?

GM Europe is really only Opel (and its much smaller re-badged Vauxhall brand.) Opel could have a bright future when economies recover, moreso now that GM has the power to close plants, move production and do all the things a car manufacturer does to cut costs following its emergence from bankruptcy.

If Opel starts to let in other major shareholders, then GM losses the ability to make those decisions on its own, missing all the potential ("potential" mind you) profits if it calls the market right.

GM would also lose some of its intellectual property, which would end up in the hands of a Russian car maker. Why would GM contemplate that?

Having said all this, GM no longer has the final word on what happens to Opel. Remember, Opel is run by a trust with two GM appointees, two German government appointees (German taxpayers put in billions of dollars to keep Opel operating while GM went through U.S. bankruptcy protection) and one independent member of the trust panel.

GM must be, and is, getting much smaller. But it's now out of bankruptcy, it's temporarily restored a few suspended factory shifts at North America plants (thanks to Cash for Clunkers) and now it's having second thoughts about Europe.

What do you think? Should GM sell a majority stake of Opel/Vauxhall? Or stick with it?

In 2005, I took a road trip through Iran.  The sights – such as Yazd, the center of the endangered Zoroastrian religion, and the impressive mosques and madrassas of Esfahan – were some of the most fascinating I have ever seen. 

Also fascinating was what we didn’t see: No McDonald's, no Starbucks or any other globe-trotting American brand. 

Yet in the vacuum of Western products and services brought by financial sanctions against Iran, Asian companies have been eager to fill the void.

Ben Simpendorfer, author of "The New Silk Road: How a Rising Arab World is Turning Away from The West and Rediscovering China,” said trade between Asia and Iran has been surging since 2003.  China accounts for half the increase.  Railways, construction, and consumer goods firms, he says, have benefited in particular. 

Trade sanctions – in place since the 1979 revolution against the Shah – have diverted Iranian trade away from the West and more to the East. The rising trade power of China and other Asian nations with Iran has weakened the effectiveness of sanctions, Simpendorfer said.

"Over the past couple of years, demand from the traditional markets – Europe and the United States – have collapsed," Simpendorfer explained.  "So a lot of exporters in this region are now turning to the developing markets to try to find substitute buyers."

However, some exporters here are starting to face the same pressures as their Western counterparts.  "Asian companies are increasingly finding it difficult to finance their trade with Iran," he said.

Chinese exporters, Simpendorfer said, "are suggesting that they should rely on telegraphic transfers, for example, or euro-denominated trade finance, or even look to try to divert their trade through Dubai as an alternative to directly exporting to Iran."

The current unrest makes the future difficult to read, but Simpendorfer believes no matter the outcome, Iran’s economic ties with Asia are bound to rise.

BEIJING, China — Not long ago, the U.S. government was talking tough with accusations of currency manipulation by China. But U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner struck a very different tone on his visit to Beijing this week.

At his speech at Peking University and with government officials, Geithner sought to reassure Beijing that the value of the dollar was safe – as are the $768 billion in U.S. treasuries Beijing owns.

The tough talk has evaporated with the spiraling credit crisis and the ballooning U.S. budget deficit of $2 trillion – nearly 13 percent of GDP. Geithner assured the Chinese that the U.S. would work to cut that deficit down to 3 percent of GDP once the economy stabilized and was on the path to recovery.

Geithner says the U.S. aims to rebalance the world economy with China exporting less and importing more – preferably from the U.S., to help reduce the massive trade surplus.

How these twin economic powers can escape this embrace, however, is another matter.

Chinese bloggers, economists and editorial writers are complaining that their government is financing U.S. hegemony and urges Beijing to stop bankrolling U.S. debt. But for the Chinese economy, there are few credible options for what to do with its massive foreign currency reserves.

Should it move that cash back to China it could trigger an appreciation of the value of the yuan. Chinese asset-buying across the globe would raise thorny political concerns. The U.S. credit market is still the best place to park its cash reserves.

For the U.S., the dance is difficult because if Chinese exports decline, so too does the cash China has to buy U.S. debt.

The bond between the two has been likened to two drunks trying to carry each other down the street, or that of a crack dealer and buyer. Regardless of metaphor, it’s a very complicated relationship – one in which the fate of the world economy hangs in the balance.

SEOUL, South Korea - I am in a van driving back to Seoul from LG Chem's car battery plant in Daejeon, south of the Korean capital, and I can't help thinking how the global auto industry might be transformed by 11 sheets of black paper wrapped in aluminum foil. At least that's what LG Chem's new car battery cell looked like to me.

The Korean company is making the cells for GM's new hybrid electric car - the Chevy Volt. The Volt is not yet in production, but the manufacturing lines are churning out cell after cell that LG Chem engineer Jeon Byong Hee says will go for rigorous testing at the company's labs and GM's facilities. If successful, the Volt could help breathe new life into the nearly defunct American automaker.

The LG Chem campus is huge and the car battery factory immaculate. Just to enter the building, you have to leave your shoes at the door - as if you're visiting a Korean home. To see the production lines, we had to put on protective clothing and a pair of clean slippers before our bodies were blasted with air to blow away any potentially polluting particles.

My favorite room was the cavernous "formation" room - what manager Ham Jae Gyung describes as "a mother's womb". Batteries, Ham explained to me, "breathe" and need to come to life - much like humans. In the "formation" room, fastidious engineers in pristine lab coats oversee rows of what look like towering floor-to-ceiling metal bookcases. These contraptions charge and discharge stacks of battery cells until the batteries begin to operate on their own. New car batteries are born here every day.

LG Chem's engineers are thrilled they are working on a project for GM. Volt project leader Shin Youngjoon said he was "happy" and "proud". Ham said winning the job validated his team's hard work. "We are a pioneer in this area," he told me. Developing batteries for cars is "new land" - land that can be conquered by anyone with the wherewithall to compete. "We are confident," Ham told me.

And the good engineers at LG Chem will need that confidence as their company invests in a shaken industry on the cusp of a new era.

LONDON, England - Have you seen the cover of this week's Economist with Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel having to pay the "dinner" bill to rescue Eastern Europe? If you did you would have seen the artwork of Kevin Kallaugher - or Kal as he signs his work.

An example of Kal's witty and perceptive cartoon talent.

American-born Kal has contributed more than 100 Economist covers during the past 30 years. He's also been published in my hometown paper; the Baltimore Sun. Kal was discovered during the recession of the late 1970s drawing caricatures on the streets of London and Brighton.

He has benefited from Reaganomics, Thatcherism, Bill Clinton (fish in a barrel all of them) but is now tasked with describing the "credit crunch" with pen and ink.

Some commentators speculate that the end of the Bush era might mean the end of cartoon satire to reflect today's news. Not Kal.

"Certainly it (the Bush presidency) was the golden era to a certain degree," he told me during an interview at the Political Cartoon Gallery in Central London last month.

"I mean also what we're seeing in Obama's case - although the satire may not be immediately directed at him as an individual - is that we're going through such historic changes, politically, economically, around the world, it's going to supply a lot of material."

The challenge for Kal and his contemporaries is to describe the credit crunch in one drawing. Kal hopes his craft actually helps people make sense of the global recession. "You not always just react to the news. I like to think that we're in the business of kind of clarifying the news," he said.

He is very busy these days trying to "draw" the recession and also the new president. "It's this early phase, where we as the cartoonists are helping to establish in the public's mind what these people look like, this is an interesting time for us."

Kal has drawn many a character during his career. He often has to hear their voice to capture their essence. If you want to hear his imitation of one famous voice (he says it drives his wife crazy as he talks to himself in character as he draws some people) and see his efforts to capture the character of a certain CNN employee, watch Quest Means Business on Thursday night or check out cnn.com/international on Friday.

HONG KONG, China – This week, I met with a businessman who ships goods from Hong Kong's port all over the world. All he could talk about was the lack of orders especially from the United States. 

Freight movement out of Asia is slowing as orders dry up.

"It's all about the orders!" he lamented. "There are no orders."

No orders is a bit of an exaggeration. He later calmed down and told me that American retailers were placing orders - but not a lot by his estimation and only to bigger manufacturers they felt confident would be around at least for the next several months.

This lack of confidence is disconcerting for business people in Asia and for the governments who, for decades, relied on the sales of competitively priced goods to countries such as the United States to enrich their impoverished economies.

For the vast majority of exporters out here, the U.S. market is crucial to their survival. In addition, others that support these manufacturers - like the businessman I was speaking to - can't imagine further growth in the region without America's confident spenders.

Already, Japan has posted a record trade deficit. Taiwan's exports are down by over 40 percent from a year ago. Hong Kong's recession is deepening. South Korea is facing a debt crisis as its companies' sales wither.

The businessman I met with isn't normally interested in U.S. politics, but he is this year.

His hope? That President Barack Obama and his aggressive economic agenda will inspire the American people to buy again - and keep the orders coming to Asia.

NEW YORK — News this week of big bonuses paid out at financial firms on government life support has sparked outrage. AIG is paying $450 million to roughly 400 people at a financial products unit - the same unit that directly contributed to massive losses at the insurer. The company calls them “retention bonuses”.

A woman holds up a sign near Wall Street on September 22, 2008, in New York City.

They are not alone. The New York state comptroller’s office said cash bonuses paid by Wall Street firms totaled $18 billion in 2008. That is down sharply from the boom times, but still unbelievable considering that these companies would be out of business if not for taxpayer bailouts.

Those headlines stand in stark contrast to another story told to me this week. A medium sized company, hit hard by frozen credit markets and clients that are behind in payments, found itself running low on cash. The bosses made the difficult decision of asking their workers if they would skip a pay period. It was totally voluntary. Ninety percent agreed, with many coming up to the bosses after to express their support and willingness to pull together to make it through this crisis.

Another story crossed our desks about a Michigan pancake restaurant where workers got together and agreed to work a shift with no pay to help the restaurant owner bring down costs. Local patrons, hearing the news, left more generous tips to help make up the difference.

These are not big bosses worth millions of dollars who make a big show of taking a dollar salary as a public relations move. These are real people with real bills who are making big sacrifices to try to save their jobs and the companies they are loyal to.

Maybe we should require CEO’s at companies taking taxpayer money to do a job swap and go spend some time out in the real world. They might find out that you don’t need to pay million dollar bonuses to find employees that are worth holding on to.