Today, the President-elect is meeting at the White House with the current President. No President in U.S. history has left his successor with two long wars with no end and an economic depression. That is until the current one. But George W. Bush has more trouble in store for his successor. And he's piling on the problems in his usual secretive manner -- hoping nobody will notice.

How so? First, the Treasury Department this morning announced that it would increase the size of the bailout of American International Group (NYSE: AIG) from $143.7 billion to $150 billion and it would do so from funds in the $810 billion bank bailout bill. Second, he snuck a $140 billion bank tax break into that same bailout bill that would encourage bank mergers by allowing profitable banks to pay less tax by using the losses from unprofitable ones they buy to offset their taxable income.

Each of these moves is complex but the bottom line is that more of your money is going to bail out the mistakes of a handful of executives without any input from taxpayer representatives. The new AIG bailout swaps a program that gave it $143.7 billion of taxpayer money -- the original $85 billion loan for warrants to buy 79.9% stake; plus $37.8 billion more to cover losses from AIG's money-losing securities lending unit; plus another $20.9 billion worth of Commercial Paper -- for a new deal.

What might be considered a recession in the US is probably different from what a recession would look like in China. In the US, the economy has to have two quarters of negative GDP growth. In an economy like the one on the mainland, which has been growing at 10% a year, an economic calamity might begin if the move in GDP expansion slipped to 5%.

At a slower rate of growth, wage increases for China's middle class might stagnate. This group is the engine of the country's great improvements in consumer spending. Factory employment could drop if exports slowed due to a recession in Japan and the West.

Odd as it may seem, a GDP improvement that might be considered robust in the US could be a disaster for the Chinese.

According to Bloomberg, China's industrial output rose at the slowest rate in six years and much of that was due to a drop in export demand. The nation is now looking at tax cuts to improve growth prospects. That sounds a bit like the tax rebate program in the US.

The Chinese consumer fuels much of the import demand in the country. Many of those imported goods come from the US. It is a bit of a vicious cycle. China and America have become co-dependent

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has made the economy a focal point in his campaign, is slipping in the polls as the popularity of opponent John McCain surged after his selection of the Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running-mate.

Now Obama and his supporters are hoping that their support for a second economic stimulus -- worth about $50 billion -- will grab the attention of voters fascinated by Palin, the moose-hunting hockey mom conservative firebrand. That's going to be a challenge.

Voters now are focused on Palin. They are gobbling up every detail about her life -- The Bridge to Nowhere (which she actually supported for a while), her baby with Down's Syndrome, her pregnant teenage daughter, whether she wanted to ban books from the local library. The list is endless. The McCain campaign is fueling interest in "Sarah Barracuda" by keeping her away from the media. This week, Palin is supposed to sit down with Charlie Gibson of ABC News. More interviews will follow though apparently not with Oprah Winfrey.

Democrats, including this one, are betting that once Palin is no longer the flavor of the week voters will move onto more pressing issues such as the economy (and, of course, "American Idol"). The economy is in terrible shape. The federal budget deficit is soaring and unemployment is at record levels. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers endorsed the second stimulus plan today in testimony before Congress.

The global stock market had more ups and downs this week than the career of Britney Spears. Don't look for the bottom to appear anytime soon following the worst week for global equities in six years.

A parade of superlatives continues to weigh on the mind of investors, most of them bad. Unemployment is at a five-year high. Payrolls shrank by 84,000 last month, according to the Labor Department. That's more than 75,000 economists predicted, the Associated Press said. Rising interest rates spurred the biggest increase in the foreclosure rate in almost three decades, according to Bloomberg News.

Sure oil prices are dropping to near $105 but they are still high. No car, truck or airplane was ever designed with the thought that oil would be anywhere near that high. Gasoline prices have also come down but they are still at levels that many Americans can not afford.

Amidst all of the talk of hockey moms, jabs at Democrat Barack Obama, and media bashing, there was not much discussion of the weak economy at this week's Republican National Convention.

In fact, the Republican gathering was notably short on talk of the main issue on the minds of voters. Sure, there was "drill baby drill," but is that really an economic policy? Can Americans drill their way out of the credit crisis? Can we drill our way out of the housing slump? Can we drill our way to prosperity?

No less of a flaming liberal than CNBC's Larry Kudlow took note.

"As we head into the closing night in St. Paul, there has so far been no reference to the weak economy," Kudlow said on the network's blog before John McCain's acceptance speech last night. "There has been no economic-recovery message and no growth message."

Interestingly, the Republican platform contained language inserted by economic conservatives rejecting the Bush administration's rescue of Bear Stearns Cos., and possible bailouts of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), according to Bloomberg News. The document purposely did not mention the credit crunch because delegates were afraid that any solution that they would offer might make things worse, Bloomberg says. The GOP's embrace of free trade may sell well on Wall Street, but it won't win votes on Main Street where workers are fearful of their jobs being shipped to lower-cost countries overseas.

No wonder the GOP did not say much on the economy.

Most Americans are suffering because of high gas prices, a volatile stock market and plunging home prices. Though technically the economy may be strong and may not even be in a recession, most people and businesses believe they are worse off than they were a year ago.

The United States, the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, will be getting a run for its money from China in the decades to come. According to a report by Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, China's economy will surpass the U.S. by 2035 and will be twice its size by the middle of the century.

The thought of the U.S. not being number one is mind blowing, but not surprising. China's growth rate during this decade has averaged more than 10% and is still going strong even amid a global economic slowdown. Meanwhile, Chinese exports to the U.S. exceeded imports by about $75 billion between January and April. Chinese exports probably were not slowed much by the recent devastating earthquake that killed more than 69,000 probably did little to slow China's economy.

Not surprisingly, talk of protectionism seems to be on the rise in the U.S. One foolish member of Congress has proposed slapping new tariffs on Chinese goods to punish the country for currency manipulation. Such a law would probably be struck down by the World Trade Organization. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, pledges to fight for a "a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs." He also wants to "amend" the North American Free Trade Agreement. Republican John McCain takes the opposite approach, vowing during his recent overseas trips to continue President Bush's free trade agenda.

The New York Times reports that the European Central Bank raised its equivalent of the Fed Funds rate to 4.25%. Meanwhile, Bernanke's economic wrecking crew has kept the U.S. rate at 2%. Investors will sell dollars and buy Euros. That will cause the dollar to lose even more of the 72% it's lost since January 2001. But none of this is really happening because AFP reports that President George Bush has declared that "we're strong dollar people."

The key to U.S. policy is repeated denials of the obvious -- which is that U.S. policy is consistently intended to weaken the dollar. The reason is that a weak dollar makes the goods of big U.S. corporate exporters relatively cheap when they sell overseas. And of course, since oil is traded in dollars, a weak one causes the price of oil to spike. It now resides at a comfortable $146 a barrel, up 508% since January 2001.

But Reuters reports that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson -- who last year brought us "subprime is contained" -- now says that the weak dollar is not to blame for high oil prices. With apologies to the old E.F. Hutton advertisements -- which said "When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen" -- when Hank Paulson talks, people snicker.

If an enemy sworn to the destruction of the global economy was given free reign, it would follow the strategies of its current leaders.

One key to destroying an economy is to break its pricing mechanism. What does an effectively functioning pricing system do? It creates a market of buyers and sellers who can meet, agree on a price, conduct the transaction, and create an information trail that permits future market participants to judge what might be a fair price for their transactions.

Another key to destroying an economy is to put too low a price on risky behavior. Why is it important to price risk accurately? Because if decision-makers do not assess the risk at the time of their decision, the economy will end up paying for the under-priced risk long after those decision-makers have left office.

So how have current leaders broken the pricing mechanism and under-priced risk? Here are three ways:

Are the days of wine, roses and interest rate cuts over? The answer for now seems yes.

In a statement released today, the Federal Open Market Committee said it decided to keep its target for the federal funds rate at 2% because data indicates that labor markets have soften further and financial markets remain under stress. Moreover, the credit crunch, the lousy housing market and rising energy prices are "likely to weigh on economic growth for the next few quarters." No kidding.

The FOMC's decision, which comes amid growing fears about the outlook for inflation, should not have come as a shock to investors. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and other top bankers have hinted for months that the days of wine, roses and interest rate cuts would be coming to an end. In fact, the market seemed to have already absorbed the market. The major stock market averages barely budged after the announcement was issued.

Merrill Lynch (NYSE:MER) says that the rebate checks that are about to hit those tens of millions of taxpayers won't help the economy avoid a recession. That makes sense. Most of the money will have to go to pay for gas.

According to Reuters, Merrill claims "The U.S. economy is in a recession and stimulus from a government tax rebate later this quarter will only temporarily stem a fall in consumer spending." Well said.

When the economic stimulus package was first conceived, it might have worked. But, things have changed. A lot.

Most of the money handed out by the government is likely to be spent on high food and fuel prices. That will hardly be an incentive for people to buy a new Cadillac or build a swimming pool. A taxpayer getting a check for $600 could use all of that on gasoline between now and the end of the year.

Another factor in the Merrill formula is that house prices may fall another 15% to 20% before reaching a bottom. People may simply put the money in their mattresses to make mortgage payments.

The rebate checks are good for keeping people's heads above water, but they are unlikely to increase consumer spending.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com and author of the Ten Stocks Under $10 newsletter.

American high school students know little about the basics of finance and economics, and the problem is getting worse, according to a report from the AP today.

The majority of high school seniors answered basic questions about finance incorrectly in a nationwide poll conducted by the Federal Reserve. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke called for better financial education, and linked the woeful state of basic economic knowledge to the housing crisis.

Bernanke said, "In light of the problems that have arisen in the subprime mortgage market, we are reminded of how critically important it is for individuals to become financially literate at an early age so that they are better prepared to make decisions and navigate an increasingly complex financial marketplace."

It's hard to disagree with him on this point, but a cynic might wonder if a poorly educated population is really the source of the housing crisis. Sure, Americans don't know much about the power of compound interest or how to calculate net present value, but that's not why the economy is in trouble. The housing bubble was produced by people who knew what they were doing -- mortgage brokers who winked at "liar's loans" and sophisticated bankers who created new financial instruments to get rid of the bad debt. All of these people were highly educated in economics and finance. The problem isn't ignorance but a lack of integrity and regulation.

Why does it cost more money to transfer funds electronically than to send a check? Why don't school buses have seat belts? Why would a company give employees "free cars" instead of a cash bonus?

If you've ever wondered about questions like these -- or haven't but are now finding yourself curious about the answers -- Robert H. Frank's The Economic Naturalist is the book for you. It's a lot like Freakonomics -- and indeed was probably inspired by that book's success -- but has one key advantage: the explanations are shorter, which makes the book a quicker read, and allows space for answers to dozens of enigmas.

Here's my favorite: Why do women's clothes always button from the left while mens clothes always button from the right? According to Frank, it's because when buttons first appeared in the 1600s, only wealthy people could afford them. Back then, wealthy women were dressed by servants so it was easy for right-handed maid to button the lady's jacket from the left. Men dressed themselves and thus, for the average right-handed man, it was easier for garments to button from the right.

What does this have to do with economics? At its core, Frank argues, economics isn't about charts, graphs, monetary policy, or even business necessarily. It's about looking at the world in the context of cost-benefit analysis to try to understand why people do what they do.

If you hated high school or college economics -- and you have good reason, as these classes are generally incomprehensible and/or boring -- this book may just be the thing to turn you back on to a fascinating topic.

The Fed is scheduled to announce the results of its latest rate-setting meeting at 2:15 this afternoon. Most analysts expect it to cut rates -- at least 25 basis points (100 basis points = 1%). I'm just not sure I understand why the Fed keeps cutting.

There are two reasons that come to mind as possibilities. First, the stock market seems to love hints that the Fed will cut interest rates. Since the summer, whenever the stock market fell a few hundred points, Ben Bernanke or another Fed governor would give a speech using key words such as "flexibility" and the stock market would rally. That's what happened a few weeks ago when the Dow dropped below 13,000 and it magically rallied 750 points.

A second reason is that the Fed thinks that a recession is in the forecast due to a freeze up in the credit markets, and that it's better off cutting rates to ease the pain. If a doctor had only one kind of medicine -- say, aspirin -- then the doctor would prescribe it to all patients, because it was better to give the patient something than nothing at all. This approach would work if the patient had a headache -- but it would be less effective if the patient had cancer.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? Apparently, in an election year, it doesn't exist. President Bush's plan to help out homeowners who took adjustable rate mortgages is to freeze interest payments on hundreds of thousands of adjustable-rate mortgages for three to five years. Why should these people be bailed out? What is missing in this whole sub-prime issue is that these mortgages were introduced for individuals who wouldn't otherwise qualify for a more traditional mortgage. This hi-risk mortgage was created for people to reach the American dream of owning their own homes. Over about 90% of those who took these mortgages are still paying them back. Why are we bending over backwards to bailout out this small minority of people, who for the most part, couldn't get a normal mortgage because of their financial situation? Isn't this teaching them that they do not need to be fiscally responsible for anything they do because politicians will "take care" of them to get their votes?

In the late 90s, when the then Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin helped bail out Wall-Street firms during the Asian currency collapse, Wall-Street firms had a precedent that no matter how wrong, corrupt and just plain bad business they did and whatever risk they took upon themselves, it didn't matter because if there was going to be a blowup, the Federal Government will save the day. Perhaps they took this lesson to heart and the billions and billions of dollars being written off due to their exposure to subprime, CDOs, etc. is because they knew they could take a risk and ultimately would never have to pay the piper.

I am afraid that the small percentage of individuals who are currently being pandered too will learn the same lesson. Let's wait another decade and see what they end up doing and how they end up getting bailed out.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. Disclosure: Writer has no position in any stock mentioned as of 12/7/07.

Alan Greenspan, interviewed by the FT ahead of the release of his new book, said that he expects housing prices to drop sharply from "current levels." There is still some hope in the market, perhaps misplaced, that the sharp fall in homes values will be largely restricted to the subprime market.

Greenspan's comments are unlikely to help shares of beaten down homebuilders such as Lennar (NYSE: LEN). The FT writes that Mr Greenspan said he would expect "as a minimum, large single-digit" percentage declines in US house prices from peak to trough and added that he would not be surprised if the fall was "in double digits".

If Greenspan is right, and he often is, the fall-out in home devaluations would likely be fairly deep and lead to a long recession. A very sharp drop in home values, coupled with rising consumer credit card debt, and high oil prices would likely be a set of straws that would break the back of US consumers.

Greenspan's opinion has not been echoed by current members of the Fed. Perhaps they are hoping against hope that a rate cute will save the US economy from negative growth.

But, as each day passes, Greenspan's view look more likely to be true.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.com.