The staggering economic turmoil of recent months has left people around the world scratching their heads, worrying more than they have in almost a century and often blaming the United States. These are, no doubt, troubling times, but they are hardly the worst that could occur. Further, I have every expectation that we — in America and elsewhere — will weather this storm.

After all, what is the option? To wring our hands, imagine the worst and, thus, help doom ourselves? Through any calamitous period, it is essential to maintain a clear head, creatively focus on reasonable solutions and look toward the calm that eventually will follow. Optimism may not sound like a vital part of the process, but it helps a whole lot more than pessimism.

Now, I am not suggesting that this wild ride is bringing me much comfort. My own bank of many years suddenly ceased to exist of late — a development entirely out of my control. For a few days, I could not stop thinking about it. But then I asked a slew of questions and received answers that, generally, left me satisfied about the new owners' prospects. While maintaining a watchful eye, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Another recent and related event — the presidential debate — initially also left me less than satisfied. Foreign policy was supposed to be the major focus of that encounter between Democratic contender Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain, and it was. Wait a minute, some critics might say, the candidates spent a good part of their time discussing the economy, a domestic issue.

Well, we should be long past the days when we thought in terms of the purely domestic and the purely foreign. Indeed, there was never a neat, total separation between the two. Today, the domestic and foreign realms endlessly blend together.

What frustrated me about the debate, though, is that Obama and McCain added virtually nothing to the discussion about the Bush administration's controversial $700 billion bailout plan. I realize that the idea was new, complex and evolving. And I further understand that politicians do not wish to box themselves in during campaigns.

Still, each candidate could have said: "Look, I have not yet extended my hands around this massive challenge. But here are three elements that I favor, and here are three places that need some work."

To me, as with most people, a bailout of this magnitude is hardly welcome or palatable. In particular, I dislike the notion of rewarding greed and poor decision-making, whether at the corporate or individual levels (although I sympathize more with Main Street than Wall Street). I do, however, understand the severity and fast-moving nature of the problem, as well as its global implications.

Clearly, so do people in other countries who are witnessing their own roller-coaster plunges in securities markets, bank failures and government intercession. Those disruptions tempt them, not surprisingly, to point fingers at the United States. This nation certainly bears responsibility for a large part of the crisis, but it is worth underscoring that greed and poor decision-making do not stop at America's borders.

That said, I appreciate the sense of urgency around the world that Washington take the lead in producing a large-scale, meaningful fix. It will happen, just not in a day or two. Actually, the system is working properly to provide the transparency and oversight that haste would recklessly diminish.

In the end, America will step up to its duty and, yes, we will weather this storm.