If you lived in a world where exploding buildings, crashing cars, and robbed banks were regular fixtures of everyday life, which type of insurance system would function best?

Such is the dilemma today over at Ecocomics, where comics nerds and econonerds have been united at long last. The formula: take a comic, find a strip that mentions money, analyze accordingly (and at length). That can take you from 19th century property values to the effect cuts in public sector employment would have on Gotham's mental asylum.

Be forewarned, though. If you spend too much time reading this stuff, you may catch yourself thinking, "why, yes, I bet building repairs do make up more than 90 percent of the economy in the comic book universe," and considering it a semi-rational thought exercise.

(Hat tip to my friend Sam on this one. His handiwork at his day job--also worth a read, but for very different reasons--can be found here, where he ponders why states have been so sluggish in requesting their bailout money. Considering the deadline is July 1, it seems like it'd be high time for them to get on that, no?)

For the last few months, there’s been a lot of talk about how the financial crisis will be an opportunity for strong emerging market companies with good balance sheets to undercut their Western competitors and gain global market share, ultimately building the sort of name brands that are still owned mostly by Western blue chips.

Huawei, China’s most impressive multinational company, is one such candidate. It’s already amongst the world’s top three telecom equipment and service providers, with operations in over 100 countries, and over one billion users all over the world. The company’s campus, out of Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta, is a Silicon Valley-style marvel, with a gorgeous canteen turning out gourmet food, and beautiful architecture, including the requisite Norman Foster-designed headquarters. English seems to be the de facto language in the hallways. All this may be run of the mill stuff for a Western blue chip, but in China, it really sets them apart. And since a Chinese engineer costs about 1/6 to 1/10th of what an American or German one does, Huawei has no problem out-pricing their US and European competitors.

So, does all this mean that China, led by companies like Huawei, is on the verge of turning out its first real global brands? That’s long been the hope, because creating these kinds of companies is key to moving towards more sustainable growth. But after visiting Huawei’s campus this week, which was indeed impressive, I think China’s not quite there yet. For starters, though the Western press often refers to Huawei as a global brand, it’s not a consumer retail operation – these guys service other businesses, and not very sexy ones at that. Sure, they occasionally put their name on some mobile handsets, but more often than not, they are happy to slap their customers’ brands on products that they make in China. They have no plans to change this anytime soon, because being the tech geeks behind big brands like the UK’s Vodafone makes them a lot of money in the here and now. (For more on the ins and outs of Huawei's business, check out this excellent piece from a few years ago on the company's rise).

The reason Huawei has succeeded is because they capitalize on what China does really, really well – making cheap, good products – and don’t worry too much about snazzy marketing or branding campaigns. They don’t have to, since they are selling mainly to other businesses. As an executive at Huawei told me, there are really only about 500 decision makers in the world that they have to influence. It will take the Chinese a lot longer to figure out how to master the art of the sexy consumer marketing campaign and sell to millions.

That said, Huawei is a model for what China can be in the sense that its workers own 100 percent of the company, enjoy luxurious (by Chinese standards anyway) health benefits and pensions, and work in pleasant and stimulating environments, rather than in low-end sweatshops. In that sense, it already is a banner company.

The Amnesty International annual report that came out today has some sobering revelations about those bearing the brunt of the global recession. That's why NEWSWEEK'S Rebecca Shabad flipped through it and chatted with Amnesty's Secretary General about her findings. Here's a briefing:

Just when you think we might've acquainted ourselves with the bleakest aspects of the recession, Amnesty International is right there to get your palms sweaty again. The group says human rights are going by the wayside these days, as the global economic crisis exacerbates preexisting problems and creates a whole new set of its own. Unsurprisingly, it's all hitting hardest in poverty-stricken places that have long been vulnerable to shifting economic winds--mostly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America--as drops in investment and aid have tipped them over the edge into instability.

Human rights violations have been largely ignored for years--the only surprise/news in the report are two words: "worse" and "recession." But that has serious implications. For one, it's aggravated existing problems among refugee and migrant populations, which are coming up against more and more closed doors. As people struggle to meet basic needs and take to the streets to protest, they find they're subject to the same treatment long afforded to political protesters (needless to say, it's not pleasant). In Tunisia, for example, food protests last year left 2 dead and 600 injured. At the same time, as governments are focusing the bulk of their energies on financial problem they're paying less attention to classic problems: violence against women, torture, and violations in the criminal justice system.

Amid all the misery and destruction, at the heart of the report is a basic argument: open markets haven’t been nearly as reliable a path to open societies as supporters had predicted. Irene Khan, Amnesty's Secretary General, cites China and Russia as prime examples of the false promise. “The tendency for governments has been to see poverty as a financial issue, so they invest in the economy and invest in markets. The idea is, if the economy grows then human rights will be taken care of,” she says. “What we’re saying is, actually, if you look more carefully at these situations, if you look at the problems of indigenous people in Latin America or the problems of migrant workers in China or the people who are evicted from slums in India; it’s not economic growth that's the only issue. Financial investment is important, but alongside that, there has to be investment in freedom.”

No Go on the Opel Deal: Emergency talks between German and American negotiators failed to produce a deal for GM's ailing European branch, despite lasting into the wee hours of the morning. But they did manage to slim down the competition among potential buyers: either Fiat or Magna will get the prize, once everyone can figure out who will foot the bankruptcy bill. (By the way, um, Happy Birthday Germany!)

The Retirement Chronicles: Worried about that 401K? Explore FT's interactive feature on the past, present, and future of pension plans.

Golden Parachutes, Back in Style: The CEO of one Virginia bank that accepted government moneyd has decided to retire early for $1.3 million in consulting fees. He'll be spending his newfound leisure time at the local country club, where his membership dues will be paid by--you guessed it--the bank. So much for TARP regulations.

Petrobras Not Quite Slick Enough: Brazil's giant national oil and gas company is under investigation for allegedly avoiding tax payments and awarding illegal contracts, among other sins. Lula's thoughts on the investigation? "Irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." Let's add "inconvenient" to that list.