If there was doubt that we live in a globalized society, the late events of Wall Street which have reverberated around the world, have all but erased them. Reactions from abroad and at home about the U.S. efforts to confront the financial crisis have been in great abundance, both positive and negative. The reactions are built with varying logic– some reactions are shocking and dumbfounding. All of the aftermath is notable, and continues to mesmerize most who have never experienced anything like this in their lifetime. But are they reactions to the U.S. effort indeed?

From the perspective of the U.S., the events of foreign central banks and governments may appear to be a reaction to the U.S Congress’ efforts and the $700 billion funding bill. This assumes that what the U.S. does in terms of this crisis matters in the eyes of the world’s largest countries. Touted through the packaging and selling of the congressional bill and used as the crux of the argument for supporting the bill were phrases indicating that the measure is intended to calm the financial markets, remove bad debt clogging up the credit markets, and restore confidence in the U.S. economy. Has the U.S. overstated its importance? Or is it merely a small object blowing in the wind of a financial hurricane that, like so many individuals, is just trying to steady itself?

To borrow some verbiage from Donald Rumsfield, there are many known knowns and known unknowns in stock market manipulation and price fluctuations, some intra-country, some foreign. As proven over the years, a herd mentality does indeed exist. Trying to pinpoint the stimulus for movement with certainty is almost impossible, and if indeed accomplished would most likely lead to a congressional investigation.

But indeed the U.S. stock market has behaved wildly in the past two weeks, perhaps starting with the initial rejection of the first version of the emergency funding bill by the U.S House of Representatives. Many House members fielded calls and emails from their constituents which affected their vote. However, they noted publicly that they felt that the stock market’s severe plunge the day after their vote was, effectively, a vote of no confidence in their efforts. Was this an accurate reaction from market makers and manipulators inside and outside the country’s investors, or something else?

Somewhat ironically, since the bill’s passage, the markets at home have plunged to a low not seen since 2003. (The Dow fell from levels of 10,000 to hovering just above 8,000, a nearly 20% decline in the period of two weeks.) The Dow’s loss for 2008 is approaching 35.3%. The S&P 500 is now down 38%, while the Nasdaq is headed downward to nearly a 40% drop for this year.

Are the known and unknown market manipulators at play, and are they not more confident after the passage of the bill? Was the bill, directed at removing bad securities from the system, directed at the wrong target from the eyes of others? Some say there has not been a chance for the bill to have its effect, as it has not been implemented entirely yet. Others say its potential to affect the global economies and the behavior of global investors is minimal.

Two days after the passage of the bill, foreign markets in Japan, Europe, and Asia tanked. They continue to fall as though the market makers and investors abroad had noted the U.S. effort; they became fearful and originated a sell off– not exactly the reaction that the U.S. officials had anticipated, assuming it was a reaction. Would this have happened without the funding bill passage?

The U.S. Treasury Department in their so far futile effort to free up credit markets is now considering taking ownership stakes in certain U.S.-based banks and financial institutions. Some say this is a temporary nationalization effort to calm the markets and restore confidence– a refrain recently heard from the U.S. administration.

Other dramatic efforts include: guaranteeing billions of dollars in bank debt, protecting homeowners from foreclosure by staying efforts against them, and temporarily insuring all U.S. bank deposits. The recently approved $700 billion package would not remotely approach that guarantee amount. Those guarantees could reach the trillion dollar amount.

Taking into consideration the astounding news from around the world, the U.S. and its efforts do not appear to be the nuclei of a solution that influences the actions of global investors, foreign states, or global markets.

Asian stock markets declined sharply during the week and continued to do so on Friday as investors– in an apparent fear-driven mode– issued sell orders at alarming paces. Tokyo’s benchmark index fell to its lowest level in five years. The Nikkei dropped 881.06 points, or 9.6%, to 8276.43, its lowest level since May 2003. Since the start of this week, the benchmark index has lost 24% of its value.

In mainland China, the Shanghai Composite Index ended down 3.6%, or 74.01 points, at 2000.57. The index was down nearly 13% from a week earlier. Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 ended down 8.3% at 3960.7, its biggest one-day percentage loss ever. Together with the 8.2% plunge on the broader All Ordinaries Index, which marked its greatest loss in 21 years, Friday’s session wiped 106 billion Australian dollars (US$70 billion) from the value of stocks, perhaps the largest casualty to date of the financial crisis. Iceland’s government took control of its four largest banks. Its largest, Kaupthing (KAUP.ST) halted trading on the Reykjavik stock exchange. The country’s second-largest bank, Landsbanki, was taken over and renamed New Landsbanki. Its prime minister issued a statement to the affect of the government’s efforts are necessary and that still the country could be forced into bankruptcy.

The Associated Press reported that the British government announced a 50 billion British pounds ($87.5 billion) plan targeted towards part nationalization of its major banks. The government also offered up to 200 billion pounds ($350 billion) in short-term lending support. Both efforts came as a run on British stocks drove fears that the nations firms would be able to survive without governmental backing. On Tuesday, shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, the country’s third largest bank, plummeted by 39%, HBOS PLC fell 41.5% and Lloyds TSB Group PLC dropped 13%. Prior to the nationalization effort, Britain had taken control of two other financial institutions, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.

In an effort to possibly forge a collaborative effort between nations, finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of Seven, the U.S., Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Canada met in Washington, DC. However, the head-swirling events in each of these nations, and their respective efforts to survive and protect their own economies may be so large of a distraction that a collaborative effort may not be feasible. One thing they will share is that they are all in crisis mode and the outlook is not a clear one.