Well, isn't this a fine kettle of fish. A year after the bankers, with their greed and excessive speculation, took world economies to the brink of chaos, they are complaining that regulating them is not a good idea.

Josef Ackermann, chairman of the Institute of International Finance, said: "There's a trade off between maximizing stability of banks and optimizing growth of the real economy."

The G-20 is meeting again, this time in Pittsburgh, and as is so often the case when the world's industrial powers gather, the operative phrase is 'lower your expectations.'

What can investors look for? Well, one thing investors should not look for is any G-20 type of action on banker compensation/bonuses, other than a call for each nation, 'to do more to ensure that constructive incentives are in place' to prevent a repeat of the lending practices/perverse incentives that helped trigger the global financial crisis. There is support for compensation caps in Europe (except Germany); however, the United States and United Kingdom oppose them, so the issue is a non-starter.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says spending by the G-20 has served as a backbone to the stock market rally. Will the G-20 keep it up?

The world's largest buyers of everything are converging on Pittsburgh and all anyone wants to know is if they still have an appetite. After taking down about $14 trillion in everything from bonds, to stocks, to infrastructure plays, to guarantees, are the nations that make up the G-20 finally about to stop their buying spree?

Nothing's more clear to me, as these heads of state convene in Pittsburgh, that, other than some slight demand out of China, very few real buyers of stocks are willing to credit real economies with any real activity. Most people I deal with are willing to give the 3000 points off the bottom some credence provided that we accept that they were bought and paid for by governments and not by "real" buyers.

Much of the focus this week will no doubt be on the FOMC meeting on interest rates and the subsequent decision, as well as on the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, were the agenda will include bonuses for bank executives among other things.

Things will be fairly quiet again on the earnings front as the next earnings season has yet to ramp up. However, analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters do have high hopes for a handful of companies that will release results this week.

Finance ministers for both France and Germany claimed credit Sunday for what they argue was their successful effort to get the G-20 to limit bankers' pay.

However, it remains to be seen if their claim will become an international regulation: the G-20 left it to a Financial Stability Board, the Basel-based panel of international regulators, to flesh-out the details of the proposal at the head of state G-20 summit on September 24-25 in Pittsburgh, Bloomberg News reported Sunday.

The G-20 summit was a true public relations success. There were no walkouts by France or any other country as had been previously feared. There were statements that protectionism should be avoided. It appeared that the world learned the lesson from Smoot Hawley Tariff Act during the Hoover administration. There was a commitment to fund the International Monetary Fund with additional capital. Despite low expectations, there appeared to be an international consensus by the G-20 nations.

President Obama was warmly received by all the G-20 nations. This was in sharp contrast to the chilly reception of the Bush administration at prior G-20 summits.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says some of the latest gains could be lost, but it's not disaster -- it's business as usual.

How did people think this saga with General Motors (NYSE: GM) (Cramer's Take) was going to end, with Rick Wagoner receiving the Congressional Medal of Car Building?

Did anyone think that the company was actually going to turn around? Did anyone want Wagoner's GM to continue to get money? Did anyone think he was actually doing a good job?

How about the bad news out of the G-20? No stimulus. Did anyone really think that the Europeans were going to do more stimulus than they have, given that all they really think about is Weimar inflation, because that was the antecedent to the Third Reich? Who expects them to deliver anything good?

The newspapers are looking ahead to this Tuesday's G-20 summit in London. Since the leaders who show up there represent countries that control 80% of the world's economy, it could be an important meeting. If you live in the U.K. or U.S., your leaders will be attacked by those in other countries who believe that they should not be asked to bail out the errors of Anglo-American capitalism. Beyond that, little of substance is likely to be accomplished.

However, in an alternative universe, the G-20 meeting might actually accomplish something. Specifically, it could get agreement on six principles on which to rebuild American capitalism. Here's what I think those would be:

• Grow through technology-based innovation. The United States used to be admired around the world for its ability to create new industries. In the 1990s, an Asian government wanted to emulate our success and asked me to discuss how the United States turns innovation into economic growth. Unfortunately, since 2000 our ability to take brilliant ideas from our top universities and turn them into venture-backed companies that sell their shares to the public to fuel the creation of new industries has largely been broken. If there is to be growth, it should come from reviving this process.

It's being hailed as the unofficial start of a new financial or economic order, sort of a postmodern Bretton Woods, but if the accomplishments are more modest, but substantive, it will be deemed a success, so says an economist.

With the global financial crisis slow growth everywhere, G-20 summit leaders meeting in Washington on Saturday would be wise to focus on one critical and consequential policy action: fiscal stimulus, so says economist David H. Wang.

Economist: focus on fiscal stimulus

"Forget this trivial fixation on 'Who's leading the summit? Is the United States still on top? Is the meeting differing from a G-8 meeting?' The summit has to focus on getting all nations with the resources to do so to commit to fiscal stimulus," Wang said. "There's also a chance for an agreement on cross-border supervision of banks and leverage regulation, but really, it will take months to work out those complex regulations, so the summit should concentrate on the broad picture, and what show of fiscal force they can make for the business community."

That means detailed, and binding, commitments to spend public dollars to stimulate growth, Wang said. China has led the way, approving a $586 billion stimulus package earlier this month. Germany has committed $62 billion. Now it's up to the United States, the European Union, and emerging market powers to announce their commitments, he said.