(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

Stocks and other risky assets are rallying around the world this week because the Group of 20 nations said on the weekend they would keep the economic stimulus flowing, a state of events which illustrates where we are and what a very strange place it is.

The G20, the only group of big hitters that matters because it is the only group which includes the Chinese, met in Scotland over the weekend and, as is the way of these things, did very little with immediate consequences for anybody.

In the communique they issued, the Group of 20 finance ministers, after congratulating themselves on the recovery, more or less admitted that the measures we once thought of as heroic are in the process of becoming commonplace.

"However, the recovery is uneven and remains dependent on policy support, and high unemployment is a major concern," the statement said. "To restore the global economy and financial system to health, we agreed to maintain support for the recovery until it is assured."

Let me put that in human terms for you:

"We've spent untold trillions saving the economy, but, er, we've really only saved the financial system and that only to the extent that we keep on saving it. Jobs, well, not so much. We therefore pledge to continue doing this thing that may or may not be working until we are sure that it is."

Global stock markets then went off on a stonking rally on Monday, which major media attributed to the pledge of continued stimulus. I suppose we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that the financial media was, as we often do, mistaking coincidence for causation, but professionals were citing it too.

So, what are they promising to do? Will they be able to do it? And why do the risk markets like it so much?

There are at least two aspects to the stimulus - continued easy money from central banks and actual government spending.

The easy money part - low interest rates and unconventional measures - clearly will continue. It will be politically very difficult to raise interest rates while unemployment is still so high, and given the wan nature of the recovery, unemployment will take a long time to fall.

The actual government spending part is a lot harder to bank on, as it were. One reading of the Japanese experience in the 1990s is that their stimulative measures worked but they lost heart and withdrew them for mostly political reasons, thereby bringing on a relapse from which they never really properly recovered.

The politics of another stimulative spending binge will not be easy, especially in the U.S. and especially given populist backlash. That's not to say more stimulus won't be needed, it very likely will, but you can't count on it arriving. Deleveraging takes a long time and we very likely would have been better off just writing the debt down in the first place.

MARKETS LOVE CERTAINTY

Investors have decided, and I think they are probably right, that so long as the authorities are hell bent on reflation it is foolish to get in the way.

As analyst David Merkel has pointed out, the statement of the Federal Reserve meeting, released last week, characterized financial markets as "roughly unchanged" since they last met in September, revealing that they pay far more attention to equity markets than debt markets.

Because of course equity markets were going more or less sideways in October but many of the riskier parts of the debt markets were rallying strongly. Wasn't this whole crisis, and its expensive fix, supposed to be about "unfreezing credit markets"? Not anymore, apparently.

That is because the Fed realize that they have got to keep equity markets up, indeed have got to force them to rise. It is the only way to float the equity above the debt, make the banks and the holders of debt whole, and allow the financial system to weather the crisis.

There were other options - default, temporary nationalization - but that is not the route we went down. So, within this context the rally makes great sense.

Notice how equity markets have been on a huge tear since last week, going up on news that implied that the Fed would remain on hold for a long time, going up on unemployment rising through 10 percent in the U.S. and, funnily enough, going up on faith that the G20 would stick with stimulus measures.

This brings us to the crazy part. While it may be individually rational for everyone to hitch a ride on the policy train and follow asset prices higher, I would argue that the project is collective folly.

The risks are inflation and a rapidly falling U.S. dollar which leave banks and debtors solvent in nominal terms but not better off. Those risks are best observed now through the dollar, which is falling, and gold, which is at record highs.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

So it can be done after all.

Britain is poised to take tough steps to break up the large banks it rescued, setting it in stark contrast to the United States, which seems set on a policy of shoring up the unfair advantages it grants its too-big-to-fail banks while regulating around the edges.

It is quite a change for Britain, which has a sorry history of self-serving self-regulation in financial services combined with limp and outgunned official control.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling on Sunday told the BBC that Lloyds, RBS and Northern Rock would be partly broken up and assets sold to new entrants into the banking market. Large existing competitors such as HSBC are expected to be blocked from making bids for the assets.

Britain took over Northern Rock after a run on the bank and its rescue of Lloyds and RBS left it with stakes of 43 and 70 percent, respectively.

It is worth noting that if anything Britain is more dependent on its financial services sector than the United States.

Could it be that Britain has determined that a level playing field, strong competition and a lower risk of a crisis might actually make it more competitive internationally? I certainly think so.

It will without doubt improve the situation for the small businesses and individuals that can't access international capital markets and depend on the banks for access to credit and other financial services.

Before we get all excited and expect the United States to follow suit with Citibank and Bank of America, it is important to recall that Britain's Labour government is more or less on its death bed and faces an election in 2010 which the bookies and almost everyone else think it is highly unlikely to win.

There is also the matter of the European Union, which has a say over subsidies such as the ones Britain has showered on the banks. RBS said on Monday that it may be forced by the EU to sell more assets than it had planned. Lloyds is also seen likely to raise additional new capital to allow it to stay outside of an asset insurance scheme Britain is running for the banks and which would involve the government taking yet more equity in the participants.

OH WHAT A CONTRAST

The fact remains that Britain and the EU are saying that more competition is needed and taking steps to ensure that the banks which ended up needing state care are broken up. This must have an impact on how other big banks are ultimately treated, even if they did not receive the same level of direct state aid.

The equity buffer that is being required is also remarkable; the banks should end up with core tier one equity of about 10 percent, four times what they were expected to hold before the crisis.

Contrast all of this with the hopefully named Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, now wending its way through Congress. As Harvard Business School professor David Moss points out, as currently drafted this bill won't even allow the systemically important banks it is designed to control be named, a real Monty Python-esque touch.

Think about it: we won't even be allowed to know the identities of the firms we are potentially on the hook for. Moss points out that this neatly side-steps the idea of taxing too-whatever-to-fail status as a means of encouraging the behemoths to sell up and avoid the costs. The costs remain with the taxpayer, or potentially with a group of big firms after the fact.

The argument the U.S. administration is making, more or less, is that our complex global economy somehow demands that we have complex huge banks. If we don't allow huge banks to persist, we'll choke off growth. If we think we can go back to mom and pop banking, we are simply kidding ourselves. And anyway, if the U.S. doesn't allow it, foreign banks will just scoop up the cream. With Britain and the European Union taking strong steps, that argument is losing traction. And as for complexity, well I'd have to say that the record of complexity in banking is mixed, to be kind, as far as the deal it gives to taxpayers and consumers of banking services. It would be one thing to argue for huge economies of scale for plain vanilla banking processes like clearing, but it is hard to see why that needs to be combined with derivatives and trading.

It would be nice to think the winds are blowing west across the Atlantic, but this is not usually the case.

(Editing by James Dalgleish)

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

Don't expect the year-long rally in risky assets to be undermined any time soon by the Federal Reserve becoming concerned about inflation.

The old metaphor -- that the Fed's job is to take away the punchbowl just when the party starts getting good -- just doesn't apply in the current circumstances. That's not to say inflation isn't a threat in the medium term -- it is virtually a promise.

But punchbowl thinking dates from a time when firstly the Fed was presumed to have a degree of control over events we now know is not true and secondly to an era when asset prices were the caboose rather than the engine of the economic train.

Even with an economy that is now growing, the risk of a self-reinforcing de-leveraging spiral is enough to ensure that the Fed will not pull the trigger on tightening any time soon.

"Asset prices are embedded not only in our psyche, but the actual growth rate of our economy. If they don't go up, economies don't do well, and when they go down, the economy can be horrid," Pimco bond chief Bill Gross writes in his most recent letter to investors.

Gross argues that leverage inflated the price of assets even as investment in the U.S. real economy flagged. As this happened the U.S. economy became ever more dependent on asset prices and on the sectors, such as finance, which intermediated the borrowing. When the debt and asset bubble is pinched, the whole edifice is threatened, leading to a response like the one we've seen: massive and overwhelming aid trained on markets irrespective of the costs.

Pimco data shows that the prices of assets in the United States over the past 50 years have gone up 1.3 percent a year more than would have been expected given nominal growth in the economy, leading to a putative 100 percent overvaluation if you reason that the assets which depend on the economy for income shouldn't outgrow it.

Unsurprisingly, the real outperformance of asset prices against economic growth has come in the past 30 years, since when debt growth has accelerated.

There are other explanations for why asset prices have outpaced economic growth. For one thing, off-shoring and outsourcing have both suppressed wages in the United States, leading to higher returns on capital, and increased the income that U.S. assets receive from overseas.

It's obvious that the past 25 years have not been kind to labor, and as its share of GDP has declined the share going to asset owners has increased. In that sense increasing asset prices make economic sense, though there seems to be every chance that workers start to recapture some of what they have lost.

GROWTH, DEFAULT OR INFLATION?

Taxes on capital and profits have also fallen in the United States, and, like wages, this is a trend that could easily be reversed in coming years, especially given the huge amount of public debt that will have to be paid back.

This brings us to the other very strong reason the Fed may have for not pulling away the punchbowl -- or water bowl as perhaps we had better see it -- even when the party turns inflationary: public debt.

Since the United States have taken a decision to not allow too much of the private debt to default, it has taken on a corresponding increase in public debt which will have to be repaid ultimately. U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP will exceed 60 percent, a level not seen since World War II.

But unlike the post-war period, Europe doesn't need  rebuilding and though Asia will grow hugely those profits won't flow to U.S. coffers.

So, if growth doesn't allow the United States to repay debts, there are two options, neither pretty; default or inflation.

"No policymaker in the developed world -- and, by now, few in the developing world -- would want to countenance default as an option," writes economist Spyros Andreopoulos of Morgan Stanley in London in a note to clients.

"This leaves inflation."

To be sure, the Federal Reserve takes its mandate to control inflation and its independence seriously, but it is going to find itself in a very difficult squeeze, partly of its own making. The debt is high, growth will be poor and the time for private defaults is past. Threats to its independence will only grow.

Given that, and the dependence of the economy on asset prices, it's not hard to bet that the evil we will be left with is inflation. Whether it is engineered or just kind of happens is less interesting than the reasonably high likelihood that it will happen at all.

For a time at least, that would argue that risky assets, particularly real assets and emerging markets, do well.

Longer term, things get stickier and stickier.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

-- Wei Gu is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are her own --

When it comes to protecting intellectual property in China, the United States often feels that its pleas are falling on deaf ears. Its best hope is that China recognizes that copyright protection is in its own interests. To achieve that, Washington needs to push for changes from within.

After a fruitless decade of lobbying China on intellectual property, Washington has reached for the microphone. This week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a high-profile international forum on intellectual property in Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong Province and best known as both China's manufacturing hub and the global centre for intellectual property theft.

Guangdong understands it cannot hold on to both titles forever. Its reforming leader Wang Yang has vowed to build an innovative Guangdong, but he and his deputies understandably do not want to be criticized in public. The U.S. delegation included high-ranking officials such as Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, but the very man they hoped to engage with didn't show up.

Foreign pressure can help, but changes rarely happen in public. First, both parties need to agree on what they are trying to achieve. As a manufacturer for the rest of the world, China has historically seen little upside in protecting copyright. The United States needs to convince Beijing that, if it wants to develop its own products, then protecting copyright is important.

Huawei Technologies, the telecom equipment maker based in Guangdong, could be a good partner in this. In 2003, Cisco sued Huawei for copyright violations, but dropped the suit after Huawei agreed to stop selling some products. Now, Huawei has emerged as a strong protector of copyright. Last year the company filed the largest number of patents in the world.

Song Liuping, Huawei's chief legal officer, advocates increasing the penalty for IP theft, a view shared by Americans. But he thinks the problem is not the lack of an adequate legal system or even lax enforcement, but the absence of a culture in China that values designs, patents, and copyrights.

China is likely to act when it feels others are trampling on its rights. A Chinese group recently complained that Google's planned online library of digitised books might violate Chinese authors' copyrights. The more China feels that its own interests are at stake, the more serious it will get. When every new movie or software program can be copied for nothing, it is impossible to develop a film business or software industry.

It is better to back Chinese movie stars and technology entrepreneurs rather than American politicians to drive this message home in China.

-- At the time of publication Wei Gu did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. She may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund --

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

There are encouraging signs that shareholders are becoming more assertive in defending their interests.

The Financial Times reported on Monday that some of Britain's largest institutional shareholders - including Standard Life, Legal & General and M&G - are working on a plan to bypass investment banks by creating a club to underwrite new issues of equity by small and medium-sized British companies, a move that could save hugely on fees.

What, you may wonder, took them so long?

Second only to taxpayers, investors have been the great patsies of the financial crisis, paying massive costs to a financial services industry which has, to put it mildly, not served them well.

Activist shareholders and investors could be a key force in fixing what is wrong with the financial system. Unleashing their power to act in their own best interests should be a main thrust of new regulation.

The British investor group, reportedly being assisted by mergers and acquisition advisors Lazards, would effectively cut out the middle men by agreeing to take up any unwanted new shares in an offering. This is an idea which if successful could save companies and their owners huge amounts in fees and at the same time deal a blow to investment banking profitability.

Fees charged by banks for equity underwriting in Britain have more or less doubled in the aftermath of the crisis to 3.5-4.0 percent of the amount being raised, with the lions share going to banks rather than to the institutional investors who sub-underwrite.

While banks may argue, and in part be correct, that this is because the past two years have demonstrated the risks of capital market underwriting, it is also patently because there are now fewer banks competing for this business.

To be sure, a club approach is better suited for small and medium sized underwritings and would face huge difficulties for a major share issue involving global investors. But if a test run proves successful it would place pressure on fees for transactions of all sizes.

Even before the crisis hit, fees for investment banking services seemed not to follow with the same fidelity the laws of economics which hold such sway in microchips, steel or even tax preparation.

And it's not just investors, who consume investment banking products, who have been ill-served. Shareholders in companies, particularly in banks, have provided the capital but have not had their fair share of the fruits.

FOR WHOSE BENEFIT IS THIS ZOO BEING RUN?

That has led to bad decisions, decisions often designed to maximize the benefit to employees at the expense of the shareholders who run disproportionate risk.

Paul Myners, a British Treasury official with special responsibility for financial services, gave an absolutely scathing address last week to the Worshipful Company of International Bankers, assembled for dinner in the Mansion House in the City of London.

Myners, who is reported to be considering holding a competition inquiry into banking fees, took aim at the bonus and compensation culture in the industry.

"It could be argued that some shareholders in banks have been left holding not the ordinary shares they originally purchased, but a new form of subordinated, participating, non-cumulative equity that ranks behind rewards for the senior management, and executives of the firm in which they invested have a prior claim. This cannot be right," Myners said.

"In case anyone needs reminding, the profits of banks belong to their owners; not their managers and traders."

I imagine that the bankers were a little less worshipful on their way out then they were on the way in.

I would also argue that what Myners said about banking also holds true - to a lesser extent - in other publicly traded companies, where management is able to extract compensation out of proportion to their likely contribution.

Shareholders, and we are really talking about institutional shareholders, have allowed management to get away with it for years because they thought what they were supposed to be doing was outperforming the market by picking winners.

Much of what passed for skilled investment over the last 20 years has been little more than riding the waves of a debt-fueled economy which seemed capable of providing six to ten percent returns on an unleveraged basis.

Adding value too often meant little more than adding leverage to increase returns. When the current rally ends, as it surely will, investors should take a long look at their long term returns. What they will usually see is that they are poor.

A better strategy for the next 10 years may be to spend as much effort protecting your economic interest in what you own as you do in choosing what to own.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. )

--James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.--

When the U.S. dollar ultimately loses its status as the world's premier reserve currency it will be painful for all involved, almost certainly disorganized, and very possibly a very good thing.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick outlined the risks to the dollar's status in a speech in Washington on Monday.

"The United States would be mistaken to take for granted the dollar's place as the world's predominant reserve currency. Looking forward, there will increasingly be other options to the dollar," he said.

Zoellick went on to emphasize how choices in the United States on inflation, fiscal policy and financial system reform would help to influence the dollar's fate.

Quite true. The U.S. cannot simply devalue its way to competitiveness, nor can it appear to be inflating away its debts without risking a run on the currency. The Chinese and others would sell dollars or fail to buy up new debt if they felt the U.S. was behaving both cynically and irresponsibly.

China has good reasons not to force a crisis and devalue its holdings of dollars, but not immutable ones. The two nations are like two men trying to swim to shore while dragging a heavy box of gold, the difference being that the U.S. is tethered to the box while China is only holding on. If China decides the water is too rough it can let go, sacrifice its dollar holdings and swim for it. The United States is not so lucky.

"Exorbitant privilege" is a term coined by an understandably embittered French Finance Minister Valery Giscard d'Estaing to describe the fact that under the old Bretton Woods currency system the United States, unlike everyone else, could simply print dollars to cover current account deficits.

Bretton Woods is gone, but the arrangements which replaced it also tended to underwrite U.S. overconsumption, as purchases of U.S. dollars as reserves by other nations kept funding rates lower despite household or government profligacy.

"The United States is incredibly fortunate that the dollar enjoys this special status," Zoellick said. "When I work with countries struggling to pay for budgets or finance trade deficits, I reflect on how Americans do not spend a moment considering the unique advantages of being able to issue bonds and print money freely."

My best guess is that Americans will spend quite a few moments in coming years considering that unique advantage, and that while they will miss it, they should also be sorry they ever enjoyed the right to borrow freely and seemingly without consequence.

THERE'S NO "G20" IN "TEAM"

Of course the U.S. current account deficit has contracted massively, standing at about 3 percent of gross domestic product in the first quarter as compared to 6.5 percent of GDP in 2006. That's the result of plunging global trade and steep falls in investment in the United States. And while the personal savings rate has jumped in the United States, which after all it had to since credit was no longer easy, the government has stepped up massively as a borrower, overwhelming households' efforts to save.

Barclays Capital calculates that the United States now needs to attract 46 percent of the world's net savings, i.e. the sum of all current account surpluses, as opposed to 54 percent before the crisis broke.

That 46 percent figure is an improvement, but it too is ultimately unsustainable. It's also arguably starving lots of other places of investment that could ultimately produce higher returns.

The newly empowered G20 group of nations has meanwhile resolved to rebalance the global economy, using peer pressure to force the irresponsible to shape up and the overly tight to start spending at home.

The world's central bankers and politicians just received an object lesson in what a good idea it is to have a bunch of reserves piled up against a bad day. Even putting China aside, responsible leaders in places like India will have a very tough time trusting in an international body to protect their own best interests. And because that body doesn't have any real power to compel, it will be ignored. That means that there is a good risk, G20 or not, that everyone is trying to simultaneously keep their currencies low and exports high.

The only body seemingly exempt from market discipline, the United States, is not going to be in a position to resume eating up everybody's exports. This is a recipe for very slow growth and for rising international economic tension. That doesn't make the changes proposed at the G20 a bad idea, but they are not sufficient and threaten to be a resolve-softening time waster.

So not so much as rebalancing but a re-basing of growth expectations. Look for continuing dollar weakness alongside that, with the real drama being not the decline but the rate of decline.

--At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.--

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

The simplest way to end the imbalances in the world's economy is also sadly perhaps the most likely: for the Chinese to stop buying U.S. debt.

This is not going to happen anytime soon, for one thing deleveraging in the U.S. will for a time make U.S. Treasuries look good value, but a buyer's strike is a heck of a lot more likely than the orchestrated rebalancing the U.S. will push at this week's G-20 meeting of leading nations.

The U.S. plans to advance a plan at the Pittsburgh summit to fundamentally change the balance of the global economy, which over the past 15 years or so has been characterized by over-borrowing and consumption in the West provided and financed by savers and workers in Asia.

That state of play kept going, as is the way of these things, until it stopped, or rather until one of its wheels fell off. It wasn't that Asians stopped saving or buying U.S. debt but that speculators, usually in Europe, stopped buying securities, often minted in London, which were being created to front run the flow of capital from Asia to the west.

That popped the asset price bubble and the flow of finance to consumers in the U.S. who, with much gnashing of teeth, began to save again and consume more guardedly.

But the debt bubble hasn't really popped, it has only shifted shape. Before we had private debts which only could be repaid if assets, mostly real estate, continued to go up in value. Now, a new wave of public borrowing is cushioning the downturn. Asians buy some of the debt and some of the money raised buys goods from Asia.

Theoretically, China and other investors in U.S.  Treasuries buy them because they believe that the U.S. will ultimately tax more, spend less and make good. In reality, it is more vendor financing and a good money after bad attempt to protect earlier investments.

The U.S. points out, in a letter to its G20 partners, that if the savings rises in the deficit countries persist and there is no rise in consumption in the savings-bloc, global economic growth will be poor. The idea, it seems, is for IMF-led international coordination to, on the one hand, jawbone the borrowers so they remain credible while at the same time somehow inducing the savers to allow their currencies to appreciate and induce their citizens to spend.

WILL SOVEREIGNS BE THE NEW SUBPRIME?

A new study of global imbalances by economists at the Bank of England points out that Asian savers will only carry on buying western debt so long as they believe it to be high quality.

"In the short run, increased supply of government bonds resulting from the expansionary fiscal policies pursued in deficit countries has provided an ongoing source of asset supply to meet the investment demand from surplus countries," according to the Bank of England.

"However, to the extent that savers in surplus countries may become more reluctant over time to invest funds in deficit-country government bonds this would tend to raise the cost of borrowing in deficit countries. This shift in the relative cost of borrowing could be an important part of the process by which a rebalancing of demand from deficit to surplus countries is achieved over the medium term."

In other words, if Asian savers lose faith in Treasuries or gilts, they will stop buying, causing interest rates to spike. This would cause demand to be rebalanced, all right, but mostly by suppressing it in the U.S. and other highly indebted countries like Britain.

This kind of loss of faith in markets can be very sudden. You could draw a parallel to the way in which investors in securitized debt lost faith in the value of a AAA rating, except this time the loss of faith will be in sovereign borrowers and we really will not be able to blame the ratings agencies as enablers.

China and other exporters of course have good reason to want to avoid this. They are stuck with trillions of dollars in Treasuries and they certainly don't want to kill the U.S. goose while it is still more profitable to sell it goose food.

There may also come a time when the world's savers calculate that they can earn more by investing at home.

Essentially much of what a controlled rebalancing would do - weaken the dollar and build opportunity for domestic-oriented investment in Asia - creates incentives for a rapid reallocation out of Treasuries.

Ultimately the rebalanceing must happen. The U.S. for very good reasons wants this to happen little by little, but it does not have to happen that way. Past attempts at a controlled rebalancing have failed and it is hard to see what will make this one different.

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

--James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own--

If and when China makes its currency convertible and opens its financial system the stage will be set for a bubble that should make the dotcom and housing booms look tame.

China has recently signaled its key aspirations: for a greater international role for the renminbi and for Shanghai to become a great financial capital. Neither is imminent, but both imply, if not require, a series of steps that, taken in combination with China's legitimately great potential for growth, could lead to a bubble of magnificent and dangerous proportions.

Magnificent in that, like the dotcom bubble or the railroad boom in the U.S. in the 19th century, a bubble in domestic China is directionally right and will build useful things which will change the world. A bubble, after all, needs a good story and China has one of the best ever.

Dangerous because, like the housing bubble, it will inevitably go too far and could take down banks and banking systems globally.

Perhaps rather than dotcom or housing, the most useful template for China is closer to home; namely the Japanese bubble which preceded its ongoing malaise, according to Dylan Grice, a strategist at Societe Generale in London.

"In the medium term we face the mother of all asset bubbles in China. The fundamental story is a good one; there are just lots and lots of people to sell to," Grice said.

"If you drop a ton of liquidity on people it is possible that they will do rational things with it, but more likely they will do something pretty stupid."

The parallels are strong. Both China and Japan successfully industrialized and opted for high-savings, low-consumption economies which concentrated on exports, exporting capital and keeping their currencies artificially weak. The result in both cases was a huge stockpile of U.S. Treasuries.

Both, too, scared their western clients and competitors witless. Remember U.S. autoworkers ritually burning Japanese cars? This of course was mingled with admiration and a sense that the global balance of power was changing, giving bubble thinking a strong push.

Japan slowly and over a long period liberalized its capital account; allowing the yen to float freely and deregulating financial markets.

Grice points out that during some of the 1980s the world fell in love with the yen, figuring that Japan's new ascendancy meant that it would rise and rise. As a result Japan Inc. could in effect borrow in dollars, swap it into yen and get paid for the privilege. Much of the money found its way into the stock market, sending stocks to stratospheric levels and reinforcing the bubble illusion.

The Nikkei index of stocks went to the moon and Tokyo residents ended up needing 100-year mortgages to afford tiny apartments.

GOOD AND BAD BUBBLES

Of course, that is not where it ended with Japan, which had its bust and which is still struggling with deflation, though that is in part a function of a shrinking workforce.

Japan liberalized its financial system and currency arrangements under strong pressure from the United States.

China almost certainly has more relative real power today and there is every sign that it will open up on its own terms and to its own schedule.

But open it probably will.

Chinese officials have expressed a desire for the renminbi to play a great role in world trade, naming 2020 as a date by which it can play the role of a reserve currency.

That is almost certainly going to require deregulation of financial markets, something also needed if Shanghai is to become a global financial capital.

China now buys Treasuries not because it thinks they are good value, but because those purchases maintain a competitive currency, not to mention protecting existing holdings. As that ends, much of the money will seek out high returns, and as the renminbi strengthens international capital will doubtless pile on and pile in.

That kind of liquidity and deregulation, in combination with strong national pride and a legitimately fantastic story, is a step-by-step recipe for a bubble. So it proved in Japan, so it likely will be in China.

A look at recent experience in China only underlines this. Speculation is rife and billions in government mandated loans have leaked into stock market bets.

China's government undoubtedly understands all of this and is surely determined to maintain control. They may not find it that easy. Getting rich, as we've seen in the United States, is a heady business and it is easy to start to believe your own press.

As the momentum builds and the money rolls in it will be easy to see it as a great country meeting its prosperous destiny.

Given the size of the opportunity and the strength of the story, China's bubble will be huge. Investors would do well to avoid being in the immediate vicinity when it bursts.

--At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.--

-- Wei Gu is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are her own --

Google's former China head Kai-Fu Lee wants to create China's next internet giant in a factory. He believes that by combining the smartest entrepreneurs, the shrewdest businesspeople and the brightest business ideas, he will be able to create five highly sellable companies a year. That sounds like an ideal model for venture capital, but is he being realistic?

Lee's plan, formulated while he spent time in hospital over the summer, follows a battle with Beijing regulators who wanted to censor Google searches that lead to pornographic sites. It has drawn strong support from investors.

Lee has managed to raise $115 million in just one month, winning support from YouTube Inc. co-founder Steve Chen, as well as Foxconn Electronics Inc., Legend Group, New Oriental Education and venture firm WI Harper Group.

They believe that as China embraces a start-up culture, Lee's business, which is a mix of venture capital and development lab, will be well positioned to capitalize.

Lee's plan is to hire 100 to 150 young engineers, help nurture their ideas, then spin off 50 to 75 of them a year with funding from his venture, whiling hiring new people to make up for the loss. However, it looks like his company, called Innovation Works, has yet to line up ideas or engineers.

This kind of "incubator" model became popular in the U.S. and Europe during the dot-com boom, but most of them just burned through a lot of money and then folded. Lee and his backers believe that China's market is more favorable, as it is at a crucial point regarding "cloud computing" and mobile technology, and there is a strong need for early-stage funding.

The new fund is still starting off, but Lee plans to expand from its base in Beijing to places such as Taiwan, the Asian hardware manufacturing base.

Investors are attracted by Lee's reputation as the single largest magnet for talent in China. Lee, who grew up in the United States, has won a loyal following from Chinese students through his numerous coaching books, public speeches and blogs, although critics say he has spent too much time promoting his personal brand.

An expert in speech recognition technology, he founded Microsoft's China research lab in the late 1990s. When he left to join Google, Microsoft sued him for violating a promise not to join a competitor.

Nimbler local rival Baidu now dominates China's search market with 75.7 percent in terms of total search queries, dwarfing Google's 19.8 percent share, according to iResearch. At Google, Lee was caught between the Beijing authorities who insist that foreign web companies censor the Internet and his U.S. bosses who demanded he drum up more business in China.

He has wanted to break away from his corporate role to start his own company for a decade, but it looks as if he is stuck in the corporate mindset. Lee is adopting an almost a planned economy approach to an industry that has always relied on markets to determine who is the fittest to survive. Indeed, he is even promising to tailor-make companies for interested foreign investors.

A factory model lowers the risk for investors as they will enjoy more control, but that also means less incentive and ownership for entrepreneurs, since their roles are reduced to that of employees. Why would young people take their ideas to Lee rather than make a go of it themselves?

Unlike Silicon Valley, China does not have an ecosystem where start-up companies can easily find angel investors. Even though China is a hotspot for venture capital, with $50 billion chasing mid- to late-stage projects, less than $1 billion in total is earmarked for early-stage projects.

Lee prides himself on his doggedness in chasing after talent. One year while at Google he made offers to graduates, only one of which was initially rejected. He called the student, found out that his girlfriend thought Google was a bit of a start-up, then asked for his girlfriend's number and called her up. That year he achieved a 100 percent offer acceptance rate.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether Lee can retain his ability to attract and inspire the best young people now that he is no longer at Google. He needs a lot of them to make his dream come true.

-- At the time of publication Wei Gu did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. She may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund --

- Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own -

By most counts, the death toll of U.S. soldiers in America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stood at 5,157 in the second week of September. Add at least 1,360 private contractors working for the U.S. and the number tops 6,500.

Contractor deaths and injuries (around 30,000 so far) are rarely reported but they highlight America's steadily growing dependence on private enterprise. It's a dependence some say has slid into incurable addiction. Contractor ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan have swollen to just under a quarter million. They outnumber American troops in Afghanistan and they almost match uniformed soldiers in Iraq.

The present ratio of about one contractor for every uniformed member of the U.S. armed forces is more than double that of every other major conflict in American history, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means the world's only superpower cannot fight its war nor protect its civilian officials, diplomats and embassies without support from contractors.

"As the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have progressed, the military services, defense agencies and other stakeholder agencies...continue to increase their reliance on contractors. Contractors are now literally in the center of the battlefield in unprecedented numbers," according to a report to Congress by the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In previous wars, the military police protected bases and the battle space as other military service members engaged and pursued the enemy," said the report. In listing the 1,360-plus contractor casualties, it noted that criticism of the present system and suggestions for reforming it "in no way diminish their sacrifices."

So why are they not routinely added to military casualty counts? And why should they? A full accounting for total casualties is important because both Congress and the public tend to gauge a war's success or failure by the size of the force deployed and the number of killed and wounded, according to George Washington university scholar Steven Schooner.

In other words: the higher the casualty number, the more difficult it is for political and military leaders to convince a sceptical public that a war is worth fighting, particularly a war that promises to be long, such as the conflict in Afghanistan. Polls show that a majority of Americans already think the Afghan war is not worth fighting.

Figures on deaths and injuries among the vast ranks of civilians in war zones are tracked by the U.S. Department of Labor on the basis of claims under an insurance policy, the Defense Base Act, which all U.S. contracting companies and subcontractors must take out for the civilians they employ outside the United States.

EXPENDABLE PROFITEERS, ROGUES?

The Labor Department compiles the statistics on a quarterly basis but only releases them in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. This can take weeks. The Department gives no details of the nationalities of the contractors, saying that doing so would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under the U.S. Privacy Act.

Writing in last autumn's Parameters, the quarterly journal of the U.S. Army War College, Schooner said that an accurate tally was critical to any discussion of the costs and benefits of the military's efforts in the wars. What's more, the American public needs to know that their government is delegating to the private sector "the responsibility to stand in harm's way and, if required, die for America."

Schooner wrote it was troubling that few Americans considered the deaths of contractors relevant or significant even though many of them performed roles carried out by uniformed military only a generation ago. "Many...concede that they perceive contractor personnel as expendable profiteers, adventure seekers, cowboys, or rogue elements not entitled to the same respect or value due to the military."

That's not surprising after a series of ugly incidents involving armed security contractors. They make up for a small proportion of the total (about 8 percent) but account for almost all the headlines that have deepened negative perceptions and prompted labels from mercenary and merchant of death to "the coalition of the billing."

In the most notorious incident, two years ago, employees of the company then known as Blackwater opened fire in a crowded Baghdad square, killing 17 Iraqis. Five of the Blackwater shooters, who were working for the Department of State, have been indicted on manslaughter and weapons charges.

The Pentagon describes private contractors as a "force multiplier" because they let soldiers concentrate on military missions. Some of the actions of private security contractors could be termed a "perception multiplier." Such as the after-hours antics of contractors from the company ArmorGroup North America guarding the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

Shaking off the image of rogues became even more difficult for private security contractors after a Washington-based watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, accompanied a detailed report on misconduct and morale problems among the guard force with photographs showing nearly nude, drunken employees in a variety of obscene poses and fondling each other.

Whether contractors, even rogue elements and cowboys, should not be counted in the toll of American wars is another matter. Doing so would be part of the transparency Barack Obama promised when he ran for president.