Finance ministers from the G-20 group of countries have been meeting in southern England, ahead of the major summit in London next month. The intention was to set an agenda and the broad outlines of coordinated policy action, so that the important April conference can result in substantial advances to tackle the global crisis.

Inevitably, there have been differences of opinion, notably between the Americans and the Europeans. The Americans want a bigger commitment on hefty spending programmes, while the continental Europeans are keener on emphasising the toughening up of regulations. They are already gunning after offshore financial centres that are accused of depriving onshore treasuries of much-needed tax revenues.

Sadly, it hasn't sunk into the bureaucrats' thick heads that extortionate and unfair tax regimes will continue to serve as inducements to bypass the impositions. As long as the incentive is present, people will find innovative ways to get around the regulations.

As for the regulation of financial markets, banks and hedge funds, everybody expects to see an increase in rules and restrictions. However, the British and the Americans will continue to argue for a relatively soft approach. Naturally, they will be championing the interests of the City and Wall Street.

The US is pushing hard for a substantial increase in funds that the International Monetary Fund may have at its disposal to help emerging economies which have been hit by a plunge in global demand for exports and a severing of credit lines. This is an entirely sensible idea because many of the smaller or poorer countries are hurting badly.

In an integrated and interconnected global economy the impact of the crisis has been felt in every corner of the world. Small countries, such as in Africa, that played by the competitive rules of the game and opened up their economies in recent years are now being walloped by the effects of policy mistakes and excesses elsewhere.

We are also witnessing a degree of redistribution of global economic and political power. The G-20 is a much more diversified group of countries than the G-7 and will become the prime forum for policy discussions that affect the global economy. And the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are rightfully pressing for a more powerful role in international institutions such as the IMF.

The stimulus packages in the eurozone have been less impressive than the ones brought out in the US, UK and China. Frankly, Europeans should do more, given the severity of the downturn they face. Though, it has to be admitted in their defence, that they have more powerful automatic stabilisers than the free-market Anglo-Saxon economies. Fortunately, in a severe economic contraction, rigid economic structures offer better protection from the downturn than flexible ones.

What the Europeans are worried about are the longer-run distorting effects of massive government spending and budget deficits. In American eyes, reducing the severity of the recession has priority over the issue of distortions, which they hope to address at a later date.

Major government spending programmes are obviously necessary, but an even more important issue is to sort out the banking problems. Instilling confidence in the banking system and getting credit flowing freely is crucial to the recovery. Unfortunately, the US Treasury Secretary has, thus far, failed to come up with a timely and comprehensive plan to tackle the problem. It has pretty much been a tardy, piecemeal approach. He gives the impression of somebody who doesn't know how to tie his shoe laces.

What comes across clearly is that the Obama administration wants to avoid nationalising any banks. They think that banks are facing a liquidity, and not a solvency, problem. The implication is that asset values have deteriorated because of poor market conditions and will be properly valued once confidence returns and markets are functioning adequately again. In the meantime, the government continues to recapitalise the banks.

They would apply the same argument to the housing situation. Instead of accepting that there has been a housing bubble and house prices may need to correct further, they would tend to see the fall in house prices as a consequence of poor market conditions and asset mispricing.

One should recognise the inflationary implications of this viewpoint. Because to boost such asset prices substantially, it may be necessary for other prices in the economy to also rise. Of course, another benefit of inflation for debtors is that it reduces their debt burden.

Information and analysis are crucial factors in the financial markets. Those who consider CNBC as a serious source should watch the hilarious and accurate sketch by Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. The video clip is widely available on the web: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice. Unfortunately, the rest of the general news media in the US aren't any better, offering substantial dollops of propaganda, larded with entertainment.

Iraj Pouyandeh is a strategist and senior portfolio manager at LOM Asset Management. He manages the LOM Global Equity Fund. The views expressed in this column are his own. For more information on LOM Asset Management please visit www.lomam.com