At the G20 meeting this week in Pittsburgh, world leaders will take up financial regulation that might stave off future meltdowns, such as the crisis that hit when some of the world's largest banks found they couldn't back up their risky bets.

The world's finance ministers and central bankers have agreed to impose limits on bonuses and increase capital requirements on the banks, the Wall Street Journal reports, making sure they have the assets to cover their debts. It sounds like a good idea.

But wait a minute, why the G20? The most undemocratic forum in the world economy?

It's not like citizens of Pittsburgh are going to be invited to any of these meetings. In fact, so convoluted are the rules thrust upon us ordinary citizens by the G20 and the World Trade Organization that these entities are taking up financial regulation precisely because these regulations, if imposed by an individual member country, could be struck down as an unfair barrier to trade under WTO rules.

Look what happened last April, when the G20 met in London. In the middle of the financial crisis, G20 leaders reached an agreement to re-regulate the financial industry . . . and, simultaneously, agreed to continue the deregulation practices that had precipitated the crisis in the first place. It was, as Public Citizen's blog on Globalization and Trade put it at the time, a "bizarre contradiction."

By pledging “to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade," the G20 leaders committed themselves "to eliminate non-trade measures that many have employed to stop certain risky financial activities and stimulate economic activity,” Public Citizen's Lori Wallach explained. “What is supposed to be an anti-protectionism pledge is so broadly cast that it snares policies totally unrelated to trade, such as tough new financial service regulations that will incidentally limit trade and investment in risky financial services.”

Now the group is trying again. As it strives to build consensus among the financial interests of its member countries, look for more watered-down pledges and hostility to regulation on investments and trade.

Here's another one for the "bizarre contradictions" file as business and government leaders grapple with the financial crisis: Mary Bottari over at PR Watch points out in her blog that the FDIC has leaked the news that it is seriously considering asking banks to lend it the money it needs to . . . shore up banks. Because the FDIC has been running out of money to cover all those bad loans the financial industry made in its mad subprime lending spree, the agency has floated the notion of borrowing from "healthy banks" to bail out the government.

"Generally federal agencies are wary of using funding mechanisms that might give the appearance that they have been 'captured' by the very institutions they are charged with regulating. But apparently FDIC chair Sheila Bair would rather pursue this cockeyed strategy than ask sparring partner -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -- for a government check," Bottari writes. "Not surprisingly, banks welcomed this development with open arms. The Independent Community Bankers of America's Karen Thomas claimed, 'Borrowing from healthy banks instead of the Treasury has the advantage of keeping this in the family. It is much better for perceptions than having the fund borrow from someone else.' If the banksters really think we are all one great big family, perhaps they'll start giving consumers a break on 27% credit card interest rates."

While the banks and the government are busy working out the fine print of these circular deals, Jobs With Justice is raising the alarm. During the Financial Services Roundtable meeting in Washington, DC, September 24, the group is holding a rally to "Stop the Bailout Bandits."

The Financial Services Roundtable is a group of 90 companies in the finance and insurance industry. Members received some $214 billion in taxpayer bailout money and, Jobs With Justice points out, spent $43.9 million on lobbying between 2000 and 2008. Roundtable members oppose regulation, consumer protection, and the Employee Free Choice Act. One year after the massive bank bailout, Jobs With Justice is calling on proponents of regulation and reform to converge on Washington during this week's Roundtable meeting at the Mandarin Hotel.

Protesters will also converge on the G20 meeting later this week. Howard Zinn is among those calling on ordinary citizens to attend the People's Summit to take place during the G-20 meetings to demand sane and just policies--"what working people need . . . what homeowners need . . . what consumers need," instead of the bizarre contradictions and self-dealing the banks feel they need.