TOKYO, Japan – The scene is uniquely Japan: Techno-freaks dressed up like cartoon characters, young women dressed like maids and superheroes, and even a dancing storm trooper.

Me interviewing our stormtrooper.

They’d gathered early this Friday morning for the latest tech event: The release of the new Apple iPhone 3G in Japan.

Some 1,500 people camped out overnight through a hot and humid Tokyo summer, but that’s hardly a sacrifice, to finally get their hands on the iPhone.

But here’s what’s unique about this latest tech gathering: The device is American. Made in Japan? Where did that familiar stamp on the back of your electronics go?

While these techies lost one night of sleep camping out for the device that promises portable device nirvana, Tokyo’s corporate executives have been losing sleep for months wondering why they didn’t invent it first.

In a recent lunch with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a good source moaned to me about the state of Japan’s electronics market and how it was falling behind.

Why? Items like the iPhone represent, in many ways to the Japanese boardroom, the symbol of the new era of doing business.

Apple and Google are taking not small steps, but leaps and bounds in innovative technology. Japan, once the unchallenged ruler of the world’s consumer electronics market, now watches as the Western world schools the East. Remember Sony’s Walkman? Neither does anyone who wants an iPhone.

The debate is raging in Japan’s government halls and in its corporate pikes. Bloggers are suggesting a coup of Tokyo’s grey haired boardrooms so Japan can break from its rigid business rules. Others suggest that slow and steady, like Toyota’s model of “kaizen,” incremental improvements, wins the game.

There are no such debates on the streets outside of the virgin sales of the new iPhone in Tokyo.These weirdly dressed consumers are merely punching the air with joy, pronouncing a new digital era has finally arrived in their hands. The excitement here is being repeated all over the globe and celebrated in an American company. It’s a party Japanese companies know all about. They’re just not leading this one.

HONG KONG — For Yin Ho, fame was instantaneous.

The first in line, Ho was mobbed Friday by the hordes of press covering the launch of the iPhone 3G here in Hong Kong. And he was enjoying the glory, posing with an enormous grin for the camera, first with a sample phone, then with his own precious handset.

Hong Kong did not have the queues of Japan or the United States. Carrier Hutchison Telecom had an online lottery to pick the first 500 customers to receive the iPhone. More than 60,000 applied. New iPhones were also given to select friends and loyal customers of the company.  

Officially, the new iPhone 3G is the first to be released in Hong Kong. In reality, the original iPhone is everywhere, brought over from the United States or Western Europe and unlocked to run on networks other than Apple’s approved service providers. Many of the customers in line for the new phone on Friday proudly showed me their original models. The taxi driver who took us to the launch this morning even had one on his dash.

Critics might complain about the new iPhone’s price plans, battery life or features that don’t measure up against existing phones on the market in Asia. For the die-hard iPhone fans online this morning in Hong Kong, none of that mattered. They wanted the new phone, for status, for the new features, for its style. And they wanted to tell all their friends they had it first.

NEW YORK – For most of his career, Jamie Dimon was known as the whiz kid who, alongside Sandy Weill, built Citigroup into a global powerhouse.

More recently, as CEO of JP Morgan Chase, he became the buyer of last resort of Bear Stearns. The man who, at least temporarily, helped halt the global financial meltdown.

Tuesday he stepped out even further, offering some very frank criticism of the lack of long-term leadership in the U.S.

In a rare public speech, Dimon said: “We knew 40 years ago we had an oil problem and we did nothing. We need long-term policy that transcends two-year Congresses.”

He said it is time for Americans to be “mature.” “You can’t run a trade deficit for eight years and not expect a weak dollar. You can’t have no energy policy and then talk about energy volatility.”

Dimon dismissed the excuse. “It is not politically feasible.” He argued tough decisions need to be made to improve the medical and pension systems, education and energy.

A frequent contributor to Democrats, his frustration with the political process may not be a big surprise.

But Dimon was equally blunt when discussing the problems facing the financial sector. He said that while the market was working through some of the credit problems, it was possible things could get “far worse” and if the economy turns down it will hurt the commercial banks.

Consider that official notice of where to look for the next shoe to drop. Dimon said it was his job to make sure JP Morgan Chase was in a position to ride out the storm. He also warned that “financial institutions are not too big to fail.”

He ended by saying the future of America is very, very bright and that he was optimistic, but investors had to walk away feeling skittish. Jamie Dimon seems worried about the economic outlook.

This got me thinking. When everyone is bearish and things feel awful … isn’t that exactly the time to think about buying? Some technicians say yes.

One study of 10 bear markets where the S&P 500 plunged 20 percent from its high showed that stocks went on to gain an average of 9.6 percent six months out and 19.3 percent 12 months out.

There were exceptions, including the bear markets of 1973 and 2001, but it is worth thinking about.

I know what our resident bear Todd Benjamin will say to that, but what about you? Could this be a good buying opportunity or do you think the global economy and stocks are headed for more trouble?

LONDON, England – The G-8 summit is meeting once again, and it’s once again a reminder of how absurd the gathering is in the new world order.

We in the media slavishly follow and report on it, despite the fact that usually little if anything of substance is accomplished. It’s time to have a rethink of its relevance or how it could make itself relevant.

For starters, let’s acknowledge that the G-8 accounts for almost half the world’s economic output, but it is developing countries and emerging economies that account for 70 percent of the economic growth. China isn’t a a member of the G-8, but given its importance in the world economy it certainly should be, so should India and Brazil.

The G-8 will discuss climate change, and China is the world’s biggest emitter of carbon. It’s been invited to an outreach group at the summit to discuss climate change, but it should be at the center of the table.

High oil prices will also be high on the agenda. The United States, Canada, Russia, and Britain (all members of the G-8 produce 29 percent of the world’s oil. But the G-8 plus China consume two thirds of the world’s oil output.

Of course, the G-8 will express its concern, and possibly blame speculators for part of the reason for high prices. They’ll also undoubtedly ask OPEC to pump more oil. How convienent to look outside their own borders for solutions. Instead, they should be strongly urging conservation in their own countries and giving business massive incentives to come up with cleaner fuel supplies and cars.

Also, if you were going to have a serious discussion about oil prices, wouldn’t it make sense to have Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer at the center of the table.

They’ll also acknowledge the need to do something about high food prices. But here are the facts thanks to economist Carl Weinberg of High Frequency Economics. The G-8 countries produce 41 percent of the world’s wheat, 58 percent if you add in China,and consume the most of it.

The G-8 produces 48 percent of the world’s corn, or 68 percent if China is included. As Weinberg points out, “You would think that the assembled majority of world suppliers and buyers of foodstuffs could cook up an answer to falling global grain inventories, which are already at the lowest levels seen in the 60 years that the USDA has produced estimates.

“You might think that the right places to start addressing global food shortages would be in the United States and Euroland - the world’s biggest producers of corn and wheat respectively - where farmers are offered subsidies not to plant crops. However, the U.S. and Euroland hold on to their agricultural support programs tenaciously. The Heads are unlikely even to consider tinkering with these entrenched systems,” Weinberg concludes. I couldn’t agree more.

So the G-8 will address the major issues affecting the global economy, but if it wanted to really be relevant it would take bold measures instead of making vacuous statements. But that would take political courage, something in short supply.

It would also expand membership in the club. The outcome might not be any different, but it would at least be more reflective of the new world order, and that alone might give the summit gathering more relevance.

Tell me what you think, should the G-8 be expanded, does it have any relevance, or do you agree with me that these summits are pretty much a waste of time, and that if they are going to become more relevant, they need to reflect the new world economic order?

Anyone who has listened to me doing commentary on CNN or read these blogs knows I am bearish, and have been for a long time. It’s been the right call, and I have no reason to feel any optimism now.

Stock markets which rallied sharply following the rescue of Bear Stearns in March, have stumbled badly again.

The belief that the worst of the credit crunch was over has been proven wrong. Banks continue to reel from their ill judged decisions, with predictions that the write downs from the sub-prime crisis could total $1.2 trillion, or about three times the current amount.

Oil prices as I write are now over $140 a barrel, and could rise as high as $170 a barrel in the coming months, according to Chakib Khelil, president of OPEC.

Add in high food prices and inflation has become a primary worry for investors.

The rise of inflation is a global phenomenon. Close to thrre billion consumers are now living with double digit rates of inflation, according to economist Joachim Fels of Morgan Stanley.

Fifty countries now have inflation running at more than 10 percent, accounting for 42 percent of the world’s population and including six of the world’s most populous countries.

How far central banks will go in terms of fighting inflation is unclear, but it’s a big worry for investors.

Rising inflation comes at time when worries over growth now have some talking about the possibility of stagflation in major countries like the United States. Hopes of a second half rebound in the U.S. have now faded.

It’s the worst of possible worlds for investors, and anyone who thinks the worst is over, better think again.

Tell me what you think.

NEW YORK – He has been inching out of the picture for years, but Friday Bill Gates officially left the company he founded and handed over the reigns to his university friend and current CEO, Steve Ballmer.It is an important day for the Microsoft community and potentially for anyone who owns Microsoft stock. As long as Gates was still involved there was hope that Microsoft could somehow regain some of its former magic and rapid growth. That now appears very unlikely.

Almost every tech watcher and analyst I have talked with say Microsoft can not catch the new technology powerhouse — Google. It is not just because Google is raking in the money. Analysts say the search giant’s greatest advantage is its ability to attract the best and brightest young tech minds out there.

The next Bill Gates if you will. That type of genius is rare and not something that can be purchased. Right now, the next generation of young pioneers is flocking to Google (or as we may soon discover trying to launch their own companies from the garage). They are not submitting applications to Microsoft.

That is not to say that Microsoft is going to just die on the vine. The company has a huge amount of capital and talented employees. Analysts say if Microsoft forgets about trying to buy their way into search or digital music and just concentrates on what it does best — building operating systems — it can prosper. But few think they will be a disruptive force again. As technology companies mature they tend to lose their innovative edge and become more like utilities. Important and lucrative utilities, but utilities nonetheless.

As one tech watcher said to me, “no one is asking if IBM is going to catch Google.” Soon we may not be using Microsoft in that sentence either.

LONDON, England – Never have so many come for so little. For many, the outcome of the Saudi oil gathering at Jeddah is a huge disappointment.The Saudis announced they would raise daily production by 200,000 barrels a day to 9.7 million barrels.

But let’s put this in perspective. It’s doesn’t even make up for the 300,000 barrels of lost production suffered by Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron in the past week due to militant attacks in Nigeria.

The Jeddah gathering had a huge build-up and came at a time when governments and consumers are feeling the double burden of record high oil prices and food prices. Some had hoped that Saudis would increase production by as much as 500,000 barrels a day.
The Saudis said they would expand production capacity, but that’s in the future, not now.

The world is crying out for more oil. World oil demand is expected to rise by 800,000 barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency.

So where does this leave all of us? With high oil prices continuing. As I’ve written prveviously, don’t blame the speculators. What’s going on in the oil market right now isn’t a short-term problem but a structural shift, based on increased demand, and not enough production.

At close to $140 a barrel oil is trading at five times the average six years ago.

And there are predictions that it could even higher, possibly to $200 a barrels in less than two years.
Given the outcome of the Jeddah gathering, there’s no reason to think those assumptions aren’t corrrect.

The Saudis along with others attending the summit had to look like they are concerned. They touched on several issues surrounding the oil market, but with the exception of the Saudi production announcement, there’s no real outcome.

Given how little the summit produced, it probably would have been better for everyone to stay home, at least that would have saved some jet fuel.

Tell me what you think.

LONDON, England – Anytime you read an article or get an explanation about why oil prices are rising, soaring demand from China is always on the list.Now the Chinese government is taking some of the subsidy consumers enjoy by raising retail prices on gasoline and diesel by at least 17 percent. It’s the first rise in Chinese fuel prices in eight months. Oil prices fell nearly $5 a barrel on the news to just under $132 a barrel.

The market’s reaction underscores the idea that it isn’t speculators driving the price higher, but issues about fundamental demand. And the market thinks that the higher prices the Chinese will have to pay at the pump will lead to less demand.

But not everyone is buying the argument. Why? First of all, even though its a big hike, it may not be enough to discourage people from driving. Secondly, refiners who have to pay world prices for oil have been operating at losses because they haven’t been able to pass on the true cost. Refiners have cut production. Now, that prices are higher production could actually rise, helping to meet demand where they have been shortages and rationing.

Even with the price announcement, what the Chinese pay for their petrol is still way below market prices. One estimate said that China would have to raise fuel prices by 60 percent to come into line with international levels.

Of course, China isn’t the only country to subsidise fuel. Other nations, in Asia, the Middle East and parts of Latin America all help foot the fuel bill. These countries make up half the world’s population and their increased oil needs is what is pushing up prices. In places like the United States, Japan, and Europe, demand is is either flat or contracting.

If all those developing countries did away with subsidies, then that would probably would lead to less demand. But polticians know that would also likely lead to widespread social unrest, which has happened in some parts of the world. It would also mean less growth and higher inflation.

So even though the Chinese have raised prices, they are still way below market prices — and until that changes, and changes elsewhere, expect oil prices to remain high.

Tell me what you think — should the Chinese have raised prices more? Should governments do away with subsidies altogether? Looking foward to hearing your thoughts.