(CNN) – Mayfair has been the playground of London's super rich for centuries.

Berkeley Square, one of London's most exclusive addresses, has lost some of its luster.

Since the 1990s, it's also been home to the hedge fund and private equity crowd, joining the private banks dotted around Berkeley Square in Georgian townhouses or low key new buildings.If you've shopped on New or Old Bond Street or Savile Row, if you've stayed at Claridges or the Dorchester or just played Monopoly, then you know Mayfair; the ritzy area surrounded by Piccadilly, Regent Street, Oxford Street and Hyde Park.

The past decade, Mayfair's players have attempted to keep a low profile. You'd never know you were walking by the headquarters of Blackstone, Carlyle or, at No. 1 Curzon Street, AIG Financial Products where many of the losses occurred and where many of those infamous bonuses were paid.

And you certainly would not have known that the small townhouse known as No. 12 Berkeley Street was the London offices of Madoff Securities International Ltd.

Those offices are now up for rent. Someone I talked to recently said he had a good look around at place to relocate now that Mayfair has become more "affordable" but felt the place had bad karma.

He noted as well that the office had swipe card entry access to every cabinet which he thought excessive. That goes along with reports that Madoff had a camera installed in the London office so he could keep in better contact from New York.

Property group CB Richard Ellis estimates that rental prices in Mayfair have fallen between 25-30 percent since prices topped £120 ($173) per square foot in 2007, the most expensive place on earth for office space at the time. Now new rent prices have fallen behind rents in New York and Tokyo and likely Hong Kong.

Still, occupancy stands at 94 percent so it's not as if the property market has collapsed. After all, a hedge fund might be three people and a secretary in one small office. The impact would be much greater if a private equity group were to move out.

On the day I walked around Mayfair, there was a Rolls Royce and Maserati outside Gordon Ramsay's at Claridges. There were plenty of Bentleys roaming as well. No surprise really since one of the premium corner spots is filled by the Jack Barclay Bentley dealership (there is a Porsche dealer opposite).

And that seems to be the key to Mayfair; after private money flies into London and checks into Claridges or the Dorchester or the Hilton, it wants a private banker or wealth advisor within walking distance. Then it's lunch nearby at Ramsay's or Nobu and maybe a drink at Mayfair's most exclusive (and hardest to find) club, Annabelle's.

AIG, UBS and other big names all have big offices in the City of London or in the Docklands, but they want their private banking and alternative investments arms separate.

Whether its Mayfair or Greenwich, Connecticut, the super wealthy and those who cater to them like to be off on their own, tucked away from the day-to-day banking operations.

Yet, thanks to Mr. Madoff and those at AIG getting big bonuses, the spotlight is uncomfortably focused on them and the neighborhoods they like to walk around - usually without a tie.

Watch my report on how the financial crisis is hitting Mayfair.

LONDON, England - Have you seen the cover of this week's Economist with Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel having to pay the "dinner" bill to rescue Eastern Europe? If you did you would have seen the artwork of Kevin Kallaugher - or Kal as he signs his work.

An example of Kal's witty and perceptive cartoon talent.

American-born Kal has contributed more than 100 Economist covers during the past 30 years. He's also been published in my hometown paper; the Baltimore Sun. Kal was discovered during the recession of the late 1970s drawing caricatures on the streets of London and Brighton.

He has benefited from Reaganomics, Thatcherism, Bill Clinton (fish in a barrel all of them) but is now tasked with describing the "credit crunch" with pen and ink.

Some commentators speculate that the end of the Bush era might mean the end of cartoon satire to reflect today's news. Not Kal.

"Certainly it (the Bush presidency) was the golden era to a certain degree," he told me during an interview at the Political Cartoon Gallery in Central London last month.

"I mean also what we're seeing in Obama's case - although the satire may not be immediately directed at him as an individual - is that we're going through such historic changes, politically, economically, around the world, it's going to supply a lot of material."

The challenge for Kal and his contemporaries is to describe the credit crunch in one drawing. Kal hopes his craft actually helps people make sense of the global recession. "You not always just react to the news. I like to think that we're in the business of kind of clarifying the news," he said.

He is very busy these days trying to "draw" the recession and also the new president. "It's this early phase, where we as the cartoonists are helping to establish in the public's mind what these people look like, this is an interesting time for us."

Kal has drawn many a character during his career. He often has to hear their voice to capture their essence. If you want to hear his imitation of one famous voice (he says it drives his wife crazy as he talks to himself in character as he draws some people) and see his efforts to capture the character of a certain CNN employee, watch Quest Means Business on Thursday night or check out cnn.com/international on Friday.

Ever wondered why we are so worried about falling prices? And how worrying about them can become part of the problem?

Can a simple sofa lead to bigger problems?

Let me offer my own, real experience: I was going to buy a new sofa this month. I have found the one I like in the color I want

I suddenly realized: Hey, prices are falling. I can make do with my old one until the replacement becomes cheaper, or I will buy it in the January sales, when I might get a bargain.

So this month I haven't bought the sofa. The shop didn't get the sale. The factory didn't get the order.

The same may happen next month, and the month after. Certainly I want a new sofa, but I don't want to find the same chair cheaper in a month or two's time.

Of course, by this time the economy will have worsened and I may be more concerned about saving for even worse times ahead - at this rate, the dratted sofa may not get bought until next summer.

Multiply my decision by everyone else and you see how the economic crises - coupled with falling prices - is disastrous.

Now tell me, what changes in shopping or economc decisions have YOU made that, if multiplied, will have a major effect? What purchases are you putting off? What vacations are you not taking, and what home improvements have you delayed?

Let me know, so we can truly see the size and scale of this problem. Watch Jasmine Birtles of Money Magpie.com answer your questions and comments.

WASHINGTON D.C. –- It was always going to be tough meeting the expectations at the G20 on Saturday. Talk of Bretton Woods II before the meeting inevitably raised hopes that would be near impossible to fulfil.

The fact that 20 nations, representing 90 percent of the global economy were present, merely gave the cynics cause to say nothing could get done - even President Bush admitted as much in his closing statement. Everyone expected an anodyne declaration giving something to everyone; thus nothing to anyone.

But the 10-page declaration proved us all wrong. It is considered, detailed and, yes, it sets out short and medium term goals for the G20.

Let’s remember the salient points: fiscal and monetary stimulus from those nations who can; immediate reform of accounting rules to conform to a global standard; new regulations for derivative markets and better early warning of crises; reform of the IMF and World Bank adding weight for the developing world; and a college of supervisors for cross-border investment companies.

These are not just platitudes. They mean business. Why? Because from what I can see the world leaders are angry and frustrated. Despite the cynics, most leaders go into politics to do some good. They don’t want to spend billions of dollars bailing out banks which should be building hospitals, roads and making life better for the electorate. They are furious that they’re stuck with the worst financial crisis in decades and they’re going to wreak revenge on those behind it.

However, there is an overriding hypocrisy that I found too much to take.

In defining the causes the declaration says “policy makers, regulators and supervisors in some advanced countries did not adequately appreciate and address the risks.”

Policy makers? Some advanced countries?

Surely not George Bush, who has been president for eight years? Or Gordon Brown who was Britain’s finance minister for over a decade and is now prime minister? Even Nicolas Sarkozy was France’s finance minister in 2005! The list of the complicit runs much deeper once you take into account officials in finance ministries and central banks who are still in office.

This is a breathtaking case of “someone was to blame” for the crash, conveniently forgetting they were the people either at the wheel or reading the map.

All I wanted to hear was one word: just one.

Sorry.

My Question: Did the G20 actually make a difference?

Or alternatively: Have the guilty politicians got away with the biggest financial swindle of our time? Watch The Economist's Philip Coggan answer your questions