In the middle primary for the Republican nomination, the debate is, of course, also on a new reform of the U.S. banking sector while the Dodd-Frank , who had allegedly intended to kneel U.S. banks, as desired by the President Obama, is insufficient.
This is Jon Huntsman ( following cons ), a stranger on this side of the Atlantic, which launched a new salvo against U.S. banks “too big to fail” as Bank of America or Goldman Sachs . Former U.S. ambassador to China, Republican, who collaborated with the Obama administration, is running for the Republican nomination. Having received the official support of the very serious Wall Street Journal for his tax reform proposal, the candidate revealed there is little a radical banking reform that aims to remove banks’ too big to fail “.
This would result in a dismantling of major U.S. banks to prevent systemic risk, as has occurred with the case of Citigroup or Lehman Brothers a few years ago.
- - to set a hard cap on the size of banks by the amount represented by the assets in their possession as a percentage of GDP
- - Establish a similar cap on borrowing from banks, always by GDP
- - To impose a tax on banks whose size exceeds a certain percentage of GDP to cover the potential cost of a government bailout
- - To strengthen capital requirements, well beyond the requirements of Basel III
The interest of the thought of Jon Huntsman is to assess the cost that each bank to bring the economy in terms of what all of its assets are in terms of GDP. The advantage of this approach is not in itself prevent further bailouts but to directly support the banks, in anticipation, the potential cost .
It’s an approach that, in absolute terms, may also have an interest in Europe and France, in the case of some banks, although the debate on reforming the banking sector in Europe is at a standstill.




