Today the economic reco ery changes the debate

The wrong watchdog barks behind the cat and let the thie es in the House. The rench and Rantanplan politicians denounce them traders bonus while banks resume to the real economy. The bene its o inancial institutions accounted or 10 o the total pro its o rench companies in 1980, this share rose to 41 in 2007 while the inancial sector represents only 5 o salaried employment and 16 o the alue added. The bonus is only the epiphenomenon o this enlargement. And the real problem that deser es attention is that the banking pro ession out o the crisis in a position o orce: bailed out by the taxpayer, ha ing all the guarantees o the States, ull to the ACEs with money loaned to rate zero by central banks, and less competiti e.

Rantanplan, who belie ed Marshall Europeans last weekend in London, can prepare to be disappointed at the G20 in Pittsburgh, the bonus will be not restricted. And academe populist barking, so much the better. Con ine that wins a pri ate pro ession, the gear would be Cuban. So ar, comments should mo e towards the serious subjects o the inancial regulation as ad ances take body.

The e idence is that JPMorgan has published this week, a study which indicates that the new regulation under discussion will cut the pro its o banks by 30. The authorities are on the right path, e en i the goal is still to double distance or better, triple. The real economy ha e smaller and healthier banks.

The past decade, the exuberance came rom what the inancial world had need less in capital through le erage sophisticated e ects and that it in ested in less and less liquid operations, under the illusion that they were because o new accounting policies "in the market price". In capitalism, more surgery is risky, more it is paid. That is why Bank pro its were singed and why the ticking o the inal explosion is triggered. Then, the bankruptcy o Lehman Brothers has shown that, e en though e en the indi idual risks had been limited, the new inance has created a systemic risk.

A year ago, the g-20 took conscience need to put order in the Bazaar and impose strong rules. Today, the economic reco ery changes the debate. Banks, those responsible or the crisis, are the irst to ind their large pro its and it is impossible to expect that they anything other than to what is the nature. It is su icient there ore not corser regulations, impose a micro and macro, caution should go urther and bring inance to its right ul place.

The truth about the children is always mothers, in the case o the City: lord Turner, Chairman o the British regulatory authority, it was known as denouncing the social uselessness o many banking and hypertrophy o the sector. His remarks ha e earned him a lock o criticism because he is proposing a Tobin tax, but on the merits no one challenged, " inancial times", nor e en Goldman Sachs which trumped the CEO Lloyd Blank ein.

Impose e en more stringent prudential standards, requiring to "stress tests", understanding the banks that they are atal asking them "wills" to cut out according to the dots, the list is long enough to tackle the sources o e il and increase the cost o risk.

Little by little, too slowly, ideas ha e increased, but because now that it's really limit the inance, the discussions become political, each country de ends its banks and wants to limit others. The Europeans want the Basel standards, Americans want to adhere to an o erall increase o own unds, measure that suits them. This is the true debate o Pittsburgh; He is urious. Nothing says that national interests will yield the step to ind a compromise o common interest. But i success ul, the banks will be smaller, at the same time bonus and Rantanplan may belie e that he has caught the cat.