Daily Archives: 4 June 2026

“Bound to Add Upward Pressure”

Posted on by
1

An American Enterprise Institute letter-writer wrote in Monday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal about his concerns regarding David Malpass’ view that the Federal Reserve needs to seriously set about reducing its balance sheet.

With the budget deficit projected at about $2 trillion a year and with foreign investors seeming to be losing their appetite for US Treasury bonds, any attempt by the Fed to reduce its balance sheet size today is bound to add upward pressure to long-term interest rates.

This, despite his stated position in his immediately prior paragraph that

David Malpass is certainly correct to argue that Fed balance sheet reduction is a worthy monetary policy objective[.]

If not now, though, then when? There’ll always be an excuse for today to put off the shrinkage until later, but there’ll always be some Next Big Thing coming up later that wants more delay. The letter-writer headlined his missive with the position that the Fed needs to take a long view in its determination of when to shrink its sheets.

It’s just barely possible, though, that the new Director has just that perspective. The longer the balance sheet reduction is delayed, the more expensive and disruptive to our economy that reduction will be when it is put into action. It’s the suboptimal short-term view to wait until later to begin for today’s convenience.

No, either way, short-term upward pressure will be added to interest rates. Better to grunt through that disruption now, before it gets really expensive.

Tradeoffs

Posted on by
Reply

We, as a nation, have three questions that we must answer in order to proceed optimally into the future, according to Matthew Slaughter, of Dartmouth‘s Tuck School of Business, and David Wessel, of Brookings‘ Hutchins Center on Fiscal & Monetary Policy. They’re largely correct, but they miss one Critical Item without which our path into a prosperous and growing future would be severely constrained, if not blocked altogether.

In their question regarding “walls or bridges,” the two argue against walls—tariffs—and for trade globalization as the path to prosperity via competition and its heavily encouraged innovation rates that such free trade creates.

[R]esearch has long shown that globally engaged companies tend to create the good jobs at good wages for which so many Americans are yearning. In 2023, the US parent companies of US-based multinational companies paid their 29.9 million workers in America an average total compensation of $97,078—about 20% above the average in the rest of the private sector.

They didn’t address, though, the downside of their largely unfettered free trade regime. That downside was amply illustrated by the recent Wuhan Virus situation, during which our dependence on the People’s Republic of China’s medicines—and not just for Virus medical supplies, but also for over the counter pain killers and anti-inflammatories, even a variety of flu medicines—was exposed, along with the world’s dependence on the PRC even for simple things like face masks.

The downside was graphically demonstrated much more recently by the PRC’s control over rare earths, from ore through processed rare earths to finished products, and its use of that control to throttle their export and thereby threaten our economy and that of Japan’s.

The Critical Item is this tradeoff. Carry out free trade globalization; it is valuable, but do it within this framework. There are a few items that are critical to our national security and to our economy (there is a lot of overlap between them): those rare earths, the raw materials for medicines. For these, we need to have our own supply paths, wholly contained within our borders, that stretch from dirt in the ground through final product deliverable to the domestic end user. These nationally-contained supply lines need not be the only sources for these materials; it’d be sufficient for them to be in place, actively used, and able to be rapidly expanded during periods when overseas sources become constrained.

That tradeoff will be expensive, but that cost is simply—and necessarily—a cost of maintaining our national security, our ability to defend ourselves, whether militarily or economically. The cost of being unable to will be far greater, and not only fiscally.