The article argues that the Federal Reserve's recent rate hike decision, while justifiable on inflation grounds, highlights a critical lack of an underlying, transparent policy framework. The core problem is that the Fed's decisions appear discretionary, leading to market uncertainty because the committee's judgment, rather than clear data, dictates policy shifts. The author proposes that the Fed adopt a formal monetary policy rule—an algebraic formula linking the target rate to indicators like inflation and unemployment—to replace subjective guidance. Implementing such a rule would provide market predictability, enhance transparency, and shield the Fed from political attacks by making deviations from the standard easily quantifiable.
Can the UK afford to fight a war?
English Summary
The panel’s core finding is that the UK can afford warfighting only if it makes earlier, harder political choices on defence spending and reform, because current plans are too slow for the threat timeline. Speakers argued that moving from roughly 2.3% to 3.5% of GDP requires major trade-offs (higher taxes, cuts elsewhere, or more borrowing) and that past procurement failures have weakened confidence that spending converts into usable capability. They stressed that modern conflict would hit the UK homeland through cyber, disinformation, and infrastructure disruption as well as missiles and drones, while reduced US support raises the burden on Europe. Strategically, the UK should accelerate readiness, improve procurement accountability and industrial surge capacity, rebuild stockpiles, and run a more honest national debate on resilience, mobilisation, and societal preparedness.
中文摘要
該小組的核心結論是：英國唯有更早做出更艱難的國防支出與改革政治抉擇，才有能力負擔作戰需求，因為現行規劃相對於威脅時間表過於遲緩。與談者指出，將國防支出由約占 GDP 的 2.3% 提升至 3.5% 需要重大取捨（提高稅負、削減其他支出或增加舉債），而過往採購失靈也削弱了外界對「支出能轉化為可用戰力」的信心。他們強調，現代衝突不僅會透過飛彈與無人機，也會透過網路攻擊、假訊息與關鍵基礎設施干擾直接衝擊英國本土；同時，美國支持減少也提高了歐洲須承擔的負擔。就戰略而言，英國應加速戰備、強化採購問責與國防產業的快速擴產能力、重建庫存，並就韌性、動員與社會整備展開更坦誠的全國性辯論。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC serves as a critical warning that the global health security system is fundamentally unprepared for future biological threats. The difficulty in containing this outbreak is compounded by the rising risk of emerging pathogens and the growing potential for AI misuse in bioweapon development. Policy must therefore shift from reactive, crisis-driven funding to sustained, proactive investment in resilient public health infrastructure, particularly in conflict zones. Addressing this requires strengthening global surveillance, ensuring consistent international cooperation, and mitigating the intersection of conflict, climate change, and disease spread.
-
3.A Design Lab Pilot to Inform Strategies for Expanding Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Community Mental Health Centers (RAND)
Despite MOUD being the standard of care for opioid use disorder, access remains severely limited in Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs), which serve the primary population with co-occurring disorders. A Design Lab pilot identified payment limitations and regulatory complexity as the chief barriers to implementation. The most feasible and high-impact strategy identified was establishing a structured learning exchange between CMHC leaders and insurers to improve reimbursement understanding. Policymakers and payers are therefore advised to pilot this learning exchange model to initiate broader payment reform and expand evidence-based care for this vulnerable population.
-
4.
The article argues that modern conflicts are increasingly defined by attrition, driven by three strategic gaps: the difference between nominal military power and usable capacity; the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in a technologically advanced battlefield; and the detachment of military means from clear political objectives. Evidence from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrates that sustained logistics, rapid technological adaptation, and proxy networks are now more decisive than sheer military size. For policymakers, this implies a strategic shift away from seeking short, decisive victories toward preparing for prolonged, high-cost engagements, requiring a focus on sustainable supply chains and defining concrete, attainable political end-states.
-
5.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.