And, this doesn’t begin to capture the full human toll— including the impact on workers who have lost confidence in the future and the poorer health outcomes that occur because of increased stress. For too many individuals in the United States, for instance, the American dream has been put at risk, with parents increasingly pessimistic about whether their children will have the opportunity to do better than they did. We should find better ways to help communities that are struggling because of the effects of free trade. In the United States, we have historically experienced a high degree of geographic labor mobility—much higher than in other advanced economies. The ability to move in search of better opportunities, when possible, has helped to mitigate some of the adverse effects of trade. But, mobility has declined in the United States in recent years, implying that the adjustment costs to trade may have increased. Protectionism Is Not the Answer Given these costs of global integration and more liberalized trade, what is the best path forward? Protectionism can have a siren-like appeal. Viewed narrowly, it may be potentially rewarding to particular segments of the economy in the short term. Viewed more broadly, it would almost certainly be destructive to the economy overall in the long term. Countries need to compete better, not compete less. Trade barriers are a very expensive way to preserve jobs in less competitive or declining industries. They blunt opportunities in export industries and they reduce the affordability of goods and services to households.
Let’s not think of how we can reform, but how we can design. Let’s create a system that can better withstand the unforeseeable and the unpredictable. Conclusion These are difficult, complicated issues. But complexity doesn’t need to get in the way of getting back to principles or impede necessary action. Look no further to what we just accomplished with LIBOR. On January 1st, we are taking a giant leap in moving to a post-LIBOR world. That’s a monumental feat for financial market reform—and it was made possible by a significant, prolonged, and coordinated effort by the private and official sectors across the globe. With Treasury market reform, we must take the same approach of bringing together the best ideas from the public and private sectors. Three episodes of market dysfunction over the past decade are too many. Let’s work together to build a system that is truly resilient and can withstand the challenges of our time—and of the future. Thank you. 1 Recent Disruptions and Potential Reforms in the U.S. Treasury Market: A Staff Progress Report, Inter-Agency  Working Group for Treasury Market Surveillance, November 8, 2021. 2 For a history of the Desk statement on repo operations during that period, see Repo and Reverse Repo  Operations: Statements and Operating Policies. Details on the parameters of the repo operations during this 3/4  BIS central bankers' speeches  period can be found at Historical Repurchase Agreement Operational Details.