Example collocations logo

Corporations in sentence

1132 examples of Corporations in a sentence

Second, encourage spending and promote equity and efficiency by raising taxes on corporations that don’t reinvest, for example, and lowering them on those that do, or by raising taxes on speculative capital gains (say, in real estate) and on carbon- and pollution-intensive energy, while cutting taxes for lower-income payers.
The technology corporations that signed this letter understand that while they may be incorporated in the US, they are global players and have global responsibilities.
Corporations have a great deal of liquidity, and do not depend on borrowing to invest more in plant and equipment.
It is to be hoped that many more major European corporations will follow suit.
Corporations could exist only as long as free individuals willingly purchased their goods – and would go out of business quickly otherwise.
The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement.
The costs of corporatism are visible all around us: dysfunctional corporations that survive despite their gross inability to serve their customers; sclerotic economies with slow output growth, a dearth of engaging work, scant opportunities for young people; governments bankrupted by their efforts to palliate these problems; and increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of those connected enough to be on the right side of the corporatist deal.
We would do well to recall how, at the beginning of the 1990’s, book after book was still being written urging US and European corporations to imitate Japan or face certain doom.
It will be some time before we know whether large fines on corporations, paid principally by their shareholders, contribute to keeping the system honest.
A tripartite system of big, closely held corporations, big industrial unions and government mediate conflicts and block changes through barriers to entry, control over licenses and standards, sway over big banks, golden shares and, in some countries, state ownership of key enterprises.
In a recent letter to the chief executives of the S&P 500 companies and large European corporations, Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment management company, expressed concern that many global firms may be sacrificing value-creating investments by distributing dividends and buying back their own shares.
Among US nonfinancial corporations, the proportion of investable funds used for dividends and share buybacks has been trending upward, albeit with cyclical ups and downs, since the 1980s.
Over the longer term, however, the upward trend in dividends and share buybacks as a percentage of corporate investable funds is a symptom of mounting shareholder pressure on corporations to focus on short-term returns at the expense of long-term investments.
It is no surprise that even some free-trade supporters object to agreements that allow trade groups to insert language granting multinational corporations undue market power at the expense of consumer protection.
Rising inequality – owing partly to job-slashing corporate restructuring – is reducing aggregate demand further, because households, poorer individuals, and labor-income earners have a higher marginal propensity to spend than corporations, richer households, and capital-income earners.
As it stands, there are considerable disparities between the one-year fixed deposit rate (3%); the official lending rate (6-8%) reserved for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), large corporations, and mortgages; and the market lending rate (10-20%) paid by private business and local-government projects that rely on shadow banking.
In 2008-2013, total equity financing from domestic stock markets accounted for only 3% of total social financing, most of which was allocated to SOEs and large corporations.
Ordinary people – the dwindling but still vast middle class – must bear a tax increase, and millions will lose health insurance, in order to finance a tax cut for billionaires and corporations.
As investors reduce their exposure to the eurozone periphery’s sovereigns, banks, and corporations, both flow and stock imbalances will need to be financed.
Of course, much of this growth will depend on the African Union properly implementing its new Continental Free Trade Area, which would create a single market for goods and services, offering corporations many points of entry.
But the wait for war adds to uncertainties that already weigh on the American, and the global, economy:uncertainties arising from America's looming fiscal deficit, due to macroeconomic mismanagement and a tax cut that the country cannot afford;uncertainties arising from the unfinished "war on terrorism";uncertainties associated with the massive corporate accounting and banking scandals, and the Bush Administration's half-hearted efforts at reform, as a result of which no one knows what America's corporations are worth;uncertainties connected to America's massive trade deficit, which has reached all- time records.
The new Consumer Financial Protection Board is also a deterrent, as banks consider it safer to lend to the government, large corporations, and giant real-estate speculators.
Both decisions acknowledge that the current rules of the international economic game reflect the interests of the advanced industrial countries – especially of their big corporations – more than the interests of the developing world.
Only 199,000 voters, some of them representatives from corporations, elect the legislators who fill these seats.
A worthwhile effort could have been blocked, or President Barack Obama’s Democratic administration could have been compelled to be more generous to American corporations, in order to pick up needed votes from Republicans.
The agreement gives pharmaceutical firms, tobacco companies, and other corporations substantially less than they had asked for – so much so that US Senator Orrin Hatch and some other Republicans now threaten to oppose ratification.
The left’s concerns about labor and the environment were accompanied by fears about excessive benefits for corporations: protection of the intellectual property of pharmaceutical and other companies, and the mechanisms used to settle disputes between investors and states.
Perhaps the greatest uncertainty concerned the extent to which big US corporations would get what they wanted in the areas of investor-government dispute settlement and intellectual property protection.
There was, of course, a danger that such protections for corporations could go too far.
The best future will be one in which governments and multinational corporations do not control all of the information.
BackNext