Example collocations logo

Individuals in sentence

2416 examples of Individuals in a sentence

We know that individuals and institutions make mistakes.
While these developments should no doubt be celebrated, governments, companies, and individuals around the world are tackling the biggest problem that comes with increased life expectancy: growing costs.
On the international-relations front, after 2010, as deposits from Europe left Cypriot banks, deposits from Russian businesses and individuals increased – and Russia has many reasons to use money as a way of buying political control.
Addressing this mismatch in supply and demand will require governments, business leaders, educational institutions, and individuals to overcome incentives to focus on the short term and begin to plan for a future in which change is the only constant.
While these issues strike at the core of a country’s values – of what we mean by democracy and limits on government intrusion into individuals’ lives – they are also economic issues.
There are some absolutely first-rate individuals who could step into the job, people who have shown their command of economic development, their intellect and personal integrity, and their political and managerial skills.
The challenge for governments is to devise ways to encourage firms or individuals to engage in more such innovation to bolster economic growth.
Its two major banks had attracted huge deposits from abroad, largely from Russia, and presumably mostly from individuals who wished to escape scrutiny at home or elsewhere.
That is because contraception is mostly inexpensive and can help both individuals and society.
Whenever small groups of individuals acquire that much power relative to the state and the rest of us, there is big trouble ahead.
Under China’s planned economy, most contracts were between individuals and the state, whereas more sophisticated market contracts have emerged or re-emerged only over the last 30 years.
Market contracts between producers and consumers – and/or among producers in supply chains – link individuals, families, firms, governments, and public organizations through local or global markets.
They include the authority to impose taxes and restraints on individuals and private entities through criminal, administrative, and civil law, as well as the state’s obligation to provide public goods and services.
There was a time when privatization – allowing individuals to set up individual savings accounts – seemed better than Social Security, which invests in lower-yielding Treasury bills.
America’s Social Security system insulates individuals against the vagaries of the market and inflation, providing a form of insurance that the private market does not offer.
Privatization advocates insist, however, that investments in stocks would yield sufficiently higher returns to provide individuals the same retirement income as before, with the surplus used to fill the gap.
With higher risk, there is a chance that, 40 years from now, many individuals will find themselves with less than they need to retire.
Some scenarios, including an “electronic Pearl Harbor,” sound alarmist, but they illustrate the diffusion of power from central governments to individuals.
Moreover, the information revolution enables individuals to perpetrate sabotage with unprecendented speed and scope.
In addition to buying coins minted by several governments, individuals are buying kilogram gold bars, exchange-traded funds that represent claims on physical gold, gold futures, and shares in gold-mining companies that provide a leveraged position on the future price of gold.
And gold buyers include not just individuals, but also sophisticated institutions and sovereign wealth funds.
Arrow’s theorem shows that even very mild conditions of reasonableness in arriving at social decisions on the basis of simple preference rankings of a society’s individuals could not be simultaneously satisfied by any procedure.
Scrutiny of the formal reasoning that establishes the theorem shows that relying only on the preference rankings of individuals makes it difficult to distinguish between very dissimilar social choice problems.
It is essential, particularly for making judgments about social welfare, to compare different individuals’ gains and losses and to take note of their relative affluence, which cannot be immediately deduced only from people’s rankings of social alternatives.
How, moreover, can we accommodate individuals’ rights and liberties while giving appropriate recognition to their overall preferences?
On average, individuals would be prepared to pay around $30 to reduce their annual risk of dying prematurely by one in 100,000.
But such figures, though large, pale in comparison with the $305 trillion worth of financial assets held by commercial banks, institutional investors, and other private financial institutions and individuals.
But, in the twentieth century, with greater security of conditions and continuous economic growth, it became normal for individuals, companies, and governments to borrow in anticipation of earnings – to spend money they did not have, but that they expected to have.
In their exhaustive historical review of financial crises, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff write: “Again and again, countries, banks, individuals, and firms take on excessive debt in good times without enough awareness of the risks that will follow when the inevitable recession hits.”
But, regardless of how bad Europe’s political and financial leaders may seem, a sudden rise in the number of incompetent or immoral individuals throughout the eurozone’s periphery is not a credible explanation of this crisis.
BackNext