Example collocations logo

Losers in sentence

496 examples of Losers in a sentence

Indeed, the only losers would be Europe’s outsized army of tax lawyers and accountants.
There will be winners and losers, but trade liberalization enlarges the size of the economic pie at home.
There may be some losers as well as winners, but the American public as a whole will be better off.
Any system creates winners and losers.
Market competition in China created both winners and losers, with the winners in the southeast taking entrepreneurs, talent, and other resources from the losers in the northeast.
Managing the transformation of China’s regional economies while preserving social stability will demand a careful balance between the old growth strategy exemplified by the losers, which relied heavily on state-owned enterprises and public investment, and the new, more human-capital-oriented approach being developed by the winners.
In his recent book Average is Over, the economist Tyler Cowen makes the deliberately provocative argument that while new technology will produce extreme inequality, the relative losers, satiated by computer games and Internet entertainment, and provided with the basics of a minimally acceptable life, will be too docile to revolt.
They say that the experts failed to foresee the financial crisis of 2008, put efficiency first in their policy advice, and blindly assumed that the losers from their policy prescriptions could be compensated in some unspecified way.
Trade wars are for losers.
Mankiw’s standard description of outsourcing is very much like mine – indeed, like that of all neoclassical and neoliberal economists – and goes something like this:As with any change in technology that increases the volume of international trade in goods and services, the outsourcing of service-sector jobs creates winners and losers – but almost surely more and bigger winners than losers.
The major losers are those who previously held the now-outsourced service-sector jobs; they must now find new and different jobs and almost surely find that their skills are worth less.
But even in the US, losers’ losses are outweighed by winners’ gains.
On the contrary, it predicts that globalization will generate winners and losers, and decades of experience have borne that out.
This means designing coherent policy packages that internalize the distributional effects of supply-enhancing policies, and that aim to create a better balance of winners and losers across those policies.
But economic theory also tells us that there will inevitably be losers as well as winners, so that liberalization and globalization will be good for everyone only if the winners compensate the losers.
The Hedge Fund HegemonThe recent volatility in global capital markets should give pause to those who say German leaders, who have been arguing for greater transparency in global hedge funds, are just sore losers US and UK policymakers, in particular, say the German whining is nonsense, and that hedge funds, along with other new age financial entities such as private equity firms are key innovators in today’s, global economy.
Whether the adjustment policies have been successful remains a subject of heated debate; what is not in doubt is that they produced many losers – most notably among the most vulnerable, who now largely perceive the EU-Germany consensus as threatening.
This is plausible, since neighbors are the biggest direct losers when instability spills across borders.
It is seen as a drug for winners, not losers.
The professor would then launch into a long and tortured exegesis that will ultimately culminate in a heavily hedged statement: “So if the long list of conditions I have just described are satisfied, and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has the potential to increase everyone’s well-being.”
(In theory, capitalists in labor-abundant China and India could end up as losers, but in practice they, too, have benefited thanks to their governments’ success in simultaneously liberalizing and globalizing.)
Indeed, governments’ propensity to target overly ambitious industries that were misaligned with available resources and skills helps to explain why their attempts to “pick winners” often resulted in “picking losers.”
But who the eventual winners and losers are might depend, among other things, on the gender of the plotters.
As Summers and others argue, globalization has brought large gains to the world economy as a whole, but seldom have the winners compensated the losers, directly or indirectly.
Moreover, lately the winners have often been much smaller in number than the losers, particularly in a given geographical area, or because of winner-take-all markets.
But sharing the benefits of globalization with the losers is traditionally regarded as a national responsibility.
An attempt at a primary to choose Fatah candidates backfired, owing to fraud and the losers’ refusal to honor the results.
The question now is how to change the economic rules of the game to provide incentives for potential winners to drive progress – or at least neutralize likely losers’ ability to obstruct it.
Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters alike now scorn the Fed – whose legitimacy is based on abstract theories that assume away winners and losers, rather than on democratic accountability – for serving the interests of major banks.
How is it possible, I asked, that almost all of them had instinctively favored free trade, which entails a similar – in fact, most likely greater – redistribution from losers to winners?
BackNext