Example collocations logo

Quantitative in sentence

681 examples of Quantitative in a sentence

Most developing nations have opened themselves significantly to foreign trade and no longer employ the most damaging policies of the past (such as quantitative restrictions on imports).
This simply reflects the reality of monetary-policy interdependence: if the US Federal Reserve’s policy of so-called quantitative easing weakens the dollar, others have to respond to prevent undue appreciation of their currencies.
This “something” is usually understood to be massive asset purchases, or quantitative easing (QE).
As usual, the pact’s advocates have marshaled quantitative models that make the agreement look like a no-brainer.
In Europe and Japan, by contrast, monetary conditions will remain loose, as central banks continue to support economic growth with zero interest rates and quantitative easing (QE).
The European Central Bank should also step up its recently announced program of quantitative easing by overriding Bundesbank objections and moving to large-scale purchases of sovereign debt – including government bonds of struggling eurozone countries.
This was followed by an extended version of the assisted-growth model in the advanced countries, largely revolving around unconventional monetary policy; in the United States, this implied several rounds of quantitative easing, which is simply the government borrowing from itself – a form of price control.
By announcing a huge program of bond purchases, much bigger relative to the eurozone bond market than the quantitative easing implemented in the United States, Britain, or Japan, ECB President Mario Draghi erected the impenetrable firewall that had long been needed to protect the monetary Union from a Lehman-style financial meltdown.
Given all of this, the ECB was entirely justified in responding (belatedly) to the 2008-2009 global recession by lowering interest rates and undertaking quantitative easing, regardless of those efforts’ contribution to a depreciation of the euro.
In that sense, it is not “the end of the party” for emerging markets, as some claimed early last summer, when US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s suggestion of a possible “taper” of the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing triggered a “mini-crisis” in several of the more vulnerable emerging markets.
At the same time, if growth slows significantly, the US Federal Reserve will undoubtedly respond with another round of quantitative easing – QE3 by another name.
In the United States, the Federal Reserve has essentially adopted a quantitative employment target, with nominal GDP targets and other variations under discussion in other countries.
Moreover, by pushing interest rates toward zero, the current policy of quantitative easing (increasing money supply by buying government securities) has strong, often regressive, income effects.
For example, so-called quantitative easing involves having the Fed issue short-term debt to buy up long-term government debt.
Then, in early August, the Bank of England cut borrowing costs, boosted its quantitative easing (QE), and committed an extra £100 billion ($131 billion) to encourage banks to lend.
On another level, however, state bureaucracies are very different from private-sector organizations, for they have their own characteristics and objectives, which will be endangered were they are reduced to quantitative standards of performance and efficiency.
Quantitative targets thus hide the crucial policy decision about the right “portfolio” of services that a government should provide.
And if assessment of state action were based only on a set of pre-defined quantitative targets, ministers would also understandably – but mistakenly – neglect quality and other important objectives.
So, targeting quantitative objectives can be a useful innovation, but only as long as its purpose is to provide a new tool in managing certain aspects of the state’s performance.
Hard to be EasingNEW YORK – The United States Federal Reserve’s decision to undertake a third round of quantitative easing, or QE3, has raised three important questions.
Second, they overestimated the extent to which quantitative easing (QE) by the monetary authorities – that is, printing money – could counterbalance fiscal tightening.
These two mistakes compounded each other: If the negative impact of austerity on economic growth is greater than was originally assumed, and the positive impact of quantitative easing is weaker, then the policy mix favored by practically all European governments has been hugely wrong.
And the recent release of the US Federal Reserve Board’s minutes, which indicate support for another round of quantitative easing, caused sharp jumps in the prices of gold, silver, platinum, and other metals.
The Fed’s ability to pay interest is the key to what it calls its “exit strategy” from previous quantitative easing.
To be sure, the ECB’s definition of price stability was not a problem during the period between the global financial crisis and the adoption of quantitative easing, when inflation was well below 2%.
As research by McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) shows, despite bold quantitative easing and record low interest rates – the ECB was the first major central bank to introduce negative interest rates in 2014 – anemic demand continues to hobble GDP growth throughout Europe.
Under today’s precarious conditions, demand could certainly be better supported through strategies other than quantitative easing and ultra-low interest rates.
Quantitative easing and ultra-low interest rates should no longer be the only arrows in the macroeconomic policy quiver.
In January, ECB President Mario Draghi effectively sidestepped both obstacles by launching a program of quantitative easing so enormous that it will finance the entire deficits of all eurozone governments (now including Greece) and mutualize a significant proportion of their outstanding bonds.
This is particularly true of the quantitative easing now underway in the United States, because the American dollar is the major global reserve currency.
BackNext