Example collocations logo

Spend in sentence

3022 examples of Spend in a sentence

In other words, the governments meeting in Paris spend more subsidizing the causes of climate change than they do on global health care or, for that matter, on climate-change mitigation and adaptation.
At a cost of $23.5 million per year, this intervention would cut maternal deaths by 65% and save more than 5,000 children, with every dollar spend producing $18 in social benefits.
Bureaucrats must not be allowed to spend the huge donations collected and state relief funds allotted in an arbitrary manner.
They are delivering less patient care as they spend more time hunched over their laptops, inputting data that add nothing, currently, to their productivity.
As long as foreigners are hungry for dollars, the US can spend whatever it needs to project power around the world.
In the workplace, algorithms can track employees’ conversations, where they eat lunch, and how much time they spend on the computer, telephone, or in meetings.
Bernard Madoff who hailed from down-market part of New York City and attended a middling university will spend time behind bars, but none of the titans of Wall Street with blue-chip pedigree will ever do so.
Companies spend a lot of time watching customers, trying to figure them out, but so little time listening to them.
And then they spend thousands or even millions of dollars trying to figure out what these same customers really want.
And you would spend money on public-relations firms and charlatans to try to confuse the public about the science so that you could continue this as long as possible, just like tobacco companies did recently about the safety of smoking.
But requiring that children spend more time in school will not boost cognitive performance and social competence unless we also increase the time children spend outside the classroom.
According to African Progress Panel estimates, poor African households would save $58 a year, on average, by installing solar panels – money that they could spend on education, health, and productive investment.
African governments could begin by converting the $20 billion they now spend subsidizing energy consumption into investments in connecting low-income households to power.
As a result, the United States and Europe often spend tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars to send troops or bombers to quell uprisings or target “failed states,” but do not send one-tenth or even one-hundredth of that amount to address the underlying crises of water scarcity and under-development.
Today’s version of that question is: why will richer nations spend obscene amounts of money on climate change, achieving next to nothing in 100 years, when we could do so much good for mankind today for much less money?
Rather, they should suggest a treaty binding every nation to spend, say, 0.1% of GDP on research and development of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies.
We have a moral obligation to do the most good that we possibly can with what we spend, so we must focus our resources where we can accomplish the most first.
Now he must keep the promise that he made at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year to “push for more transparency on who owns companies; on who’s buying up land and for what purpose; on how governments spend their money; on how gas, oil, and mining companies operate; and on who is hiding stolen assets and how we recover and return them.”
Its difficulties are exacerbated by the dramatic disparity in military forces on either side of the Atlantic, and its belief that Europe's ambitions to become a military power will come to nothing because Europeans won't spend the money necessary to achieve that goal.
Even more aggressive criticism has been advanced about American regulators – and, indeed, about Congress – alleging that they were in the pockets of investment banks, hedge funds, and anyone else with lots of money to spend on Capitol Hill.
But, as an outsider, I am amazed at the apparent intensity of lobbying, and at the amounts of money that firms and their associations spend.
CAMBRIDGE – Ever since Donald Trump won the US presidential election, the press and financial markets have focused on his proposal to cut taxes and to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure over the next decade.
But the poor have a much higher propensity to spend than the rich.
But when children are healthy, families are freed from the burden of costly medical care, allowing them to spend more on food and education.
With so many former military officers serving in Trump’s cabinet or as advisers, even as Trump cozies up to Russian President Vladimir Putin and anchors an informal alliance of dictators and authoritarians around the world, it is likely that the US will spend more money on weapons that don’t work to use against enemies that don’t exist.
First, the falling price level would raise the real value of the debts that households and firms owe, making them poorer and reducing their willingness to spend.
The European members of NATO, it may be interesting to note, spend two-thirds of what the United States spends for military purposes.
Americans spend $8 billion per annum in cosmetics.
This burdens consumers across the EU, especially poorer people who have to spend a large share of their income on food.
Studies show that women are much more likely than men to spend additional income on food and health.
BackNext