Example collocations logo

Target in sentence

2344 examples of Target in a sentence

In the “Copenhagen Accord,” the UN finally recognized the target, though without any binding measures for achieving it.
Since the quantities of greenhouse gases emitted thus far will raise temperatures by 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial times, major political decisions are needed to ensure compliance with the two-degree target.
So at some point in the near future, a growing number of voices from the climate-science community must definitively reject the possibility of holding to the two-degree target.
When that happens, simply championing a softer target, most probably 2.5 or three degrees, will not suffice.
According to the current paradigm, the global target is defined within scientific categories and understood as an absolute upper limit.
Even the EU has used this argument to justify its refusal to increase its target for greenhouse-gas reduction for 2020 from 20% to 30%, although this would be an equitable burden for Europe to bear on the path towards meeting the two-degree target.
Market participants, if they are rational, will recognize that they are shooting at a moving target rather than discounting a future equilibrium.
To communicate their intentions simply and clearly, they may set an explicit target range in terms of a particular economic variable, or announce a forecast for the variable, or offer forward guidance by specifying a threshold value for it that must be met before changing interest rates.
Until the currency crashes of the 1990s, emerging and developing countries tended to target their exchange rates.
The problem with these approaches to monetary-policy targeting is that even though a particular numerical target may be reasonable when it is set, subsequent unexpected developments often make the target hard to live with.
The monetary authorities are then confronted with a harsh choice between violating their announced target, and thus undermining the credibility that was the point of the exercise, or setting policy too tight or too loose, thus doing unnecessary damage to the economy.
Indeed, if the shock is an increase in the dollar price of oil, an inflation target in theory dictates tightening monetary policy enough that the currency appreciates.
In practice, an inflation-targeting central bank usually abandons the target for price stability in such a case.
But this defeats the very purposes – transparency, credibility, and predictability – for which a target was announced in the first place.
Relative to inflation targeting, the great virtue of NGDP targeting is that it is robust with respect to supply shocks and terms-of-trade shocks, meaning that the central bank is not faced with a choice between abandoning the target and hurting the economy.
Proposals to target NGDP are familiar in major industrialized countries, first arising in the 1980s.
The advantage of a nominal GDP target is that adverse shocks of these sorts are reflected equally in output and inflation, rather than imposing the entire burden in the form of a loss in output.
The target path for nominal GDP can be set at whatever level of monetary discipline is desired.
The robustness of NGDP targeting to unknown future shocks is similar whether the objective is to ease money, tighten money, or stay the course, and whether the central bank wants to announce a forecast, a target range, or a threshold for forward guidance.
But, to meet the target, we must ensure that it is not treated as a political and economic impossibility, either.
The EU Commission’s insistence on the need to target “competitiveness” means that it is proposing a supply-side solution for a demand-side problem.
The US economy is slightly more robust, although even there recovery from the 2008 financial crisis remains disappointingly slow, employment rates are well below 2007 levels, and annual inflation will not reach the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for several years.
If Russia does not reverse course, emphasis should be placed on so-called smart sanctions that target individuals and specific entities, not the Russian people.
He warned that, “if you let inflation expectations drift too far away from the target, you can end up in quite serious difficulty with a costly process to bring them back again.”
For the last 15 months, the 2% inflation target, which is set by the government and is supposed to be enforced by the Bank of England, has been exceeded by more than a full percentage point.
The US economy is staging a more convincing recovery than the UK, and, in contrast to the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, the Fed is not explicitly mandated by Congress to achieve a specific inflation target.
But there is something they can do to ensure the benefits of inflation-targeting rules (credibility and well-anchored inflation expectations) while also supporting recovery: raise the stated target.
This would involve raising the target to a level in line with the actual inflation rate observed in the post-crisis period – a level that the public would perceive as realistic, honest, and credible.
Moreover, a higher inflation target – and the restoration of credibility that it would imply – would enable central banks to return to a lower inflation target without creating a recession once debt levels had been reduced and aggregate demand had recovered.
Today Britain has an independent central bank with an inflation target of 2%.
BackNext