Example collocations logo

Tariff in sentence

464 examples of Tariff in a sentence

During the campaign, Trump promised to label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office; end the “One China” policy (recognizing Taiwan as part of greater China) that has long guided Sino-American relations; and impose a high tariff on Chinese imports, to shrink the bilateral trade deficit.
Instead of punitive measures to enforce such standards, poor countries ought to be given incentives, such as tariff relief, to comply.
Its position in the world economy is marginal – tenuously plugged into global investment flows and dependent on northern markets for its commodity exports, tariff preferences, and financial aid.
Yet several European countries have successfully introduced the idea of a “feed-in tariff,” which provides the core of a politically acceptable long-term solution.
A feed-in tariff subsidizes the low-carbon energy source rather than taxing the high-carbon energy source.
A small and gradually rising carbon tax that funds a feed-in tariff system could win political support in the US.
Trade agreements are, by definition, pacts of reciprocal sovereign obligations regarding tariff and nontariff barriers.
Erecting high tariff barriers might cost as many US jobs as Mexican jobs.
Closing down trade with China, as Donald Trump would effectively do with his proposed 45% tariff on Chinese products sold in the US, would backfire.
Others strain to produce complicated models, according to which investors might have been able to foresee the Depression, or ponder the likelihood of protectionist reactions in other countries to the American tariff act, though the US legislation had not yet even been finalized.
While they protect countries excluded from bilateral or regional tariff agreements, thereby ensuring that integrated markets do not receive additional advantages, few safeguards exist to shield third countries from the fallout of agreements on mandatory standards.
Why a US-China Tariff Ceasefire Is Coming SoonLONDON – The meeting between US President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires this week is being viewed as a make-or-break moment for the world economy and financial markets.
But even if no agreement is reached at the summit, there are at least four reasons to expect a de-escalation of the US-China tariff war.
The main risk to the US economy comes not from Chinese retaliation against farmers or US multinationals, which may or may not happen, but from the Keynesian tariff effect.
Average tariff levels are only 3%.
When the US, responding to domestic political pressures, adopted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff four months later, angry European governments responded in kind.
Given preceding discussions, the most plausible such something was the tariff.
As the case of Hungary showed, ultimately it is up to citizens to hold governments accountable and ensure that tax and tariff policies work for the benefit of all.
A recent Congressional bill has called for imposing a 27.5% punitive tariff on Chinese imports.
Trump insists that a tariff on a small fraction of imported steel – the price of which is set globally – will suffice to address a genuine strategic threat.
No import tariff or border wall can do that.
Finance was kept on a tight leash; credit was directed or guided to support specific government-defined industrial objectives; and domestic industry was nurtured behind tariff protection, while being forced to compete aggressively for overseas markets.
Through such negotiations, the average tariff on manufactured goods among advanced economies has been reduced from over 40% in the late 1940s to around 4% today – much to the benefit of all members.
The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff didn’t cause the Great Crash, much less the Great Depression.
But that tariff and the foreign retaliation it elicited sent the stock market down still further, which was hardly helpful.
The US Will Lose Its Trade War with ChinaLONDON – The United States cannot win its tariff war with China, regardless of what President Donald Trump says or does in the coming months.
By applying the martial arts principle of turning an opponent’s strength against him, China should easily win the tariff contest, or at least fight Trump to a draw.
In handicapping the US-China conflict, another economic principle – rarely used to explain the futility of Trump’s tariff threats – is much more important than Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage: Keynesian demand management.
With little spare capacity available, the new investment and hiring required to replace Chinese goods would be at the cost of other business decisions that were more profitable before the tariff war with China.
It is simply inconceivable that Xi would attach higher priority to credit management than to winning the tariff war and thereby demonstrating the futility of a US containment strategy against China.
BackNext