Example collocations logo

Tariffs in sentence

1238 examples of Tariffs in a sentence

Trump’s steel tariffs are even more mind-boggling when one considers that there is already overcapacity worldwide, much of which can be traced back to China.
Making matters worse, the Trump administration is also contemplating additional tariffs.
Moreover, Benn Steil and Benjamin Della Rocca of the Council on Foreign Relations find that cost increases resulting from the steel tariffs have already put as many as 40,000 US auto industry jobs at risk.
All told, Trump’s steel tariffs will neither reduce the US current-account deficit nor create more net jobs.
Import tariffs will have no effect on that, but they will certainly raise costs for American consumers and producers.
Rather than musing about further tariffs, the Trump administration needs to wind down its protectionist racket before things get even worse.
This means that if Trump fulfills his campaign promises – say, to impose severe immigration limits and high import tariffs – he won’t actually solve the problem.
But the other post-Soviet countries resist, because a customs union with Russia would force them to raise their import tariffs, hindering their trade with other countries.
Indeed, it is even more difficult than reaching trade agreements, which must cover issues like tariffs, quotas, quality standards, regulatory regimes for particular sectors, and relevant microeconomic issues.
Although transatlantic tariffs average only 3-5% (with higher peaks for some sensitive products), tariff elimination would have a significant impact, given that bilateral trade totals $650 billion annually.
Since January 2018, when the Trump administration announced tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines, the year has been marked by an escalating “trade war,” waged primarily – but not exclusively – by the US against China.
When trade agreements were largely about import tariffs, negotiated exchange of market access generally produced lower import barriers – an example of the benefits of lobbies acting as counterweights to one another.
In this imaginary history, Venice assembles a council of experts to decide whether the risks posed by the trade deficit merit retaliation in the form of tariffs, quotas, or potentially even a ban on trade with China.
One group – the “mercantilists” – argue that it is up to the state to maximize gold holdings and protect domestic manufacturing employment, by imposing tariffs, restricting the use of gold for imports, and forcing China to buy the same amount of goods from Venice that Venice buys from China.
Centuries after mercantilism was abandoned in favor of highly successful laissez-faire policies, he decides to embrace it, imposing tariffs on Venice’s trade partners, beginning with China.
But Obama’s recent tariffs on tire imports may be a sign of things to come.
That is all the more true when the rhetoric in question includes promises that would harm everyone involved, as Trump’s proposed tariffs would.
In the last year, Trump has withdrawn the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiated its free-trade agreement with South Korea, and raised “safeguard” tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels from China and South Korea.
Now, the White House has announced steep tariffs on steel and aluminum, supposedly to strengthen national security.
And it is set to impose punitive tariffs on a range of Chinese goods over alleged intellectual-property theft.
Tariffs won’t do much for America’s trade balance, either.
Trump and his advisers believe that international trade is a zero-sum game, and thus that tariffs are a direct route to smaller trade deficits.
But the real source of US trade deficits is macroeconomic imbalances in the US economy, such as excessive household consumption and fiscal deficits – imbalances that tariffs will do very little to address.
What Trump’s tariffs will do is raise the risk of a global trade war.
Before the European Union won a last-minute reprieve from the steel and aluminum tariffs, it announced that it was considering retaliatory tariffs on American goods, including whisky and motorbikes, to which the US responded by threatening tariffs on European cars.
But, rather than retaliate, Asian economies should use the threat of broader US tariffs as an opportunity to revamp their own development models, thereby boosting their own prosperity and resilience, not to mention their positions as constructive global actors.
Similarly, Trump hastily withdrew from the Paris climate agreement before taking the opportunity to shape its rules, including with regard to tariffs on solar panels, which could have served US interests.
Moreover, Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel imports, while not targeted specifically at Russia, will cost the Russian economy upwards of $3 billion next year.
Rather, the US suffers from a multilateral trade imbalance with many countries, and this cannot be remedied through the imposition of bilateral penalties such as tariffs.
Last but not least, the core emerging economies have abstained from increasing tariffs, and their stimulus packages grant much more limited subsidies to the banking and automobile sectors than do comparable packages in OECD countries.
BackNext