Example collocations logo

Tariffs in sentence

1238 examples of Tariffs in a sentence

Predictably, China has answered Trump’s tariffs by threatening to respond to their imposition with tariffs of its own.
Those tariffs would affect US-made goods across a wide range of sectors, but disproportionately in areas where support for Trump has been strong.
How to Protect Workers Without Trade TariffsNEW HAVEN – According to a Washington Post/Schar School poll of Americans published on July 11, only 39% of respondents approved of US President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on foreign countries, while 56% were opposed.
But, while it’s good news that a majority of Americans oppose their president on this key issue, Trump is plunging ahead, apparently thinking the public will like the tariffs better when they are in place.
In his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith provided an eloquent and convincing argument for free trade, instead of trade distorted by tariffs.
A multilateral system and low tariffs could be politically viable only if government intervened to stabilize citizens’ economic lives.
This is especially so because the risks of maintaining free trade with low tariffs may be long-term.
Should Trump make good on his threat to tear up trade agreements and unilaterally impose punitive tariffs, the existing global trading regime will unravel, with China as one of the biggest casualties.
They also dismantled tariffs and quotas on imports faster than their World Trade Organization obligations required.
NEW YORK – In his statement announcing a second round of punitive tariffs on imports from China, US President Donald Trump singled out the Chinese government’s “Made in China 2025” plan as a threat to US economic growth and a clear example of “unfair” trade practices.
In fact, the very concept of state-guided development was practically invented by the US over 200 years ago, when Alexander Hamilton, the country’s first Treasury secretary, called for more government support of manufacturing, through tariffs and other policies.
By removing tariffs on exports to the United States from 39 Sub-Saharan countries, it has stimulated growth, encouraged economic integration, and created opportunity where it otherwise might not have existed.
That journey begins by acknowledging that tariffs are no longer the biggest constraint on trade in Africa.
Notwithstanding Trump’s vow to impose tariffs on China, a resurgent dollar will hurt America’s trade competitiveness.
Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, for example, have reduced their rates for solar photovoltaic feed-in tariffs, while the expiration of the United States’ federal production tax credit for renewable energy has undermined investment in wind installations there.
Equity and debt financing by public institutions, especially development banks, have been crucial catalysts of private investment, as have feed-in tariffs, green bonds, and publicly sponsored insurance schemes that cover political and currency risk.
Already, the adverse impact of the two sides’ tit-for-tat tariffs – and, especially, the uncertainty that they engender – is plainly visible.
At the heart of European integration is the idea that barriers to trade – including tariffs and other impediments – can be and have been reduced.
GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) rounds cut tariffs to almost nil;Europe adopted its integrated internal market; extreme currency swings opened up the US.
But if leaders end up pursuing an extreme form of short-termism – by, say, passing big tax cuts with no accompanying revenue increase, weakening public institutions, or imposing tariffs or engaging in other forms of protectionism, without accounting for retaliation by other countries – the gains will not last long.
China’s lengthy negotiations with the US and the European Union over WTO membership largely focused on vexatious economic issues, such as lowering tariffs, ending quotas on exports to China, opening its market to key imports where access has hitherto been excluded or limited, and permitting foreign investment in industries such as telecommunications.
Moreover, Trump did not start a trade war by imposing high tariffs on imports from major US trade partners such as China, Germany, and Japan.
Trump is playing with fire when he threatens to impose import tariffs in order to “make American great again.”
Tariffs would immediately hurt American consumers, and defensive, retaliatory responses from other countries could fatally undermine already feeble world trade, thus choking off a critical source of global prosperity.
He has also shown that many of the nineteenth century’s successful high-tariff countries, such as Canada and Argentina, used tariffs as a revenue source, not as a means of sheltering domestic manufacturers.
Tariffs are permitted only under certain circumstances.
Another significant threat to the WTO framework is the Trump administration’s use of the national-security provision to justify its discriminatory tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.
Obviously, the US is not facing a genuine national-security threat from allies such as Canada or Japan, which means that its tariffs are certainly a violation of the spirit – and probably also the letter – of WTO rules.
The US tariffs have already undermined global growth and weakened the WTO.
In any event, discriminatory tariffs will almost certainly fail to accomplish Trump’s stated goal: a reduction in the US’s bilateral trade imbalances.
BackNext