Example collocations logo

Tariffs in sentence

1238 examples of Tariffs in a sentence

Given the role of technology in displacing workers, protectionism – tearing up trade agreements and imposing tariffs on Chinese and Mexican goods – won’t bring back high-paying manufacturing jobs, and Trump has no plan B. That means the polarization of America that brought Trump to power will only become far more severe.
Protectionism Made in the USAAmerica's imposition of tariffs on imported steel has been greeted with a howl of protest around the world.
So, under the "new" US rules, that country is entitled to reinstate tariffs as "safeguards."
If the increase in steel tariffs were an isolated incident it would be bad enough.
In general, Trump’s tariffs aim to put the US back in control of its economic relationships by constraining its ballooning trade deficits, with both friends and foes, and bringing economic activity (and the accompanying jobs) back home.
But it is no secret that, above all, Trump’s tariffs target China – a country that has long defied international trade rules and engaged in predatory practices.
That was the sentiment splashed all over Chinese editorial pages last week, when the United States imposed 25% tariffs on some $50 billion of Chinese goods.
When it comes to trade, China of course immediately retaliated with its own tariffs on $50 billion of US imports, just as Canada, the European Union, and Mexico are retaliating for US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
But if Chinese economic reformers take a more dramatic approach, by committing to zero tariffs over time and challenging the Americans to reciprocate, it could be concluded more rapidly.
For example, China could make a dramatic commitment to zero tariffs over time not just to the US, but to all World Trade Organization member states.
On July 6, his latest trade restrictions – 25% tariffs on about $34 billion of Chinese imports – took effect.
They were promptly met by retaliatory tariffs on an equivalent volume of US exports to the Chinese market.
Trump has threatened further measures against China, as well as tariffs on automobile imports from Europe.
In the usual scenario, trade retaliation occurs because countries have economic reasons to depart from low tariffs.
Economists also consider another scenario that focuses on the so-called terms-of-trade effects of tariffs.
If Europe, China, and other trade partners were to retaliate in response to Trump’s tariffs they would simply reduce their own gains from trade without reaping any of the advantages of protectionism.
BMW and Huawei will be just fine, whereas tariffs will act as a tax on American consumers, through higher prices, and on American workers, businesses, and homeowners, through rising interest rates.
And those who lose – or stand to lose – from imports demand protectionist measures, in the form of tariffs or quotas, against those specific products.
We saw this response explicitly in US President Donald Trump’s election campaign, during which he threatened to impose high tariffs on products from China, Mexico, and other countries.
But now that he is president, those high tariffs or quotas are nowhere to be seen.
Instead, we see trade negotiations being conducted under the threat of such tariffs – and leading to market opening for some products and services in countries with which the US has a bilateral deficit.
The US is currently threatening to impose tariffs on softwood lumber from Canada.
If the US does impose such tariffs, the result would be a reduction in the US-Canada trade imbalance.
But the tariffs would hurt American builders and homeowners, as well as Canadian timber companies.
Trump’s plan for helping those left behind since the 1970s, to the extent that one is discernible, seems to turn on two axes: a domestic stimulus and bilateral deal-making under the threat of tariffs and quotas.
But if he plays hardball with China, pushing the Chinese to revalue the renminbi and employing threats of tariffs and the like, he may well end up pricking the bubble of China’s private debt – unleashing a deluge of nasty consequences that would overwhelm any domestic stimulus he introduces.
From the 1960s to the 1990s, this process was driven primarily by generalized reductions in tariffs, agreed under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the GATT’s successor, the World Trade Organization.
This suggests that, if a group of major trading countries does the opposite – increasing tariffs only for one another – third parties should benefit.
With the US imposing higher tariffs on Chinese goods, European producers will enjoy a competitive advantage over Chinese producers in the US market.
Trade diversion has often been regarded as a theoretical construct with little real-world significance, because most of the economies engaged in preferential trade agreements already had rather low tariffs.
BackNext