Example collocations logo

Tariffs in sentence

1238 examples of Tariffs in a sentence

Tariffs have been raised and lowered throughout history, for reasons both good and bad.
President Donald Trump’s threat on April 5 to impose tariffs on an additional $100 billion of Chinese exports, provoked by China’s response to his own earlier action, points to just this threat of escalation.
He exempted Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, and South Korea from his steel and aluminum tariffs, minimizing the impact on those countries and also on domestic metal-using industries.
On April 3, the Trump administration announced its intention to impose tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese exports, in response to industrial espionage, licensing, and other intellectual-property concerns.
But neither those concerns nor Chinese retaliation will win the US any sympathy, because the administration’s latest action comes on the heels of bogus US steel and aluminum tariffs, trumped up, as it were, on national security grounds.
The soonest the administration’s $50 billion of proposed tariffs can come into effect is at the end of a 60-day comment period.
Rather than imposing sweeping tariffs, it could tailor its actions to the intellectual-property dispute.
Chinese President Xi Jinping seems eager to ease tensions, exemplified by his recent pledge to lower tariffs on imported American cars “significantly” and further open China’s financial-services sector.
With South Korea, Brazil, Australia, and Argentina permanently exempted from US tariffs on steel and aluminum, and with certain measures applied only to final goods and primary products, the impact of rising Sino-American trade tensions has so far been limited.
However, details of that agreement were scarce, and less than two months later, US tariffs on Chinese goods valued at $34 billion came into effect, with China immediately announcing retaliatory tariffs.
Presume for the moment that the US closes down trade with China and Mexico – the first and fourth largest components of the overall trade deficit – through a combination of tariffs and other protectionist measures (including the proposed renegotiation of NAFTA and a Mexican-funded border wall).
After China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, it cut tariffs by half, bringing them down to 8% as of 2008.
And firms in the US would take a direct hit from higher tariffs in trade, given that 77% of China’s exports to the US are intermediary and capital goods used to produce finished products, according to the McKinsey Global Trade Database.
That became clear this year when US President Donald Trump imposed the first of a widening set of tariffs against Chinese goods, with China retaliating in kind.
Selective tariffs can be useful for protecting defense-related industries or to prevent other countries from stealing cutting-edge technologies.
But as an overall trade policy, tariffs are crude and inexact.
This “smart” protectionism has several advantages over crude tariffs.
In short, CFT addresses trade deficits, overcomes the limitations of tariffs, fights trade manipulation, corrects current mainstream economic theory, and is a necessary step toward re-establishing a feasible global payments system.
The steel and aluminum tariffs that the Trump administration imposed at the beginning of June were important mainly for their symbolic value, not for their real economic impact.
While the tariffs signified that the United States was no longer playing by the rules of the world trading system, they targeted just $45 billion of imports, less than 0.25% of GDP in an $18.5 trillion US economy.
Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on $350 billion worth of imported motor vehicles and parts.
One recent poll found that 66% of Republican voters backed Trump’s threatened tariffs against China.
Canada, that politest of countries, is similarly unwilling to be bullied; it has retaliated with 25% tariffs on $12 billion of US goods.
And the EU would contemplate concessions only if the US offers some in return – such as eliminating its prohibitive tariffs on imported light pickup trucks and vans – and only if other exporters like Japan and South Korea go along.
Third, it could be that the macroeconomic effects of even the full panoply of US tariffs, together with foreign retaliation, are relatively small.
But, during the last few decades of the century, European tariff rates fell substantially, largely in response to the United Kingdom’s unilateral repeal of the Corn Laws, which had imposed substantial tariffs on imported grain.
The US, however, continued to charge much higher tariffs.
Unlike in Europe, partisan politics shaped US trade policy before World War II, with the Republicans raising tariffs and the Democrats reducing them.
These moves follow US President Donald Trump’s proposal to impose tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products, many of which are on the priority list for “Made in China 2025,” President Xi Jinping’s blueprint to transform China into a global leader in high-tech industries like aerospace, robotics, pharmaceuticals, and machinery.
For example, they allow exporting countries to provide financial support and subsidies to specific industries; but they also give importing countries the right to use tariffs to offset these subsidies.
BackNext