Example collocations logo

Trade in sentence

11085 examples of Trade in a sentence

China recognizes the absurdity of the Trump administration’s obsession with forcing it to reduce the bilateral trade surplus.
But it also knows that a trade war would not be good for anyone.
To ease trade frictions, unlike Japan’s voluntary export restraints, China’s leaders have promised to increase imports and open up the domestic market, with President Xi Jinping predicting $8 trillion worth of merchandise imports within the next five years.
As underscored in a joint statement of the US and China regarding trade consultations, “significantly” increased Chinese purchases of foreign – in particular, US – goods and services will also enable the country “to meet the growing consumption needs of the Chinese people and the need for high-quality economic development.”
But China has already shown itself to be handling US trade pressure in a more savvy way than Japan did in the 1980s.
If so, the ongoing Doha Round of international trade negotiations could be first to suffer.
While global leaders expand IMF resources and attempt to coordinate international financial regulation, trade and currency tensions are growing.
Meanwhile, there has been virtually no progress in restarting the Doha round of global trade reforms.
But China’s trade surplus with the US is not primarily due to undervaluing its currency.
So the last thing the global economy needs now is a trade war.
Prevention begins by curbing trade friction and developing sensible post-crisis monetary and fiscal exit strategies, sooner rather than later.
Indeed, climate change is now included in all major bilateral discussions, alongside trade, exchange rates, human rights, and energy security.
Regional cooperation should include areas ranging from trade, transport, and transit, to water and energy, as well as efforts to control of drug trafficking.
Furthermore, this vision must contend with rising nationalism and isolationism, exemplified by US President Donald Trump’s “America First” approach and his trade war with China.
With the credit crisis still making it difficult for many small and medium-size businesses to obtain even the minimal level of financing necessary to maintain inventories and conduct trade, global GDP is on a precipice in 2009.
International trade would collapse, and major global companies would struggle to sell their products.
Instead, the Obama administration is seeking a trade deal with India that would weaken competition from generics, thereby making lifesaving drugs unaffordable for billions of people – in India and elsewhere.
This is not an unintended consequence of an otherwise well-intentioned policy; it is the explicit goal of US trade policy.
The Indian government’s desire to enhance its trade relations with the US thus provides the industry an ideal opportunity to pick up where TRIPS left off, by compelling India to make patents easier to obtain and to reduce the availability of low-cost generics.
Keyu Jin of the London School of Economics, writing just a month after Trump’s “America First” inauguration address, explained why the United States – and Trump supporters in particular – would lose much more than China would in a trade war.
Whatever the precise amount, it is safe to say that the numbers in question are huge – larger than, say, foreign-aid flows or any reasonable assessment of the gains from completing the Doha Round of trade negotiations.
Such a tax would not have prevented the US-China trade imbalance.
Nor are they likely to have the right kind of information to trade with authorities in exchange for a lighter sentence.
The impact on the drug trade of incarcerating a drug mule for a decade is minuscule; but the effect on the women and their families is devastating and irreversible.
Trump rejected the Republican Party’s traditional pro-business, pro-trade agenda, and, like Bernie Sanders on the left, appealed to Americans who have been harmed by disruptive technologies and “globalist” policies promoting free trade and migration.
Trump has also abandoned his base in the area of trade, where he has offered rhetoric but not concrete action.
He has threatened to impose a 50% tariff on goods from China, Mexico, and other US trade partners, but no such measures have materialized.
That could mean truly withdrawing from NAFTA, taking trade action against China and other trading partners, or doubling down on harsh immigration policies.
Some of the blame for this goes to Western governments that, ignoring the uneven effects of free trade, failed to assist the “losers.”
To be sure, free trade can reduce prices for consumers and raise real incomes for some workers.
BackNext