Trade
in sentence
11085 examples of Trade in a sentence
These countries must now engineer substantial real wage and price deflation in order to regain competitiveness and reduce their
trade
deficits.
Meanwhile, the core countries, already running
trade
surpluses (in some cases as high as 6% of GDP), have no incentive to strengthen the aggregate demand that would relieve pressure on their partners.
Remarkably, America’s hegemony grew in this second post-war phase, in parallel with its
trade
and budget deficits.
Trump’s “America First”
trade
policies will result in more misrepresentation on the part of domestic suppliers, reduced quality control, bureaucratic delays, and higher barriers for potential new competitors.
Of course, the global financial crisis that had erupted a few months earlier threw the world economy into turmoil, causing output to contract, unemployment to surge, and
trade
to collapse.
The opposition comprises most of Venezuela's organized civil society, not only business, but also
trade
unions, professional associations, and NGOs.
Public-sector
trade
unions fought for preserving privileges.
Chinese officials see little difference between the cyber threat posed by the NSA and that posed by the PLA, especially given that America’s cyber intrusions have also been aimed at foreign companies,
trade
negotiators, and international leaders – all of whom are directly or indirectly engaged in commercial activity.
The periphery needs to recover competitiveness, and some have taken heart from the Mediterranean countries’ shrinking
trade
deficits – the structural
trade
imbalances within the eurozone are correcting themselves, they say.
The idea that a country can achieve a
trade
surplus by importing nothing is as fanciful as the idea that a government can repay its debt by starving itself of revenue.
In insisting that its main
trade
partners cut their spending, Merkel is cutting Germany off from the main sources of its own growth.
With the trading arrangements of the European common market increasingly subsumed by the globalisation of free
trade
and agriculture under the World
Trade
Organisation, and with American dominance of Nato providing the only meaningful security guarantee, and with English now irrevocably established as the world's lingua franca, a clear alternative is emerging for the peripheral European countries, both rich and poor.
For those in the United States who have rightly concluded that the half-century
trade
embargo has proved counter-productive, this is an appealing halfway response that provides an alibi for moderation: one day, economic reforms will bring political change.
Increasingly, Russia’s oil surpluses drive economic growth through rising investment, which boosts construction and consumption, in turn benefiting retail
trade
and finance.
By relenting just a little to intense global pressure to revalue its exchange rate, the Chinese leadership has masterfully stifled the growing chorus of demands to rein in its growing
trade
surplus.
While hardly denting global
trade
imbalances, a small move would bring in a flood of foreign capital, overwhelming China’s currency defenses and leading to chaos.
Mix in China’s shaky financial system and the prospect of
trade
sanctions after an altercation over, say, Taiwan, and it is clear that the Yuan might not always be a one-way bet.
So the world needs, in its regions, to facilitate integration on the basis of a general economic democratization: currency compatibility, free trade, shared legal rules and most of all a common will to fix the rules of the game according to a region’s entire interests.
There is justice in this, particularly given the hypocrisy of those countries who proclaim their faith in free
trade
while every day praying at the altar of protectionism.
As the United States Congress begins to debate the Dominican Republic-Central American Free
Trade
Agreement (DR-CAFTA), a titanic struggle between the forces of free
trade
and protectionism promises to unfold.
To be sure, expanded
trade
holds great promise for promoting development and democracy.
But the
trade
rules inscribed in DR-CAFTA promote profits for a few at the expense of the well being of the many.
Ironically, the pact even limits market competition to protect powerful special interests, undercutting the core principles of free
trade.
As for labor rights, the agreement makes a devil’s bargain: it opens
trade
while locking in a status quo that is appalling.
The stronger provisions of previous
trade
agreements, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), have been dumped.
Although
trade
with Central America represents only about 1.5% of total US trade, the outcome of the debate on DR-CAFTA will shape US
trade
policy – which sets the tone for other rich countries’ stance in
trade
talks – for years to come.
A
trade
agreement such as this puts US and Central American workers in the same labor market.
It is hypocritical to promote democracy and then sign a
trade
agreement that denies workers the basic democratic right to organize and join unions.
The issue is not free
trade
versus protectionism, but “smart trade” versus “polarizing trade.”
Smart
trade
creates balanced development, while polarizing
trade
rewards a small circle of winners at the expense of the many.
Back
Next
Related words
Global
Countries
Would
Which
Economic
World
Their
Investment
International
Other
Growth
Could
Deficit
Policy
Should
Economy
About
Country
Between
While