Sentences with phrase «when trade deficits»

When the trade deficit with China was $ 350 billion last year, what it actually meant was that China sent us $ 350 billion worth of goods, and we gave them our printed paper (fiat money dollar) in exchange.

Not exact matches

«When you look at the plan that's taking shape now, using comprehensive tax reform as a means to tax imports from countries that we have a trade deficit from, like Mexico,» he said.

Trump then said, according to The Post's reporting on the audio, that his aide returned and reported that the US had a $ 17 billion trade deficit with Canada when energy and timber sales were factored in.

«When you look at the plan that's taking shape now, using comprehensive tax reform as a means to tax imports from countries that we have a trade deficit from, like Mexico,» said Spicer.

According to Trump's own trade representatives, the answer is no — the U.S. does run a deficit with Canada when it comes to goods, but its surplus in services far outweighs that, leaving an overall surplus of $ 12.5 billion for 2016.

a trade deficit can have a role in producing financial - market bubbles and the devastation that's caused when those bubbles burst.

Just imagine what that could mean for Canada under a new, rewritten NAFTA that triggers a renegotiation whenever the U.S. develops a trade deficit with Canada: when oil prices go up, trade rules for other goods from cars to cattle could be rewritten, creating uncertainty for exporters.

While the business community will always be cautious when it comes to embracing large deficits, we are satisfied that many key economic investments and priorities have been included,» said Iain Black, President and CEO, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade.

He said the U.S. has a deficit once you include energy and lumber trade, «and when you do, we lose $ 17 billion a year.

Except for a period in the early 1960s, when Robert Triffin explored what became known as the Triffin Dilemma, in which foreign hoarding of U.S. dollars was linked to persistent U.S. trade deficits, the relationship between the capital and current accounts seems since then to have mystified most economists, including those specializing in trade, even as U.S. trade deficits and foreign capital inflows soared, and as the growth in international capital flows, once consisting largely of trade finance, exploded relative to trade flows and relegated trade finance to minor importance.

So, enough beating around the balance - of - payments bush: when are trade deficits a problem?

But when other countries save more than they spend, and export those savings our way (capital inflows), that too drives our trade deficit.

When policymakers declare, for example, that they will implement policies that force the U.S. trade deficit to contract sharply, and then with the next breath promise to attract more foreign investment, we can immediately dismiss their promises not just as unlikely but as literally impossible.

Something similar happened a decade later, when East Asian countries, after years of mercantilist trade surpluses, began running large trade deficits.

And when they ran trade deficits or undertook military campaigns, central banks restricted the supply of domestic credit to raise interest rates and attract foreign financial inflows.

As long as this behavioral condition remained in place, the international financial system operated fairly smoothly under checks and balances, albeit under «stop - go» policies when business expansions led to trade and payments deficits.

When concerns about burgeoning debt suddenly caused inflows to reverse in 1997, the result once again was collapsing currencies and rising unemployment that violently converted trade deficits into surpluses.

The Fear Trade, of course, is driven by low to negative real interest rates — when inflation erodes away at government bond yields — deficit spending, a weaker U.S. dollar and geopolitical uncertainty.

You may inflate your way out of your debt problem but you're not going to grow your way out of the debt problem, so let's get behind that and if the dollar got too strong then the impotence from the white house would be to have more tariffs because they are hell bent on shrinking this trade deficit so when Kudlow discusses that, he ought to be very careful about where he is going because this white house, Peter Navarro and Wilbert Ross will push for a weaker dollar because a weaker dollar is Mnuchin and Wilbert Ross both said in Davos, is sending soldiers to the ramparts in the trade war that exists every day.

Certainly the Japanese, so its all being done so — with the — Donald Trump wanting to turn around the trade deficit, you can't help but say hey maybe they are actually onto something because they have an independent central bank well --(unintelligible) the independent central bank that goes upon its course based on what its seeing here you know based on domestic economic activity, while everybody else is setting it to international standards then tariffs become the — I guess the alternative especially when the feds is raising the interest rates and they're the only central bank really raising interest rates... I know... the bank of England went half a basis point, quarter basis point and they are project to go a quarter basis point tomorrow which we will see.

When the US has a large trade deficit, it will have an equally large amount of capital inflows coming into the country to finance that trade deficit.

From Trump's declarations I understand that he hopes that a potential trade war to help alleviate the trade deficit, but it is unclear how this would happen, especially when EU very likely to react.

Is the Financial Secretary not ashamed that having inherited a trade surplus in 1997, our deficit last year was the worst since records began — when William of Orange was on the throne?

But what is so absurd about these flights of wishful thinking is that there is not a single word about the real lessons which Labour needs to learn — the need for radical banking reform, the need for a massive revival of British manufacturing (when this year the UK deficit on traded goods is likely to exceed the entire UK budget deficit), the need to take back public control of the NHS and education system, the need for a jobs and growth strategy rather than a programme of endless cuts, the need for an effective anti-poverty strategy and a huge reduction in inequality.

So reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Fisheries Service which makes a case for boosting domestic seafood production, noting that Americans eat a lot of seafood, and import 86 percent of it, creating a U.S. seafood trade deficit that now exceeds $ 10.4 billion annually, second only to oil when it comes to natural resources.

When you open a trade you will have 2 pips of deficit.

That brings up a thorny point: what happens when there's a balance of trade deficit, so to speak?