A Quote by Jerome Powell

Given that trade benefited the Asian economies on the way up, it seems natural that the slowdown in global trade, whatever its causes, could lead to some loss of dynamism and growth in the region.
Given the stake that both the U.S. and Europe have in stabilising and sustaining global growth, their policies should be aimed at ensuring China, India, and other newly industrialising Asian economies can take up the slack created by the slowdown in OECD economies.
An intensification of trade or geopolitical tensions - with negative repercussions for global growth and risk appetite - could affect economies that are highly dependent on foreign demand or external financing.
The message from history is so blatantly obvious - that free trade causes mutual prosperity while protectionism causes poverty - that it seems incredible that anybody ever thinks otherwise. There is not a single example of a country opening its borders to trade and ending up poorer.
Emerging market and developing economies have benefited from monetary easing in major economies but have also faced volatile risk sentiment tied to trade tensions.
[Barack] Obama, for example, he has not given up on cap-and-trade. Now, he has not been able to pass cap-and-trade, but cap-and-trade is all about redistribution of wealth in a global basis - taking money out of this country and giving it to third-world countries on the other end of the ocean. And that is redistribution of wealth in a global basis. It's fundamental Marxism.
More broadly, Prime Minister Lee [Hsien Loong] and I will work to advance the US-Singapore partnership across the board. We're committed to sustaining the dynamism of our economies with the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the highest-standard trade agreement ever - which will support trade and innovation in both our countries.
That level of trade deficit throttles real growth in our country and continues the unfortunate path of selling out America. We are not winning the global trade war, we are losing it badly.
I want a trade that is not trickle-down trade, but trade that recognizes we're in a global economy.
Three year sof unconditional MFN have not lead to any subtantial improvement in human rights, trade and nuclear proliferation practice of the Chinese government. In addition to the trade barriers, China has marred our trade relationship wit prison labor or export and other unfair trade practices.
What exactly is trade facilitation? In a nutshell, it is an effort to enable global trade by reducing red tape and streamline customs. In even simpler words: making it easier for companies to trade across borders.
For Latin American countries seeking to play a bigger role in global trade, effectively implementing trade-facilitating reforms could be an important tool in their toolkits.
The Donald Trump trade doctrine is this. America will trade with any country, so long as that deal meets these three criterion: You increase the GDP growth rate, you decrease the trade deficit, and you strengthen the manufacturing base.
Trade is good for the economy. Trade creates growth. The problem is that it creates growth but it does not think about distribution of the benefits of that growth.
People say free trade causes dislocation. In actual fact, it's the lowering of trade barriers that causes the dislocation.
The far more likely Trump scenario is this: Chinese leaders realize they no longer have a weak leader in the White House; China ceases its unfair trade practices. America's massive trade deficit with China comes peacefully and prosperously back into balance, and both the U.S. and Chinese economies benefit from trade.
My experience with novice traders is that they trade three to five times too big. They are taking 5 to 10 percent risks on a trade when they should be taking 1 to 2 percent risks. The emotional burden of trading is substantial; on any given day, I could lose millions of dollars. If you personalize these losses, you can’t trade.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!