What have been the economic consequences of this significant reduction in tariffs and the resulting non-tariff barriers, both during the eight rounds of multilateral trade negotiations and the large-scale free trade agreements concluded by the United States and other countries? Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, it is difficult to answer this question precisely: moreover, most economists believe that the impact of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has been considerable; The other U.S. agreements, which are now in effect, were all either with small countries or with countries like Australia and South Korea, which are on the other side of the world, which had less of an economic impact on the United States. However, the ongoing negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership and a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership can be of enormous economic importance. Detailed descriptions and texts of many U.S. trade agreements can be viewed via the resource center on the left. However, the IMF`s approach to removing trade barriers was very different from that of the WTO. The IMF`s Independent Evaluation Office states that a trade agreement signed between more than two parties (typically in the neighborhood or in the same region) is considered multilateral. These face the main obstacles – in the negotiation of the substance and in the implementation. The more countries involved, the more difficult it is to achieve mutual satisfaction. Once this type of trade agreement is concluded, it will become a very powerful agreement. The larger the GDP of the signatories, the greater the impact on other global trade relations.

The most important multilateral trade agreement is the North American Free Trade Agreement[5] between the United States, Canada and Mexico. [6] The other causes of the U.S. structural trade deficit are more difficult to explain. There are some differences of opinion among economists on the main cause of the huge deficits of the United States vis-à-vis China and other countries with regard to non-oil products. Some economists argue that the U.S. trade deficit is fueled by capital flows, as described in Chapter 3. The argument behind this view is complex, but (to simplify) it is based on the fact that, by definition, the balance of payments of each nation must be in exact balance; The balance of payments consists of the current account, where the United States has a huge deficit, and the capital balance, where it is equally in surplus. Another important type of trade agreement is the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement.

TTIFA provides a framework for governments to discuss and resolve trade and investment issues at an early stage. These agreements are also a way to identify capabilities and work on them, where appropriate. The USTR is the primary responsibility for managing U.S. trade agreements. These include our trading partners` monitoring of the implementation of trade agreements with the United States, enforcing America`s rights under those agreements, and negotiating and signing trade agreements that advance the President`s trade policy. Trade liberalization has also been promoted by bilateral and regional free trade agreements negotiated by the United States and other countries, as described in Chapter 2. These were allowed under the original GATT, whereas it was not initially intended that such agreements would be very extensive. The first agreement for the United States was, as I have already said, the 1985 agreement with Israel, and today the United States has such agreements with twenty countries.

Other countries and the European Union have many similar agreements and, today, a significant part of world trade takes place within the framework of these free trade agreements. Conversely, dumping may be a legitimate source of concern and anti-dumping duties may be entirely appropriate where a dominant undertaking dismantles its products in a foreign market to weaken its competitors or if its actions have the effect of destroying competition, even if it is not intended to do so. . . .