These political arguments about how nations should respond to globalization and trade are taking place at several levels: at the global level, through the World Trade Organization and through regional trade agreements between couples or groups of countries. In the last 25 years of the 20th century, the global economy has been very different. The country and the work were still relatively fixed, although the capital could move again more freely around the world. However, the technology has been very different from one country to another, with the United States being the leaders in many areas.  On 26 May 2010, WTO Deputy Director-General Alejandro Jara delivered an interesting speech in which he described the impact of supply chains on how we think about international trade. His speech is in www.wto.org/english/news_e/news10_e/devel_26may10_e.htm. The United States has another multilateral regional trade agreement: the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). This agreement with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua eliminated tariffs on more than 80% of U.S. exports of non-textile goods. Trade policy is determined at many levels: administrative authorities in government, laws passed by the legislature, regional negotiations between a small group of nations (sometimes only two), and global negotiations by the World Trade Organization. During the second half of the 20th century, trade barriers declined significantly in the U.S. economy and in the global economy in general. One of the reasons countries sign international trade agreements to engage in free trade is to protect themselves from their own special interests.
When an industry commits to protecting foreign producers, policy makers may indicate that they have their hands tied by the trade agreement. This would indicate that the mercantilists were right, that a nation would be well advised to limit imports. However, today, almost all economists would reject this conclusion and, indeed, many economists believe that removing its trade barriers benefits a country, whether or not the country`s trading partners remove their barriers. Adam Smith and many economists after him argue that the goal of production is to produce goods for consumption. Stephen Cohen and his colleagues put this argument as follows: “Theories of comparative advantage (classical and neoclassical) imply that trade liberalization is always beneficial to consumers in each country, that the country`s trading partners return the favour by removing their own trade barriers. From this point of view, the emphasis is on the mutual elimination of trade barriers in most real trade liberalization efforts. There is no room.  The world has achieved almost more free trade in the next round, the so-called Doha Round trade agreement. If successful, Doha would have reduced tariffs for all WTO members overall. Below, you can see a map of the world with the biggest trade deals in 2018. Pass the cursor over each country for a rounded breakdown of imports, exports and balances. The objective of removing trade barriers is, of course, to increase the level of trade, which should improve economic well-being. Economists often measure economic well-being based on the share of goods and services in total output (i.e.
gross domestic product, GDP) that the country produces on average per person. GDP is the best measure of economic well-being, but it is available, but it presents significant conceptual challenges. As Joseph Stiglitz said, it is not possible to measure GDP, “it is not possible to identify some of the factors that change people`s lives and contribute to their happiness, such as security, recreation, income distribution and a clean environment – including the types of factors that growth itself needs to be sustainable.  Moreover, GDP does not distinguish between “good growth” and “poor growth”; For example, when a