What, in a nutshell, are free trade agreements?
823380
In a nutshell, free trade agreements are agreements between two countries or two groups of countries to remove any barriers to trade between them. Examples include NAFTA which is a free trade agreement between US, Mexico and Canada, or bilateral trade agreements such as US and Australia.\n\nThat means removing or in most cases, minimizing all quotas (ex. US will set that they will only allow for importation of 200K tons of yarn from this country), tariff restrictions, restrictions to foreign investments, and other impediments to mobility of goods.\n\nAs for the benefits, take for example NAFTA -- the US benefits from this agreement as they now can more freely ship their agricultural products to Mexico under the agreement. Infrastructure and roads used in the trade are also improved to handle additional traffic. Here is CBO's study on the impact of NAFTA on US-Mexico trade http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4247&sequence=1\n\nOf course, not everything is rosy. With the increased exports of agri products from the US, NAFTA has adversely affected agribusiness farmers and companies in Mexico
736215
The great North American Union that's on his agenda with NAFTA.  Mexico, US and Canada.  That's my guess.
627515
I am assuming you are referring to trade policy.  Protectionist policies are those that advantage domestic goods over foreign goods (exports v imports) through either tarriffs (surcharges added to the price of a good being imported) or through subsidies (price supports or distributive policies within a country) to grow or make some item.\nObviously, similiar to the micro level of a larger grocery store being able to get better prices when negotiating with its suppliers compared to a smaller chain or a 'mom & pop' type store, larger countries (typically first world) are better positioned to DICTATE supply agreements (not much can be done about demand---other than to decrease it through tarriffs (VAT) which would be passed on to the consumer).  \nThird and second world countries are often in a very tenuous position:  their government wants to expand their economy through increasing exports, however, often this is done through either internally, creating subsidies (which many cannot afford to do) or agreeing to 'lopsided' trade agreements, which wind up exploiting or at a minimum, disadvantaging their citizens and other workers in their respective countries or nations.  Additionally, there are contravening issues like human rights and environmental standards which may also be of concern.\nI hope this helps, but here are some articles for you to read and consider; as well as the WTO link
1157313
Yes, and do you remember when the economists and professors  and sundry politicians told us that the WTO would be good for America, then years later admit ed that by good for America they didn't mean for the workers or small business owners or the poor or middle class or the economy but rather that it would be good because it would "streamline" trade negotiations? Kind of a big difference right? \nOh and remember NAFTA was negotiated by Clinton, such a nice gift on top of his tax increases that helped to make relocating to Mexico more attractive.
1165913
laissez-faire, which is a government injunction against interference in free trade.
1186676
Free trade with low barriers to trading would and should not increase corruption or poverty in poorer nations. How could any one get that idea??\n\nAs in the marketplace, the old phrase "buyer beware" is still applicable. The biggest embarrassment I remember is allegedly Nestle was pushing their breast formula with free samples, and native Africans were not breast feeding since their breasts ran dry.\n\nBut with free trade, both buyer and seller benefit. The only alternative to free trade is to drop out of the "world game" and remain backwards. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a 3rd world country anyway??
225202
it all started with a set of agreements on coal and steel production, which was desperately needed if all these countries were going to rebuild their industrial economies after the war.   the way stalin ruled eastern europe, it was also pretty clear to europe that the old days when they ruled the world were over and they would have to work together if they were going to stand up to anybody.  then a small free trade bloc developed between the netherlands, belgium, and luxembourg.  as more and more agreements were made, one of the goals became preserving many of their common social democrat values of modern europe.\n\nwhat they're really after is an economy that's large enough to consume it's own production, so that democratically elected governments don't have to adjust their policies to suit the multinational corporations.  and one major advantage in joining europe instead of nafta, is that the european union invests heavily in new members.  the goal is to improve the economies of new members so there isn't this huge stampede of cheap labour in one direction, and jobs in the other, but rather create an actual market for west european goods.  an especially attractive offer for southern europe, and the former soviet bloc that often had neither goods, or money to buy them with before the checks from brussels began arriving.\n\nthen there is turkey.  turkey raised a few eyebrows because it's the first coloured country to join europe, and some europeans were openly apprehensive about the idea given their previous experience wtih turkish immigration.  but its the geo-political implications that are most interesting.  turkey had little choice really but to move to europe after her economy was ruined by the sanctions on iraq.  the way things are going i don't know what country would want anything to do with that part of the world.  but the EU has grown quite a lot and is basically finding itself in the backyard of the former soviet union, and the near and middle east.  the case of ukraine's shift to the west is also very interesting, because it shows how eastern european nations are starting to see the eu as a good defence against russian, even american hegemony
429844
======\n\nIt is an international pact of many countries. \n\nThe principal share comes from USA.\nOther countries from Europe also contribute to it,
768236
If you mean when our country went from making things to buying things made in other countries, that's when someone decided that free trade would be good.  They should have made it fair trade, more even trading, instead of us importing some many goods and exporting so little.
202520
Here are the best and most frequently used ones :\nInternational Trade Administration - Home PageInternational Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce Home Page is the first stop for information about all US Federal Government export assistance ...\nwww.ita.doc.gov/  \nITC - International Trade CentreThe International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC) is the focal point in the United Nations system for technical cooperation with developing countries in trade ...\nwww.intracen.org/  \nInternational Trade Commission Homepage. An "independent", quasi-judicial federal agency that provides trade policy advice to both the legislative and executive branches of government, ...\nwww.usitc.gov/ \nInternational Trade Leads, Import Export - Fita.org World Trade LeadsA network of companies belonging to international trade associations in the USA, Canada, and Mexico.\nwww.fita.org/ \nBest of Luck !
772696
Moer details on this link\n\nhttp://www.wto.org./english/tratop_e/gatt_e/gatt_e.htm
522218
Your question is not very clear, but here's are some facts and opinions on the topic.\n\nFACTS\n-----\n\nW.T.O. stands for "World Trade Organization".  The W.T.O. was created, at least in part, to reduce barriers to trade.  \n\nBarriers to trade can include direct barriers, such as government prohibitions on imports, or high taxes on imports.  Some people (mostly businesspeople who don't want any sort of government regulation) say that barriers to trade include such things as laws to protect the environment, laws to protect workers (e.g. from being exposed to poisonous substances), etc.  \n\nFree-market economists say that free trade allows the economy to function at maximum efficiency, with each country producing the products that it produces most efficiently, and then trading some of those products to other countries that produce other products most efficiently.  By minimizing barriers to trade, those economists say, we can maximize the living standards of people in all countries.  \n\nHowever, this is true only under special conditions, including the absence of "external costs".  An external cost is a cost that is not paid for by the producer or the buyer/consumer of a product.  For example, my factory might produce $1,000,000 of product per year.  But the pollution that my factory dumps in the river might cost people downstream $10,000,000 in damage.  Thus my factory, instead of producing $1,000,000 of net benefit, might actually cause $9,000,000 of net loss.  If this $9,000,000 is not paid for either by me or by the people who buy my products, then this $9,000,000 is an "external cost".  \n\nThus, although businesspeople and most well-known free-market economists generally won't admit it, environmental protection, labor protection, etc. can save more money than they cost, and eliminating those protections may reduce, rather than increase efficiency in some cases.  \n\nOPINIONS\n--------\n\nMost people's opinions on this topic are based on how their own income is affected by the WTO's trumping of environmental and labor protection laws.  People who make a lot of money from corporate profits generally want the WTO to destroy governments' ability to protect the environment and labor.  People who feel that the corporations are polluting the area that they live in or abusing workers generally emphasize that free trade is a means, not an end, and feel that governments should not allow "free trade" to trump environmental protection and labor protection.  These people feel that trade should be regulated when it causes external costs.  \n\nMy own OPINION is that our political leaders, such as George W. Bush, have expanded the powers of the WTO etc. too much.  The WTO etc. allow corporations to veto environmental and labor protections.  This allows corporations to essentially overthrow democracy and pillage the environment without regard to the harm to humans or even to the long-term sustainability of the economy.
413502
there is an international agreement on controlled commodities called the Wassenaar agreement.  see attached.  \nthis site includes lists and all the info a prospective exporter or importer might need.
1036186
1)The Treaty of Cahuenga ended the fighting of the Mexican-American War in California.\n\n2)The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War\n\n3)The North American Free Trade Agreement, known usually as NAFTA, is a free trade agreement among Canada, the United States, and Mexico\n\n4)The 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Water of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande alloted to Mexico a guaranteed annual quantity of water from these sources\n\nThe US also has a limited extradition treaty with Mexico.\n\n\nThese are treaties between the U.S. government and Native Americans in the United States.\n\n    * 1778 - Treaty of Fort Pitt (1778)\n    * 1784 - Treaty of Fort Stanwix\n    * 1785 - Treaty of Fort McIntosh\n    * 1785 - Treaty of Hopewell\n    * 1786 - Treaty of Fort Finney\n    * 1788 - Treaty of Buffalo Creek\n    * 1789 - Treaty of Fort Harmar\n    * 1790 - Treaty of New York\n    * 1792 - Treaty of Holston\n    * 1795 - Treaty of Greenville\n    * 1805 - Treaty of Fort Industry\n    * 1807 - Treaty of Detroit\n    * 1814 - Treaty of Fort Jackson\n    * 1815 - Treaty of Springwells\n    * 1817 - Treaty of Fort Meigs\n    * 1818 - Treaty of St. Mary's\n    * 1819 - Treaty of Saginaw\n    * 1821 - Treaty of Chicago\n    * 1825 - Treaty of Prairie du Chien\n    * 1825 - Treaty of Indian Springs\n    * 1825 - Treaty of St. Louis: 1,400 Missouri Shawnees were forcibly relocated from Missouri to Kansas. `\n    * 1826 - Treaty of Mississinwas\n    * 1826 - Treaty of Washington (1826)\n    * 1829 - Treaty of Prairie du Chien\n    * 1829 - Treaty of Fort Wayne\n    * 1830 - Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek\n    * 1831 - Treaty of Lewistown\n    * 1832 - Treaty of Cusseta\n    * 1833 - Treaty of Chicago\n    * 1835 - Treaty of New Echota\n    * 1836 - Treaty of Washington (1836)\n    * 1842 - Treaty of La Pointe\n    * 1851 - Treaty of Traverse des Sioux\n    * 1851 - Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851)\n    * 1851 - Treaty of Mendota\n    * 1854 - Treaty of La Pointe\n    * 1855 - Treaty of Neah Bay\n    * 1858 - Treaty of Washington (1858)\n    * 1867 - Medicine Lodge Treaty\n    * 1868 - Treaty of Fort Laramie
673476
As you probably know, CAFTA is a free trade agreement. Guatemala is a very poor country which bases its economy on agriculture. It's manufacturing and construction field cannot compete the free trade; there is an imbalance between exports and imports...Furthermore, this agreement hits hard the workers' rights because they are being given low salaries, while -at the same time- the american companies make a lot of profit.
935573
Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for, please add some information to clarify.\n\n\nOk, how about the topic of " The Dominance of Japanese Management in the World in the 80's and it's Decline" or "The possible effects of a South American Trade Organization on NAFTA and the EU"\nor "EU trade restrictions on US agriculture"  or "The effects of OPEC on US production/trade/economy"  or "Ramifications of China's lack of enforcement of Copyright laws on US producers" or "US investment potential in Vietnam since Normalization in Relations"\n\nas to sites....search using google, dogpile, answers.com, yahoo, msn, Jeeves....all have different priorities of which documents will come up first....takes research, any way you cut it.
1015393
The TAA (Trade Agreements Act) basically forces anyone selling a product to the federal government that the country of origin must be on the "approved" list of countries manufacturing the product.  Go to the link below for some good info on the subject.