Sixth, the agreement provided business travellers with easy access to all three countries. NAFTA allows your company to ship qualified goods to customers in Canada and Mexico duty-free. Goods can be challenged in different ways depending on NAFTA`s rules of origin. This may be because the products are fully obtained or manufactured in a NAFTA party, or because, according to the product`s rule of origin, it takes enough work and equipment in a part of NAFTA to make the product what it is when it is exported. On January 29, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the agreement between the United States, Mexico-Canada. Canada has not yet adopted it in its parliamentary body until January 2020. Mexico was the first country to ratify the agreement in 2019. According to a report by the New York City public tank report, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), bilateral agricultural trade tripled between 1994 and 2017 and is considered one of the main economic effects of NAFTA on trade between the United States and Canada, with Canada becoming the largest importer of U.S. agricultural sectors. [64] Fears of job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector were not due to the fact that manufacturing employment remained «stable». Given Canada`s labour productivity, which rose to 72% of the U.S. level, hopes of closing the «productivity gap» between the two countries were also not realized.

[64] NAFTA also contained provisions that improved the protection of intellectual property rights, such as computer software and chemical production. Participating countries agreed to apply rules that would protect the intellectual property rights of other members and impose sanctions against industrial theft. Fifth, all NAFTA countries were required to respect patents, trademarks and copyrights. At the same time, the agreement ensured that these intellectual property rights did not affect trade. Economists generally agreed that the U.S. economy as a whole benefited from NAFTA by increasing trade. [82] [83] In a 2012 survey by the Global Markets Initiative`s panel of economic experts, 95% of participants said that U.S. citizens benefited on average from NAFTA, while no one said that NAFTA was detrimental to U.S.

citizens on average. [5] A review of the 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives showed that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States. [6] A 2015 study showed that welfare in the United States increased by 0.08% and intra-block trade in the United States by 41% due to NAFTA tariff reductions. [63] It is impossible to isolate the effects of NAFTA on the broader economy. For example, it is difficult to say with certainty what percentage of the current U.S. trade deficit, which reached a record $65,677 million at the end of 2005, is directly attributable to NAFTA. It is also difficult to say what percentage of the 3.3 million manufacturing jobs that were lost in the United States between 1998 and 2004 is the result of NAFTA and what percentage would have been created without this trade agreement. It cannot even be said with certainty that the intensification of trade between NAFTA countries is exclusively the result of the trade agreement.

Those who support the agreement generally claim NAFTA loans for enhanced trade activity and reject the idea that the agreement has resulted in job losses or a growing trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ($8,039 million and $4,263 million respectively in December 2005). Critics of the agreement generally associate it with these deficits and job losses. A 2014 study on the impact of NAFTA on U.S. trade employment and investment showed that the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 billion to $177.2 billion between 1993 and 2013 and supplanted 851,700 U.S. jobs. [84] A Canadian-American member