The WTO continues to classify these agreements as follows: The reason for these significant deviations from the original model is that the modern world of free trade is so different from the original historical environment of free trade models. Today, no one has clearly determined the best economic outcome on the basis of national natural advantages. Today`s global economy has not achieved the best result from international competition, where each country serves the best interests of the world by producing precisely the products it is naturally most efficient to produce. On the contrary, there are many possible outcomes that depend on what countries actually do, what capabilities they actually develop, natural or human capacities.  The effect of trade on GDP is therefore the net amount that exports leave above or below imports. However, this is a static measure. As has already been said, expanded exports also have a dynamic effect, as firms become more efficient with rising sales. In addition to trade diversion and the creation of trades that have essentially static effects, participants in free trade zones and union unions also aim for dynamic benefits, such as expansion production, as companies take advantage of the growing size of the market to increase production and improve efficiency when firms adapt to increased competition. Access to a larger market is particularly important for small countries whose economies are too small to warrant large-scale production. Free trade agreements are controversial.
While encouraging trade between Member States, they can also distract trade from third countries, which could reduce social benefits. This column shows that even taking trade diversion into account, the overall effects remain very positive. The second is classified bilateral (BTA) if it is signed between two pages, each side could be a country (or another customs territory), a trading bloc or an informal group of countries (or other customs sites). Both countries are relaxing their trade restrictions to help businesses prosper better between countries. It certainly helps to reduce taxes and helps them discuss their trade status. Generally, this is the weakened domestic industry. Industries, in particular, are covered by the automotive, oil and food sectors.  Like trade in investment and capital, economists did not agree on trade in services after the Second World War. In fact, trade in services was seen almost as an oxymoron by early economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who believed that services were non-negotiable. This was also the view of trade negotiators for three or more decades after the introduction of the GATT.
Following a multilateral round of trade negotiations under the GATT/WTO, tariffs will be reduced during a transitional period, but will not be fully abolished. However, in bilateral or regional U.S. free trade agreements (FTA), the parties to the agreement eliminate almost all trade tariffs entirely, usually for a transitional period of five to ten years. Geza Feketukuty, the leading U.S. negotiator for services in the Uruguay Round, gives a wonderful anecdote about the early efforts to start negotiations on trade in services: ”The Swiss delegate . . . trade in services by pointing out how impossible it was for him to have his hair cut in another country by a hairdresser. The chairman of the committee. .
he replied that every woman in Germany had benefited enormously from French exports of hairdressing services, and she was convinced that the delegate`s wife would confirm that this was the case in Switzerland.  Table 1 reports on our effects on free trade agreements (column 3) and breaks down the price impact of the free trade agreement between producers (column 1) and consumers (column 2) for certain economies, including Australia, China, Japan and South Korea, the only countries in their sample (e