Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage.

[I'm Supposn]

I am against tariffs and am for free trade. If that hurts a particular country, so be it.

The second you start trying to manipulate trade through government action, you immediately make he goods involved more expensive for the consumer AND/OR make taxpayers pay more taxes AND/OR make more of their tax dollars go towards trade issues instead of more important matters like welfare/defense/etc..

DA60, The proposed transferable “Import Certificate”, (IC) policy is a market driven policy for conducting the nation’s global trade of goods. It will significantly reduce, (if not entirely eliminate) USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods, and be of net economic benefit to our nation.

Regarding trade deficits detrimental effects upon their nations’ economies,
Refer to: Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”
or to USA?s Trade Deficits and Warren Buffett?s Proposal | Economy In Crisis

Regarding trade deficits detrimental effects upon their nation’s economy,
Refer to:
the paragraphs entitled “Trade Balances' effects upon their nation’s GDP “
Within the Wikipedia article entitled “Balance of trade”.
[Excerpted and transcribed from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balan...es.27_effects_upon_their_nation.E2.80.99s_GDP ]

I’m opposed to USA’s trade policy, (or actually our lack of a coherent trade policy that better serves nations unable or unwilling to better compensate their workers. If the U.S. Congress determines that we should continue to practice altruistic trade policies, it should be paid for from our tax revenues; it should not be primarily borne by those directly and indirectly dependent upon USA wages and salaries.

Within a unilateral transferable Import Certificate trade policy exporters of goods from the USA are not required to pay the federal IC fees. They’re motivated to do so in order to have their goods assessed and acquire the profitable transferable ICs. The face values of those IC’s are dependent upon the assessed value of the goods they’re exporting from the USA. The IC fees are federally monitored and annually set by law to defray all direct federal expenditures due to the IC our policy. USA purchasers of imported goods will eventually pay all net costs due to the IC policy.

Our nation would enjoy economically net significant benefits due to our IC policy. Currently we all benefit from cheaper foreign goods; but employees and their families that are dependent upon U.S. wages and salaries are not sufficiently compensated for our chronic annual global trade deficits detrimental effect upon our GDP and numbers of jobs. Lesser numbers of jobs are detrimental to our median wage.

A tariff policy can only assure significant reduction of their nation’s global trade deficit of goods if the government sets their tariff rates to drastically increase imported goods’ prices to USA purchasers.
The transferable Import Certificate, (IC) policy would significantly reduce, (if not entirely eliminate) USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods and be of net economic benefit to our nation regardless of whatever the increased prices to USA imported goods purchasers.

A transferable IC policy will indirectly but effectively subsidizes prices of USA goods sold to foreign purchasers and would also increase our GDP. The price reductions of USA’s goods delivered abroad and the price increases of foreign goods delivered within the USA would be essentially market rather than government determined. Regardless of imported goods’ prices, (i.e. regardless of ICs’ values in the global market) USA’s annual trade deficits of goods will be significantly reduced (if not entirely eliminated).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

A WORLD OF HARM



Which means, ipso facto, that major trading blocs, like the EU, will be obliged to adopt the same taxation mechanism as counter-strategy, resulting quite likely in an overall stagnation of international trade.

The less nations seek to "traffic" markets for their own internal purposes, the better off the world of Global Exchange in goods/services will be - especially amongst developed nations. It is practically axiomatic that low-tech goods made-in-USA are destined to fail internationally (unless protected) due to higher production costs. If protected, the US triggers a trade-war, which will have to be settled by the World Trade Organization, to which the US is signatory.

This gets World Trade nowhere.

And, as I keep repeating, the way out of our present employment predicament is to enhances the skills/talents of our workforce such that they seek "upmarket work". And the US has the highest average debt for Tertiary Education of any developed nation - see that fact displayed here: Tertiary Education Spending - Selected OECD Countries

We have some of the highest costs of Tertiary Education on this planet, and it is doing us a world of harm ...

That is no way whatsoever to get people to migrate up the skills/competencies ladder ...

Lafayette, a transferable Import Certificate policy is a unilaterally enacted policy for the nation’s practice of globally trading goods. It requires nothing of other nations.

[Currently the USA participates in many international trade agreements but fortunately the USA has never entered into any trade treaty. Treaties with foreign government have possibly equal status to individual clauses within our constitution but they are of superior status to federal law. No president has ever obtained a 2/3 approval from the U.S. Senate for a trade treaty].
My understanding is that the USA can withdraw from any of our trade agreements after giving the participating nations 6 months notice of our intention to do so].

As I’ve written before, I’m opposed to USA’s trade policy, (or actually our lack of a coherent trade policy that better serves nations unable or unwilling to better compensate their workers. If the U.S. Congress determines that we should continue to practice altruistic trade policies, it should be paid for from our tax revenues; it should not be primarily borne by those directly and indirectly dependent upon USA wages and salaries.
(That’s how we funded the Marshall Plan after the Second World War).

Currently we have submitted ourselves to be subject to international courts and laws that subordinate our own net economic interests. We cannot even depend upon our own government to support the interests of USA entities. When there was an unsavory rape case committed by a U.S. sailor in Okinawa, our government made concessions to Okinawa rice producers in order to retain our naval bases. The federal government should not have the right to trade away the interests of Louisiana rice growers. Under an IC policy they wouldn’t have the right to do so. This market rather than government driven policy gives government much less discretion of determinations; under current USA practices the contrary is true.

We can agree that any improvement of our educational and training practices would be reflected by even greater improvements of our social and economic conditions. All direct federal costs due to the IC policy are paid for by USA purchasers of imported goods. The IC policy does not require additional tax revenues and does nothing to hinder our nation from seeking those improvements of our education and training. USA’s trade and education policies are separate issues.

What is “Tertiary Education”? Your link didn't work.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[James972]

DA60, The proposed transferable “Import Certificate”, (IC) policy is a market driven policy for conducting the nation’s global trade of goods.

its market driven?? That's a lie!! You don't say its market driven when a libsocialist govt imposes what are in effect tariffs. Market driven means no libsocialist interference.

 

[Lafayette]

Lafayette, a transferable Import Certificate policy is a unilaterally enacted policy for the nation’s practice of globally trading goods. It requires nothing of other nations.

It will go to the World Trade Organization, where they will quibble about it for years on end. It is a major change in the way trade is performed, therefore it cannot have a "limited impact".

It's not doable if you want to avoid a considerable reaction from major trading partners, and the third round of negotiations in "more free trade" have stagnated for almost two decades at the WTO.

What is “Tertiary Education”?

Post-secondary Education, ie.: Vocational, 2- and 4-year, etc.

The link works for me. Here it is in the raw: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68758107@N00/25373781800/

The indebtedness of any American student seeking a postsecondary training or education is wholly unacceptable - except in the US, where "education" is just another "market" to be plundered.

When will we Yanks get tired of it, I wonder? Like American Health Care, it just doesn't work.

And if there is any aspect defining one's life more pertinent than HealthCare and Education, pray tell me what ...

 

[Lafayette]

Currently the USA participates in many international trade agreements but fortunately the USA has never entered into any trade treaty.

The US "negotiates" trade agreements by means of the WTO in Geneva.

What does the WTO do? From its own site, excerpt:

Trade negotiations:

The WTO agreements cover goods, services and intellectual property. They spell out the principles of liberalization, and the permitted exceptions. They include individual countries’ commitments to lower customs tariffs and other trade barriers, and to open and keep open services markets. They set procedures for settling disputes. These agreements are not static; they are renegotiated from time to time and new agreements can be added to the package. Many are now being negotiated under the Doha Development Agenda, launched by WTO trade ministers in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001.

Implementation and monitoring:

WTO agreements require governments to make their trade policies transparent by notifying the WTO about laws in force and measures adopted. Various WTO councils and committees seek to ensure that these requirements are being followed and that WTO agreements are being properly implemented. All WTO members must undergo periodic scrutiny of their trade policies and practices, each review containing reports by the country concerned and the WTO Secretariat.

Dispute settlement:

The US is a member of the World Trade Organization, where it "negotiates" matters related to import-export trade.

The WTO’s procedure for resolving trade quarrels under the Dispute Settlement Understanding is vital for enforcing the rules and therefore for ensuring that trade flows smoothly. Countries bring disputes to the WTO if they think their rights under the agreements are being infringed. Judgements by specially appointed independent experts are based on interpretations of the agreements and individual countries’ commitments.

Building trade capacity:

WTO agreements contain special provision for developing countries, including longer time periods to implement agreements and commitments, measures to increase their trading opportunities, and support to help them build their trade capacity, to handle disputes and to implement technical standards. The WTO organizes hundreds of technical cooperation missions to developing countries annually. It also holds numerous courses each year in Geneva for government officials. Aid for Trade aims to help developing countries develop the skills and infrastructure needed to expand their trade.

Outreach:

The WTO maintains regular dialogue with non-governmental organizations, parliamentarians, other international organizations, the media and the general public on various aspects.

So, yes, it is the mechanism to negotiate matters concerning World Trade. And you are quite correct, no PotUS has the unilateral right to sign a Trade Agreement. First it is negotiated at the WTO, then it has to be passed with the approval of Congress.

I am suggesting, nonetheless, what you propose is indeed a matter affecting trade-arrangements that would have to be negotiated first at the WTO - and I doubt seriously any nation trading with the US would agree to it. (Would any PotUS want to risk that threat to trade?)

Thus, I think the WTO-negotiations would be a major hurdle for what you propose as merit-worthy as it might be for which I have no personal opinion; because I just don't know how it might affect present trade patterns with our trading partners.

That's up to the WTO to decide ...

 

[Lafayette]

AN ERA IN HISTORY HAS CLOSED

Nonsense. Let's say, you buy bananas from some Banana Republic. BR is too poor to buy any American products. You accumulate huge trade deficit with BR. Is such trade detrimental? No, quite the opposite: In America you make and sell banana bread, employing bakers, dishwashers, delivery drivers, accountants, etc. You turn profit, you add to GDP. The cost of bananas is a small fraction of your expenses, and the net result is a boost for you, everyone involved, and consumers. And your product wouldn't even exist without this "detrimental" trade.

Good example, but the opposite is why many jobs in low-cost industries (namely "plastics") have skedaddled to the Far East.

My point: We got used to an "economic formula" (products/industries/pay-scales) that could not last forever. An era in American history has closed.

Especially on the low-skills end, which were readily adapted by countries in the Far East - who know how to make pots 'n pans 'n brushes just as well as we do, and cheaper as well!

Where have we been in our "economic planning" over the past thirty years? What, a nation does not need "economic planning"? We must simply accept the fact that a relatively small number of Banksters on Wall Street could make fortunes and then walk away as the walls (on Wall Street) came tumbling down?

WE, THE SHEEPLE

No, we need accept none of it - unless we listen to dorks like Trump who think its "everybody else's" fault.

We, the sheeple, got into this present mess ourselves - and we voted to do so. When we gave the HofR over to the Replicants, we also gave them the tool to stop-dead all Stimulus Spending that would have, had Obama enacted it for the second-time, ended the recession before 2012.

After all, it was Stimulus Spending the first-time around (remember the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed by a Dem-PotUS and a Dem Congress) that spiked the unemployment rate at 10% whilst it was racing ahead to the mid-teens!

And in the mid-term elections of 2010, barely 38% of the American electorate bothered to show up at the polls!

Low turn-outs - the young don't vote and the elderly do. Who/what do the elderly prefer? For the most part, the "status-quo"!

Who delivers the status-quo? The Replicants - who desperately want nobody to change the wholly unfair upper-income taxation that is the source of all the money that is gushing into their election coffers... !

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

Re: Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediRe: Import Certificates, tariffs and ta

'increase gdp and median wage' is not a policy position nor is it a strategy. it's a result of sound economic policy. sound economic policy =/= debt-funded handouts, industry stifling environmental regulations, and calling any opposition to a trade deficit 'racist'.

 

[Lafayette]

Re: Annual trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediRe: Import Certificates, tariffs and ta

... it's a result of sound economic policy. sound economic policy =/= debt-funded handouts, industry stifling environmental regulations, and calling any opposition to a trade deficit 'racist'.

Environmental regulations are an absolute must, and the need/desire to make profits comes comparatively in second or even third place. When you've got lung-cancer from too much pollution, all your stock-dividends will not cure it.

I can't even imagine what you mean about debt-funded deficits. Or why the Rabid-Right go ballistic regarding the subject. The US was born in 1776 with "debt" and not much has changed since.

See the History of American Debt. Who knows - perhaps Divine Intervention? - why we had no debt in the 1830s.

But we have always managed it, because the dollar was a reserve currency - meaning that they like to buy our debt and earn interest on it because the dollar was the dominant currency. Well, that's changed. There's also now the euro, and - who knows?- maybe the Chinese renmimby one day soon as well ...

National trade deficits, unlike personal bankruptcy, are fully acceptable if they are managed properly. And having conniptions about deficits, though a substitute for applied thinking, is not worth the pain either - nor will balancing the budget. Uncle Sam is not a household that can literally go broke nor a country that is likely to lose its credit-rating.

Just a country that will have to contend with a world-economy wherein there are more than just the greenback as the one and only global reserve currency ...

 

[James972]

Nonsense. Let's say, you buy bananas from some Banana Republic. BR is too poor to buy any American products. .

if USA buys $1 million worth of bananas from BR, BR has $1 million USA dollars that can only be spent in the USA. No trade deficit is possible. Econ 101.

 

[James972]

My point: We got used to an "economic formula" (products/industries/pay-scales) that could not last forever. An era in American history has closed.

. !

of course thats obvious BS. Ship 20 million liberal illegals home and thats 20 milion new jobs tomorrow with huge upward pressure on wages!! Eliminate the highest liberal corporate tax in the world and bring home 5 million jobs tomorrow and create more huge upward pressure on wages. Liberalism is always the enemy! Do you understand?

 

[Cyrylek]

if USA buys $1 million worth of bananas from BR, BR has $1 million USA dollars that can only be spent in the USA. No trade deficit is possible. Econ 101.

Oh, great then.Trade deficits simply don't exist, because hard currencies of the world are in reality token pseudo-money that can be used only in the countries that print them. I learn something new every day.

 

[Cyrylek]

of course thats obvious BS. Ship 20 million liberal illegals home and thats 20 milion new jobs tomorrow with huge upward pressure on wages!! Eliminate the highest liberal corporate tax in the world and bring home 5 million jobs tomorrow and create more huge upward pressure on wages. Liberalism is always the enemy! Do you understand?

Liberalism ( socialism, that is; our American word usage is amazing) doesn't help. But "shipping illegals home" is every bit as socialist a measure as any attack on the natural flow of goods, capital or labor. And no, it would not create equal amount of new jobs. It would deliver a lethal blow to the American economy. You think with the Mexican nanny/gardener/construction worker gone. someone just as qualified and affordable will magically appear at the door? Nope. What will happen is: The mother will have to quit her job to stay with kids, family income down by half; the garden turning into a mess; construction projects frozen or cancelled, etc. "Illegal immigration" is a supply-and-demand phenomenon; these people are here because the market needs them. It actually needs more than it has: look at all the apples rotting in the Yakima Valley because there are no pickers, or all the dilapidated buildings that are not being renovated because labor is too expensive (What 20 million consumers suddenly gone would do to retail commerce in low-income neighborhoods, I don't even want to imagine)

 

[James972]

But "shipping illegals home" is every bit as socialist)

having a border for your country is not economic its having a border. If you don't have a border you don't have a country. Do you believe in countries??

 

[Cyrylek]

having a border for your country is not economic its having a border. If you don't have a border you don't have a country. Do you believe in countries??

I believe in my country, the US of A, being something more and something different than the nation-states of the Old World. American exceptionalism, you know.

But I would like to point out that the thread is all about economics. Attempting to change the subject may be construed as a sign of weakness in a debate...

 

[James972]

I believe in my country, the US of A, being something more and something different than the nation-states of the Old World. American exceptionalism, you know.

so no borders and no country- right???? and if we want borders we are socialist?????

 

[James972]

I believe in my country, the US of A, being something more and something different than the nation-states of the Old World. American exceptionalism, you know.

But I would like to point out that the thread is all about economics. Attempting to change the subject may be construed as a sign of weakness in a debate...

exactly and you said if we have borders were are socialist even when there is mistaken

 

[James972]

Liberalism ( socialism, that is; our American word usage is amazing) doesn't help. But "shipping illegals home" is every bit as socialist a measure as any attack on the natural flow of goods, capital or labor. And no, it would not create equal amount of new jobs. It would deliver a lethal blow to the American economy. You think with the Mexican nanny/gardener/construction worker gone. someone just as qualified and affordable will magically appear at the door? Nope. What will happen is: The mother will have to quit her job to stay with kids, family income down by half; the garden turning into a mess; construction projects frozen or cancelled, etc. "Illegal immigration" is a supply-and-demand phenomenon; these people are here because the market needs them. It actually needs more than it has: look at all the apples rotting in the Yakima Valley because there are no pickers, or all the dilapidated buildings that are not being renovated because labor is too expensive (What 20 million consumers suddenly gone would do to retail commerce in low-income neighborhoods, I don't even want to imagine)

I agree in part, the best way to make it works would be to ship them home gradually and get Americans off welfare at the same time.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Re: Annual trade deficits detriment to their nation’s GDPs are immediate.

Originally Posted by I'm Supposn
... trade deficits indirectly reduce and surpluses directly increase their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.

LONG-TERM
... Only if you look statically at the numbers in any given year. Think longer-term. ...

Annual trade balances immediate detrimental effects cumulative and thus to some extent continue to be economically detrimental far into the future.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

Nonsense. Let's say, you buy bananas from some Banana Republic. BR is too poor to buy any American products. You accumulate huge trade deficit with BR. Is such trade detrimental? No, quite the opposite: In America you make and sell banana bread, employing bakers, dishwashers, delivery drivers, accountants, etc. You turn profit, you add to GDP. The cost of bananas is a small fraction of your expenses, and the net result is a boost for you, everyone involved, and consumers. And your product wouldn't even exist without this "detrimental" trade.

Trade deficits make no net contribution to their nations’ GDPs.
The benefits of production are earned only by the producing nation.

Cyrylek, nonsense; the entire economic differences between similar domestic and imported goods occur prior to the imported goods entry within the final purchasers' nations.

After domestic goods have reached their producers shipping dock Trade or imported goods have been unloaded at importing nation’s entry dock or the importing nation’s cargo carrier and are to be handled and processed by workers within the importing nation’s jurisdictions and taxes, similar goods have similar economic attributes regardless of where they were produced.

For example a worker repairing a vehicle within a facility located within USA’s jurisdiction will all contribute to USA’s GDP. The extent of those contributions are not affected by the whatever nation where the vehicle was produced.
Productions of any product, or of its components or its materials are attributable and contribute to the GDPs of the producing nation(s).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

The US "negotiates" trade agreements by means of the WTO in Geneva.

What does the WTO do? From its own site, excerpt:



So, yes, it is the mechanism to negotiate matters concerning World Trade. And you are quite correct, no PotUS has the unilateral right to sign a Trade Agreement. First it is negotiated at the WTO, then it has to be passed with the approval of Congress.

I am suggesting, nonetheless, what you propose is indeed a matter affecting trade-arrangements that would have to be negotiated first at the WTO - and I doubt seriously any nation trading with the US would agree to it. (Would any PotUS want to risk that threat to trade?)

Thus, I think the WTO-negotiations would be a major hurdle for what you propose as merit-worthy as it might be for which I have no personal opinion; because I just don't know how it might affect present trade patterns with our trading partners.

That's up to the WTO to decide ...

International Trade Agreements

Lafayette, the World Trade Organization will certainly be opposed to USA adopting a policy of transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) for our practices of global trade.

The USA does not have any trade Treaties, only trade agreements that are of much lesser legal status than that of treaties. I’m told that within most if not all of the trade pacts USA participates within, (including the WTO) provide for our six months notice of resignation.
The WTO could regretfully accept USA’s resignation or tolerate our adoption of an IC trade policy.

Sovereign nations sometimes have been known to act in their people’s best interests. I object to USA accepting lesser USA jobs and lesser USA median wage because it is in China’s best interest.

If China determines not to tolerate USA’s unilateral trade policy, it would be of much greater detriment to China and of much lesser detriment to the USA.
A world that couldn't prevent the trade and planting of land mines cannot readily prevent sale of trucks and washing machines to the USA. If any nations choose to discard their shares of the USA market, other nations will be pleased to pick up the slack.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

its market driven?? That's a lie!! You don't say its market driven when a libsocialist govt imposes what are in effect tariffs. Market driven means no libsocialist interference.

James972, I don’t suppose there’s any specific point regarding the explicit proposal for an Import Certificate policy that you’d care to discuss? You cannot write a coherent post arguing the how and why you consider our current trade policy (or our lack of any consistent trade policy) has been economically superior to the IC proposal?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Lafayette]

NEW GAME, NEW RULES

Sovereign nations sometimes have been known to act in their people’s best interests. I object to USA accepting lesser USA jobs and lesser USA median wage because it is in China’s best interest.

This is a Global Economy in which the US must now contend. Uncle Sam is not setting the rules, as was his wont 20/30/40 years ago. The Cold War is long since done and gone.

The dollar is not the only reserve currency, and a major economic competitor now exists in the EU, which is double the size in terms of potential GDP-turnover. The second largest economy is one that did not even figure on the list before 1991, when the Bamboo Curtain came crashing down.

The US is going to have to learn to "play by the new rules", that it contributes to making but no longer imposes upon a distracted and non-homogenous Global Economy. (At present, everybody is looking out for themselves.)

New Game, New Rules. Wakey, wakey ...

NOTA BENE

Some people like to think that the US is still the rule-maker because they also "make the game". They also strut with pride that their "dynamic economy" sets the world's drum beat. After all, just look at who established the Internet.

Well, that little white horizontal bar at the top of your browser, was NOT innovated in the US. But at the European Nuclear Research Center in Ferney Voltaire, France by a Brit. And if Europe at the time had had a computer network that just resembled ARPANET, then he would have used that network to introduce his Universal Resource Locator (URL) - and thus "create" the Internet.

 

[Lafayette]

Re: Annual trade deficits detriment to their nation’s GDPs are immediate.

HISTORIC PARADIGM SHIFT

Annual trade balances immediate detrimental effects cumulative and thus to some extent continue to be economically detrimental far into the future.

Yes, if a country is so inward looking as to refuse to see how Global Exchange in the trade of goods/services has been altered and upset.

As I said before: New Game, New Rules. TPP is an example where an American PotUS tries to lay down New Rules that would force China to obey Universal Patent Protection, and stop copy-catting products for resale on the planet. His intent was to protect American jobs making those copy-catted products.

And what does he get in return? A lot of flack from his own people who think he's "sold them out to the highest bidder". TPP will prove that thinking to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

We are in the midst of an historic Paradigm Shift. Just as in the mid-19th century when the planet migrated from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age. The evolution was wrenching for many who were pulled off their farms to work in large factories as city-dwellers. We are now exiting the Industrial Age for the Internet Age (of things).

The wrenching-dislocation is just as worrisome as it was in the 19th century, and just as unavoidable ...

 

[James972]

James972, I don’t suppose there’s any specific point regarding the explicit proposal for an Import Certificate policy that you’d care to discuss?

sure, please tell us why you want to protect and cripple US businesses. Right and left, including Krugman, understand free trade. When will you learn to understand it?

 

[I'm Supposn]

NEW GAME, NEW RULES

This is a Global Economy in which the US must now contend. Uncle Sam is not setting the rules, as was his wont 20/30/40 years ago. The Cold War is long since done and gone. ...

Lafayette, throughout history there’s been nations experiencing power declines. Some of those now declined nations were at one time among, if not the world’s most powerful nation.
It’s conceivable at some future time the United States’ political status could possibly be reduced in favor of some other single or confederation of governments, but I don’t wish to hurry the process.

I’m of course strongly opposed to USA'ssurrendering portions of our sovereignty while doing so is contrary to the aggregate economic and social best interests of our population. The abridgements of our sovereignty are imprudent. We should rectify our errors. We should never consider any abridgement of our sovereignty before we determine there is no better alternative.

The USA has derived some net economic benefits from our government’s directly participating in international sales or purchase transactions, (we did purchase Alaska).
The USA has derived benefits from international standards agreements relative to standardized labeling, product attributes, practices as they affect global environment, navigation and safety through international waters, air and space and many other topics.
But the USA has never economically net benefited from our participation within any international trade agreement and many of them have been and continue to be net detrimental to our economy.

There's no good reason for USA’s participation in international trade agreements other than comparatively simple bilateral agreements that each party grants the other their “most favored nation” status.

A bilateral “most favorable nation” agreement could simply be the USA agreeing not to treat the other parties trading products in a manner inferior to our treatment of any other foreign nation’s products. Similarly the other party grants USA’s products the same consideration. Note that this in no manner encroaches upon ether parties’ sovereignty. Both parties unilaterally determine what’s permitted or forbidden to enter their sovereign nations.
Even the simple concept of “most favored nations” is sufficient to keep some international lawyers working for their entire lives. Those lawyers can earn enough to fund their children’s law school expenses and they’ll then be able to continue their parent’s work.

Respectfully, Supposn