On the other hand, some studies have shown that cost differentials are generally not large enough to determine the location of economic establishment and that productivity is the most important factor60.60 In addition, many economists view trade liberalization as part of the general development process that, in itself, can foster better social and economic conditions in the long term.61 Developing countries are also looking at the potential loss of sovereignty. , specific standards should be set in trade agreements. , as well as the possibility that such provisions could be used as a disguised form of protectionism. Although supporters of the CAFTA-DR model have prevailed in previous agreements, a new cross-party consensus has emerged with the leadership of the 110th Congress, leading to a significant change in the model for the bilateral working chapters of the ETS. The principles of this amendment, as defined in the May 10, 2007 agreement, were included in the working chapters on the bilateral free trade agreements concluded by the United States with Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea. Major changes to the CAFTA-DR model indicate that each country in Panama`s rice industry, which supplies more than 90% of domestic demand, also argued that opening up the subsidized rice market in the United States would decimate its industry, which, because of its protection, sells rice well above the world market price. Indeed, the USITC report estimates that the free trade agreement, if fully implemented, will have the greatest impact on rice exports to the United States. Although the rice provisions are not fully implemented until the 20th year of the agreement, the TRQ for ground rice for the first year will be 20 times the current level of U.S. exports to Panama, which should affect rice producers shortly after their implementation, which may lead them to transfer their production to other crops or to leave agriculture for alternative jobs41 The free trade between the United States and Panama is a comprehensive and reciprocal trade agreement. , replaces the unilateral preferential treatment of the United States, extended by the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) and the General Preferences Plan (PSA). Approximately 88% of U.S. commercial and industrial exports will be duty-free after implementation, with the remaining tariffs maturing over a 10-year period. More than 50% of U.S.
agricultural exports to Panama will also benefit from an immediate duty-free regime, with tariffs and tariff quotas (trQs) for certain agricultural products expiring until the 17th year of the agreement (year 20 for rice). The free trade agreement also concludes agreements on telecommunications, trade in services, government procurement, investment and intellectual property rights. The U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement, known as the Panama United States Trade Trade Agreement (TPA), was signed by both governments on June 28, 2007. It was approved by Panama on 11 July 2007 and by the United States on 21 October 2011; The agreement came into force on 31 October 2012. In the 112th U.S. Congress, the rise of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives led to new pressure to approve the three upcoming free trade agreements (Colombia, Panama and South Korea). Finally, in October 2011, President Obama presented to Congress the three trade pacts that were quickly adopted. On October 12, 2011, the U.S. S.-Panama TPA passed the House of Representatives by 300-129 votes (H.R.
3079) and the Senate by 77-22 votes (p. 1643).  President Obama signed the pact on October 21, 2011 (P.L. 112-43, 125stat. 427) and the agreement came into effect on October 31, 2012.  Well, it turns out that Panama is the world leader when it comes to allowing Americans and large wealthy corporations to defraud U.S. taxes by placing their money in offshore tax havens. And the Panama Free Trade Agreement will make this situation worse. Every year, the richest people in our country and the largest