find and provide me with links to 10 creditable sources that would justify texts bellow or points in text below , for example : it could be articles in web-versions of reputable magazines ( like The Telegraph Magazine, Times , Bloomberg and etc. ) that would have one or multiple critic's opinion that would justify the following line from my text : Critics of NAFTA argued that the agreement contributed to this trade deficit by encouraging American companiesto . . .

Besides that 3 or 4 ( up to you ) out of those 10 creditable sources should be links to a statistical data that is mentioned in the text and provide screenshots of this data too ( it would be better if it could be a chart or a graph ) .

Please , also in addition to links provide screenshots of text in articles and highlight to what line in my text it refers to .

Text :

NAFTA - USMCA - Is there a difference - Winners and loser!

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted in 1994 between the U.S. , Canada, and Mexico, with the aim of creating a trilateral trade zone in North America. The agreement aimed to remove trade barriers and increase economic cooperation between the three countries, leading to increased trade, investment, and economic growth.

NAFTA was a controversial agreement that faced criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. Some critics argued that the agreement would lead to the loss of American jobs to Mexico due to lower wages and lax environmental and labor standards. Others argued that the agreement would benefit all three countries by creating new opportunities for trade and investment.

One of the key issues that affected the economies of the three NAFTA countries was the trade deficit between the United States and Mexico. The United States imported more goods from Mexico than it exported to Mexico, which led to a trade deficit. Critics of NAFTA argued that the agreement contributed to this trade deficit by encouraging American companies to move their manufacturing operations to Mexico to take advantage of lower labor costs.

Another key issue that affected the United States was the perceived loss of manufacturing jobs. Critics argued that NAFTA led to the outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico, which contributed to the decline of the American manufacturing sector. However, supporters of NAFTA argued that the agreement created new opportunities for American companies by giving them access to new markets and suppliers.

The success of NAFTA is a subject of debate among economists and policymakers. On one hand, NAFTA has led to a substantial increase in trade among the three countries, with total trade tripling since its inception. Moreover, it has attracted foreign direct investment (FDI), promoted economic growth, and facilitated the integration of supply chains in North America. However, critics argue that the benefits of NAFTA have been unevenly distributed, with the United States experiencing job losses in the manufacturing sector and an increasing trade deficit with Mexico.

Moving on to USMCA, which stands for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, it is a new trade agreement that replaced NAFTA in 2020. USMCA aims to modernize and update NAFTA by addressing new issues such as digital trade, labor standards, and environmental protection.

One of the key differences between NAFTA and USMCA is the new labor provisions in USMCA. The agreement requires that a certain percentage of automotive parts be produced by workers earning at least $16 per hour, which is intended to promote higher wages and working conditions in the automotive sector.

Overall, USMCA is considered to be a more modern and balanced trade agreement than NAFTA, addressing some of the criticisms and shortcomings of the earlier agreement.

The success of NAFTA is a matter of debate, with supporters and critics offering different perspectives on the agreement's impact on the North American economies. Overall, NAFTA led to increased trade, investment, and economic growth in the region, but it also had some negative consequences.

On the positive side, NAFTA helped to remove trade barriers between the three countries, leading to increased trade and investment. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico increased from $297 billion in 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect, to $1.1 trillion in 2016. This expansion of trade helped to boost economic growth in all three countries, although the benefits were not distributed equally across all sectors and regions.

In addition, NAFTA facilitated the integration of production networks across North America, particularly in the automotive sector. This integration allowed companies to take advantage of specialized inputs and production capabilities across the region, leading to increased efficiency and competitiveness.

However, NAFTA also had some negative consequences, particularly for American manufacturing workers. Critics of NAFTA argued that the agreement led to the loss of American manufacturing jobs to Mexico due to lower labor costs and lax environmental and labor standards. Some studies have attempted to estimate the impact of NAFTA on American manufacturing jobs. For example, a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that NAFTA led to the loss of approximately 680,000 American jobs between 1993 and 2013. However, other studies have suggested that the impact was smaller, with estimates ranging from 120,000 to 250,000 jobs lost.

However, other studies suggest that the impact of NAFTA on American jobs was not as negative as some critics claimed. For example, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that NAFTA was responsible for only a small fraction of the total job losses in the United States during the 1990s.

Overall, the impact of NAFTA on American manufacturing jobs is complex and multifaceted, with a variety of factors contributing to job losses in the sector. While some critics argue that NAFTA was a significant factor in the decline of American manufacturing jobs, others suggest that the impact was relatively small compared to other factors such as automation and globalization.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a new trade agreement that replaced NAFTA and came into effect on July 1, 2020. The USMCA is designed to modernize and update the rules governing trade and investment between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Here are some key differences between NAFTA and USMCA:

1. Labor standards: The USMCA includes stronger labor standards than NAFTA. For example, it requires Mexico to enact labor reforms to give workers the right to collective bargaining and to improve working conditions. The USMCA also includes provisions to ensure that workers in all three countries can form unions and bargain collectively.

2. Environmental standards: The USMCA includes stronger environmental standards than NAFTA. It requires all three countries to enforce their environmental laws effectively and to address environmental challenges such as air and water pollution.

3. Digital trade: The USMCA includes new rules governing digital trade, which was not covered by NAFTA. For example, it prohibits the imposition of customs duties on digital products such as music, movies, and software.

4. Auto industry : The USMCA includes new rules governing the auto industry, which is a key sector in North America. USMCA has stricter rules of origin for automobiles, requiring 75% of a vehicle's content to be produced in North America, compared to NAFTA's 62.5% ,so that they would qualify for duty-free treatment .This change aims to incentivize local production and create jobs in the automotive sector.

In terms of winners and losers, the USMCA is expected to benefit certain sectors and regions while hurting others. For example, the agreement is expected to benefit American dairy farmers, who will now have greater access to the Canadian market. However, it could hurt American auto manufacturers, who will have to comply with new rules of origin requirements that could increase costs.

Outside of North America, the USMCA could have implications for other countries as well. For example, it could make it more difficult for countries such as China to export to the North American market, as the agreement includes new rules governing intellectual property and digital trade.

As for the likelihood of production leaving North America completely, it is difficult to say. Some companies may choose to relocate their operations outside of North America to take advantage of lower labor costs or other factors, but others may choose to stay in the region to take advantage of the new rules governing trade and investment under the USMCA.

From an economic perspective, it is difficult to say whether the USMCA is better for Americans than NAFTA. While the USMCA includes stronger labor and environmental standards, which could benefit American workers and the environment, it also includes new rules that could increase costs for certain sectors. Overall, the impact of the USMCA on the North American economies will depend on a variety of factors, including how effectively the agreement is implemented and enforced.

In terms on Globalisation , it has played a significant role in shaping the outcomes of both NAFTA and USMCA. As countries become more interconnected, trade policies and agreements like these have profound implications for currencies, current and capital accounts, and trade wars. For example, tariffs imposed by the United States on certain products can slow down economic growth in other parts of the world, while retaliatory tariffs can further escalate trade tensions and create uncertainties for businesses and investors.

One of the key issues in the debate over NAFTA and USMCA has been the impact of the agreements on the US trade deficit with Mexico. Some critics argue that NAFTA has led to a significant loss of American manufacturing jobs and increased the US trade deficit with Mexico. However, the BOP can provide a more nuanced perspective on the issue.

According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the US trade deficit with Mexico has increased significantly since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. In 1993, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico of $1.6 billion, but by 2019, the US had a trade deficit with Mexico of $101.8 billion. This has been cited by some critics as evidence that NAFTA has been detrimental to American workers and industry.

However, a closer look at the components of the BOP reveals a more complex picture. For example, the capital account component of the BOP shows that the US has been able to attract significant investment from Mexico in the years following NAFTA. In 1993, the US had a capital account surplus of $15.2 billion with Mexico, indicating that the US was a net recipient of investment from Mexico. By 2019, this surplus had grown to $45.1 billion, indicating that the US has continued to attract investment from Mexico even as the trade deficit has increased.

This suggests that the trade deficit may not necessarily be a negative economic indicator, but rather a reflection of the preferences of consumers and the ability of the US to attract investment from other countries. In addition, the BOP can help us identify which sectors are benefiting from trade with Mexico and which are facing challenges. For example, the current account component of the BOP shows that the US has a trade surplus in services with Mexico, indicating that certain service industries may be benefiting from trade with Mexico even as manufacturing jobs are being lost.

In summary, I understaned that the USMCA is an updated version of NAFTA and has been designed to address some of the shortcomings of the previous agreement. While it is too early to tell for sure, the USMCA is expected to have a positive impact on the economies of the US, Canada, and Mexico.

One of the key changes in the USMCA is the increase in the rules of origin for automobiles, which is expected to boost the US auto industry and create more jobs in that sector. However, this change may also lead to higher prices for cars and trucks, which could be a negative for consumers.

Another important change is the increased protections for intellectual property, which will benefit companies in the technology and pharmaceutical industries. This may lead to increased investment and innovation in those sectors, which could have positive spill-over effects on the wider economy.

At the same time, there are likely to be some losers under the USMCA. For example, Mexican farmers may face increased competition from US agriculture imports, which could put pressure on their livelihoods. Additionally, some manufacturing jobs in Mexico may be at risk of moving to the US due to the higher rules of origin requirements for automobiles.

I think the USMCA is a step in the right direction towards a more modern and fair trade agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico. However, there are likely to be winners and losers, and it will be important to monitor the impact of the agreement on different sectors of the economy.