Mexico will pay for wall via the new USMCA

[Airyaman]

Please, anyone, tell me how this works.

Let's pretend the new NAFTA 2.0 has been passed through Congress (it has not).

How does a trade deal put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?

I look forward to being informed.

 

[Felis Leo]

Please, anyone, tell me how this works.

Let's pretend the new NAFTA 2.0 has been passed through Congress (it has not).

How does a trade deal put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?

I look forward to being informed.

Well, Airyaman, there is historical precedence for the governments of sovereign nations paying the governments of other sovereign nations. Historically, the practice was known as tribute. It's been called many things in the past, but it all boils down to the same thing: one nation gives another nation its treasure as a form of obeisance if not outright obsequiousness.

Sometimes the tribute was basically blackmail, paid in order to ensure the recipient nation did not attack the tributary nation. Other times, there were benefits attached to the receipt of tribute, such as the nation receiving the tribute agreeing to come to the aid of the kingdom or nation if they were the subject of attack. So, I suppose in order to allow trade without barriers, perhaps the NAFTA agreement could include an extraordinarily expensive "free trade license" paid for by the government of Mexico in the form of tribute directly to the Treasury of the United States in order to establish the barrier.

Far more unfair trade practices have been devised throughout history, certainly.

 

[Airyaman]

Well, Airyaman, there is historical precedence for the governments of sovereign nations paying the governments of other sovereign nations. Historically, the practice was known as tribute. It's been called many things in the past, but it all boils down to the same thing: one nation gives another nation its treasure as a form of obeisance if not outright obsequiousness.

Sometimes the tribute was basically blackmail, paid in order to ensure the recipient nation did not attack the tributary nation. Other times, there were benefits attached to the receipt of tribute, such as the nation receiving the tribute agreeing to come to the aid of the kingdom or nation if they were the subject of attack. So, I suppose in order to allow trade without barriers, perhaps the NAFTA agreement could include an extraordinarily expensive "free trade license" paid for by the government of Mexico in the form of tribute directly to the Treasury of the United States in order to establish the barrier.

Far more unfair trade practices have been devised throughout history, certainly.

OK, is there an answer that doesn't involve fantasy?

 

[Felis Leo]

OK, so is there an answer that doesn't involve fantasy?

Well, let us be fair Airyaman. You did ask "How does a trade deal put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?," not "How does a trade deal realistically put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?". The only way Mexico will realistically dig into its own pocket and shell out the billions of dollars in tribute necessary to pay our government for constructing a full-length border wall is if the consequences for not doing so are clearly more harmful than the cost, humiliation and injury to national pride that the government will sure face for having done so. :shrug:

 

[Grand Mal]

Well, Airyaman, there is historical precedence for the governments of sovereign nations paying the governments of other sovereign nations. Historically, the practice was known as tribute. It's been called many things in the past, but it all boils down to the same thing: one nation gives another nation its treasure as a form of obeisance if not outright obsequiousness.

Sometimes the tribute was basically blackmail, paid in order to ensure the recipient nation did not attack the tributary nation. Other times, there were benefits attached to the receipt of tribute, such as the nation receiving the tribute agreeing to come to the aid of the kingdom or nation if they were the subject of attack. So, I suppose in order to allow trade without barriers, perhaps the NAFTA agreement could include an extraordinarily expensive "free trade license" paid for by the government of Mexico in the form of tribute directly to the Treasury of the United States in order to establish the barrier.

Far more unfair trade practices have been devised throughout history, certainly.

You see something resembling 'tribute' in that agreement? Or is this all just bullcrap.

 

[beefheart]

Lets pretend that dachshunds can fly, and they fart multi flavored frozen yogurt.

 

[Felis Leo]

You see something resembling 'tribute' in that agreement? Or is this all just bullcrap.

Not at all, Grand Mal. But Airyaman asked how a trade deal could possibly force a foreign government to pay for the border security of another government. Essentially, it boils down to the country demanding that payment having a disparate level of bargaining power such that they are able to force that foreign government to pay for the pleasure of freely trading with their nation.

But if the United States cannot get money from Mexico for the wall, I would certainly accept a lifetime supply of Grade A Maple Syrup for myself and my heirs from Canada.

 

[Airyaman]

Well, let us be fair Airyaman. You did ask "How does a trade deal put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?," not "How does a trade deal realistically put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?". The only way Mexico will realistically dig into its own pocket and shell out the billions of dollars in tribute necessary to pay our government for constructing a full-length border wall is if the consequences for not doing so are clearly more harmful than the cost, humiliation and injury to national pride that the government will sure face for having done so. :shrug:

OK, to be fair, I didn't ask you to answer my question(s) realistically. Thanks for the unrealistic angle.

Anyone care to tackle the realistic angle?

 

[Grand Mal]

Not at all, Grand Mal. But Airyaman asked how a trade deal could possibly force a foreign government to pay for the border security of another government. Essentially, it boils down to the country demanding that payment having a disparate level of bargaining power such that they are able to force that foreign government to pay for the pleasure of freely trading with their nation.

But if the United States cannot get money from Mexico for the wall, I would certainly accept a lifetime supply of Grade A Maple Syrup for myself and my heirs from Canada.

Nothing like that is in the agreement. You're just wasting words here. What you're saying sounds like it comes from a comic-book take on international relations.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Well, Airyaman, there is historical precedence for the governments of sovereign nations paying the governments of other sovereign nations. Historically, the practice was known as tribute. It's been called many things in the past, but it all boils down to the same thing: one nation gives another nation its treasure as a form of obeisance if not outright obsequiousness.

Sometimes the tribute was basically blackmail, paid in order to ensure the recipient nation did not attack the tributary nation. Other times, there were benefits attached to the receipt of tribute, such as the nation receiving the tribute agreeing to come to the aid of the kingdom or nation if they were the subject of attack. So, I suppose in order to allow trade without barriers, perhaps the NAFTA agreement could include an extraordinarily expensive "free trade license" paid for by the government of Mexico in the form of tribute directly to the Treasury of the United States in order to establish the barrier.

Far more unfair trade practices have been devised throughout history, certainly.

You think Mexico will agree to that?

 

[Felis Leo]

You think Mexico will agree to that?

Absolutely not. I think if the Mexican government openly agreed to that, judging by the horrific violence associated with Mexican politics, they would have signed both their figurative and perhaps even literal death warrants. I will not pretend to be some kind of grand prognosticator of Mexican politics, but people take the humiliation of their governments as a vicarious form of humiliation of themselves. And it is a very dangerous thing to go out of one's way wound the pride of a people.

 

[Slavister]

How does a trade deal put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?

Isn't Trump's word enough for you?

 

[jdog21]

Please, anyone, tell me how this works.

Let's pretend the new NAFTA 2.0 has been passed through Congress (it has not).

How does a trade deal put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?

I look forward to being informed.

Maybe you work out an agreeable trade agreement then tell Mexico that you are going to subtract $2 billion worth a year from the agreement. Money is then appropriated to the wall.

 

[Xelor]

Please, anyone, tell me how this works.

Let's pretend the new NAFTA 2.0 has been passed through Congress (it has not).

How does a trade deal put money from a foreign government into US government coffers to then pay for a border wall?

I look forward to being informed.

If indeed the terms do provide for such a happenstance, why the hell is Trump yet trying to get wall money from American taxpayers and holding up the government over money for his wall?