US Faces $100 Billion Fine For Web Gambling Ban 522
Stony Stevenson writes with the news that the World Trade Organization is seeking billions of dollars in compensation from the United States from their ban on internet gambling. The view of the WTO is that the US has reneged on commitments to the organization. "The disputed concessions arise from Antigua's victory earlier this year when the WTO ruled that the US violated its treaty obligations by excluding online Antiguan gaming operators, while allowing domestic operators to offer various forms of online gaming. Instead of complying with the ruling, the Bush administration withdrew the sizeable gambling industry from its free trade commitments. As a result, all 151 WTO members are considering seeking compensation for the withdrawal equal to the size of the entire US land-based and online gaming market, estimated at nearly US$100 billion."
Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good!
Look, whether or not you agree with gambling, surely any reasonable person can see that the situation as it is now is simply untenable.
Gambling is allowed in some places (Las Vegas, Atlantic Ctiy, etc.) but not in others. Worse, in yet more places some forms of gambling is allowed (Bingo, horse racing, dog racing) but not others (blackjack, poker, etc.). Worst of all, in some places, such as the place where I happen to live, some gambling is allowed in the form of lotteries, but it is completely owned and run by the state government monopoly.
And to add to the madness, we now have laws on the book that say that online gambling is okay, but only on horse racing (thanks to a strong lobby) and within state lines?
I'm not averse to some sort of regulation to ensure that online casinos aren't cheating, but this sham of acting like gambling is an issue of morality so that government can use it as an excuse for avoiding competition is ridiculous. As long as the US continues its patchwork enforcement of laws based on outdated concepts of how people should and shouldn't live, we deserve to pay what amounts to a $100 billion annual Stupid Tax.
I still think that they ought to be allowed to violate US copyrights [slashdot.org] as an appropriate punishment. When the government (i.e. you and I, incidentally) is paying the $100 billion, people won't really care. But if corporate America starts losing money, I think you'll start seeing some rather dramatic changes very quickly.
Let me be the first to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's make a deal. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress passes a law to protect US citizens from unscrupulous gambling operations that are not subject to the same kind of regulations that Casinos in the U.S. must meet -- and the world responds via the WTO by trying to extort $100 Billion dollars from the U.S. -- which means taking money from every citizen and company in the U.S. that pays taxes to support offshore companies right to not live up to regulations that make it more difficult to cheat the gamblers out of all their money -- and each of us will pay for that whether we as individuals or companies gamble or not.
Though not hopeful, I think the U.S. in this case should tell the WTO to go pound rocks.
Re:Who wants to bet? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US views the WTO as a convenient hammer to get it's ways in certain situations and as a small nuisance when it rules against them. The US hardly ever listens. And generally is a asshole to it's friends and trading partners. Thankfully it's economic influence looks to be waning due to very poor economic management.
And (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
jurisdiction is up to that jurisdiction to decide.
If someone in another country doesn't like that then tough titties.
It doesn't matter if the complaining part is us or some other country.
The fact that the US likes to butt in (and often does successfully) should
not be used as an excuse to expand this sort of stupitity.
So you think that US gambling laws are byzantine and contradictory?
Fine, take it up with your local state or federal senator. The WTO has
NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in this issue. It's simply trying to override the
sovereignty of an independent state/nation.
This is just confirmation that the WTO is a meaningless cabal of
mindless USA bashers with an axe to grind.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress wasn't trying to protect it's citizens. It was trying to protect domestic corporations and tax revenue.
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet they could come up with a way of applying very considerable pressure. Especially as the rest of the world seems to be less and less happy with the US' position.
People said the EU couldn't fine Microsoft. Well, they did. Now they say the WTO can't fine the US. I'm pretty sure they'll find a way.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are only as sovereign as your leaders permit you to be.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:1, Insightful)
Every one of those things is banned in some countries because of a morality issue. How is gambling any different?
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So tell me... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US in this case only bans it if you are not in the US. Which is exactly what the treaty the US signed with the WTO said we won't do. (Not just on gambling.) If the law applied equally to US and non-US gambling there would be no problem.
The WTO does not have a problem with any of their member nations banning something. It only has a problem when you try to shut other countries out of your markets intentionally, while keeping the local companies in them. This is the point of the WTO, and it benifits the US in many cases. It's why the USA pushed for the formation of the WTO, and for countries to sign the treaty the US violated.
The US is being stupid, and is going to pay for it. It is that simple. If the US wanted to ban online gambling, then it should ban online gambling, not just everyone else's online gambling.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right. And by the act of entering into this treaty, the United States exercised its jurisdiction over its own federal laws, altering them so that they specify compliance with the WTO requirements.
That's perfectly within their rights, given that we signed away our independent sovereignty on this issue. If we don't want them meddling in that area, we should withdraw from the WTO treaty. Of course, that would remove many rights we currently enjoy to meddle in other countries' trade practices to our benefit.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
What the US is saying is it's legal for its citizens to gamble in places hosted inside the country, but illegal outside the country in places we have an otherwise unfettered trade relationship with. (i.e., if the place was hosted in Cuba, it'd be illegal regardless.)
This is different than cocaine because cocaine is an illegal substance throughout the US, imports and domestic distribution is prohibited, period.
It's blatent hypocrisy and the exact sort of thing the WTO was created to prevent.
Gutenberg would be proud! (Score:1, Insightful)
Eventually sure the US will pay. Print up a bunch of government IOUs to give to the central bank(s) of the world.
And in the end who really pays for this "instant money"?
Us. Through the hidden tax called "inflation" (and interest on a federal debt that grows endlessly).
In other words, the WTO is effectively punishing every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (in addition to every taxpayer) for something they don't like.
Translation #2: steal wealth from the U.S. to be redistributed elsewhere. Namely, the pockets of the rich central bankers. (You didn't honestly think this was stealing from rich to feed the poor, did you?)
Central banks are evil and must be destroyed.
Re:make those suckers pay!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US did decide, they decided to agree to an arrangement of mutual understanding & behaviors (the WTO treaty) - the principle one here is that what is legal to do inside the country is legal to do cross border. That means that if it's legal to do online gambling inside the US (which it is, online lottery sales are one example) then the US cannot bar foreign entities from engaging in the same business.
Note that the WTO does allow countries to bar practices which they find morally offensive, the sale of alcohol in Muslim countries is a good example. Places like Saudi Arabia bar all production & sales of alcohol for imbibing. Because they bar it internally, they are permitted to bar importing & sales of alcohol to SA companies & individuals.
The US does not bar online gambling - lottery & OTB being the 2 prime examples - and yet wants to bar international companies from participating in the business. That is in direct violation to the priciples of the WTO. So, if the US wants to bar foreign companies from participating in online gambling with US citizens, they can. They can either drop out of the WTO, or they can ban all internet gambling. What they can't do is continue to claim that the WTO treaties only apply to other countries.
The World Trade Organization does have a rather large place at this table. This is about international trade relations & the WTO treaties are the groundrules that the countries in question have already agreed to play by. If the US doesn't want to play by the rules that's fine. They don't have to. They can withdraw from the WTO at any time. But as long as they are members, they need to play by the rules of the game - that means upholding their end of the bargain not just using the treaties to get what they want & saying 'Fuck off' whenever anyone has a complaint.
Funny, the US loves to use the WTO treaties to extort concessions out of other countries. I guess your complaint is that sometimes the US looses & that makes the WTO anti-US. Get a life & perhaps actually look into the subject you're going to bitch about. The US pulled a bunch of dodgy stunts & got called on it. Rather than own up, they started blustering & complaining. The WTO called bullshit & this is the result. This isn't about bashing anyone, this is about holding people to their agreements. You say you'll paint my house if I fix your car, great, once your car is fixed you damned well better paint my house. If you don't, you should expect to see me in court.
Nobody forced the US to sign WTO treaties, but they did. Now that they have, they need to live up to them, or face the consequences. That's not bashing, that's accountability, something the US used to be adamant about.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The USA produces more manufactured goods than it ever has in its history. Automation has had more of an impact on the demise of manufacturing jobs as has free trade.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
OH, and we're the biggest pushers of the WTO there is. May want to re-examine some of your facts..
Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you enforce it? Easy. If US doesnt pay up, WTO can impose a ban on the export of all US goods, just for starters. Individual governments can be given the power to co-opt all American owned goods, to pay the compensation.
They can also declare US IP invalid outside the US. That is the best option, as it will bring about changes the soonest..nothing like loss of copyright on that latest film to make things interesting
Budgeting for America (Score:1, Insightful)
Mod it Off-Topic if you like, but I think it puts both blunders (Iraq and WTO) into better perspective.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seizure is why aspirin is spelled in lowercase in the US and doesn't have "Bayer" stamped on all the tablets.
The WTO does not *give* countries the power to co-opt American goods. Countries intrinsically have that power via sovereignty. The danger is that it is not the WTO who actually executes such an "allowance", it is the actual country, and the reuslting politics are local, not global. In other words, the battleships aren't floating off the coast of the WTO, they are floating off your coast.
The counter is that embargoes and seizures are rarely unilateral. And the US, for better or worse, still has a gigantic economy and still exports food. Mass seizure is a dangerous game. It's also tricky when involving multinationals.
So you remove the IP on that Tristar film? Good for you, you just hit Sony, a Japanese company. How about Universal, which is owned by Vivendi (French)? Say you hit against Ford? They turn around a scuttle the manufacturing facilities for Jaguar (British)or Volvo (Swedish). GM? Renault. It gets complicated when trying to limit assets to one country.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't Germany. All 50 states set their own standards.
All of my comments are just my opinions, of course. As an aside, the ban on gambling is baffling. Why not regulate it and tax it? Get some income instead of none, and don't have Americans sneaking illegally about to circumvent their own laws requiring expensive and extensive policing. It's a misguided policy that, like prohibition, is destined to fail.
Re:Who wants to bet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even with a WTO judgement the US still wouldn't pay up. When they elected Vice President Harper here he cut his buddy Bush a deal and accepted ten cents on the dollar instead which the people who actually lost that money were more than a little pissed about.
Re:State Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Believe what you want about how abortion should have panned out, but the Supreme Court put the final nail in the 10th Amendment's coffin with the Roe v. Wade ruling. If you want to change that, vote for a Constitutionalist.
Re:Good! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you're very nice post has an error (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not accurate. The legislation that was passed does exactly the opposite.
Had this been the real reason for the legislation, then taxation and regulation would have been the outcome, but banning the industry totally just opened the market to less scrupulous offshore operations, guaranteeing that domestic corporations couldn't compete AND preventing the gathering of tax revenue.
The UIGEA had ONE and ONLY ONE reason for being passed, it was a desperate attempt by a desperate incumbent to appeal to his religious constituents, in order to pave the way for future political advancement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIGEA#Internet_gambling_provisions [wikipedia.org]
I think that the problem is: (Score:5, Insightful)
The do NOT allow US citizens to purchase gambling activities outside of the US.
The US believes something similar to:
If you sell a product to your neighbour - this is ok.
If your neighbour sells you the same product, this is illegal.
But, I may be over-simplifying.
Re:Who wants to bet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
If the US federal government doesn't have authority to enter into trade treaties then it needs to stop pretending that it can. If every state needs to negotiate separately then do it that way. If the US needs to set up a new body that can negotiate on behalf of every state then do that.
Every other country in the world is just as capable of saying "Oh yeah, that Berne convention, well you see different rules apply in that province over there, because they just do, yeah we didn't mention that when we signed the treaty." But if we want international agreements to be possible then we have to not do that.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Is my logic flawed here?