Slashdot Mirror
US Faces $100 Billion Fine For Web Gambling Ban
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!
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 As long as the US continues its patchwork enforcement of laws based on outdated concepts of how people should and shouldn't live, we deserve to pay what amounts to a $100 billion annual Stupid Tax.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 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.
US Congress in the pocket of US gaming industry association. The WTO is in the pocket of International gaming association. Good fight. Promises great action. Wanna bet who is going to win?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The U.S. ain't goin to pay.
My page.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice comes to mind. Much like patent trolling.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Can we just apologize for banning online gambling, and promise to put it back? I would be happy to do that.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
WTO 1: Gentlemen, I propose we send a message to the US by fining them infinity billion dollars!
WTO 2: That's the spirit, Bob! But I think a real number might be more effective.
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.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
... Ten bucks says, the US gov never pays up.
They were originally going to fine the US $1 million, but were informed that this was not much money at all.
Who enforces this fine?
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
The world couldn't stop the US from invading Iraq based on non-existent WMD; who thinks that the US gov't would pay any foreign-levied fine of $100B?
The CB App. What's your 20?
In just a few weeks all the wise Antiguan people will say: "I for one welcome our new M-16A4 wielding american overlords!"
As Ronald Reagen said America never apologizes! I also heard there are some nutmeg trees growing on Antigua and those are just as essential to making eggnog, as oil is essential to our car-based culture. We have to secure the free world's strategic resources! The WTO is free to choose sides as it sees fit, of course.
IANAL.. The thing is, the power to regulate gambling is a State right. Thus, Nevada allows it.
If the Federal Gov't is even allowed to legislate it (i.e. sign a treaty about it) is to me, questionable.
China gets away with banning what they don't like. Why does the U.S. get fined eleventy billion dollars for doing the same? Maybe I'll put some Nazi memorabilia on Ebay Germany then fine them eleventy billion dollars when they ban me. BC
Dr. Evil: "That's a number. Okay then. We hold the world ransom for.....One hundred..BILLION DOLLARS!!"
The Poker Player's Alliance is encouraging people to fly to Washington DC for two days later this month to lobby congresscritters for legal online poker.
I dunno if the WTO's statement will help or hurt this effort, to be honest. There might be a backlash.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
It is not ok to sign an international treaty and then just ignore it, and then start striking out bits of it. When we signed it, we obligated ourselves to abide by it. If we are breaking the treaty, we should be punished.
I further maintain that it is in our interest to stop pissing off the entire world. Though we are a pretty big fish now, and can probably get away with it, it is not at all likely that we will always be so big a fish. When the boot is on the other foot it will not feel good at all.
Though I would prefer that the person who made the decision to break the treaty be more directly punished....those in power are rarely held accountable for their bad decisions. Yes, I am bitter.
...in the past when the situation was reversed. So... You can't sell your bread and eat it at the same time.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
how about we give them a "gift certificate" instead, entitling the bearer to:
1 (one) free US-led invasion of the nation of their choice. the US will occupy said nation for up to 4 months or until 100 billion has been spent, whichever comes first. If the bearer so desires, the US will track down, pull from a spider hole, and try said nation's leader in a kangaroo court, and his/her subsequent execution will constitute fulfillment of this offer regardless of the occupation time elapsed.
I bet you a million dollars that they'll never see a dime of that money.
You can pay me when we meet at the river boat gambling joint. I'll be there after I pick up some lottery tickets on my way back from the horse racing track.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
and it was all about tossing a bone to the religious right.
Now that political move is coming back to bite them. Lots of solutions were on the table to mitigate the problem.
It's all about the cost of legislating morality.
Blogging because I can...
The issue as I see it is that the US says one thing and does another, and to be blunt, the rest of the world has had a gutfull. Yes, some things the US does ARE good, but most shit they do is simply to enrich a few who dont need it.
:P )to say "Hold on a minute...". Yeah its nice to have a 'powerful' country and be able to tell the world to f**k off, but don't complain when the rest of the world says f**k you, be fined $100B.
"Oh no! Offshore casino's are going to take the money WE wanted to steal from our people!" (Maybe not steal as people give the moeny away.)
Against offshore casinos? Why not against offshore call centres? Why not against sending alot of your jobs, jobs that the US citizens should have offshore? Why? Because the rich dont complain about getting money back in their pocket and the average US citizen is too arrogant (I've spoken with about 5 IRL and thats enough to form my own biased opinion
We'll just add that $100 billion to the national debt. The check's in the mail ... really!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The thing is here that the US has been very very aggressive in enforcing WTO rules when they're in its favour. It's all very well saying how terrible the WTO is in this case, but trust me, the rest of the world has been saying pretty much the same thing every time a ruling goes the other way, and the US wins fair trade in something somewhere. The fact here is that the US allows online gambling. But only if the gambling company is based in the US. The justification given is that gaming companies outside the US aren't regulated, but this is a false argument: external companies could easily be required to conform to US regulations when they operate in the US, but the US has chosen to ban them entirely. This is against the rules. Every other country in the world that allows online gambling is forced to allow US online gambling companies to operate in their country. Why should the US be any different? To put it another way, let's apply it to another industry.... let's say.... selling software online. And put the same conditions in place: Now US-based software companies are free to sell in the US, provided they conform to US law, but offshore all software companies are banned from selling in the US, on the grounds that they might not conform to US law. I work for a software house based outside the US that sells software to US-based firms. If we were banned from operating in the US, while our US-based competitors were allowed to operate there, as well as compete with us in our own country, we would be justifiably upset. This is the position that offshore gambling companies are in now. They're happy to comply with US regulation, but that just isn't enough; the US won't allow them to operate. The point is that for fair trade, the same rules must be applied to onshore and offshore companies. If the US did this, there would be no suit.
Would you like to see about 194,000 examples of the true power of the WTO?
Sounds like someone needs a little dose of American style freedom and democracy! Bomb them back into the stone age and then monitor all their phone calls.
This is a job for Decider Man!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I think you would not disagree that gambling is a form of trade.
We allow gambling. Like, a whole lot of it too. Some states allow Internet gambling.
The government can't figure out how to make money off of Internet gambling, so under immense pressure from the gambling industry, they banned certain types of Internet gambling. This is a very clear violation of certain treaties that we have signed. So, we need to be punished. It is a pretty big no-brainer. If you don't like it, then withdraw from the WTO and unsign the treaties. Otherwise, you are a freaking moron to not be able to see the obvious here.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
They better hurry while the U.S. Dollar still has any value left. Maybe we can use gambling proceeds to pay for it......
Internet gambling is banned because it is almost impossible to regulate. The only form of "online gaming" that operates in the US that I am aware of are poker tournament sites, which aren't gambling sites ("gaming" = gambling, at least thats what it means according to the Nevada Gaming Commission, Viva Las Vegas!) , you pay a single, one time low fee to enter.
This article is saying the US "allows domestic gambling sites to operate with impunity" while banning foreign sites. If the WTO is going to start filing these sorts of claims against us than maybe we (US) should remove ourselves from it. Although, I don't see this "fine" going anywhere.
Fining 100 Billion dollars from the worlds biggest consumer/customer is bad business.
This article is pure garbage, they even resorted to Bush bashing, because we all know Bush controls all gambling.
Gambling is an immoral tax, and for the WTO to try and enforce that on America's poor constitutes an attempted invasion by the people of Antigua. I think we should bomb every nation that hosts offshore gambling. There's really no other way, at this point, to protect Americans from sinners around the world.
This is my sig.
In Soviet Russia, gambling legalizes you!
stuff |
Seriously, we (The good'ol US-of-A) need to get our heads out of out collective asses and off our damn moral high horses and join the rest of the world. The days are gone when we can get away with what ever we want and I say, thanks freaken god! Some humility is exactly what this country needs IMO. I have been all over the world in my line of work, and I can tell you one thing, people do not like our attitude and I can't blame them for that. Grow up America.
People said the EU couldn't fine Microsoft. Well, they did.
Who?
Yeah, yeah, offtopic.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
This is off-topic to the gambling part of this thread, but it's a free-trade question I've been wondering about and maybe someone who knows more about the WTO than I do can answer it.
The gist of the complaint Antigua and these other countries have is that if a country allows domestic goods and services of some category, they have to not discriminate against foreign goods and services of the same type.
How does this reconcile with U.S. laws regarding importing "non-sporting" firearms? There are situations where you could have a U.S. made rifle and it's perfectly legal, but if you have an imported version of the exact same rifle, or even built it in the U.S. but used too many foreign-made components, it would be a felony. Is this legit under America's WTO obligations, or another case of only following them when it suits the U.S.?
If the US decides to legalize online gambling most of the offshore online casinos will go out of business!!!
The current WTO flap brings to mind a question: is internet gambling legit? Has anybody here ever collected big winnings from an on-line casino? On-line operations collect from losers thru credit cards or the like and only risk losses from those who refuse to pay. But how about winners? If the on-line operation doesn't come thru, what recourse do they have? Travel to Bumfukistan and hire a lawyer? Not likely. And if some gambling operations are legit, how can you tell those that aren't? Should losers be obliged to pay off to rip-off artists? Who will decide such things?
And don't even get started on that treaty-overrides-the-constitution rant. States get to make decisions about gambling rules, not the feds.
This is what the printing press is for.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling#United_States
A bit difficult to decipher. But it appears that it is the patchwork set of laws that is causing problems. State laws are not uniform and laws applying to types of gambling (horse vs casino) are different. Banking laws were a creative enforcement method.
But maybe someone can help me out. I still can't find a clear answer as to can US companies offer a gambling service a non-US one is prevented from offering by law. And I mean exactly the same. Same location, same game, same payment methods, etc? Not "you can bet on horses here, but you can't bet on poker there" situations.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
We just don't obey US copyrights. Free DVDs and P2P sharing.
Only total morons put "moral hot button items"
up for that sort of consideration to begin with.
All parties involved need to be beaten repeatedly
with large clue bats until they start to understand.
Do they have similar rules present for the
trafficing of pornography between jurisdictions
with different legal standards for adult age?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Does anyone think the US Gov't really plans to get out of the debt it's in?
That was his point.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Just like they refused to pay the $5 billions they collected illegaly from Canada during the soft lumber dispute, even after eight consecutive rulings of the free trade agreement tribunal in favor of Canada.
The U.S. government's signature is not worth the paper it's written on.
The USA is a sovereign nation and we have a right to ban gambling if we choose to do so.
Exactly. We have the right to ban gambling if we choose to do so. We can also ban internet gambling if we choose to do so.
But we have not. Simply looking at Nevada and Atlantic City should be proof enough that gambling, in the US, is legal. Online gambling is legal too.
But we're trying to be clever and ban OFFSHORE internet gambling while keeping ONSHORE gambling legal. This is against the foundation of the WTO.
Take alcohol as an example. We could (and for a period, did) ban alcohol nationwide. When we did, it became illegal to import it into the US. Now that alcohol is legal again, it would be *illegal* to prevent importing from countries we otherwise have a good trade relationship with.
Welcome to the world of global [b]economy[/b] and politics. (Economy bolded because that's what this is more about than politics. Politics wouldn't have been in play if we played by the treaty properly.) Sure, we can take our ball and go home, but then expect other nations to play as fair as we do. Check out your home and find out, exactly, how many items have 'Made in USA' on it...and how many don't.
Internet gambling has not been banned in the United States.
I repeat, Internet gambling has not been banned in the United States.
It is illegal to transfer money to a gambling site. There is a fundamental difference. In this case, United States Citizens are in effect throwing away money to Foreign sources. I'm a conservative, so I'm against the Democratic socialist view of "tax everything", but in this case the US government should be seeing something back.
The money raised by the tariffs will go to the government's treasury, which means other taxes could be lowered. You aren't denying access to cheap goods, you change relative prices.
In this hypothetical example, Belgians would pay higher prices for beer imported from the US, but at the same time they could pay lower prices for beer made in Belgium. People working for American breweries would lose their jobs, and Belgian breweries would hire more people.
cocaine is an illegal substance throughout the US, imports and domestic distribution is prohibited, period.
Though it is completely tangential to your point, this statement is also patently false.
Cocaine is a Schedule II substance, meaning it legal for medical use, including imports and domestic distribution for that purpose (provided you have an appropriate license).
See?
If we stopped paying for the War in Iraq, we could pay off this WTO fine 4.6 times over!
Mod it Off-Topic if you like, but I think it puts both blunders (Iraq and WTO) into better perspective.
So.. EVERY OTHER country in the world has a problem with US protectionism for yet another industry, and you think THEY are ALL wrong?
Those evil casino-loving nations can't match the selfless regulations that America exclusively offers?
Can you seriously believe that the US passes its selective and irrational gambling laws (favouring one state over another, one type of sport over another) to protect YOUR interests as a consumer? Did I miss something? The Gambling commission as an ethics commitee perhaps?
You have commissions. They put their interests above yours. Deal with it.
I can ignore the urge to explain how hemming in YOUR choices in recreation affects your civil liberties - I will refrain from telling you how cool it is to play any game you like, for whatever kind of stake you like, and how cool it is to be involved in REAL global competitive events (You are sadly deluded by your gaming commission: The World Series is not a world series).
The "Protectonism makes you globally unfit and uncompetitive" speech would obviously be as wasted on you as your soon-to-be bankrupt car industry.
But perhaps I can appeal to your sense of morality? It's not fair.
Nothing stops an American gambling conglomerate from starting up in any other country. US bucks fund international gaming, just like any other business can operate from there towards the rest of the world as a market.
But there are so many commissions in the US that prevent foreign companies from reaching YOU as a market. Except the criminals who don't give a damn for ANY commitee.
Illegal gambling LOVES America right now.
My point was it's too overt when it comes to the Internet. Unlike the WTO, ICANN isn't likely to disobey.
People here have short memories. Not so long ago the US decided to stick import tarifs on steel in order to "protect local production". The WTO correctly ruled that this was in violation of the treaties and that other countries were entitled to respond accordingly. The EU and a few other countries responded by slapping a huge import tax on goods produced in US swing-states. It didn't take very long for the steel tarifs to be abolished as a result. So yea, the US will pay, if it doesn't you can expect to see a couple of countries starting to deliberately hit the US economy. China alone could probably have a lot of fun, when the EU, Russia, India, Brazil and Canada decides to join the party, $100 billion will not be worth the trouble.
n/t
Its a simple matter of recriminations.
You break a treaty commitment and continue to stick your head in the ground about it despite being notified several times then someone will come along with a stick and suggest you get your house in order.
If you don't like it, fine - leave the WTO, but don't pretend for a second that the world will let you use the WTO as a club to get things that benefit America to happen elsewhere and then turn a blind eye when you don't abide by the rules you drum into others.
Read the following statements through many times until you and the people who modded you insightful understand these simple facts.
As a member of the WTO, you are supposed to trade within the WTO guidelines. That's part of the deal of being in the WTO.
WTO stands for World Trade Organizaton. That means they promote all manner of trade. Gambling, prostitution and weapons manufacturing are all forms of trade sanctioned by the WTO.
Please, review the history and mission of the WTO before spouting self-soothing Americanisms.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Domestic vs. international law
The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law from many other nations, particularly European ones. Unlike nations that view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments.
The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution a position mandated by the Supreme Court's 1957 ruling in Reid v. Covert. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier.
If you post it, they will read.
We ARE global trade. If we want anything, we take it.
These united States don't owe 151 countries anything for that economic policy change.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
Import tariffs and excise taxes are how the U.S. government paid for itself prior to 1913 when the income tax was invented. And if the U.S. wasn't so hopelessly mired in debt and entitlements and social manipulation it still could be.
Tariffs are not wrong, no matter what foreign governments don't like about it. There's nothing wrong with encouraging self-sufficiency first and then resorting to imports when required. You just have to pay for it.
All gambling games are funded off the winnings. No gambling game in existence continues to exist if they lose to the player over time. With this simple knowledge, people still play to win. Dumb.
Is it? It doesn't take a genius with a statistics PhD to realise that the expected returns from gambling are below 0, but your argument completely ignores the variance.
Though the average punter will lose a bit of money gambling, some will win big. The possibility that "it could be you", however remote, is the reason that people play the lottery. They aren't interested in winning back $25 on every $50 they spend, they're interested in having some chance — small as it is — of winning a life-changing amount, and they're willing to spend $50 to have that chance.
By your argument, people who take out insurance are stupid, too. After all, the insurance companies are in it to make money, and the premiums they charge will always leave them something after the average pay-out. But you don't buy insurance because for that $500 you'll at least get $250 back if someone steals your TV. You buy insurance because you don't want your life to be ruined if your whole house burns down. Most people will never be so unlucky, but many value the peace of mind from knowing that if they are, then most of the loss will be recovered.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"Congress passes a law to..."
Appease the religious right. Had they been concerned about people getting cheated, then regulation would have been the correct (and logical) choice.
"which means taking money from every citizen and company in the U.S. that pays taxes to support..."
The religious right. Again, every entity involved in this debate, apart from those supporting the bill, was for regulation and taxation, not banning, but that was ignored and the bill was rammed through.
Your assessment of the situation couldn't be farther from the reality of what happened.
It would probably help if you were to point out how what I said is in any way in conflict with what you just said.
sigs are hazardous to your health
"It was trying to protect domestic corporations and tax revenue."
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIGEA#Internet_gambling_provisions
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I see the US on both sides of the table, sometimes winning, sometimes losing.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I think the US owes the general populace $1K per person. It will be gambling money not gained (and thus lost) because we were unable to do offshore online gambling. Instead of sending OUR money to the WTO (bullies!), they should give that $100b to us. I know that's only $.33 a person in the US, but you can make it $1,000 per person if you just tell the Fed to cut Interest Rates to 0% and devalue the dollar so it's close to Zimbabwe currency. Then, I can invest my worthless paper money in Party Gaming company (and other stocks), make a ton of money, and use that money to buy...a loaf of bread. OK, forget it! And tell WTO to take a hike. And stop gambling with our futures...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
can it be classified as 'Gambling Losses' for tax purposes?
"But maybe someone can help me out. I still can't find a clear answer as to can US companies offer a gambling service a non-US one is prevented from offering by law"
No one knows, and the answers you get are all suspect as the law has never been tested in this regard.
If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying. This has been debated more times than I can count, and there is no solid answer. If you'd like to know more, you can get most of what you need here.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=law
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I think that the problem that the WTO has is that the US allows US vendors to sell gambling activities to people who do not live in the US.
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.
Let's just kick the UN out of the US.
Pull out of the WTO
and say the hell with TRANZI agendas.
Its interfering with our internal laws and traditions for purposes of predation by outside varmits.
If all of the offshore gambling sites provided the legal paperwork necessary for US citizens and submitted the information tot he IRS for taxation of winnings/losses, they would be in a better position.
But far too many of them refuse to report this information to the US Govt.
Oh, you guys didn't know that if you go to Vegas with $100 in your pocket and win $5000 that you have to pay taxes on it?
heh.
"The US in this case only bans it if you are not in the US. "
This is not accurate. The law in question bans interstate gaming as well, leaving the question of intrastate gaming to the individual states.
If you wanted to open a US wide online poker room, for instance, the law in question says that's not kosher. However, in light of the multi-state lotteries that have sprung up over the years, there has been an argument that the same procedures that allow pooling of contestants for lotteries in different states could be applied to the UIGEA.
There is one thing that is certain however, that the law is a mishmash of semi-legal pronouncements that has little chance of holding up under scrutiny.
That's what was said about Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and a bunch of other guys who blasted to the win after languishing at 4% for a while.
Be very careful extrapolating on polls. They are the best example of the line "past results are not necessarily indicitive of future performance." They are nothing more than a lagging indicator, and can change very quickly.
WRT Paul, he has some "fundamentals" that are indicitive of a possible surprise. First, fundraising is strong. Second, he has a huge volunteer base that is rabidly dedicated. Here in Pittsburgh, there are big "Ron Paul" signs over major highways put up recently. No other candidate has anyone putting them out at all. Third, straw poll wins and general "buzz" is very high.
The Paul campaign is most certainly real, and not astroturfing. It is also coming at a time when polls of approval for both parties are at the lowest we've seen in recent history. His campaign is tapping into a big "feeling" out there that things are just screwed up and need some sort of a radical direction change. However, the public isn't looking to just switch from "right" to "left", they are both unpopular.
Both the Democrats and Republicans have been simply trying to grab control of the massive power of the US federal government for a long time, and use it to impose their vision on everyone. This doesn't really work well.
Don't count the guy out. Having a good number of really dedicated supporters can cause primary elections to produce surprising results. It's all about turn out, and you can easily see the Paulites turn out at a 75% rate while the other candidates' supporters may be there at 10% or less. It may be "spamming the polls", but that's the way elections work. It's about turnout, period.
Gambling is nothing but legal robbery. It's just taking advantage of ppl, leads to life problems in any gambler who is semi-compulsive... and is just crap. It's sad to see the gov't of the US take advantage of it's people by playing both sides of the gambling scene.
The Internet destroyed that paradigm. You can now interact virtually in a socially meaningful way with nearly anyone else in the world. You can gamble with your neighbor, or someone on the other side of the world. You can view a girl in Russia at home as your own personal nudie bar. And of course your Internet business can run on a server in your den with nobody (except the curious geek) being the wiser. This whole controversy is due to trying to apply laws built for the old paradigm to the new paradigm. What's needed are new laws for the new paradigm.
As of yet, material products cannot be transferred over the Internet. So illegal substance distribution laws can still operate under the old geography-based paradigm. If we ever invent Star Trek-style replicators, those laws will have to change as well.
Umm...I think we could take them out for way less than $100 Billion. The President could then have Camp David 2 in a warmer climate.
The U.S. will never pay this. It is an election year during a war. Do you honestly think any of the candidates will honestly agree to pay this fine and appear "weak"? Democrat or Republican, neither is going to go for this. If the WTO is smart, they will dial down the rhetoric and they might get what they want: online gambling. If not, they will get neither gambling or a fine.
over the world, it gets into a dispute with one of the biggest members. Phew. It's a good thing they're all so damn greedy.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
Bush Chokes On Own Vomit 2-1
Bush Chokes On Cheney 2.5-1
Cheney Chokes On Bush 6-1
Condi Chokes On Bush 1-2
Pelosi Chokes Bush 1-100
Bush Chokes Blair 1.5
Bush Awarded Noble Peace Prize: 10**6-1
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout, PatRIOT
Ive counted thousands of shady gambling operations online. ..
Good post, except for the glaring error that is making you look like an uneducated idiot.
$yourpost =~ s/it\'s/its/g;
If a Belgian typically drinks American beer
As an American, I would be more then willing for us to pay a $100 billion fine for cheaper access to Belgian beer. As good as the American craft beers are, nothing can stand up to Belgian brewing.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Actually, the Court's finding of a "right to privacy" is perfectly consistant with the 10th Amendment. People tend to fall into a trap that the first 8 Amendments grant all the rights that people have, and that is most certainly not the case. There are many others, and under the 10th it is up to the courts to honestly analyze the right claimed and decide if it exists, and if so is it a State right, or an Individual one.
In the ROE case, they found it's an Individual right, not a State one.
Perfectly consisent.
And I am an anti-abortion guy. I think the ruling was bad, but not against the 10th. They simply got the balance between the unborn's right to live and the mother's right to privacy out of whack in my opinion. Where the mistake occurs is that death is irrevocable, and I'd rather see the life protected.
I just don't happen to agree with a healthy percentage of what he says. 'Course, we 'mericans are ornery critters that can always agree to disagree. or disagree. Or....
*sigh* You get the idea.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
So its ok to sign a trade agreement, get all the benefits, then when its time to return the favor say no? To outlaw online gambling, then allow gambling within the country is a CLEAR BREACH of the WTO. Its eliminating foreign competition. You act like this is the first time this has happened and it is far from that. I think every Canadian knows about the softwood lumber dispute. The US has never actually complied with the many rulings/re-rulings of the WTO. To this day there is still a tariff (although it has been lowered) on softwood lumber. The fine the WTO also placed has never been paid. It would be interesting to see what would happen should Canada tack on a tariff on the sale of electricity to the US. Or for that matter water. Just wanted to point out whether you like it or not, your government signed the treaty, uses it to enforce copyrights, and ignores it when it feels like it.
Bottom Line, We are the United States. We do what we want, when we want. If you don't live here, stay out of our business. We don't want our citizens gambling their money away to fake gaming sites offshore.
This is the true evil of the WTO, everyone has to succumb to the lowest common denominator, regardless of your own countries morals and beliefs and laws.
One world order, via the backdoor.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This case only one such example of the WTO is trying to override US sovereignty. The World Trade Organization backed Codex Alimentarius food rules will soon make it illegal to purchase high dosage vitamins from health food stores in the U.S. when the rules go into effect globally December 31, 2009. It's Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), only permits only ultra low doses of vitamins. You will then no longer be able to buy significant dosages of most vitamins and minerals from your local heath food store because they will become illegal in the U.S. The Codex Alimentarius rules will also require the U.S. to start accepting foods which have been treated with pesticides which have been illegal in the U.S. for years. The Codex Alientarius food rules have been written by pro-pharmacutical and pro-chemical interests in Germany and Europe and the power of the WTO is being used to force those rules on unwilling American consumers and voters. Here is a quote from a document that is on the HealthFreedomUSA.org website:
Codex Alimentarius is backed up by the crippling trade sanctions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Any non Codex-compliant nation would face huge economic punishment since they would automatically lose in any food-trade dispute with a Codex compliant country.We would automatically lose any food-trade dispute if we are not Codex compliant. Because of that, Congress is now in the process overturning an early 1990s pro-vitamin law that had been hard won by a grass roots movement of large numbers of health food consumers. Congress in working towards making the U.S. Codex compliant within the next couple of years so that we will not face trade sanctions. The voters need to wake up to how the World Trade Organization (WTO) is overriding U.S. Sovereignty and start another grass roots movement to tackle issues such as Codex Alimentarius.
Codex Alimentarius Summarized in 7 Points
You mean all that high fructose corn syrup is bad for you? Don't tell the corn lobby. America has been using sugar tariffs since before the Spanish-American War over a century ago and does not appear to have stopped since then.
Jones Soda and some other less common brands are switching back to real sugar as a marketing strategy.
What happened to the scheme by which Antigua would get a $BIGNUM exception to US copyrights to serve as payment... that is, they'd be able to sell $BIGNUM legal copies of movies or music or software until they hit the penalty target.
I doubt you would find more than a 0.5% of the US population that thinks buying a state lottery ticket (that supports education) online or betting on a horse race halfway across the nation is the same thing as internet table gambling. Very few people in the US consider casino gambling equivalent to other forms of gambling. The WTO doesn't draw a distinction, but there is one.
Personally I think we should just overthrow the government of Antigua, withdraw the complaint and arrest the US lawyer involved and charge him with Treason. That would send the appropriate message to those countries that are trying to take advantage of the moving on a moral situation.
There are a number of European countries that have legalized marijuana and/or provide narcotics to users. Under the same logic being applied by the WTO, countries which produce narcotics could sue the European nations and argue (using the same logic as the gambling ruling) that by allowing recreational drugs that the European nations involved cannot make importation or distribution of narcotics illegal and enforce a judgment equal to those nations drug markets.
The WTO's ruling that all gambling is the same should be applied to those European nations that make some drugs legal or provide them to users. It's unfair of European nations to discriminate against foreign suppliers, crack and heroin should be available as equally as marijuana and methadone.
I've never heard of the guy.
considering that Belgians now drink Brazilian beer, how much would you be willing to pay?
The US Did not ban online gambling. They banned funding your online gambling with a credit card. I don't think the WTO has a leg to stand on, becuase I gamble online in the USA for cash money EVERY DAY.
The US has for decades not accepted any gambling over the telecommunications infrastructure. If this is how the WTO wants to roll? Fine. I for one welcome a new age of Imperialism that dwarfs Rome and even Britain at the height of her power. Let the US not only use her market advantage to negotiate every predetory advantage possible, but let's throw the Navy in there too. Let no one sail the seas under the wrong flags, and under the right flags without paying. Whatever. Forget about forigne aid, that money is flowing the wrong direction. People want to complain about laws that exist for a good reason, give them something to complain about and back it up with the law of the jungle.
If that's not exceptable, just kidnapp foriegn nationals for violating these serious felonies. Of course, it's difficult to bother with trials, all the issues involve, just throw them in a hole, or maybe a deep sea trench. Don't like our laws? Find out how much I respect yours.
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.
From the Bush Administration? Yeah. Good luck with that. Besides, I'm sure we can find better uses for the money.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
First they get other countries to give away a heap of stuff, then the US doesn't even hold up what little it promised.
I'd like to point out that the headline is a little overstated. Countries are considering seeking damages in the WTO, that's far from saying that the US faces a fine.
Gambling in the US is a tricky subject, and online gambling has been banned because states felt that it was limiting their ability to regulate and ban gambling. I think it's really disingenuous to claim that this law is intended as some kind of barrier to trade. I don't know how this would hold up if it actually went to the WTO (it's a murky issue) but chances are that it won't come to that anyway. There are always better alternatives to trade sanctions, trade sanctions are bad for everyone, so no one wants to see that happen.
Is it $100 Billion for each of the 150 other WTO countries? That would make more sense, really.
:)
Isn't that $1 Quadrillion? Or would that be $100 Trillion ?
http://cakepoker.com/?share=112024Play poker at Cake Poker
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Can China field a $200 billion bet on black for us? If we win, we can pay $100 billion towards the fine and another $100 billion to distribute $300 worth of Chinese electronics to every American. If we lose, who cares. It's only another $200 billion in debt to China, just a drop in the bucket.
The WTO has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in this issue. It's simply trying to override the sovereignty of an independent state/nation.
The US made contractual commitments when it joined the WTO, and it needs to live up to them. Of course, those commitments override the sovereignty of the US, that's the whole point! The US gave up a bit of sovereignty in exchange for benefits.
By analogy, when you sign any other contract, you usually give up some rights or freedoms you otherwise enjoy: a contract may allow people to enter your home, to withdraw money from a credit card, etc.
This is just confirmation that the WTO is a meaningless cabal of mindless USA bashers with an axe to grind.
The US has been a major proponent of the WTO and its predecessors, over the objections of many other nations. Other nations grudgingly agreed to the WTO, but the least they can expect is that the US live up to the commitments it made.
Of course, the WTO was created out of blatant self interest. That's what makes this such an interesting test case: will the US comply even though it may not be fully in its own interest? If it does, the WTO stands a chance of eventually achieving its stated goals. If it doesn't and there are more cases like this, it may expose the WTO as a sham. Seems to me we're better off either way.
If Ron Paul gets elected, he will do away with this nonsense!
Libertas in infinitum
The taxpayers should NOT be forced to foot the financial burden for some stupid action that our government undertakes. The people |= the government.
Libertas in infinitum
Next we will be sued by Colombia for making cocaine illegal.
Fortunately for the US population and the rest of the planet, the USG does not conduct itself with the morality and restraint of a drunken redneck at a incest festival. And a US lawyer suing the US government for breach of its own laws is treason now? Does the US Constitution now count as "quaint", like former A-G Gonzales' opinion of the Geneva Conventions?
Look - withdraw from the WTO, if you don't like it. Withdraw from the UN if you don't like it. Remove yourself from every single international obligation and build up a 2 mile high wall around your territory. It's your tax money and your right to spend it how you will. We in the rest of the world cannot and will not stop you.
But don't sign up to a particular deal, accept a particular arbitration method, then squeal like a stuck pig that you shouldn't be held to the rules which apply to everyone else when things don't go your way. That's not exhibiting morality - that's the definition of treachery.
--Ng
International treaties have preponderance over state laws or equivalents of any country.
The US joined the WTO with a treaty that was approved by your respective representatives and senators, so though cookie wise boy (if it serves of any consolation, other countries are equally screwed, ant in several occasions the US has won other rulings).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The gambling industry from outside the US was perfectly happy to comply with similar restrictions imposed into local concerns (which would be fair to all parties involved).
The problem is that Herr Bush's government is using some arcane laws that apply to foreign concerns but not to local ones. The WTO has seen through this dishonest (ha, Bush dishonest, quelle surprise, does Dick Cheney have share in local gambling companies?) bullshit and is bringing the US into line.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Many gambling companies have parent companies in such shady places as the UK and Ireland.
Gambling has a long history of successful regulation in other countries. I anything the US should have looked at Vegas or Atlantic City, whose founding icons had links with the mafia.
Saying that gambling is better regulated in the US is quite spacious, to say the least.
There is absolutely nothing to stop the US regulating foreign companies BTW, as long as the regulations applicable to foreign companies are the same by which local companies have to abide, the WTO would have no problem with that.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Because expropriation derives from the will of the people of the country that expropriates a given asset.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Let's play with the math just for grins. Let's use the stocks mentioned in my last post. Let's buy them all 1 year ago including the good, bad and ugly. We will place buy orders for 5% less and sell at %20 over what we bought at.
Here is the portfolio. Intel, AMD, SCO Microsoft and VM Ware.. The symbols are INTC AMD SCOX MSFT & VMW. That's 5 stocks. Toss $50 at each a year ago and set a buy order at 5% under the price.. How did we do?
Intel was at about 21.5. 5% less is $20.425. In short we bought the stock as it's 52 week range is 18.75 - 26.58... Did we sell it? Yes, it sold at a profit of 4.085 per share. Since in round figures we bought 2.5 shares we earned about $10 bucks.
AMD.. It's range was 11.27 - 25.69 It started at $25.69 and headed down. Did we buy it at 5% less.. Yes. Did it sell.. No not yet. Time to wait this one out. Did we lose all our money.. No. We have an unrealized loss. The loss becomes real only if we sell at a loss. This is why I'm not buying and haven't bought AMD. If it starts trending up and is showing some market traction again, I may invest. So at the end of the year I've invested $45 for about 2 shares which are currently worth about $22 bucks. Not a total loss, but I'm not taking the loss and the investment in this one is only $50. If I think it may turn up, it might be time to put in another buy order for this year and try to snag 5 shares for $50 instead of just 2 like we did earlier... May be promising, but this is one to watch. It's in the middle of a fire sale..
Next on the list is SCO.. It's 52 week range was 0.15 - 3.11. Great, if we were not watching the company and gambeling, we would have bought a bunch of shares for about 3 bucks each. Did they sell? Nope. Are we likely to sell? Nope.. Good thing we didn't get greedy and plug in more than $50.
Care t buy more in the fire sale? Nope... There is no hope... Stick a fork in it. It's done.
Next on the list is Microsoft, the stagnet stock. Did we make any money? It's 52 week range was only 26.60 - 31.84. 52 weeks ago the price was about 28.5 and rising. Sticking to the buy order, we put in the buy order at $27.075. It looks like we bought it several months later at our price. Did we sell it? At 32.49, we haven't sold it yet, but the price is within $1 of our sell price. It may sell soon.
Last on the list is VM ware. It has only been out for a couple months, so using the same formula, did we buy it? 51.50 - 114.88 is the 52 week range. It opened near $52, dipped slightly and took off. We wouldn't have gotten in on the ground floor, so no we haven't bought it. Remember the pattern blazed by Red Hat mentioned in my other comments? VMW peaked at $114.88 and are now on the way back down. They are trading under $100 right now. I'm glad I didn't buy it just before the peak to ride it down.
So how did I do. I made good on one. INTC I am real close to making good on a second MSFT Totally blew a gamble SCOX and AMD will require a long wait for either a recovery or going bust. If I bailed right now I could get 1/2 my money back.
If I avoided the risky stocks, how did I do.. with No SCO, and no AMD while Intel is kingpin on the Core 2 Duo. I won in Intel. I missed buying VM ware low and I can cash Microsoft at a profit today or wait for a small wiggle to hit my sell price.
Was that hard? Keep an eye on AMD.. If they show any real sign of recovery or Intel starts to falter, jump on AMD. It could be a nice ride up but for now.. sit tight. Watch for stocks that move. You can't make money on stocks that don't move. Buy low. Sell high, and watch out for hyperactive stocks like the IPO of Red Hat and VM Ware. They move way too quickly to ride them safely.
There you have it. It does not require watching the stock everyday. It doesn't require super commissions for lots of small buy and sell orders. It does require patience, solid investing and more patience. Again, buy low, sell high. Use a fixed inv
The truth shall set you free!
But to sit back and say that it was mostly the Russians and the Brits that won the war is empty headed nonsense. During the early phases of the war, the best the Russians and Brits were doing was fighting the Third Reich to a standstill long enough for America's industrial and technical capacity to crank up a required threshold amount of weaponry and superior tactics that tipped the balance. Which is why the US chose to fight the way it did, including supplying both England and Russia with much needed supplies, etc. until that threshold couldbe reached.
And, for the record Montgomery vs. Patton is an argument that for all intents and purposes ended with the failure of "Operation Market Garden. Patton's armies succeeded in their offensive over the winter of 1944 and early 1945 and essentially thrust a dagger directly into the heart of the Reich in a such a way that the proverbial bleeding could not be stopped.
To say that this was a Russian victory? yeah, right.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...