Slashdot Mirror
US Ignores Unwelcome WTO IP Rulings
Eye Log writes "The United States is a big fan of leaning on other countries to tighten IP and copyright protection, but has a tendency to ignore its own obligations when it doesn't get its way. 'Two ongoing cases illustrate the point. First, the European Union is pushing for the US to change a pair of rules that it calls "long-standing trade irritants." Despite World Trade Organization rulings against it, the US has not yet corrected either case for a period of several years... Apparently, it's easy to get hot and bothered when it's industries from your country that claim to be badly affected by rules elsewhere. When it comes to the claims of other countries, though, even claims that have been validated by the WTO, it's much easier to see the complexity of the situation, to spend years arguing those complexities before judges, and to do nothing even when compelled by rulings.'"
<comment>
<sarc>Yeah, but everyone knows that Irish music sucks so its just not the same as when people copy Brittney Spears.</sarc>
</comment>
This just in... Al Gore is pissed.
Given the way this administration has been handling Foreign Policy, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone ...
movie at 11:00....
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
News at eleven.
If the WTO wants American politicians to listen them, then they need to pony up with the 'campaign funding' like everyone else.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Back in the 80s the US even ignored a ruling from the World Court to cease it's terrorist activities in Nicaragua, which included mining the harbours and putting civilian shipping in great danger. It even ignored the two subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions demanding that it observe the World Court Ruling.
It basically comes down to this. If you are powerful, you can ignore the rules. If you are not, you may well be in serious trouble.
The Federal government here in the US is allowing corporate interests to screw us, it's citizens, why not the rest of the world too? At least it's consistent.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
The big problem with the WTO is that it exists to try to find equities in other peoples laws. In my country its legal to do something that might be illegal in yours. The problem with that is that its great when people are talking about physical properties, however its much more difficult when dealing with the same disputes on intellectual property. If I play a radio in my work than its the station that sells advertisements that pays for the songs. As long as I don't advertise the fact like some kind of main street concert hall than I'm not sure why it matters.
growing?
what fantasy world are these guys living in?
Sure the number of IP claims are going up, but the value to the public is clearly going down, and p2p isnt going anywhere.
They can claim "growing stakes" all they wish, but the voracity of their claims extend only as far as the walls of their ivory towers.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Many nations of EU will ignore their legal obligations. They are signatories to Kyoto, but are doing their best to play games with it. Germany, and even France are great examples of this. And yes, as I recall, all of the great nations of EU have violated various WTO rulings as well.
Yes, there is likely hypocrisy in this on the part of the US, but "do as I say, not as I do" on the part of the US is not news to anyone here. What I am glad to see, though, is that most countries seem to have some willingness to ignore at least some of the ridiculousness inherent in "intellectual property" law. The idea that ideas can be owned and hoarded is dying, and anything that hastens its demise is fine by me. How can one hoard ideas in a world where knowledge, information, and media are simply at the end of one's fingertips on a keyboard?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Ars technica apparently hired fry to edit their article?
thank god.
If I can gain an advantage by getting others to follow phony rules, good for me, but I'm not bound by them.
Note that this is significantly different than treaties, which are between specific countries, and spell out specific remedies, the ultimate being the offended party withdrawing from the treaty (or war).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I really don't see the problem. Member nations are autonomous. Any compliance with demands from the World Court, the UN or the WTO is strictly voluntary for any nation. Their real authority is precisely whatever the member nations decide. That's not just for the US-- it's for any member nation of any such organization. Orders from the UN and similar groups really just don't matter unless they can back them up-- and they can't. I prefer it that way, honestly. The UN and WTO are a bit too socialistic for my tastes, but that's just me.
As a founding member of the UN, the USA seems to think that it controls the UN - and it acts accordingly!
It has a VETO and routinely uses it for its advantage - and ignores the UN when it isn't convenient.
Given their actions in the UN, Why would it acknowledge the WTO? Or even NAFTA... *cough* softwood lumber debate *cough*
Pretty much the very group of people for whom this is an anathema are taking the opportunity to complain that the US has not implemented this draconian bullshit because, well, it's fun to say "the US ignores what it doesn't like".
The chuckle factor is definitely high here.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
I am very glad that businesses here don't need to pay $30,000 a year to play the radio where customers can hear it. It's nice when our government protects us from abusive regulations, even if it doesn't happen very often.
what sig?
US trade policy is self-serving, we all know that. But couldn't the author provide some good examples to really make the point? These are pretty weak:
=> I would be willing to wager that most everyone commenting on this thread would consider that fair use.
=> Weren't the trade sanctions against Cuba put there and don't they remain there in part because of Cuban human rights abuses? The governments calling USA to task on this have companies which have "invested in Cuban business". The trademarks are not protected in the US to limit Cuban companies profiting from these trademarks in the US. If other countries want to sell their rum in the US under a protected trademark, they seem free to use a different trademark. Whether US trade sanctions against Cuba are moral or justified is a different issue from IP.
=> Legal gambling outfits in the US follow strict gambling laws that regulate, among other things, machine calibration, payout ratios, etc. Online gambling from other countries is outlawed in the USA because the mechanisms to ensure fairness can not be physically confirmed by government representatives.
Just callin' it like I see it.
The US has more trade agreements with Canada than any other country and in Canada's experience it is absolutely true. The US government's negotiators howl about DRM, our approach to health care, pharmacuticals, gay marriage, drug "leniency" etc, etc while ignoring rluling after ruling not just by the WTO, but by the NAFTA boards, and other committees that supposedly govern bilateral trade. Largely they do it because they can get away with it.
I have no doubt that the US will recover from it's financial woes. The world economy is changing though, and competition for resources is increasing. The US's negotiating position is changing as well. Instead of being the one of a few major buyers of commodities, they are now among many. Ignoring multilateral trade rulings as a routine is going to end as a consequence. At least if the US government is smart about it.
Of course the US doesn't comply with rulings it doesn't agree with or are not considered to be in the best interests of the people or corporations of the US. That's the *job of government* - to act in the interests of the people of the United States. If they operated against our best interests in favor of other countries, they would quickly and quite deservedly get run out of office. Particularly if the consequences of not complying consist of a strongly worded letter from some toothless international body threatening that if we don't comply, we will receive another strongly worded letter.
Whether you like it or not, there is no world government nor should their be. EVERY sovereign country should act in it's own interests. And, individual examples aside, the US overall goes along with some pretty crazy nonsense in the interests of getting along. Maybe not enough to suit the typical slashdotter, but more than is probably warranted or necessary. How much money have we poured into the UN, just to get the world's most corrupt and intrinsically fraudlent organization? We are financing one of the most counter-productive, racist, anti-semetic, and needless to say, anti-American organizations outside al-Qaeda.
And need I note the double standard? When other countries defy US rules, everybody cheers and proclaims them to be heroes for standing up to the US. When we do the same, even in a ridiculously minor way, people response like we are the fourth reich.
Brett
Exactly. How is Europe so completely backwards on this issue? Every pair of ears that listens to the songs is a pair of ears that listens to the ads as well, and those ads pay the bills. I would think the radio stations and music labels would be GLAD to have people listening to them in workplaces and waiting rooms.
If these laws were enforced in the USA, there would be riots, then it would be silence or royalty-free classical music only.
What bureaucratic knot did they invent to justify why should it cost money if you listen in a place of business when it's designed to be a free-to-receive service?
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
something to complain about, and act like we want US companies to be successful. 1) Completely eliminate the income tax, and, just to be clear, that means the corporate income tax, too. 2) Institute a National sales tax to run the country with. In addition to the cessation of wasting all that money to collect the income tax, all American goods reduce in price dramatically from not having to pay income tax. Imported goods stay the same price, since they weren't paying American income tax in all those Chinese and Korean factories anyway. Then American goods get taxed back up to about what they were, while foreign goods increase maybe 23 - 28% or so. Wonder if the WTO would have a hemmorhage, and what they could do about it.
and accuracy has been restored.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You seem to be under the impression that the WTO is an organisation that just appeared out of thin air -- rather than, say, as a result of lots of countries signing up to binding agreements -- also known as "treaties" (such as GATT and the Marrakesh Agreement).
Or you could say it's a huge bureaucracy created by a bunch of smaller bureaucracies and answerable only to itself.
I'm not sure ignoring it is entirely a bad thing.
The US government is supposed to do things that are in its own best interest.
Weren't the trade sanctions against Cuba put there and don't they remain there in part because of Cuban human rights abuses?
...
Yes. That explains those extensive sanctions against China too.
Oh, hang on
I think you to are both taking Canada's side on this, just worded differently.
Both Canada and Mexico have similar problems when it comes to the USA not complying with WTO rulings. These will be on the table if NAFTA is renegotiated.
Seriously, I don't understand why the US is part of the WTO. Yes, I know that the US helped found it (and its predecessor, GATT) but I don't see why we keep spending resources to have someone else tell us what our tariffs should be, especially if we ignore rulings... All it has done is help shift manufacturing (and technology) jobs overseas, create less oversight of products on store shelves (think China and dead pets), and give cheaper imports to Wal-Mart.
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Hello? The EU is so ridiculously hypocritical. Just look at the EU's bananas regime:
http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/June/United_States_Requests_WTO_Panel_to_Review_European_Unions_Banana_Import_Regime.html
The EU has been consistently ruled against for well over a decade, and there is still no movement towards compliance.
Your government protects you from things like this. It also protects you from terrorism by violating your privacy, personal rights and freedoms. I wouldn't stand for it, but hey - thats just me.
The WTO doesn't have authority over these cases. The WTO only covers issues of free trade, it doesn't allow for international groups to override local laws that don't impede trade. In the cases cited, the international interests are being provided with the same level of protection as domestic ones are.
The Irish musicians are being treated exactly the same way that all other musicians are being treated here, and they are still free to sell their CDs here if people are interested in buying them. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual WTO treaty violation there.
Likewise the issue of trademark law is an internal issue to the US, these companies are still allowed to sell their goods in the US, they just don't get trademark protection if they're using trademarks which were owned by Cuban businesses. The US has the right to decide what is and is not protected under our trademark law.
Yes, we're being terribly hypocritical, but the WTO really and truly does not have the authority to force us to make those particular changes.
Those two issues pale in comparison to the kind of boot legging and piracy that go on in some parts of the world. The WTO itself has been guilty of abusing IP as a means of gaining compliance for things which it hasn't the authority to arbitrate in the first place.
I know that it's popular with the hate America first groups to make a big deal out of all this, but it's apples and oranges. The US is the leading exporter of IP, of course we're going to be concerned with piracy. But why is it that we can't at least acknowledge that these cases are hardly the same as the rampant piracy in some parts of the world and are hardly appropriate issues for the WTO to arbitrate in the first place.
All countries ignore WTO rulings they don't like, it's because there is no way to really enforce those rulings. It is more a consensus of what is the right thing to do for all as opposed to a legally binding prescription. Take a look at EU banana policy in the early '90s...
All countries have to face consequences for ignoring the WTO but it seems as though the benefits of ignoring outweigh the costs
"The idea that ideas can be owned and hoarded is dying,"
I don't know how many more times this has to be said before people here start listening to it.
You CANNOT copyright an idea. The inability to copyright an idea is PROTECTED in copyright law.
What you can copyright is the exact implementation of an idea.
Patent Law, on the other hand, is another matter, and in the United States, at least, very badly broken. But there is a difference, and please don't lump one in with the other, particularly when copyright provides the legal framework that allows content producers and distributors to deal with one another, guaranteeing that you actually have all that media at the tip of your fingers.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Bush/Cheney disregard the law at will.
The USA died long ago and it has been a slow gradual death; although, recent years have been moving faster - as if its the last breath.
Biggest mistake in the constitution has always been the clause about treaties. Treaties should be at least as difficult as passing a law if not more so.
The constitution is "quaint" and is no longer the law of the land. USA is dead. What we have is USA Inc.
Can someone help me with the math? According to this score details (right now at a -1) :
Starting Score:
1 point
Moderation -2
30% Troll
20% Insightful
20% Informative
Extra 'Troll' Modifier 0
Total Score -1
Wouldn't this be 30% negative and 40% positive resulting in a +1 or +2?
I don't own an American restaurant, but in Slashdot's constant whining about the RIAA, one of the whines I hear is that restaurants have to pay copyright holders to play music at their radio, and how the RIAA even pays people to go to restaurants and mark down whether or not their is RIAA music being played. I know that music venues with live bands covering RIAA music are responsible. So I doubt this example is even true.
And as far as Havana Club goes - I agree the US is in the wrong, and furthermore I'm not a resident of the US and think the Havana Club 7 is about as good as rum gets. However a further issue is that in the US, the copyright was granted to the family that owned the rum, before the Cuban government nationalized the factory and the family fleed to the US. Let me repeat: it was a family business that was stolen by the government. So I think it's reasonable that the family should be able to hold on to (and eventually sell) their rights to the name - or at least, I can sympathize.
The author of he article doesn't do himself any favors with his tone, rather than an impartial reporter he comes across as a whiny teenager. I guess samzenpus is new, and already I'm rooting for him to go the way of michael and timothy.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
This is true. The constitution does, however gives congress the right to sign treaties with foreign governments. I looked it up: from section 2 on the powers of the president:
My understanding is that the congress passed and the president signed all previous rounds of the WTO agreements. We have representation in the WTO, both in setting it up and each round of talks. We also had full representation during the judgments that went against us.The laws of Germany or some other sovereign country do not have anything to do with this case. Prior presidents and Congresses lawfully entered our nation into agreements with other nations for (perceived) mutual benefit. If no longer feel the treaties are of benefit, I believe we can leave the organization, but overall it does a great deal of good, especially for the shareholders of large US companies that sell abroad. If they do not want their moral power diluted, perhaps THEY should encourage their congressmen to enforce the ruling...
As for you foreigners, while you are technically correct that the US is just as out of line as other countries, I detect a mean-spiritedness in your comments. Are you feeling resentful because you are being "pushed around" by the US on this issue? Get over it. This is an argument over money, and probably not even yours. This is the money of the rich people in the US v.s. the rich in your country. If you aren't rich, you have no dog in this race. If you are rich, shut up and enjoy it.
Save your mean-spirited comments for where they belong: discussions of US foreign policy and our tendency to invade places.
"I love his boyish charm, but I hate his childishness" - Leela
Not happy? You can always opt for armed hostilities.
The WTO, IEA, IAEA, and many other organisations are simply toothless tigers. Their bureaucrats spend their time flying from place to place trying to justify their own pay packets and carbon footprints. Why we are wearing the skin off our fingers arguing the toss over this sad article is beyond me. Foreigners, me included, are well aware of the "every man for himself USA all the way mentality". I mean if the US was SERIOUSLY interested in freedom and democracy for the oppressed then Zimbabwe would have been invaded ages ago... but oops, no oil there huh?
Problems like this go back long before Bush and Cheney (though they've refined the whole arrogance/prickishness thing to the status of art): one set of rules for the United States, another set for everybody else. And yet, for some reason, Americans feel hurt and a little bewildered when they find out how unpopular they are in the rest of the world. The comfortable answer is, "Everybody envies us because we're just so absolutely wonderful". The actual answer is that this kind of behaviour makes it easy to be disliked.
Americans have long made a point of passing themselves off as Canadians when traveling abroad (even to the point of wearing the Maple Leaf). Unfortunately they persist in acting like Americans, which is giving Canadians a bad name, especially in Europe. Or (as has happened to me in England on two occasions) you get politely grilled about All Things Canadian and eventually asked flat-out to show some ID proving you're from the Bigger Colder Place.
I'm not sure how to fix the problem when the overwhelming majority of Americans don't even believe that there is one, but it really needs to be addressed unless the United States wants to become increasingly isolated and ignored on the international stage.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Those with the gold make the rules.
Sorry but the Supremes just declared otherwise.
That Supreme Court case had to do with whether a treaty signed by the US could be enforced by the president.
Apparently, that particular treaty didn't have any legislation passed by congress backing it up and/or the treaty didn't include say anything about how it would affect the states.
"Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that because the treaty did not explicitly say its provisions were binding, and because there was no legislation to make the treaty binding, the president could not on his own force the states to comply." From here.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I forgot to mention the EU's ban on US Beef: http://useu.usmission.gov/agri/ban.html
The EU had a deadline of May 1999 to open its market, but has yet to do so... The protectionist policy is hidden behind a veil of safety concerns -- that some US beef might have come from cows treated with hormones. This despite widespread use of the very same hormones within the EU. The WTO ruled the ban was illegal in August 1997. The ban has been in place since 1989...
If this ever changes, I'm going to start hiding radios in public places to play until the batteries die or people steal them. If people have to pay a royalty just because other people hear something (something which is all over the place and quite easy to listen to, requiring only a $1 pocket radio), why do the broadcasters have to pay royalties? Actually, perhaps this could work, just give (Internet, terrestrial and satellite) radio stations a free ride, drop all blank media levies, and only charge those playing it for other people to listen. I'd quite enjoy the drop in people blasting their car stereos.
I suppose I'll just have to watch my surroundings while humming a tune.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
This country isn't a country anymore. We're all owned by Jennings & Rall.
The idea is that (folks in the) US Government are _supposed_ to be making decisions that are best for the _rest_ of us (i.e. - the country as a whole) and not just their campaign contributors.
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.
If the US can't play nice, then the obvious answer is to exclude them from all trade agreements until they learn to abide by the rules they agreed to when they first entered into the agreement.
And this applies to all countries, not just the US.
I detect that the hostility is rising in this discussion over this bullshit.
Europe and USA are friends and trade partners. Don't let anyone get in between us. Especially not because of some bullshit about who can listen to other peoples radios without paying a fee. The next thing to pay for is then the fresh air you breath.
about Canada benig the biggest pirate or China producing lots of internally sold bootleg copies, or Antigua ignoring US IP, or...
The USA is the richest most powerful nation on Earth and anyone who gets in the way of that will suddenly find themselves descending into the stone-age.
threadeds blog
with the WTO itself. There are good reasons why no sane country should cede control over trade to the WTO. One should remember that the WTO concerns itself ONLY with trade. It doesn't give a crap about anything else. Environment? No. Working conditions? No. Human/political rights? No.
Removing trade as a tool in diplomacy severely limits a country's options to respond to another country's actions with which it may disagree. Developing {bi,multi}-lateral treaties may be more work and take longer but is much more flexible.
WTO? Just say NO.
The WTO was created by the US for the benefit of the US
If you want people to continue to treat you as an honest trade partner then either:
1) Stick to the treaty terms you signed
2) Don't sign/withdraw from treaties
OTOH, if you think it's in your best interests to sign treaties, bash other people over the head with them and then ignore them yourselves then there's another two options:
3) Start to be regarded as untrustworthy to trade with
4) propagandise about "world governmewnt", discredit the treaties and spoil the game for everyone
Now, options 2, 3 mean that the US doesn't play in the world free trade game and 4 means that world trade suffers barriers. These are bad for the US (especially 3) and bad for the rest of the world too (especially 4) as free trade benefits everyone*. 1 is, suprisingly, in the best interests of the US too. There is no option "5) one rule for me, one for everyone else", because that's just option 3 in disguise.
*ok, everyone with stuff to trade, the poor get screwed as usual
Of course it is, and politicians are hypocritical. What are you, new or something?
This response just in from the US, "No." Seriously though, the US is for what's best for the people in power, they already picked that one, and I think they like the choice they made a lot better than the false dichotomy you offer.
I'd love to mod you up insightful, because you make the GP's point even better than he does. There's a vocal minority (hopefully it's a minority anyway) of Americans, like yourself, that seem to love to say "fuck you rest of world, we're better, so fnaar!". It's on the level of the sort of humour you get up to in the playground when you're six.
;)) has been as nice as pie. But as a country you seem terribly good at thinking the world revolves around you. Most Brits learned this lesson last century, IMHO to the long-term benefit of the country. I'd like to think the US can too.
Individually, all of the americans I've met in person and on the internet (even the ones who pretend to be Canadian - by the way, you need to work on your accents
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Salmonella is hardly worth the attention you're giving it, since it can be killed by making sure the food is fully cooked. Wtf do you mean you would rather eat "raw Swedish chicken"? Do you actually enjoy raw chicken? Gross.
I can see it now. The US invades Antigua/Barbuda for the sake of Disneyland
and all the other fantastical nonsense that defines the current economy.
American blood spills to preserve the honor of Mickey Mouse and the dignity
of the incessant floods of throw away pop music.
These are the times that try men's souls.
Nice try there, but jag talar svenska, and thus I know you comparison falls into all three classes of "lie, damned lies, and statistics" ("lögner, förbannade lögner och statistik"). You're attempting to compare the rate of US chickens that had *any* measurable amount of salmonella from one source in English, to the self-serving Swedish statement (from the Swedish source) that salmonella is found in "less than 1% of all animals and foods" in Sweden. Furthermore, the Swedish article goes on to blame most salmonella infections as originating from other EU countries!!!
Not very impressive...
This subterfuge you provide here does nothing to excuse that the WTO has continuously ruled that the EU's health concerns about American beef are specious, protectionist and explicitly UNSCIENTIFIC.
By the way you can have your raw Swedish chicken all you want, I just hope you continue to feel smug in the hospital, for even if SSI's own "statistics" are true, you can't know if the meat you are buying comes from Sweden or another EU country. (And I eat raw American beef [as carpaccio] all the time -- never been sick.)
Lycka till!
Many people still seem to believe that free trade means free trade. This is bs to the highest degree. Everyone learns that free trade benefits everyone. That is economics 101. Completely correct. So to benefit everyone the Bush administration tries to encourage free trade. At least they say so. What the EU and the US have been doing for decades is to open up foreign markets and to keep domestic markets closed. The Japanese are also very good in this game. They even manage to keep out US and EU products.
So free trade has gotten a bad name. And many, many stupid people have been arguing against free trade, because they have seen the results not benefitting many third world countries. But the whole point is that trade had never been free. All that bs talk about free trade has never been about actual free trade, but just talk.
Nothing to see here. Please move on.
Feel free to call me missinformed but you don't feel it's a bit strong to call me a liar? I enjoy Mark Twain as much as the next guy but what do we have to work with except statistics?
:)
We may receive salmonella infections from other EU countries and we can only speculate if we would receive even more infections if meat from the US was allowed but does this realy change the numbers? Do you have any other statistics showing that my numbers are false?
If I had said that I rather shoot my self in the arm than in the head would you belive that I intend to shoot myself in the arm? But I guess we'll just have to see which one of use winds up in hospital first in a food related issue
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
Well, you either intentionally deceived, assuming that none of us could read Swedish (or had never lived there and was aware of the recurring problems with salmonella in Sweden), or you're simply too lacking in intelligence to understand how grossly negligent it would be to compare those two statistics as equivalent. Liar or stupid, you take your pick. And I sincerely apologize for suggesting you are whichever one you don't choose...
The fact of the matter is, salmonella from beef is extremely rare, e. coli being the major concern, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, that the EU's pseudo-scientific reasoning to ban US beef is NOT based upon any salmonella risk, but from natural hormones.
By the way, I got food poisoning in Sweden quite a few times, but maybe it was all due to imported foods, never due to local conditions, right?
Thanks go to Mr2001 for jumping on this issue. The "Fair Tax" and other consumption taxes are really regressive. I liken these to putting up toll roads on Interstates vs. having a fuel tax. Both systems pay for roads -- the fuel tax, goes after all driving, allowing for a greater tax for people who use roads more. It also taxes more, the inefficient vehicle over time. No road gets a preference under this system, other than its convenience to the driver, and usually, fewer miles to the destination.
What do toll roads do? Well, they do target money to a particular road. Have you ever seen them go away once a road is "finished?" Neither have I. They don't respond to the changing traffic patterns, or local revenues. But what happens with a toll road? Usually you have a well constructed road for high speed and dense traffic. At a low price, the nuisance of the toll should not affect too heavily on driving patterns. But if you have a Toll that is high, like a High Sales tax, people at lower incomes and companies where these fees add up fast (like truckers) will drive around the toll. You then put more traffic on a road not designed for it -- causing MORE repair costs for roads as a total cost for that state.
If we look at a sales tax -- it seems like you get a certain revenue at 5 or 8%. Most assumptions for a consumption tax, look at a linear progression of funds. So a 25 cent tax on a dollar, brings in "in theory" about 4 times more revenue. But that dollar item will be discounted to market to the same consumer. So if the expected revenue is 25 cents to the dollar, the tax will have to raise to 30 cents on the dollar because retailers will be cutting prices -- apparently with all those huge savings on Federal Tax.
Now, unless a state is forced to FIX prices, and has hired thousands of extra police to enforce prices -- what is going to happen? Certain people will change their habits to avoid the toll roads. Other than increased crime -- the biggest concern here is bargain shopping. If Alabama and Atlanta have a 30 cents per dollar consumption tax. Some businesses in Atlanta will be able to further reduce prices and try to make up costs on margin. They will say, perhaps, subsidize the costs of goods, or refund some tax. So the apparent tax might be 25 cents on the dollar again, while, faced with less sales due to bargain shoppers, the companies in Alabama, will charge the equivalent of 35 cents to the dollar. The lower income shoppers in Alabama who aren't able to bargain hunt, like big spenders or middle income people, will pay the local inflated price, and be compensated based upon those "promised" kick backs that all the Fair Tax proponents say are going to be there (let history judge this promise).
So, local buyers in Atlanta get a windfall, and pay less while getting the same kick-back as people paying more in Alabama.
What happens next? More price differences. Alabama will be forced to squeeze more out of poorer buyers. While Atlanta will see an increase in shopping and in low income people moving in to the area. Alabama becomes a poor ghetto, and Atlanta becomes a prosperous area but with a lot of poor people squeezed in to a larger ghetto.
We didn't even get to the crime level, and that wealthy people will be able to avoid this tax altogether. You will have to have a tax assessor on ever international air flight. Watching the borders for goods moving in from Canada and Mexico. THINK, cocaine smuggling, but now it's every damn barbie doll. I can't think of a better way, outside of lots of terror attacks, to create a police state in the US -- but this one would be to enforce sales tax for every purchase. Did you think about swap meets, local church bake sales, and a tupper-ware party in someone's living room? You aren't thinking hard enough.
I believe that a good tax system reduces the "nexus of taxation." Meaning, that a Gas Tax is pretty good, because there are fewer gas pumps than there are places where people can buy a soda. They are fixed and you know where they are a
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
"Weren't the trade sanctions against Cuba put there and don't they remain there in part because of Cuban human rights abuses?"
Human rights abuses? What the fuck?!? Are you claiming that Batista did better? Are you claiming that Castro tortured and killed over 20,000 during his reign?
"Legal gambling outfits in the US follow strict gambling laws that regulate, among other things, machine calibration, payout ratios, etc."
Only on a state level. But, inter-state gambling is allowed. Are you impugning Antigua's regulatory controls?
These are very strong indictments. Of course the US spin is "human rights (vs. supporting a regime that KILLED citizens), and Regulation (vs. allowing inter-state gambling)". THAT is what the world is PISSED OFF about.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I mean, let's equate China's wholesale, government backed duplication of music and software CD/DVDs with whether artists get paid for music played by workers in a garage.
Let's paint this what it really is - another cheap shot at the US.
EK
Clinton lied about a blowjob under oath.
Bush lied in his oath of office about defending the constitution.
I know which I think is treasonous.
We (the US) might get all high and mighty when it comes to the rule of law. But when you get right down to it, we do what we want because we have more bombs than you do.
I'm not saying this is right. It's just the way it is.
Have gnu, will travel.
The bit you quote says that state laws and constitutions can be overridden by treaties, not the US constitution.
Bit of a difference...
The WTO will become as irrelevant as the U.N. in not too long
Whereas when Iran was setting up an oil bourse, "ship anchors" coincidentally cut off Internet access to the Middle East. The U.S. dollar was not an allowed currency in the oil bourse; this threatens the U.S. government's seignorage, the unearned gains that come from selling dollars to international use in e.g. oil markets.
So when Antigua and Barbuda start distributing WaReZ thru submarine cables, the ships will begin laying anchors.
First - I don't see where access to online gambling and the protection of intellectual property rights are comparable. Gambling is still illegal for minors and others in lots of places. If certain obscene materials became legal on some island in the Pacific that wouldn't mean they should have access to other countries.
Second - a lot of corporations in entertainment that protest intellectual property rights abuses using US political pressures are not even US corporations in full. Vivendi-Universal (French), Sony BMG (Japanese/German), EMI/Virgin (UK) etc. aren't strictly US corporations at all. These multi-nationals sell a lot of rubbish and pressure a lot of people for their own reasons. A lot of the money behind US property rights concerns comes from abroad.
It's all in how it is interpreted... the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to say that the federal government can pretty much usurp power from the states by means of refusing to grant highway funds and whatnot to states unless they comply with Congress' wishes. That's definitely not what the framers of the Constitution intended when they said that Congress had the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
That's the problem with judges (and other powerful politicians) who seek to bend the Constitution to their will rather than take what the Constitution says on face value and that's the problem when we seek to expand the role of the federal government in any new way rather than keep it a small, weak body with little power over our daily lives. Every time we allow the federal government to expand, we permanently lose a little freedom. Sooner or later, someone we'd rather not have a particular power over us will come into that power and only then with people regret what they so willingly gave up without a fight.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Nothing new about the US being one-eyed about WTO rulings.....or ANY ruling by an international body the US has committed to abide by - but doesn't. Americans hear about these incidents in jingo-istic, flag-waving terms. The rest of the world just sees a country not doing the walk that would back it "law-abiding, freedom-loving" talk.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Go vote for that damn muslim liar, Senator Hussein- He'll show you Change. (Yep, your penny jar to buy bread with!)
Since morality is completely subjective, how do you propose such a thing be legislated?
-also-
The Nuremberg defense didn't work only because, and this is a very important point, Germany lost. Had they won, it wouldn't have even been a question. Morality doesn't really enter into it from a very practical standpoint.