Microsoft Asks WTO Not to Impose Software Tariffs

microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by apocalypse_now · 1999-11-27 07:00 · Score: 3

Probably not. But a continuation of the temporary ban could actually be beneficial for developing countries (who, remember, the WTO is supposed to benefit the most) by allowing them more unrestricted access to items - items with heavy duties tend not to make their way into countries with poor distribution networks or a small demand. However, in the end, the ban should be lifted, and the items should be taxed in the same manner as all international trades are.
--
Matt Singerman

--
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/

Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by awkwardone · 1999-11-27 07:18 · Score: 1

However, in the end, the ban should be lifted, and the items should be taxed in the same manner as all international trades are.

Possibly. But how can this be regulated? Remember, the Internet is a vast and often confusing complex which is hard enough to regulate already. Uncle Sam has already failed in regulating Internet content with the (expletive) Communications Decency Act. I'm not sure how countries can monitor transactions done over the Internet and tax them accordingly.

Of course, to avoid tariffs, vendors and consumers could "smuggle" items between nations by conducting "unofficial" transactions under the nose of both governments involved, and get away with it. I can't imagine any *reputable* online vendors doing this, but you never know...

awkwardone

--
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by Hobbex · 1999-11-27 07:23 · Score: 0

Yes, but the loss is quickly made up for by equally meaningless and off-topic "Wow, this was the first post" type comments...

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 07:53 · Score: 0

And even more meaningless, bafoons who not only reply to the offtopic posts, but do so at score 2!

Support active moderation! Use the Overrated option to score down 2's that don't deserve it.
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 08:10 · Score: 0

Easy,

The company selling the product takes the customers country and looks up the fee to be charged for this transaction. Then this money is deposited into that countries bank account.

Easy as pie.

This is a good way for developing countries to allow their own software companies to develop. These local software companies are much more likely to be responsive to the needs of local consumers anyway. I am sure the Microsoft could give a damn about Bolivia...
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by C.Lee · 1999-11-27 08:23 · Score: 0

Get real. Of course Microsoft doesn't want the WTO to Impose Software Tariffs. At least not untill Microsoft gets through imposing their own Software Tariffs, er Acess Fees......
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by hensley · 1999-11-27 08:36 · Score: 1

Yes, the WTO is supposed to benefit developing countries - but look at the effects it has. The WTO is a tool of the capitalist countries to force their economical model (capitalism, of course) on those countries e.g. by coupling the payout (don't know the right word here, English is not my native lang) of credits to certain actions by the respective government like opening their markets towards US (or, for that matter EU) firms.
So IMNSHO the WTO is not here to benefit the developing countries but to stabilize the current state of affairs (developing countries dependant on developed countries).
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by _ska · 1999-11-27 08:43 · Score: 2

The WTO isn't, never was, and never will be a benifit to develping countries. In fact, it isn't about benifit to any countries. The WTO is all about empowering corporations --- the largest benifit is to large multinationals.

Any statements (and we will probably here a lot of them next week) to the contrary are smoke & mirrors...

S.
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by slashdot-terminal · 1999-11-27 08:49 · Score: 1

Ok sounds like your feelings to all of the oppresed is in the typical place. Please tell me just how you can force every country in the world to actually levy tarifs on their software? How will Portugal actually say force China to pay an extra tax on something? A great deal of thewse countries that are considered part of the 3rd world are countries that were once European colonies. They they force the Europeans to go packing because they get a group of disgruntled farmers and start a little trouble. Well that's fine and dandy let's look at the results. 1. Millions of dead, dieing and starving. 2. Lack of critical infrastructure that other more tenaciously held colonies received (Taiwan) 3. Civil strife: when you don't have a governent you can't keep the local or popular bullies off your doorstep. The main reason anti-government types are flat out wrong about the "evil government" 4. Because of all of the above factors you get a smaller percentage of highly educated people to remedy all of the 3 over time like in most other places. To fix all of this will take a little more than a simple tariff or tax on software. Already I could fathom most people internationally pay more for items (even small ones) that are ordered in places like the US. Just look at the price of books at the local bookstore. Usually on the back of these boks you see several prices. First is the price in the local part of the world. The second is usually canada or someplace like that, and then next maybe New Zealand or Great Britian. Usually when you get to the end of the list the p rice is usually over 5-15 dollars (lyre, pounds, franks, DM, etc). Dealing with this is already an inconvience. What would be better is to gradually move to a unified global ecconomy and spare taxiation on certain parts of it. Even in the most developed regions of the world there are still poor and needy you just have to look better for them.

--
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by _ska · 1999-11-27 09:05 · Score: 1

Ok, like most generalisations, my above statement is too strong. Thought I would jump on it before someone else does ;)

The WTO is not *inherently* a tool of multinationals --- it is just shaping up that way. A concerted effort could turn that around, I suppose, and in that way it could become an aid to developing countries. Not holding my breath on that one.

S.
Re:microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 13:43 · Score: 0

The WTO isn't going to benefit developing countries. It certainly hasn't done so in the past, and the Seattle Round of negotiations will only serve to increase the gap between the rich and the poor around the world. Fair Trade can work to equalize global incomes, but "Free Trade" will only serve benefit wealthy corporations. Even in the North, trade agreements like NAFTA have threatened environmental laws, health care and labor rights are driven to the lowest common denominator (or lower).
Bill and his Billionaire buddies aren't working for a better world. They are fighting to be at the top of the heap as fast as they can.
For More Info Check Out http://wtocaravan.org

Whoa! by FraggleMI · 1999-11-27 07:08 · Score: 1

I guess Microsoft is trying to do some serious kiss up, OR they are doing a total 180.

--
huh?

Re:Whoa! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 06:02 · Score: 0

OR, you are just a bunch of ignorant stupid asses (this proves me right, btw) and Microsoft isn't fucking evil.

I have seen nothing Microsoft has done that you little morons wouldn't have done yourselves were you in that position. On top of that, I have seen nothing nearly as important that Linux has brought to the world compared to what Microsoft has.

Finally, something good coming out of Redmond... by awkwardone · 1999-11-27 07:08 · Score: 3

It's about time that Microsoft came up with a good proposal for the World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit in Seattle this week.

Regulating international commerce via the Internet would be a rather tricky endeavour anyways. Sometimes, a company is based in one nation while that company's Web host is in another country. Attempting to impose import/export duties on online transactions would pose a great difficulty because the transaction takes place in a different country from the company's home country, and it must be shipped to yet *another* country (whew!). Microsoft's idea is a very good one, and I hope that the delegates at the summit will be open to it despite the legal troubles Microsoft is dealing with now.

So, Microsoft (the company) isn't all bad (excepting the fact that it's an abusive monopoly), but I still hate Windoze...

For more information about the World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit, visit oneworld.net for up-to-date news and views.

awkwardone

--
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -

Explaination? by Listerine · 1999-11-27 07:09 · Score: 2

Could someone be so nice as to explain what Microsoft is trying to ban? What does it mean software tarriffs? Thanks.

Re:Explaination? by apocalypse_now · 1999-11-27 07:14 · Score: 1

Microsoft wants the WTO to impose a permanant ban on tariffs for online transactions of services and digital items. In other words, the tariffs that normally apply when you buy an online service (such as a monthly subscription to www.nudybar.com) do not cirrently exist. In theory, there should be a tariff. But because this is a digital service, it is not regulated at this time. See?
--
Matt Singerman

--
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
Re:Explaination? by sandman71 · 1999-11-27 08:00 · Score: 1

It's not that easy when duty fees are different in each country. Canada's duty might be 5% for items below 300$, 8% for items above. United Kingdom Duties might be 3$ for items below 100 pounds, etc..
Whoops, Canada changed their duty structure last week. Time to get the programmers back in here to modify the code.

It's not easy keeping track of various duty fees around the world. THere's more than just your country involved.

Sandman

--
It's better to burn out than to fade away!

Sounds Fishy by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 07:10 · Score: 0

I still don't trust it. I do not know about what the WTO wants to do, but I doubt it would damage OSS. Maybe it'd be a good bash to MS that would help OSS into new niche markets.

Just my $0.02

WTO by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 07:13 · Score: 0

Arn't those guys meant to be dropping tarrifs, not putting them in place?

Knee-jerk reactions and more... by MostlyHarmless · 1999-11-27 07:14 · Score: 3

The immediate reaction to any e-commerce tax is "heck no!". Of course we don't want governmental interference with this great electronic world. However, the same people who believe this (usually) believe that eventually technology will progress to the point where the whole world spends their entire time wired directly into the Internet in a utopia of communication. I, myself, subscribe to this view.

But stop and think for a moment. If in a thousand years we will spend our life wired up, then surely in a hundred we will do all our shopping online! But at this point, the government won't be able to collect sales tax because of our silly "moratorium" on Internet taxes. So why now do we shout "keep the Internet tax-free" when in a hundred years the government will be mired in debt due to our shortsightedness?

--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.

Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by Hobbex · 1999-11-27 07:26 · Score: 2

Well, ask yourself how big government would need to be in that society. If everybody is directly wired to the Internet, would we need a government, or just a really good OS?

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by awkwardone · 1999-11-27 07:29 · Score: 2

So why now do we shout "keep the Internet tax-free" when in a hundred years the government will be mired in debt due to our shortsightedness?

Somehow I don't think real-life person-to-person interactions and transactions are going away anytime soon. Some things *need* to be done in person, like depositing a paycheck. I, for one, would not want to buy golf clubs online because I want to check out how they feel and how well I can hit the ball with them before I buy them. Regardless of how much we can do online, people still like to talk to a human (especially when they call for technical support) ;o)

Even if face-to-face interaction *is* going away, this "moratorium" can always be lifted. Then, the government can tax to its heart's content. Until then, keeping Internet transactions tax-free is certainly the way to go.

awkwardone

--
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 07:29 · Score: 0

There are other taxes. I say disband all these stinking armies and save taxpayer's money. They want yet another tax to fund something that will can destroy this planet 2 times faster than now. The only military related research I support is the NASA.
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by wynlyndd · 1999-11-27 07:34 · Score: 1

Electronic deposit....I use it.

--
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by large · 1999-11-27 07:38 · Score: 1

Well, what about income tax? This was supposed to be a temporary measure during the war to help pay for it. Now it seems that we're stuck with it forever.
Tax sucks. The government basically steals money from people and then wastes it. We get taxed on our income, then we get taxed when we buy goods. Those goods themselves have already been taxed several times (the raw materials are taxed, the fabricated materials are taxed, the final sales are taxed, then there's shipping etc).
It seems like for each $1 you earn, you actually get maybe $.10 of buying power out of it.
We need less taxes and less stupid waste, not more taxes.
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by DaveHowe · 1999-11-27 07:59 · Score: 2

But stop and think for a moment. If in a thousand years we will spend our life wired up, then surely in a hundred we will do all our shopping online! But at this point, the government won't be able to collect sales tax because of our silly "moratorium" on Internet taxes. So why now do we shout "keep the Internet tax-free" when in a hundred years the government will be mired in debt due to our shortsightedness?
I can't see the problem here - no-one is suggesting a permanent ban on RW goods and services; all they are suggesting is that purely electronic transactions (software and online services) are so difficult to track and police, the cost of doing so far exceeds the benefit to be gained. I would't be too surprised to see a "internet tax" taxing the right to use the internet, though. that would be wrong as well, but the government already taxes the right to receive radio waves here in .uk, so.....
--

--
-=DaveHowe=-
Re: Knee-jerk reactions and more... by Jason+Skomorowski · 1999-11-27 11:14 · Score: 1

Umm, they said "tariffs", ie. duty and such
paid when goods cross national borders.

Sales tax is entirely different.
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by Darchmare · 1999-11-27 13:17 · Score: 1

Hmm - that's an interesting way to change your nationality, cut all military funding and wait 10 years for another country to take over.

No thanks.

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

--

- Jeff
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by Wald · 1999-11-27 15:40 · Score: 1

Two things I got to say to this:
As I understand the whole thing the tax ban only counts for electronically delivered goods (software, electronic books, music, video, ...), so there still is the sales tax for everything else (you still can't eat electronically delivered pizza :).
My second point is: for big companies it would not be a problem to circumvent those taxes. It's easy: one server in the US for serving people inside the US. One server somewhere in the EU for serving people inside the EU. And one server for every country the company wants to sell their goods tax-free. Then they have to distribute their goods to all of these servers once (paying export tax) and serve their customers from there (without paying this tax). That's all. Or did I miss something? It only hurts small companies who can't afford a server in every country they want to sell their goods in. I can't see why Microsoft is against this tax, I'm sure they got an office in almost every (interesting) country (interesting in the sense of having at least a certain number of potential customers).
And this second thought could also reduce the network load (think of it as a caching proxy).
Hope everything is understandable,
Christoph
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by dodobh · 1999-11-27 17:12 · Score: 1

Actually just an OS which allows for monitoring of all transactions fron that machine, without user permission. Thats not a good OS, thats a bad one, since that program will by definition be a trojan..
Or they could use echelon to do such a thing maybe? Hmmm, a civilian use for echelon?

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by dodobh · 1999-11-27 17:12 · Score: 1

Actually just an OS which allows for monitoring of all transactions fron that machine, without user permission. Thats not a good OS, thats a bad one, since that program will by definition be a trojan..

Or they could use echelon to do such a thing maybe? Hmmm, a civilian use for echelon?

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Re:Knee-jerk reactions and more... by Jay+Carlson · 1999-11-28 05:52 · Score: 1

> We need less taxes and less stupid waste, not more taxes.

This discussion is not fundamentally about how many tax dollars come in. It is about how taxes are collected, which is mostly orthogonal.

Not taxing transactions that are electronically mediated creates one set of economic effects (or distortions, if you will); not taxing mail order does as well.

Taxing transactions between different levels of the supply chain favors vertically integrated organizations, but that's whole 'nother can of worms....

huh......... by Nexeslad · 1999-11-27 07:14 · Score: 1

One thing I think people well look back on this ear is are inablity to classify digital media. All prevous laws in economy are base on phiscal products or ideas. Software is a combo of the two. There for they constantly either hitting a legal barrier or running around another. I wish we could have a set of standerds that divided software into two groups. Group a: thought software (i.e) opensource Group b: goods software (i.e) Video games and commercail apps. Sorry if this looks offtopic. And sorry about the piss poor formating.

--
Do not wright in this space.

M$ Against Duties by mmmmbeer · 1999-11-27 07:18 · Score: 2

Of course M$ is against duties on online transactions. First, it makes their products less expensive to consumers overseas. I guess that's not really a problem for them right now, but it could become one. But the real reason M$ doesn't want duties is because they don't want to deal with them. I work for an e-commerce company myself, and so I can tell you it will make things a lot easier for me if I don't have to worry about including duties in my pricing code. It would save my company a lot of time and money, too. Micro$oft just sees this as a way to save money, and as much as it surprises me to say this, I completely agree.

Re:M$ Against Duties by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 07:28 · Score: 0

How hard is for you to take a simple percentage of a price and then add it? I am against the duties, but really, it's simple math.
Re:M$ Against Duties by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 09:15 · Score: 0

I'm sure M$ will charge "duties" on all online transactions once their Passport bullshit is in place.
Re:M$ Against Duties by mmmmbeer · 1999-11-27 10:45 · Score: 1

It's not that simple. There could be different rates for different countries. There could be special agreements with some countries which would then have no duties. There could be some products with no duties and others with duties. There are lots of different possibilities. If we have to deal with a complicated system, it can get really difficult. We have to keep track of all of the possible duty rates, plus we have to find out where the recipient is (which means we have to have a means of preventing someone from lying), and we have to keep track of which products have duties. This could easily become a complicated algorithm, even with a relatively simple structure. And it gets even worse when you consider that we have to constantly update our code to reflect any changes.

Double-speak by nmos · 1999-11-27 07:23 · Score: 2

"He spoke out firmly against an EU proposal that would reclassify electronically delivered software as a service. Software has traditionally been classified as goods."

``It would be sort of stupid to see the same product classified differently whether it's delivered on a CD for example or delivered electronically. It's the same product we believe it should be treated equally and as goods,'' he said. "

Hasn't MS been saying all along that "your not buying the software, your licensing it's use". That sounds a lot more like a service than a product to me.

Maybe someone should pass this link on to the folks responsible for the latest UCITA fiasco:

http://www.badsoftware.com/

I'm sure they'd be interested in MS's change of heart.

Re:Double-speak by ghoti · 1999-11-27 13:46 · Score: 1

And isn't it MS that's thinking about a pay-per-use system for software over the net? Sounds like a service to me ... or a leased good (don't know the correct english term), whatever the implications of that would be.

I also think that something stinks here.

--
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication

Way to Go Microsoft (With a Caveat) by thales · 1999-11-27 07:26 · Score: 2

Although I'm sure thier reasons may be different from mine, I offer a tip of the hat to Microsoft. I found myself mostly in agrement with the paragraph "Among the principles it proposed were that electronic commerce should not be subject to more onerous rules than those applied to traditional commerce and that any WTO agreement should not favor or freeze in place any particular technology." However I realize this could be a two edged sword. While it does allow for the propriatary standards that MS loves so much, Getting this into any agreement prevents open source from being frozen out in favor of (currentally) more popular software.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est

Do you people have any idea what this means? by evilad · 1999-11-27 07:30 · Score: 5

I am in favour of a global economy, but a moratorium on tariffs means one more nail in the coffin of governmental control over the hypercorps. Microsoft isn't asking that governments work towards eliminating unreasonable barriers to international trade. They are asking that elected governments be categorically forced to allow unrestricted trade. They are lobbying for an overruling of the democratic principle in this one specific case that happens to strongly favour -- you got it, the hypercorps.

This is precisely what makes it possible for third-world wage-slavery to exist. This is what makes it possible for unnamed chemical companies to dump as much shit as they want into the water, so long as they do it in countries too poor to say no to the business. Odd how those same countries also tend to be too poor to buy their products, too.

Here is an example of why tariffs can be good. Canada can't impose strict environmental protection laws, because to do so would be to force some companies to produce in Mexico, which cannot afford strong environment laws for exactly the same reason. Canada loses the business, Mexico's environment gets polluted. Canada is then prohibited from imposing an "environmental tariff" on those same goods. That tariff would keep the company in Canada, locally producing goods for local consumption. If the locals think the pollution is too bad to justify the product, then they get to legislate it out of existence. That is what government is for.

An electronic transaction is no different than a phone call. If there is no good reason for import restrictions then let free market do as it will! But when there is a good reason, then somebody should make it clear that I am doing the world a disservice by purchasing that product.

A tariff will do this perfectly well, without prohibiting a damned thing.

This has been an unsponsored and uneducated rant. Flame away.

Re:Do you people have any idea what this means? by hensley · 1999-11-27 08:44 · Score: 1

This has been an unsponsored and uneducated rant. Flame away.
I don't think that was uneducated - to the contrary it's more educated than what you can read in popular media mostly. I won't flame but totally agree - congrats for some really good points you made
Re:Do you people have any idea what this means? by zatz · 1999-11-27 09:54 · Score: 1

That is a nice argument for local control of tariffs, although I think it speaks more strongly for global environmental protection treaties... but anyway, what does pollution have to do with writing and selling software?

--

Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
Re:Do you people have any idea what this means? by HiThere · 1999-11-28 08:25 · Score: 1

That's a good description of how something analogous worked on restricting the catch of endangered species. We were (are?) legally forbidden to prohibit the import of "tuna" from countries whose standard practices we considered harmful. This looks like more of the same. It's not clear that is would be as bad, but it sure isn't clear that it wouldn't.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Do you people have any idea what this means? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 15:10 · Score: 0

"They are asking that elected governments be categorically forced to allow unrestricted trade. They are lobbying for an overruling of the democratic principle in this one specific case that happens to strongly favour -- you got it, the hypercorps."
Good Summary!
As stated by Global Exchange:
The WTO is increasing inequality Free trade is not working for the majority of the world. During a the most recent period of rapid growth in global trade and investment--1960 to 1998--inequality worsened both internationally and within countries. The UN Development Program reports that the richest 20 percent of the world's population consume 86 percent of the world's resources while the poorest 80 percent consume just 14 percent. WTO rules have hastened these trends by opening up countries to foreign investment and thereby making it easier for production to go where the labor is cheapest and most easily exploited and environmental costs are low. This pulls down wages and environmental standards in developed countries who are having to compete globally.
To protest the WTO, Join Protesters Around the World on November 30th.
For Canadian Protests

None of the WTO's business by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 07:32 · Score: 0

As much as I dislike Microsoft, the WTO really should back off. It has no business screwing around with businesses, especially given its mother organization (the UN) has no governing power to begin with and therefore no authority to tax anyone. What's the WTO going to do? Sue? On what grounds? Maybe send a goon squad like other taxing agencies in the US are wont to do?

Who do they have to kiss up to? by awkwardone · 1999-11-27 07:33 · Score: 1

Why would Microsoft want to kiss up to the World Trade Organisation (WTO)? They're not the ones that are bringing monopoly charges against them.

If Microsoft were to try and win the favor of anyone, they'd go for Uncle Sam. They're the ones that Microsoft has to deal with right now...

awkwardone

--
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -

Re:Who do they have to kiss up to? by FraggleMI · 1999-11-27 07:42 · Score: 1

The WTO could be next in line

--
huh?
Re:Who do they have to kiss up to? by ghoti · 1999-11-27 14:04 · Score: 1

Does the WTO have any power to do something to a single company? And if, how would that work? I mean, would national courts be involved, or an international one?

--
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication

Anyone from Seattle here? by DarkClown · 1999-11-27 07:36 · Score: 1

Hey! Would anyone from Seattle care to comment on what the feeling on the streets is like tonight? How big of a protest turnout has made itself evident so far? Anyone there reading this getting invloved in any way? How (or why not)?
And to you people who are going on about how no international trade tax is such a Good Thing - do you really enjoy paying income tax so much that you'd encourage an abolition of tarriff's and sales taxes? Think about it. Microsoft is just being typically selfish here. "It's in our best self-serving interest, and hey, the press'll be great"

Re:Anyone from Seattle here? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 14:49 · Score: 0

yep, I'm there. My sense is that it's going to be pretty big, although things haven't really gotten rolling yet. There have been a few small, sporadic protests that I've seen so far, but nothing large yet. The big stuff is supposed to happen during the week, particularly Tuesday. It's pretty amazing how many people are here from all over the country as well as internationally, however.
Attendance has been impressively high at the counter-WTO seminars surrounding the conference. I just returned from one at Benaroya Hall, where they filled the place to capacity for about two and a half hours.
FYI, as a fair disclosure, I'm involved with wtowatch.org. Check out their site if you're curious and want to get some more information. I'd recommend that everyone try to get educated on these issues--they're fairly complex and have far-reaching consequences with regards to the environment, human rights, and poverty.
For those who don't know anything about the WTO, this is not just another "black helicopters" deal. The WTO is capable of inflicting extremely painful tariffs against nations that enact legislation deemed restrictive to fair trade. This can include laws that protect endangered species, among other things. U.S. laws have been overturned by WTO action in the past. The aspect of this that causes the most concern for many people is that the WTO is a non-elected body, and that they meet behind closed doors. In other words, a bunch of people that are not held accountable to you and primarily represent corporate interests are having a meeting that you cannot participate in, in which they will make decisions that could seriously impact your life.
The obvious question is: where exactly does democracy fit into this equation?

Figures by Spazmoid · 1999-11-27 07:43 · Score: 2

That's all very interesting but how can they do that in good conscience(sp)? They are planning on charging a seat type fee for secure transictions using the next degeneration of IIS in W2K. Maybe they think that if people are charged duties for international transactions they will go with a cheaper web solution?

Once again my .02

--
www.mp3.com/Undocumented

Re:Figures by DarkClown · 1999-11-27 08:01 · Score: 1

Thank you. That was an excellent point. Higher sales of their product thanks to no international tax, and higher profits from sales of other peoples product due to some typical microsoft sneakiness - taking a piece of each transaction that goes through their commerce software. I must say, though, I can't see how in the hell microsoft could get away with "charging a seat type fee for secure transictions using the next degeneration of IIS in W2K".

No Tarrifs == No Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 07:48 · Score: 0

I've noticed a number of posters cheering Microsoft's position on banning internet tarrifs permanently. But consider this: could a lack of tarrifs mean that governments will lack the resources to regulate the internet in the good sense, i.e., protect consumers from such things as fraud and, uh...monopolistic companies? After all, wasn't it Microsoft that lobbied the U.S. Congress to cut the budget of the Department of Justice, apparently so that they wouldn't be strong enough to survive the court battle that Microsoft is now losing?

government is just... by CrAlt · 1999-11-27 07:49 · Score: 1

... going to have to spend less of our tax $$$. They allready get money out of my pay check and 87oct gas is $1.41 here, $0.60 of that is tax.

--
I have to return some videotapes...

Taxes? from where to where? by DaveHowe · 1999-11-27 07:50 · Score: 5

I can't see how you could possibly keep track - for example, say bigsoftwarecorp.com sells a copy of superware V3 (tm) to an aol user at aol .com. ALL the following could be true:

bigsoftwarecorp.com is in the .com domain
bigsoftwarecorp.com's host is in New Zealand
bigsoftwarecorp.com has a download server in england that the software actually comes from (download.bigsoftware.com)
bigsoftwarecorp.com is actually an english company
john@aol.com is in the .com domain
john@aol.com registered in japan
john@aol.com is actually in england, and will be downloading and using the software there. so, which of the countries are entitled to duty? we are downloading from england to england, but the data is going to AOL's US server enroute...
--

--
-=DaveHowe=-

Re:Taxes? from where to where? by awkwardone · 1999-11-27 08:02 · Score: 1

My sentiments exactly. See my earlier comment for my interpretation of the situation :o)

awkwardone

--
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Re:Taxes? from where to where? by zatz · 1999-11-27 09:36 · Score: 1

You don't implement tax law by monitoring each individual sale... I've never seen a government official checking up on transactions in the supermarket, for example. (Perhaps they do, but I would expect they do spot checks anonymously, so that is looking for opportunities to take violators to court, and not a normal procedure.)
You just put a law on the books (or on the WTO "book", in which case members must enforce it as local law because of the terms of whatever treaty they signed on to) that says you have to report certain types of commerce and collect taxes on them, and then turn those over to the government. If it is the responsibility of an incorporated business to pay the taxes, they usually will. If you make it the consumers job, as in the case of sales tax on interstate sales in the US, then you dont get quite as much of it....
If, in your example, the buyer and seller are both British, it doesn't seem like there is much ambiguity about what is going on from a financial standpoint.
What I'm curious about is what governing authority gets the tax money from tariffs like this. If it is the national government of the seller, then what difference does it make to less developed nations anyway? (Assuming they aren't doing relatively more selling, which could be totally wrong, considering that writing software requires a lot less capital than many "high-tech" economic activities.)

--

Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
Re:Taxes? from where to where? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 09:58 · Score: 0

Oh look, a "moderation hijacker." Add this to the slashdot user type dictionary after "karma whore."

Moderation Hijacker -- One who posts a link to his own post as a reply to the highest moderated post in a story.

Karma Whore -- Someone who quickly posts after a story appears, saying very little (and usually factually incorrect) on the assumption that if its long, and fairly coherent, it will be moderated upwards. See "Signal 11."
Re:Taxes? from where to where? by Politas · 1999-11-27 15:35 · Score: 1

What I'm curious about is what governing authority gets the tax money from tariffs like this. If it is the national government of the seller, then what difference does it make to less developed nations anyway? (Assuming they aren't doing relatively more selling, which could be totally wrong, considering that writing software requires a lot less capital than many "high-tech" economic activities.)

The difference it makes to the less developed nations is that Tariffs make for higher prices.

Writing software may not require huge capital, but it does require an expensive infrastructure, needed to train or attract those coders.

--
Politas
Re:Taxes? from where to where? by ToastyKen · 1999-11-27 20:39 · Score: 1

How do you know that he didn't post his reply BEFORE the parent post was moderated up?

It's not good to assume things you can't prove.
Re:Taxes? from where to where? by nine9 · 1999-11-28 00:47 · Score: 1

That's bloody clever... I'm impressed. Though taxes wouldn't hurt bigsoftwarecorp.com it would hurt littlesoftware.co.uk, really!
Re:Taxes? from where to where? by Scouras · 1999-11-28 02:27 · Score: 1

>so, which of the countries are entitled to duty? we are downloading from england to england, but the data is going to AOL's US server enroute
I doubt it matters which countries are entitled to the duty, but moreso which ones are going to take it anyway. Rules for all that will be banged out as each country pleases. Enforcement may be difficult (I mean, how DOES America expect to be able to track my purchase of prOn from Amsterdam?) but if America wanted some money from that transaction, America would find a way to take my money.
To say that a product/service distrubuted via the internet is any different than a product/service distributed by any other means is wrong anyway. If you would like to propose that all import/export taxation be lifted, then you could begin an arguement for this, but A) that's not gonna happen any time soon and B) I don't know if that is the right thing to do anyway.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-
Learnin' from each other's knowin,
Re:Taxes? from where to where? by DaveHowe · 1999-11-28 05:09 · Score: 2

How do you know that he didn't post his reply BEFORE the parent post was moderated up?
It's not good to assume things you can't prove.
It's not a problem - as far as I know, he hadn't posted his response yet, as there were no replies to the topic at all when I composed it. That said, I had to read the topic, then the link, then compose my message. I got id #32, he got #4, so he was "before" me; however, I suspect the only ones that beat him into the list were "first post"ers, even if two of them didn't use those words.
I didn't think it was worth worrying about - At worst, He would get a mod point that might have gone to me, but if his post was better, it deserved it, and it's not like I need the karma :+)
--

--
-=DaveHowe=-

Yeah, great... by crayz · 1999-11-27 07:52 · Score: 2

...except that this is from Bill Gates, who, if he could, would probably have everyone paying him by the hour for everything they do on the net. I believe there was an article in Time or Newsweek where he said exactly that.

People would start up Windows, open IE, go through MSN to a website that in run off of WindowsNT, and they would pay MS a few pennies for every little thing they do.

The only reason Bill is against this version of the plan is that he doesn't get the money.

Re:Yeah, great... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 19:43 · Score: 0

Yes. I find it unlikely that Microsoft would ever do anything to benefit mankind, unless it was to put them in a good light (to make more dosh) or just make more dosh. There is no genuine feel good factor from redmond. Treat them with the suspiscion they deserve and have earned. Brad

How much will it cost? by nmos · 1999-11-27 07:52 · Score: 1

If national governments start taxing internet transactions, how long will it be before every state, city, etc. decides that they deserve a cut as well? It could easily get to the point where the cost of complying with all of the various taxes could easily outstrip the taxes themselves.

OSS? by CrAlt · 1999-11-27 07:57 · Score: 1

What the hell does this have to do with OSS?

I still don't trust it. I do not know about what the WTO wants to do, but I doubt it would damage FORD.
Maybe it'd be a good bash to MS that would help FORD into new niche markets.

--
I have to return some videotapes...

Its simple really. by mr · 1999-11-27 07:58 · Score: 1

Micro$oft wants to be the only body issuing a tax on computing.

--
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!

Thoughts by wyv · 1999-11-27 08:01 · Score: 3

Disclaimer: These are just things to think about. The whole matter confuses me thoroughly, so I could be 100% wrong.

We discussed the WTO in my political science class last week. If I got the jist of it straight, the WTO is basically supposed to give underdeveloped countries the chance to develope.

Suppose that you've got a few big industrial nations that import raw materials from smaller, poorer countries. They take those materials and turn them into much more expensive goods. This way, they get lots of profit. The poor countries are stuck selling their cheap raw materials and importing expensive manufactured goods (created with the same materials they sold.) Thus they don't make enough money to start industrializing themselves, and it becomes a cycle.

The WTO is supposed to let the poor countries impose high tariffs on the manufactured goods from foreign nations. This way demand will be created for domestic industry to produce cheaper goods. With demand comes capital, and with capital comes industry. With industry comes being able to compete in the global marketplace.

But this is dealing with raw materials, like metals and food, etc. Does the same logic hold for non-material-based goods like software? After all, there is no "raw material" to create software, other than a compiler and good mind. I suppose this is what Microsoft, and many other software companies think. They think that the WTO does not need to impose tariffs to help the smaller countries, because there is nothing stopping the smaller countries from buying a few computers and creating there own software.. it's a lot cheaper and easier than building a factory to start an industry.

This is a reasonable argument, but it can also be said that countries underdeveloped in the electronics industry resign themselves to importing superior products from their more technological neighbors. Some could argue that by imposing (at least temporary) tariffs on software imports it would spur domestic interest in software development. As soon as the domestic software industry in these smaller countries gets on it's feet, the tariffs can gradually decrease as they become more competitive in the global software marketplace. So maybe tariffs wouldn't be that bad.

I'm not taking a stand either way. I'm Just thinking about it.

Re:Thoughts by davburns · 1999-11-27 08:48 · Score: 1

Actually, one might consider the "good minds" to be the raw materials that poor countries export to info-industrialized nations. Consider all the students (==great minds) who come to the United States, get educations (==capital) in technical areas, then get greencards to work for companies that sell products (including software) back to those poorer nations. I've also heard of companies using coders in developing nations to write software that will be packaged and sold back to them with enormous mark-ups. The only capital required is the machine that puts shrink-wrap on.

One difference here is that the barrier to entry in software production is much lower than it is for manufacturing. So, software may not have the cyclic effects that other industries do.
Re:Thoughts by Field+Marshall+Stack · 1999-11-27 10:02 · Score: 1

We discussed the WTO in my political science class last week. If I got the jist of it straight, the WTO is basically supposed to give underdeveloped countries the chance to develope.
Suppose that you've got a few big industrial nations that import raw materials from smaller, poorer countries. They take those materials and turn them into much more expensive goods. This way, they get lots of profit. The poor countries are stuck selling their cheap raw materials and importing expensive manufactured goods (created with the same materials they sold.) Thus they don't make enough money to start industrializing themselves, and it becomes a cycle.
The WTO is supposed to let the poor countries impose high tariffs on the manufactured goods from foreign nations. This way demand will be created for domestic industry to produce cheaper goods. With demand comes capital, and with capital comes industry. With industry comes being able to compete in the global marketplace.
Well, your reasoning is um somewhat accurate, except for that the WTO endorses lower tariffs in practically every case...
--
"HORSE."

--
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Re:Thoughts by DreamerFi · 1999-11-28 12:39 · Score: 1

After all, there is no "raw material" to create software, other than a compiler and good mind.

Exactly. You should see the brain drain in some small third world countries. For some, the brain drain is what is keeping them third world.

-John

Tarrifs on free stuff? by Geekboy(Wizard) · 1999-11-27 08:09 · Score: 1

What are the rules on tarrifs for free stuff? Say I want to download something that is created by a company based in the US, and i need to fill out a form to download it, but it's free. The form is basicly a shipping form, but at the end they have a download link. I (for example live in Umbekixstan, which i don't, but it's an example) fill out this form and download the software. Also, for example the tarrif for online crap to our country is US$10. Does someone (the company or I) have to pay that tarrif? or because it's free software, is it ignored?

Re:Tarrifs on free stuff? by hensley · 1999-11-27 08:29 · Score: 1

I suppost the tariffs are a percentage of the price (like most taxes are), so you don't have to pay for free software - another point in favor of taxes on ecommerce.

Taxes, etc. by awkwardone · 1999-11-27 08:11 · Score: 3

We need less taxes and less stupid waste, not more taxes.

As Bob Dole, one-time Presidential candidate and now poster boy for Erectile Dysfunction and Viagra once said, "It's time for the government to pinch pennies instead of the American citizens!"

Our money goes towards some of the dumbest things. I heard something about government-sponsored studies to see what causes male sexual arousal or something like that... kind of a segue with the whole Bob Dole thing ;o)

oneworld.net - for all the latest WTO summit news.

awkwardone

--
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -

Instant Fame by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 08:13 · Score: 0

Hi, moderators!

Re:Instant Fame by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 08:21 · Score: 0

HI!

The WTO isn't for the 3rd world. by Forge · 1999-11-27 08:22 · Score: 2

Where I come from import duty is charged on the item at a percentage of the invoiced cost *or* the "true value" ( as determined by some bureaucrat ) and the tax collector can actually choose which one to use. You are of course allowed to fight it.

As an aside for computer stuff they use "Computer Shopper" as the reference and if they reject your invoice ( people do get forged invoices with lower prices ) you can look through the latest issue and suggest the lowest advertised price for each item.

Not a fare system by any means but lawmakers suck.

As to the WTO being "for the benefit of developing nations" that is such absolute bull I could laugh. Jamaica as a former colony of England ( up to 1962 ) has a special deal with England and some of her allies in Europe where they buy our Sugar and Banana at well over the market price. ( For 400 years they tacked everything earned hear so don't start with morality etc... ). The US took this deal before the WTO as unfair competition and won the 1st round. If this goes all the way before these crops are fazed out Jamaica will suffer real and immediate problems.

Not least of which is a massive jump in unemployment and a widening of the trade gap.

--
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?

Re:The WTO isn't for the 3rd world. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 14:58 · Score: 0

"As to the WTO being "for the benefit of developing nations" that is such absolute bull I could laugh."
Or cry for that matter.
For an analysis of how historically trade deals have affected people in the South, check out the opinion of the most respected critics of our current policies for global trade and development: http://www.tni.org/george/wto/trade.htm Also, for more information on what you can do to Stop the WTO

Good for them, there's not always a catch by Mojojojo · 1999-11-27 08:22 · Score: 2

I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but they're doing something here that is beneficial to everyone. There's no reason to cry foul. Contrary to popular belief, microcrap isn't all bad. Their software needs work, and their predatory tactics could definitely be changed. But this is in everyone's best interest, especially those who sell software to foreign markets. The last time I checked microsoft was selling quite a bit of software, so its in their best interest too remember.

I will go on to say that the problem with Microsoft is not necessarily their buggy software, but the fact that if you use it, you're better off having MS everything. Reason being: Windows works best with a total MS environment, no 3rd party software (this is desktop, MS's server stuff could use some work...Win2000 has the management features down pat, now they need to improve the quality of the back end). They make it hard to use other peoples stuff or other OSes in the network. They do this very well. They also make some quality desktop software and IE is only better than netscape now because it's more stable and the market it and make development a cinch so retards use it (classic MS marketting). Office is a pretty good office suite, but it has way too much shit in it. I prefer Abiword and Gnumeric myself, they are simle and have what you want to use (except bullets ;), not wacked out formatting. If I wanted that I'd get Adobe Acrobat Writer. I want the basic stuff: justification, spell check underline, bold, italics, font and font-sizing, cut paste, inserting pictures, the OLE stuff is good too. Anyways, Microsoft wants everything dealing with computers to go through them in some way or another, and hopefully the Judges ruling will force them to play nice with everyone else.

As far as I'm concerned with Microsoft, I think the best solution is not to open source them, though I think they need to open up the API's so other OSes on the Intel Platform can run Windows executables should the choose to add support for it. I don't think breaking them up would do any good either. I think they should be required to make it so that other operating systems can access Microsoft products too. The case is about the Desktop Monopoly. They don't have a Server monopoly, though were it not for Linux they probably would be really close, but now they're going to have to play nice with other OSes. They should be required to port Office and IE to competing platforms. Ah shit, I don't know, I'm not expressing what I'm trying to say very well, but I hope you get the point, that and I'm rambling on which doesn't help.

-Mojojojo

Largest software company by sreeram · 1999-11-27 08:50 · Score: 1

The opening words of the article:

Microsoft Corp, the world's largest software company...

Unlike ignorant reporters and editors, you should know that Microsoft is not the largest software company. IBM is. Microsoft is the largest in just the PC software market. What can we do drill this point home?

Sreeram.

Re:Largest software company by lordsoth · 1999-11-27 13:35 · Score: 1

Any company can claim to be the "largest" or "#1" and find some ways to justify it.

Free as in speech by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 08:51 · Score: 1

Used to be speech was the only real free thing. You could yell something in a room and anyone there would hear you, nobody could really stop you or charge you for yelling, and no one could stop you or charge you for hearing. Lookie here at this internet thingy, now we have free software (GNU), free literature (Project Gutenburg) and free music (MP3 files, Meaning the legal ones.) Some are still stuck in the dark ages, like the RIAA and software giants, and don't realize in a few years these things will be free like speech. Obviously, you can't shout across the oceans to foreign countries, but there are no tariffs on exchanging information with foreigners, via internet or hard copy through the mail. There's no tax on speech since it's free. Shouldn't it soon follow that these other things that the internet is making free also be exempt from tariffs? But doesn't it seem odd that Microsoft seems to be fighting for something free software advocacy should be fighting for when Microsoft is still operates under the old way of doing things, the non-free way? If they want to sell their software to foreigners, like it's a product, then they should deal with the export tariffs like anyone else that sells a product.

Well, of course... by Rilke · 1999-11-27 08:52 · Score: 1

The fact that MS, a software company moving very heavily in an e-commerce direction (look at the plans for web-based office), would prefer that e-commerce not be taxed isn't really too surprising, is it?

The current moratorium is a good thing right now, most gov'ts are so confused by the whole issue anything they tried to do would probably just be a mess. But in the longer run this stuff is going to be taxed, and it would be good for the WTO to start thinking about reasonable ways to handle the complexities involved.

We don't like to think about it very often, but the Net really re-enforces gaps between the haves and the have-nots. In the US, for example, e-commerce has become a way for many folks to avoid sales tax. The situation is similar globally.

This is a good thing, for now, but the rise of e-commerce is really going to play havoc with tax systems.

ATM deposit by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 08:54 · Score: 0

I just run up to my atm... stick the checks in an envolope, stick in my atm card.. and bang, I have an excuse to buy more toys.

Number of software developers in Bolivia? by slashdot-terminal · 1999-11-27 08:59 · Score: 1

Just our of curiousity how many of the programs that I use on a daily basis are coded in Bolivia?
I haven't seen any major pieces that have comments done in Spanish. I still think that people should support software development when so much code that is developed in the US and other developed countries *cough* microsoft *cough* is just junk anyway. As a fact I know that I have a collection of NT development CDs at home that are published in ENglish, French, Italian, and maybe German at least it shows that even so called "selfish" people in the USA aren't really so cold hearted.

--
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest

Re:Number of software developers in Bolivia? by Forge · 1999-11-27 09:22 · Score: 1

MS publishes it's stuff in other languages because it makes money that way, not out of "caring".

People prefer to use the native tunge as much as posible and if you don't alow that you are second choice.

I.e. If Windows was not in French and OS/2 was then Warp wold own 90% of the fench desktop market today.

--
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Re:Number of software developers in Bolivia? by Alex+Belits · 1999-11-27 10:22 · Score: 1

I haven't seen any major pieces that have comments done in Spanish.

Because people write comments in English -- even in non-English-speaking countries.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:Number of software developers in Bolivia? by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 17:23 · Score: 1

Oh come on--IBM can't speak fench.

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

The WTO by Sharks · 1999-11-27 09:00 · Score: 3

Does any of you know the power the WTO wields? They have this awesome power to pretty much shut down any economy they want to, and override any government they want to.

One little country decided to not import some goods that would be bad for a couple of reasons, and the WTO stepped right around it because it "hurt" their business.

The WTO shut down a law in New Jersey for the same reasons. The law conflicted with what the WTO wanted to do, and so it got rid of the law.

It has happened to the EU as well, concerning the decision not to import beef from the US. The WTO stepped in, and now Europe is importing beef from the US.

The reason for those governments giving in is simple. If they didn't, the WTO and all the supporting corporations, and possibly countries could, and probably would, boycott the "offending" nation, sending that nation into total economic ruin, and that isn't cool.

This means that the WTO takes what little voice you do have in your government, and throws it all out the window, and it could be on the whim of some large corporation, such as Microsoft. So be wary of what the WTO can do.

Re:The WTO by arodrig6 · 1999-11-27 12:05 · Score: 1

Say what you will about the WTO, but I trust a supra-national entity controled by corperations more than any government.

Corperations are all about greed, they want you to buy their stuff and make loads of money. And that I understand and can account for.

Altruistic Moral governements have a tendancy to want to "better society" which ususally means stripping people of basic freedoms and attempting to dictate morality.

All things considered, I trust a greedy man who admits that he wants my wallet than a noble man who claims to want to help me.

Just my humble opinion.

--

Who am I? Subscribe and find out
Re:The WTO by donutello · 1999-11-27 13:39 · Score: 1

You forgot to add:
...and the US government is colluding with the United Nations to rob Americans of their lives and liberty. We should all hoard guns and live in log cabins in Montana so we can defeat them when they come after us.

--
Mmmm.. Donuts
Re: The WTO by Bob+Uhl · 1999-11-27 14:12 · Score: 1

Too late. The government of the USA has long since ceased to be any sort of government of, by or for the people. Our fundamental rights have been so long trampled that we cannot win them back. Just try to take on the armed might of the FBI with your .45; good luck. The days when a band of rebels could take on an empire are long gone.
Our only hope is to cut their funding. Hence, no new taxes on anything, and start cutting taxes on everything we can. Not that I think that it will work. But it can't hurt too much.
Modern man is too enamoured of his bread and circuses to overthrow his government. As long as he gets his fancy parades, welfar check and 'free' health care, he's happy. Never mind that he's a slave in his own land. Huxley was right...
Re:The WTO by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 15:45 · Score: 0

Does any of you know the power the WTO wields? They have this awesome power to pretty much shut down any economy they want to, and override any government they want to."
I don't think that they do have the power to shut down a countries authority, but they certainly can undermine the undermine a countries sovereignty. Global Exchange states that:
"By creating a supranational court system that has the power to economically sanction countries to force them to comply with its rulings, the WTO has essentially replaced national governments with an unelected, unaccountable corporate-backed government. For the past nine years, the European Union has banned beef raised with artificial growth hormones. The WTO recently ruled that this public health law is a barrier to trade and should be abolished. The EU has to rollback its ban or pay stiff penalties. Under the WTO, governments can no longer act in the public interest. "
The following are useful guides for determining what power they have NOW and what is on the table for the Millennium Round.
Much of the power is behind the scenes and through influencing government power, so it is harder to measure.
For more info

WTO must die. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 09:06 · Score: 0

It's an organization dedicated to anti-democratic actions that favor trade for multinational corporations at the expense of: labor rights, national sovereignty and the exercise of a people's right to self rule, environmental standards, and child labor standards.

The WTO makes its decisions in secret with no accountability and no democratic control. It has NEVER ruled in favor of an environmental or labor standard if some other government (at the behest of some large corporations) felt these standards were a 'barrier' to trade.

Remember the Clean Air Act? The WTO forced the EPA to WEAKEN the Act to allow higher-polluting types of gasoline from Venezuela to be imported into California. Your lungs lose. Rich oil companies win. There are many examples like this. Massachusetts was forced to abandon a law preventing the state from contracting with companies that do business with Burma and its government of thugs and drug dealers.

I hope the Seattle protests are all the organisers have planned them to be.

The evil capitalists? by slashdot-terminal · 1999-11-27 09:07 · Score: 1

Rather interesting that as you point out that the capitalists are both evil (they exploit all the por workers) and they are both good (boy when we come home and eat boiled shoe leather for dinner we want help from said capitalists).
The only time where calling people evil capitalists is founded is when an ecconomic system is set up that is different from is substantially. Maybe socialism, or communism perhaps. Howevereven socialistic countires do not necessarily go against capitalistic implimentations of ideas. Communism is looking to come to terms with capitalism. Now unless this point of view is seen from either North Korea, or Cuba (places where the worst run communist governments are usualy found today) this point is dead.

--
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest

Re:The evil capitalists? by hensley · 1999-11-27 09:50 · Score: 2

Implying that I come from a communist country is wrong -- I don't (I live in Germany).
That said, I think that capitalism is responsible for many bad things in today's world. Just think about South America. Yes, I know Cuba is a thorn in USA's ass but how many people are starving (and dying from that) in the capitalist countries of South America compared to Cuba? How is the rate of education in all those great capitalist (you would probably say democratic, capitalist is what you really mean) countries compared to Cuba? How has the quality of life improved in the eastern European countries since the great turnover for the average population? Just take a look: many people have been set off (rates of 80% are quite common), they don't have a life as good as before.
That said, I don't believe in communism -- at least not how it was implemented in all those countries like SU, GDR et al. Those were not really communist countries but IMO state-capitalistic with some people having control (and privileges and money and ...). So calling something communist (or capitalist for that matter) doesn't make it like that.
Re:The evil capitalists? by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 17:14 · Score: 1

Imagining that someone implied that you come from a communist country is also...er...mistaken. Oh, and thorns are usually found just in one's side; one's ass is being a bit overused these days.

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
Re:The evil capitalists? by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 17:16 · Score: 1

...1948 If you want a picture of the future, follow the instructions.

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
Re:The evil capitalists? by Silverfish · 1999-12-02 00:47 · Score: 1

I guess that's why so many Americans float to Cuba on homemade rafts...

Capitalism is not perfect. Not even close. But it's the closest thing we have to Darwin at a societal level.

Nobody denies that it's hard to transition to capitalism. But an analogy to your argument is: "Look how many people are injured learning how to ride a bike! We should stop bike riding at once."

Learning how to ride a bike is hard, but once you know how, you can't imagine not knowing how.

Read This by Spazmoid · 1999-11-27 09:09 · Score: 1

In case your looking back here... here is the first article about it. The way I read it Microsith will require a license for every user requiring authentication wether local or remote. Fun stuff no doubt.

--
www.mp3.com/Undocumented

Micro$oft by ScumBiker · 1999-11-27 09:29 · Score: 0

Anything these clowns do is for profit, period. I frankly disregard all press from that camp.

Dive Gear

--
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---

Re:Micro$oft by Zagato-sama · 1999-11-27 11:15 · Score: 0

Dear god! A buisness doing something for profit. Well this is definately a shocker. I suppose they need to donate all their profits to starving children in third world countries like Redhat is doing..oh no..wait..they're not.
Re:Micro$oft by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 11:00 · Score: 0

Tell me a company who doesn't do work for a profit your fucking dweeb. Even Redhat does it for the money. Your totally biased.

E-commerce/direct sales circumvent trade barriers by acacia · 1999-11-27 09:56 · Score: 2

O.K. time to set the record straight on the WTO's purpose and how this relates to MicroSoft's appeal. The WTO is an international organization that was brought into being in 1995, and is really just a successor to GATT, which was set up in the Bretton Woods agreement after WWII. It was set up more or less to expand the scope of GATT to include those countries which were not part of the Bretton Woods agreement.

GATT, as some of you might remember, was essentially a forum for the settlement of grievances between countries that related to trade. It allowed a forum for countries to decide as a group whether or not barriers or subsidies within a member country was "unfair" or "predatory". It also sought to lower the barriers to trade between all countries, as these barriers have a negative effect on the efficient allocation of resources globally.

Countries have the ability to tax and subsidize activities as they please, within the boundaries of their own nation. What this means in the international realm is that it is harder/easier to sell certain things to other countries. By creating artificial barriers to trade via taxes, a government can protect a local (by which I mean local to that country) industry from competitors outside of that country. It can also subsidize an industry (via tax relief, guaranteed prices, buying up a percentage of production to raise prices, etc.) to help local industries be profitable enough to continue/expand. Here in the USA, there are many instances of that type of behavior in our agriculture, steel, manufacturing industries.

Now that e-commerce is becoming widespread, issues related to protectionism get really interesting. The internet respects no boundaries, and doesn't care about where the buyer and seller are. If international barriers on e-commerce are not imposed, then goods and services can be exchanged without the intervention of sovereign governments, right! All the sudden protectionist taxes become meaningless, because the normal flow is short-circuted. This has got to have the bureaucrats in a tizzy, because their carefully crafted walls have suddenly sprung leaks.

In general, this is good for the average consumer. I say in general, because it affects people in different ways. If the price of imported socks becomes 50 cents versus $5.00 because you can buy them on line, everybody wins, right? But how about the textiles plant in South Carolina that has to close shop and lay off thousands of workers because they can no longer produce socks at a competitive price? (BTW, the textiles industry is the most protected industry in the USA. Some estimates say it costs every US family an average of about $1500 per year.)

So you see, this stuff gets pretty complex, because there are trade-offs involved. If you open your doors to the world completely, you are vulnerable to having entire industries killed off. This may be as a result of honest competition, or maybe that foreign countries industry is being subsidized by their government so they can sell their stuff cheap, then since the domestic industry is gone, they can raise their prices at will (some would argue that Japan did exactly this to the US steel industry in the 80's, I say bullshit.)

What M$ is making a play for is to be able to open up markets, independent of government intervention, provided it is over the internet. Honestly, I think this is a pretty good thing, but it opens up a pandora's box because subsidies to industries are a lot harder internationally than tarrifs.

This diatribe has gone on long enough. To get a real understanding, you need a degree in Economics (like I did, and it's still not enough) If enough people are interested in more, maybe I'll post something on my home page.

--
~Religion is O.K., as long as it gets you laid.

Re:Thoughts :: Funny economics by EtherSnoot · 1999-11-27 09:56 · Score: 1

Suppose that you've got a few big industrial nations that import raw materials from smaller, poorer countries. They take those materials and turn them into much more expensive goods. This way, they get lots of profit. The poor countries are stuck selling their cheap raw materials and importing expensive manufactured goods (created with the same materials they sold.) Thus they don't make enough money to start industrializing themselves, and it becomes a cycle.

The WTO is supposed to let the poor countries impose high tariffs on the manufactured goods from foreign nations. This way demand will be created for domestic industry to produce cheaper goods. With demand comes capital, and with capital comes industry. With industry comes being able to compete in the global marketplace.

You're economics here seem a little strange. Tariff's don't increase demand, they increase the price of goods. If steal comes out of a county, and could have come back as a $6,000 car, a $2,000 tariff will dive the price up, and thereby decrease demand. I'm not sure how you think otherwise. Therefore a tariff would have the effect of moving money from the people producing the raw materials to the government of the country. No different from any other tax really.

Tariffs are only ever a good deal for politicans and privleged industries who can sway those politicians.

-Snoot

But since linux is already free, no tariffs on it. by conraduno · 1999-11-27 10:01 · Score: 1

Though even if the WTO imposed tariffs, tariffs are based on a percent of the price of the incoming product. Linux is free. Which would mean a much larger potential Linux base for developing countries unwilling to pay the tariffs and therefore adopting an already tariff and otherwise cost free OS. Yay.

It's not that hard by / · 1999-11-27 10:19 · Score: 2

The country where the purchaser resides can tax the credit-card purchase, and the exporting country can tax the export at the dock. The intermediate countrieds might not be able to do too much, but that doesn't mean all must fail. Fail they would if I had my way, but unfortuniately I don't.

--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes

Re:It's not that hard by DaveHowe · 1999-11-28 01:34 · Score: 2

The country where the purchaser resides can tax the credit-card purchase
That's certainly possible, but given most systems depending on taxing the goods, and taxing diferently depending on type, it would be difficult to do. In particular, you may end up taxing some things four or five ways, depending on national rules (for example, the country that runs the credit card takes a cut, the country you phoned from, the one you registered in, and so forth)
, and the exporting country can tax the export at the dock. The intermediate countrieds might not be able to do too much, but that doesn't mean all must fail. Fail they would if I had my way, but unfortuniately I don't.
Dock? so, for online services and downloading software.....?
I suppose you could impose a goods tax on the D/L server, but that would mean all such companies almost instantly relocating their DL servers to whatever country charges the least.....
--

--
-=DaveHowe=-

MS is leading you into a trap! by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-11-27 10:22 · Score: 5

This is _important_. MS is once again on the WRONG SIDE here. While what they propose seems to be a good idea to many of us here (who are fed up with governmental interference with the net), things would be much, much worse if MS succeeds.

The WTO has an abominable amount of power. Far too much, IMHO. Though it is not their original purpose, they basically exist now to overturn the sovereignty of the various (many) nations which are members in favor of international corporations.

If the WTO rules that US antitrust law, for instance, somehow harmed international trade and was in violation of the treaty, the US would have _no option_ but to revoke the law and submit to the WTO.

The WTO is a jillion times worse than our governments, because at least we have some hope of changing the way that our governments work. We have no such hope wrt the WTO; they serve the best intrests of real people in name but not in deed.

Sure it sucks to have trade regulations on the net. But did you support embargoes as protests against apartheid? Human rights violations? Environmental, health and safety concerns? Not only could a moritorium prevent cessession of trade with nations which had such practices or harmful effects on the planet or even yourself, but they have already done so in the past.

If you don't like the behavior of your government, fine. But for God's sake, wouldn't you rather have YOUR government listen to you and not to some faceless corporation-serving committee.

So let's not only encourage the WTO to take no action whatsoever, but encourage it's dissolution or at least an extreme change to a body which is founded on not just money but ethics as well.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:MS is leading you into a trap! by mattc · 1999-11-27 12:27 · Score: 1

Right on man.. if I had a moderator point I'd give it to you. hehe
Re:MS is leading you into a trap! by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 19:45 · Score: 2

So let me just make sure I've got you right. You believe in representative democratic government. You don't believe in the WTO because it's a supra-governmental body which you perceive as being controlled by corporations. I think though that the idea of the WTO was to subordinate the desires of individual governments to a representative democracy of *those governments*, not to corporations.
If I'm with you so far, then it seems to me we have to determine whether the WTO is indeed controlled by multinational corporations or not. If it is, we should fix it. If it isn't, we should probably just shut up, even if it overrules the once mighty, once proud US.
Provided it is ruled by said RD, we *do* have the ability to affect it, by choosing our own governmental bit of it. Of course, that means that even the US is no longer in charge, but that's life: all empires fall.

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
Re:MS is leading you into a trap! by winterstorm · 1999-11-27 22:23 · Score: 1

But did you support embargoes as protests against apartheid? Human rights violations? Environmental, health and safety concerns?
From what I can tell results of embargoes enforced by the USA are a human rights violation.
Trade sanctions only sound good when compared as an alternative to war. However the current trend seems to be, "Bomb 'em, starve 'em, and then send them a bill for the cost of the operation."
I'd hate to see countries lose their right to impose tariffs on foreign trade. These tariffs are a tool to regulate trade imbalances that could hurt their economies. However I think that preserving the USA/WTO's assumed right to "starve countries into submission" is the wrong reason to opposing the ban on Internet tariffs.
Re:MS is leading you into a trap! by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-11-28 02:41 · Score: 2

Well here's the catch. I still believe in a representative democratic government, but I lean more towards the democratic side than the representative side. As far as I see it, the reasons for the US (at least) being a republic are based more in logistical issues and the idea that various elected government officials will do what's right for the people, taking into account their highly developed senses of morals and justice, et al. The first is no longer entirely a valid point, and I have severe doubts about the second in a lot of cases.

I don't really like the WTO because it's yet another step up, away from actual people. I don't believe that it can actually or accurately help or represent people being as far up in the clouds as it is. Instead the WTO's constituency seems to consist of governments and corporations, neither of which can be safely relied upon to preserve the best interests of the people whom they are supposed to be serving, IMHO.

As for American Imperialism, I personally don't care for it much. I'm actually a bit more of an isolationist. I think that America should lead by example, and not by bullying other nations and peoples around.

But this doesn't mean that we have to love tyrannical (for example) countries either. If Americans decide not to conduct business as usual with some country, then that's our call to make. If some country Foo decides that trade is more important than oppressing their people, they'll change. If not, they can do without.

Nor do I have no problem with America being subjected to the same criteria by others - we're hardly perfect, but I'd like to see if we could be.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:MS is leading you into a trap! by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-11-28 02:48 · Score: 2

I disagree. I'm very much against going to war against anyone that doesn't go to war with us first. But how could I possibly look at myself in the mirror if I protested against actions taken by some other country which I had some issue with, but at the same time also conducted business as usual.

If someone wants to act in a way that Americans will react negatively to, they'd be kind of foolish to base their entire economy on trade with us. I'm not going to stop them from trading normally with anyone else, but at least I can use the voice of my wallet. It sometimes has a curious ability to be heard when my own voice is ignored.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:MS is leading you into a trap! by Brian+Knotts · 1999-11-28 06:14 · Score: 2

As far as I see it, the reasons for the US (at least) being a republic are based more in logistical issues and the idea that various elected government officials will do what's right for the people, taking into account their highly developed senses of morals and justice, et al.
I believe you're missing one of the most, if not the most, important points of republican government. A republic, as opposed to a democracy, is designed to protect the rights of minorities (it doesn't always do so, of course, but that's an implementation issue, not necessarily a design flaw).
If Americans decide not to conduct business as usual with some country, then that's our call to make.
And I'd say the most "democratic" way for them to express their views on that is in the marketplace, not by government fiat; wouldn't you agree?

Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.

They didn't try too hard by / · 1999-11-27 10:27 · Score: 2

Uncle Sam has already failed in regulating Internet content with the (expletive) Communications Decency Act.

They never go to try to do any regulating, because injunctions were (properly) issued because of its facially-evident unconstitutionality. It would have failed if enforced, but that's still a matter of opinion and can't be imperically determined from those particular events.

--
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes

y0!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 11:10 · Score: 0

tR0lLiN'

iM a tR0lLiN' t0DaY!!!!
tR0lLiN' aND 4 r0lLiN'!!!

BZZZTTTT!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 11:21 · Score: 0

QUIT BEING A TROLL, YOU TROLL.

How would they implement this? by Jason+Skomorowski · 1999-11-27 11:22 · Score: 1

It is technically rather difficult. They can't do anything to tax Internet
commerce itself - nothing distinguishes a packet containing part of a credit
card number or an offer to send a money order from anything else. You can
keep piecing it together and compare it to a regex, but even if you knew for
sure what you were looking for, you could never even begin to search it all.

What is more likely is that they will find a way to force the credit card
companies, eCash or whatever they call it providers, etc. to catalog and
tax all the various transactions. If it's not a sales tax and is instead
a duty tariff for importing goods, then this will just force sites that
sell electronically transferrable goods to buy web space in the countries
which they perceive as their target markets. Now, they could try to
charge duty on that, but is it one copy per mirror, or infinite copies,
both. It's not like they're importing fruit or something quantifiable
like that.

If they respond by saying that you're essentially importing it from the contry
of origin, well, I can buy a book by a European author from Chapters. Will
the reciept have a duty charge because I imported it from Germany? No.
So to make that change, they would have to change the music and book industries.

Of course, the credit card companies would stand to lose a lot if this
happens. They'd have to purchase and maintain new infrastructure to
implement this sort of thing, tracking the location of the purchaser
and comparing it with the location of the store requires some simple
software modifications and perhaps some new staff so that's not too
bad. However, a lot of people don't normally use credit cards but might
so that they can get something online. The more money tranferred through
electronic commerce, the more the credit card companies get.

Microsoft doesn't like this either. They'd like nothing more than to stop printing
boxes and pressing CDs - it eats into their margin. But that requires being able to
sell things online. People won't buy online if it costs less and is easier otherwise.
So, we have the credit card companies and just about any software company, bank, e-commerce startup, and a bunch of other corporate types against this.

The WTO is a group of nations, so they want more revenue for their governments.
They see some of that revenue (tariffs on imported CDs, software, etc) going
elsewhere and that market is growing. They don't see why it should be
any different on-line and thus they want a way to get it.

Since Visa, et al are international organisations and the Internet has no
borders, they need an international regulation.

Woo, corporations and governments with differing interests. In this particular
case, it appears we're better off with the corporate, and in other issues
(certain anti-trust lawsuits, various cases of companies generally
ripping people off, etc) the government protects us. Neither really
represents what's best or what individuals would want, the best
we can hope for is that they keep each other in line.line if it costs less and is easier otherwise.

What will we do? by MrLizard · 1999-11-27 11:34 · Score: 1

What will we do when the governments are bankrupt? Give a big cheer, methinks. Indeed, a large part of the appeal of the net for commerce is that it frees commerce from government control. Sooner or later, someone will devise a form of 'e-currency' that catches on. Since the government has already conditioned people to accept the idea that money is just a token, not needing to be backed by anything, it is not hard to imagine that, soon enough, people won't need their tokens to be government-produced.

It ought to be noted that, if governments decide that software is a taxable service, 'free' software will simply cease to exist. For that matter, what happens when someone decides that the transmission of this very forum is similair enough to a newspaper or magazine that it, too, ought to be stopped at the border, censored, and taxed?

Re:What will we do? by e-gold · 1999-11-28 04:03 · Score: 1

www.digigold.net * -- in order for non-governmental entities to be believed, they must back currency with something valuable, just as governments used to do. An interesting experiment is to ask people what backs the US dollar. They may SAY "gold," but all they've got is paper. :)
JMR

* while backed with e-gold and exchangeable gram for gram, digigold has nothing to do with e-gold, it's merely an electronic cash way of eliminating spend and storage fees and allowing certain other advantages...More at www.systemics.com

--
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-

Re:Thoughts :: Funny economics by jfmiller · 1999-11-27 11:34 · Score: 1

Actually this is economicly correct. (IMHO) Tariff's increase the price of foregn goods. This reduces the demand for forign goods and increases the demand for substitute goods i.e. domestic goods. The metefore tossed about in my econ class says if the price of Shell's gas goes up then the demand for cheeper am/pm gas (which is a subststute good) will increase also. Just a thought

--
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for

what about redhat? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 11:41 · Score: 0

Are you forgetting all the people that charge for linux?

They're Right This Time... by NII+Link · 1999-11-27 11:42 · Score: 1

Microsoft is in the right this time, but this should be neither a surprise nor should it arouse suspicions.

As a software company, it is in Microsoft's best interest to be able to reach as many customers as possible and to make as much money as possible. By taxing international software, it would either cost the customer more (and potentially result in fewer customers) or eat into the company's profits. Therefore, it is natural for Microsoft - or any other software company - to oppose such a tariff.

IMHO, it is important to avoid such tariffs. The Internet has been growing very rapidly, and any regulations would slow this growth. Plus, a tax on international transactions would result in a disadvantage to those in need, as software from major companies (abroad) would be more expensive and software from developing countries would have a hard time being sold in developed nations where domestic developers could avoid these taxes when dealing with customers in that country.

Besides, it would be impossible to keep track of every online transaction. Shareware developers are especially able to circumvent these taxes because they aren't necessarily "companies" per se.

--
-Rafi Remove the Spanish to email me.

tariffs can be good. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 11:47 · Score: 0

i recommend a tariff on all purchases using microsoft products (Exchange server, etc). with the proceeds being sent to fsf.org.

i know you think this is a joke, but actually i'm not kidding.

Re:MS Against Duties by Ekapshi · 1999-11-27 12:10 · Score: 1

FYI, yes, Microsoft will be charging duties on participating Passport websites. For any Passport enabled website with up to 500,000 users, MSFT will charge $500 annually. For 1 to 2 million users, MSFT will be charging $20,000 annually.

Micro$oft right for once? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 12:47 · Score: 0

I hate to say this, but for once I'm with M$ on this one. Tariffs only hurt international commerce, and the best way to promote commerce is to not leach from it in the form of taxes.

So even if it benefits M$ as well, I think tariffs are a bad idea, and I tip my hat to M$ for their efforts.

I would have a /. login, but the system won't mail me a password!

Pollution ain't got JACK to do with it. by evilad · 1999-11-27 12:53 · Score: 2

although I think it speaks more strongly for global environmental protection treaties

If they could exist and be reasonably effective, I'd be right in there every day with mah letter-opener-of-death forcing my country's leaders to sign. In an imperfect, Hobbsian economic-superpower eat economic-minnow world, however, the only thing that can save us is a good healthy attitude of "Y'aint dumpin' that shit here. Now git. This thing's loaded."

... but anyway, what does pollution have to do with writing and selling software?

Nothing whatsoever, zatz. Thanks for asking. I actually stopped writing half-way through my essay because I was suddenly hugely afraid that I was off-topic. Come to think of it, I'm not, so here we go.

If I started spouting off about mob-run software sweatshops in the former USSR, people might write me off as one of those scruffy-lookin', Z-net readin', International-Buy-Nothing-Day observin' Chomsky-agreein'-with socialist fruitcakes. Chomsky's the fruitcake, and I ain't no socialist. (I mean, Who's Scruffy Lookin'?) It's just that Big Business ain't just plain folks like you and me.

Software is Big Business. Big business, be it oil, pharmas, or software, is in it for the money, and to hell with your civil rights. To hell with your human rights, for that matter -- Big Oil walks on 'em as a matter of course. Therefore, whenever you start talking about restricting a sovereign government's abilities to control the actions of a hypercorp WITHIN THAT SOVEREIGN NATION, why, I start to get a little nervous. So should you.

Your government, as shitty as they might be at it, has entered into a social contract with you, as a citizen, to provide you with certain things, like security of property and person. The nature of the contract is outlined in your constitution, or some other such document. In other words, your government is there to take care of your ass and your shit. If they didn't do that, we wouldn't have 'em. That's the basis of modern liberal political theory.

A hypercorp has entered into a contract with its shareholders. The rich ones. The little guys don't vote, generally speaking, and they don't hold enough stock to make a difference. The people a hypercorp cares about are easy to recognize. Simply put, they're the ones rich enough to own automobiles with climate control systems which enable them to not care if the smog index is too high to bike to work today. Or roll the windows down in your Ford POS, for that matter.

If they don't care about the poor piece of shit wheezing his last in the next car, what makes you think they care about some poor, intelligent, but sadly manipulated and controlled sod that they'll never see because he lives in Russia or India?

Again, I use pollution as the allegorical soapbox for my human rights tirade. I see this pollution shit going down. So do you if you'll look around. We don't see intellectual sweatshop laborers getting the shit beat out of them for trying to unionize very often, so it doesn't make a very gut-wrenching example. It is what we should really be concerned about, though. The really bad shit will never go down here, cause this is where the rich folks live.

So to sum up, forget pollution. I'm talking Sovereignty. It's there for a whole bunch of really good reasons, and it's worked quite well for a few hundred years. A hypercorp is ultimately a self-serving and incredibly resourceful beastie. Having your government promise to not interfere with a hypercorp's fits of selfish whimsy might be a good idea and it might not.

All I'm saying is that if you think it's a good idea, please go it slow. Real fuckin' slow.

If you're not so sure and the WTO asks to meet in your city, tell 'em to piss off. I'd be doing it myself if I could get to Seattle by Monday.

EviLid

Re:Pollution ain't got JACK to do with it. by Hobbex · 1999-11-27 18:05 · Score: 2

The preachy layer of populism by which you are covering your political agenda is quickly reaching molecular thickness. The weepy stories of environmental damage and abused workers in the name (but the not the mention) of infringing on the freedom trade and flows of information, are almost exactly like those elements who oppose freedom of speech, and will talk about poor abused children and victims of terrorists until their eyes water.

Bullshit. Tariffs do jack all to protect anybody in the country targeted by the tariff, and for that matter, in the long run, the country imposing them. They are just another form of piss in your pants, isolationistic throwback to a past era of regionalism that have proved to work really bad.

You know what the biggest trade war of this decade has centered on: bananas. Thousands of man hours and billions of dollars have been wasted on a useless battle because the French want to protect a bunch of people growing bad bananas (and I know because we have to eat them now) in the wrong place.

I don't particularly believe in purchasing software what so ever, but I can promise that the effect of any tariffs on software would be me having to pay triple the price for Quake3 because id are dumping the market for Swedish and Greek makers of 100 Euro frogger-clones. Hell, by European 35-hour week standards, the American software industry is one big sweatshop, and that does happen to be the reason that you are doing so much better at it than we are. Tarriffs ahoy to protect the jobs of my lazy ass nationals, and fuck our chances of ever coming back in the long run!

If you truly care about the people of the world you ought to be advocating for greater international cooperation, not jumping on the WTO as something evil in the name of sovereignity of governments (and possibly remember that the party that most argues for sovereignty in this decade is the Chinese government...)

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:Pollution ain't got JACK to do with it. by Submarine · 1999-11-27 20:23 · Score: 1

> Hell, by European 35-hour week standards, the American software industry is one big sweatshop

Ever worked at an US company? I did.

People do spend a long time at work, right.

However, you must take into account the following things I noticed in some US companies I worked at or dealt with:

* inefficiency of secretaries since they are pretty uneducated

* lack of use of electronic resources (lots of paperwork, voice mail and interoffice mail, inability to send email when appropriate)

* lots of interruptions ("Let's have ice cream!", "Oh, it's friday afternoon!")

* lack of modernity (in Silicon Valley, people look up phone numbers in a row of huge paper books whereas in France, they type a few buttons on their computers)

For all those reasons, I was not terribly impressed by US productivity. I'd say the US works more in time, but less efficiently.

This claim is backed-up by statistics I read.
Re:Pollution ain't got JACK to do with it. by Hobbex · 1999-11-27 21:12 · Score: 1

Its not backed up by economic growth curves however...

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:Pollution ain't got JACK to do with it. by jafac · 1999-11-29 00:20 · Score: 1

hm. You seem to be forgetting the EU French/British Beef row.

The Brits are trying to use the EU to force France to buy their BSE-infected beef.
How would you like to be a French citizen, knowing now that beef you buy, could be from Argentina (good), the US (THE BEST!!!), or from Britain - yet unidentified by label on the shelf. (okay all you Vegans just shut the hell up for a minute), as a consumer, you don't know if your product is more likely to be infected with BSE or not. As a citizen, you know you're countrymen all oppose importation of British beef, you know you government WANTS to protect you, as a soveriegn French citizen. You also know that as a EU citizen, you're FORCED to obey rules by a "greater power", who says that the people don't know anything, that they're just panicked sheep, and they've been listening to too much environmental leftist propaganda, and that for "the good of the union", that they should be buddy-buddy with the Brits and accept the tainted beef.

If anybody out there thinks that this is okay - then you deserve to be infected with BSE.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

The Low-down on World Trade by Horizon · 1999-11-27 12:53 · Score: 2

The short form is: It's All Bullshit.

Firstly, the WTO is a toothless tiger. Let's be completely painfully blunt here: it has no powers to enforce its rulings. When the WTO was established, President Clinton took great pains to prove this to Congress before they ratified the treaty.

The US has said - in essence - "the WTO plays our tune, or we quit". China has said "the WTO will play our tune, or we won't join". Japan's up the creek. Asia was always playing "if you want in to our markets, you need to invest here first". This clearly violated both the spirit and the letter of the WTO treaty, but it's been happening for years.

I don't think we can blame the players here. The MNCs (multinational corporations) are not really doing what they do out of spite, they do it because they simply must. If they don't play hardball, they lose. The market is not a self-correcting mechanism, it is a Darwinian jungle.

The WTO is not to blame. It's an attempt to regulate something that doesn't actually exist. Free trade is a lie; a sham-faced lie. For example, for the US company Boeing to enter China, they had to do an 'offset' deal. That is, the price of any Boeing planes sold to China had to be offset by Boeing spending money inside China's borders. So right away, a good deal of what is 'free trade' is deal-making that (once again) violates WTO rules.

Then you have 'transfer pricing'. For tax and profit purposes, MNCs will trade things at very precise prices back and forth between their various international incarnations. This happens so much that at least 20% of the world's 'free trade' is companies buying and selling stuff to themselves.

The upshot of all this is that according to some estimates, only about 20-30% of the world's trade is 'free trade'. The rest is swallowed up by transfer pricing, market-access deals and other such hocus pocus.

The system that has emerged is itself at fault. I can't think of any solutions that really don't have enormous drawbacks for someone; or that will be impossible to deploy. For example, to give the WTO real enforcable powers would cut out a lot of the unchecked bullshit that does happen. But to do so would mean signing away certain portions of sovereignty to a non-representative body. Or perhaps a 'world government' is established to deal with international problems that nations would bicker about. Oh dear, it's fifty years later and I want to live under some other system of government - but there's no alternative.

I have no idea where this will lead us. Something will give.

PS: did anyone catch MS's insistence that software be a 'good'? They know damn well that software is a service industry made artificially into a goods industry. It's why they are so rich ...

be well;

JC.

--
-- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the fictional entity who may or may not have expressed them

Yes, MS is right sometimes by MagPulse · 1999-11-27 13:15 · Score: 1

Make a thermometer based on the day the milk in your fridge expires, and once in a while it'll be right.

Listen to a software company who cares about money and not what's The Right Thing To Do, and once in a while it'll be right.

Re: Umm... by lordsoth · 1999-11-27 13:30 · Score: 1

Why the fuck else would he do anything? Because hes a nice guy?

Haven't you realised bill is all about the money? Just like what everyone else would do in his position....

The badguy doing the right thing? by Felinoid · 1999-11-27 13:42 · Score: 1

We are pritty familure with Microsoft doing what ever sutes them. However it's importent to rember they are still a member of the software community and if the whole industry is hurt then Microsoft is hurt.
So maybe on occasion Microsoft dose things to our benifit. Not to protect the whole but to protect themselfs.
Try to picture it this way.. a galatic hord comes to earth to distory all life on it... a corprate tyrent could shoot his mega gun wiping the hord from existence and save earth or keep his wepon a secret and die with everyone else.

In short it's ok to occasionally agree with Microsoft no matter how self serving Microsofts actions maybe becouse on occasion it's all or nothing. It's no fun to watch Microsoft go away if everyone else dies with em.

--
I don't actually exist.

Inquiring minds want to know... by anatoli · 1999-11-27 13:45 · Score: 1

...exactly how these tariffs are to be imposed?

Let's say I work in BigCorp's office in UK (I don't really), where BigCorp is US based. My computer's hostname is whatever.BigCorp.com (as opposed to whatever.BigCorp.co.uk); it is connected to the BigCorp's headquarters in, say, San Jose, via private comm line; and firewall is in place (so all computers at BigCorp appear to have the same IP address to the outside world). I do Internet browsing (and shopping!) through my work computer (I have my boss's permit to dial up).

Pray tell me, how OnlineGoodies.com can tell myself from a San Jose resident? Is BigCorp supposed to tell them?

Don't say "it's insignificant and small percentage". If/when WTO tariffs are in place, expect larger ISPs to have offices/servers in most countries/toplevel domains, to help their customets avoiding said tariffs using the same scheme.

Please moderate this post down for your protection.
--

--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.

why is this news? by noosphere · 1999-11-27 13:47 · Score: 1

Besides weakling companies who want to use government policy to take the tonya harding approach to business competition, who wouldn't be opposed to software tarriffs?

FIRST POST by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 14:16 · Score: 0

first post baby!!!! YEAH

Re:FIRST POST by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 17:35 · Score: 1

Great! Do you have a name?

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Of course MS don't want tariffs!! by Dacta · 1999-11-27 14:18 · Score: 2

Microsoft is a very successful software company. They have a significant lead in the production of commercial software, and believe that any increase in the size of any computer driven market can only be good for Microsoft.

MS wants to sell its software in non-US countries as cheaply as possible, and having no tariffs helps that.

To take a real-world example: Australian (and NZ) farmers produce cheap, high quality lambs which are exported to the US and are still cheaper than (subsidised) US farmers can produce lambs. The US farmers argue for a tariff on lambs (which they get), while the Australians are trying to get the WTO to declare the tariff illegal.

I bet the Americans among us are saying "Great work by the govenment - saving US jobs", but stop and consider - it is also making lamb meat more expensive for you. Shouldn't we let market forces decide it?

--Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com

Re:Of course MS don't want tariffs!! by fishbowl · 1999-11-28 00:53 · Score: 2

"I bet the Americans among us are saying "Great work by the govenment - saving US jobs",
but stop and consider - it is also making lamb meat more expensive for you. Shouldn't we let
market forces decide it?"

How many people can have a pet lamb anyway? Seems like quite a niche market. If there were so many lambs imported that they were common, people might try to do something disgusting and gross, like even skinning them and *gasp* eating them. We can't have that, can we?

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Microsoft wants this badly (was Seattle) by lucidvein · 1999-11-27 14:43 · Score: 1

Just think of the extra profits that all of the MegaCorps will reap in not having to worry about net tariffs. This isn't a friendly gesture on their part, it's a well concocted plan to maintain their profit margin. They stand to make so much money by avoiding these tariffs. If it costs more to import MS software, less money makes it back to the company. Not to mention that it encourages competitive pricing.

Of course MS is using the WTO as a grandstand, that's what the WTO is all about, a big press party to take pictures of suits signing treaties. Microsoft will make this announcement before all the cameras and come off looking like they have been fighting for the freedom to disperse their product without restraints all these years. But the big bad government and 17 states have been attempting to restrict Microsoft's way of business. Watch out! Microsoft has a new best friend and their lawyers are going to make very good use of it. Much more than just self-serving press. They have the opportunity to make a multi-national organization give them clearance to continue their anti-competitive marketing strategies... world wide... without reprieve.

I work at an (unspecified) company that will be coordinating with the media and police in Seattle. The people in this city don't know what's going to hit them. There are over 25 scheduled marches throughout the week. Several of which will shut down major arteries of the city (which was recently rated #3 in worst traffic). The largest will be the AFL/CIO march on Nov. 30 which joins with an unpermitted Direct Action Network March. I expect all hell to break loose around 3pm as the people who were foolish enough to come work can't leave the city.

Already there have been several "professional protesters" who took actions last week by hanging (themselves included) a sweatshop slogan banner over the Old Navy store downtown. Today they hung over the side of the freeway retaining wall, slowing Interstate 5. By the way, last Wednesday's Seattle Post Intelligencer was covered with a mock front page with fake headlines concerning trade.

The frightening thing from my point of view is how the media is really blowing this out of proportion. All of the protest groups I've spoken with are adamantly non-violent, but you wouldn't know that from the news. Plus the police tend to over react in this town.

But best of all is that Fidel Castro may make an appearance. If that doesn't send the secret service into a frenzy I don't know what will... Castro of all people belongs here. Spokesperson of the shitty end of trade embargos.

So besides Microsoft's announcement, some Monsanto poison seeds and what the protest groups are upset about, has anyone actually seen a WTO agenda?

--

"I have a cunning plan..."

Polition so much easyer to understand by Felinoid · 1999-11-27 14:49 · Score: 1

Very good annolog however it's so much easyer to understand the effects of environmental damage than it is to understand the effects of tech abuse.
More often than not any restrictions on technology end up hurtting the whole community. Due to a compleate lack of understanding of technology.
For example as far as lawmakers are conserned the worst problems of the internet are terrorism and porn making two of the worse problems [censorship and lack of privacy] even worse. Worse yet they have no impact on Internet terrorism [crackers] and Porn [woohoo more porn sites]. Why? Becouse they havn't a clue what they are trying to restrict.
Porn isn't even a problem. Shure it's everywhere but you have to go looking for it. I have no problems finding anything I want and I never come across porn unless thats what I am looking for.
Ohh and Internet terrorism.. While they worry about some terrorist triggering a bomb with an encripted code sent over the Internet more realistic crackers grep passwords over unencrypted data streams. In short they make worse what they try to prevent. Just brlient people.

I'm allways nervous when people want to regulate anything with out understanding it....
Any attempt to restrict such regulation is a good thing at least for now while the generall public gets an understanding of the Internet.

--
I don't actually exist.

Re:Polition so much easyer to understand by reptilian · 1999-11-27 15:23 · Score: 1

It took me a bit to completely understand your argument. It seems a little bit off-topic. What evilad was trying to say is that free trade takes away a government's ability to control industry. Read his reply that is also in this thread: it explains that mega-corporations which are most served by free trade are themselves primarily self-serving, and have little regard for civil and human rights. At least, there will always be those businesses who don't care, just as there will be those that don't, but who do you think would gain the advantage?

You're trying to say that legislating something without understanding it is a Bad Thing, and I couldn't agree more, but that has little to do with whether online transactions should be duty-free. Maybe I missed something, but I just can't see how allowing duty and government imposed restriction on the internet have anything to do with each other.

I first thought your entire post was a slippery-slope, but that's because I didn't understand what you were saying. You made your argument well, and I agree with it, but I don't see how it fits into this thread. Apologies if I simply missed something. It's late.

Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

--
72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A

Re:Finally, something good coming out of Redmond.. by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-11-27 14:54 · Score: 2

No, no, no no no.

No, no, no, no, no, NO, no, no no.

You are totally missing the point, I think. I agree that no one should place tarriffs or other taxes or trade barriers on Internet-mediated commerce.

The problem is actually with the WTO. Their behavior has pretty solidly been to erode the soverignty that you and I enjoy (remember that 'We the People' thing?) in favor of self-serving multinational corporations.

Imagine that you have a good reason - a really DAMN good reason to impose a tariff on commerce, including that over the net. For instance some other country is directly or indirectly polluting the US, they killed your dog with it, and you want to make them stop. Or they kill their workers if they attempt to unionize. Or attempt to hold democratic elections. Or attempt to not get killed just because some fascist soldier didn't like their face.

Is this terribly far-fetched? Do you sincerely believe that it's morally okay to 1) accept other people doing that and not even care; or 2) protest on one hand but not back it up with any actions on the other? Do you think that you have the right to call yourself an American if you're willing to have your rights taken away? That you'd prefer it if other people couldn't enjoy the same kinds of freedoms we do?

Well, if the WTO says no tarriffs, then guess what? Your vote to establish tarriffs, your protests to do something that can realistically make things better, your fscking soverignty just went down the crapper. Thanks to a combination of over-powerful corporations, stupid politicians/bureaucrats and the WTO itself, your soverignty has been overridden.

In my book, no one, and I mean but no one should get away with ensuring that you and I no longer have a say in how our own damn country should function. That our votes and our god-given freedoms are ultimately worthless. If the framers of our government could hear this they'd probably regard it as the highest treason imaginable.

So while I am all for not having tarriffs on the net, that is small potatoes compared to some organization telling me that if every single enfranchised American votes to establish a tarriff we STILL can't have it.

MS is not doing us a favor, man. They are sugar-coating a knife so that we let them stick it in our backs. We need to radically change, or abolish, or leave the WTO altogether. There may have been good intentions in its' founding, but gee, guess what the road to hell is paved with?

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Goods or Services? by reptilian · 1999-11-27 15:35 · Score: 1

The article brings up an interesting point: is software goods or is it a service?

To software companies, this would seem to be a tough choice. Microsoft is saying that it's a good, but when you buy their product, you're essentially buying a contract to use it (the EULA), not the software itself - this makes it more like a service, doesn't it?

If software were a service, then software lisences would be more valid, but if it were a good, then they're saying you really do own the software, and it's then your right to use it how you want to (within the law, of course).

If this is the case, then obviously MS wants it both ways. However, what if the WTO decides software is goods? Would that not give someone ammunition to destroy all software lisences out there? I don't really know, because you'll start getting into copyrights at some point, but it's an interesting paradox nonetheless.

Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

--

72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A

Re:Goods or Services? by Politas · 1999-11-27 16:16 · Score: 1

Shrink-wrapped software would seem to be goods, since there is a physical object being handed over, but EULA software does seem more like a service. Mind you, I do recall seeing on some installation media something along the lines of "this disk and the accompanying software remains the property of...", so it seems in some cases they're renting us the physical object too, which strengthens the case for services.

With purely electronic transactions, where nothing physical changes hands, the case is pretty good for services rather than goods.

In which case, what is GPLed software? In this case, the licence is free, so any tariff based on a percentage of the cost of the service (or good) would be nothing! Yet another reason to use open source software.

Aside: Damn! Your post wasn't there when I started mine on the same topic

--
Politas

Software as a service, rather than as goods? by Politas · 1999-11-27 15:49 · Score: 2

Snuck in the middle of that article is this gem:

...an EU proposal that would reclassify electronically delivered software as a service. Software has traditionally been classified as goods.

It sounds like an interesting proposal, given that (non-free) software is licensed rather than sold, in a purely electronic software transaction, it would seem reasonable to treat it as a service.

--

Politas

You've hit on a truth by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 17:23 · Score: 1

All government regulatory agencies are quickly captured by the businesses they're supposed to oversee.

I used this point in arguing against the adoption of Nafta and Gatt, the treaties that enable the WTO. I was laughed at by my liberal friends. They thought WTO would be a levelling force against "American economic hegemony."

Now the tree-huggers are being arrested in Seattle for their silly protests. Putting up a banner on a highway! What moron would think that would do any good?

I'll bet MS does very well in Seattle.

Yes, we have no bananas... by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 17:29 · Score: 1

Hey now, don't go phasing out bananas 'cos I like those...BTW, what is going to be phased in to replace them? Not that funny green stuff, is it, 'cos if it is, I want mine at the best price I can get, never mind subsidising the farmer who gets all of the best buds for free anyway...oh oh, flame coming...

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re:Yes, we have no bananas... by Forge · 1999-11-28 03:43 · Score: 1

Phasing out means _we_ won't be growing them for export. A profitable banana farm in the modern world needs to be flat and large. By large, I mean like 1/3 the size of Jamaica. This is a hilly country.

As for that green stuff :). We still grow the best but Export is ... ohm ... discouraged. Actually you aren't allowed to grow or use it either but who cares ? It's here and it's good and I will encourage anyone to fly down and use lots of it while your here.

BTW : You are talking about Thime right ?

--
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Re:Yes, we have no bananas... by dalroth5 · 1999-11-28 04:21 · Score: 1

Your first point: taken.
Your second point: I'll be there in fifteen minutes...
Oh, no, sorry, it was Lambs Breath I was on about...doh! ;^P

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
Re:Yes, we have no bananas... by Forge · 1999-11-29 12:28 · Score: 1

Lambs breath ? OK. As long as it's not Ganja
because I want to keap that for my freinds.

Ohh... you can have a little bit too, maybe a
ton or two. Drop me a line if you are ever here.
I culd show you the _real_ fun spots with girls
to match.

--
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?

This is called... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 17:46 · Score: 1

Externalizing your costs. It's a basic economic term, and you've defined it as well as anybody.

The WTO takes away your right of refusal to deal with companies and governments that engage in this sort of behavior. The environmental tariff, or the child labor tariff, penalizes countries that do this sort of thing.

This is why I chuckle at the environmentalists in this country. They want to save OUR national parks from the nasty clear cutters, but are perfectly willing to build their 3500 sq ft houses from plywood made from clear cuts in Thailand or Mexico. The floods and horrific loss of life in Mexico after the fall hurricanes was not caused by unusually bad hurricanes, but by clear cutting and the subsequent massive flooding.

Go figure. But it does illustrate the principle of externalization, that is, dumping bad consequences on some one else.

Re: waiting 10 years... by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 17:52 · Score: 1

You won't have to wait that long. I've got my eyes on a nice big chunk of California...why, it's almost as nice as southern Europe.

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re:government tokens by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 18:01 · Score: 1

Oh, in some places you can get non-governmental tokens now...why, I print dozens every day myself. Sadly, there are unscrupulous companies out there who make weird pens which can detect my tokens, but as long as you stay away from those evil creatures, I'll send you...oh, let's say $1000 worth of my tokens for only, oh, say $500. Deal?

(Please note this is intended to provoke amusement, not litigation nor hot plasma.)

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re:MS Against Duties by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 18:11 · Score: 1

Well, that's my hotmail account done with then. Thanks!

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re: lazy ass Europeans by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 18:31 · Score: 1

(Clicking the vernacular button) Yep, we like our 35 hour week, and we don't really care much if Americans want to work a 40 hour week plus unlimited unpaid evening overtime plus at least one full day every weekend ("...'cos if you don't you're not *really* a team player, are ya?").
Why don't we care? 'Cos QOL matters more to us than munny, and 'cos those Americans will all die young anyway (overwork, obesity, shot by jealous partner...) so we're gonna have the last laugh anyway.
There are only about 255M of them, and 600M of us. Flame on, chummie.

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re: Porn isn't even a problem by dalroth5 · 1999-11-27 18:37 · Score: 1

It can be a problem for novices and children because the mongers deliberately take URLs designed to trap the unwary. Surely sometime you must have hit www.whitehouse.com instead of www.whitehouse.gov?
Off topic of course, but then when wasn't I?

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re:Textiles? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 19:01 · Score: 0

I had thought that beef was the most goverment supported product - it amplifies the grain subsidies, plus subsidised water projects, plus effluent costs borne by the local goverments, plus direct goverment price supports.(and BLM subsidies in the form of below market grazing rights) Toss in goverment inspection (with the standard graft and collusion that entails) and serve in goverment subsidised school lunches (40% or more calories from fat, and you know how yummy school lunches are..yuk) Perhaps textiles are the most DIRECTLY subsidised industry.

Re: lazy ass Europeans by Hobbex · 1999-11-27 19:32 · Score: 1

I happen to agree with you on this (too a certain extent, if your job is interesting, living your job is ok by me), but that isn't really the point.

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

GOOD GOD!NO-ONE UNDERSTANDS THE WORST IMPLICATIONS by flyneye · 1999-11-27 20:33 · Score: 1

HEY,forget all that WTO garbage and this bullcrap
about Free Trade.
The ONE way the fed has to legally make money
is on tarrifs.(income tax is illegal,but thats a different discussion)all this is just another
strap on the harness that binds your slave butt.
of course theyll never be able to collect taxes on
international transactions(knock on wood).after all they cant identify individuals on the internet.Intel would never add anything to the
chips to help.logs will never be sifted through
electronically,no-one would EVER dedicate an
Echelon-like cluster merely to collect billions
of dollars.so dont worry,continue to give a third
of your money to Uncle Sam (and let him touch you
in those personal places)after all we wouldnt want
the fed making any dirty foreign money.we want to
use our money cause we're too stupid to spend it
ourselves.
-=BAH=-

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Of course they're right, and Linux sucks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 21:22 · Score: 0

Of course they're right, and Linux sucks

Accountants and Audits by winterstorm · 1999-11-27 22:08 · Score: 1

I think that "Internet Taxes" would be collected in much the same way as corporate taxes are collected presently. Companies would keep records and their accountants would file reports quarterly. The government would audit as they see fit.

I know nothing about how tariffs are collected so I can't say that this would be a likely model for tariff collection (tariffs are the actual topic of this discussion I believe).

Just because a technology is being taxed or tariff doens't mean they'll use that same technology to implement the tax or tariff system.

Thailand by ronfar · 1999-11-27 22:16 · Score: 1

In Thailand, they'll sell you MS-Word for ten bucks, the same goes for all othe MS-Office products, the same goes for lots of other stuff. My friends who are Thai think its wrong, but they told me how easy it is to get pirate goods in Thailand. Part of the reason is that the police in Thailand are very corrupt. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a cut of the pirate software business. Now, if anyone were to put tariffs on software being exported to Thailand, it would effect the legitimate business (I don't know if there is much, but I imagine that there is some) but wouldn't effect the pirate business at all. I'm not sure what the purpose of tariffs are, actually. If they are just a form of tax, then I guess they're just a way for the government to make money. On the other hand if they are supposed to keep an outside country's good from becoming the dominant product, that would certainly not be good for MS.

--
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)

Enlightened Self-Interest? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 22:16 · Score: 0

While one might applaud Microsoft's position on tariffs for internationally- transferred electronic content, I think it is important to consider some of the reasons why the company regards these as so onerous.

Sure, there's the obvious negative impact such tariffs could have on their "bottom line." But in an industry dominated by Microsoft, this is not really a problem. Witness Microsoft choosing to "maximize profit margin" on its products as revealed in the DOJ suit. They were able to do this with impunity because they simply had no competition in the target market.

Taking this into consideration, one must ask one self exactly what it is that Microsoft fears from such tariffs? I suspect the answer is Open Source. Many non-industrialized and third-world countries have already chosen Linux and other "free" solutions instead of Microsoft products. If Microsoft's products are saddled with tariffs, they will be forced to either lose additional market share in these markets or reduce their profit margin in an attempt to "compete."

So Open Source, by threatening a large and powerful commercial entity, may be indirectly contributing to the maintenance of Open (Electronic) Markets :-).

Heh, heh, heh.... by ronfar · 1999-11-27 22:44 · Score: 1

What armies does the WTO have? What intelligence organizations? How could they stand up against the US if the US told them to go to Hell?
Well, I suppose it's possible they have a method of starting the last war by getting the other nations to back them... but now we are getting into Apocalyptic visions that sound like the flip side of what the fundementalists are always claiming about the WTO being "the Beast" of the Book of Revelations. All the countries with nuclear weapons are soveriegn, all the ones without are in the spheres of influence of those countries, and nothing is likely to change that unless WTO gets its own missiles. The Soviet Union only collapsed because the one group they couldn't control with their nukes were their own citizens.

--
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)

Re:Heh, heh, heh.... by dalroth5 · 1999-11-28 02:17 · Score: 1

And there I was thinking we were sane, and democratic, and talking about trade...Hmmm. Perhaps the WTO should just eject the US as warmongers after all? (Not really, America, we love you cute little guys--you're so quaint.)

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re:Finally, something good coming out of Redmond.. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-27 23:41 · Score: 0

There's a "big lie" implicit in all the above--countries can't make and enforce and laws they want.

They still *can* make/enforce any laws they want, but they must be prepared to accept whatever sanctions are imposed for making such laws.

What you really meant to say was that the WTO makes it painful for people attempting to impose their will on people in other countries?

Some Insight and Responses by Hangtime · 1999-11-28 00:13 · Score: 2

A synopsis

I will state that I support Microsoft's appeal to the WTO for withdrawal of tariffs on software products. I will give a quick affirmative stance then I'm going to address the truthfulness or fallacy of the comments here on the board.

First, I believe any form of tariff on a good is in essence a crutch for that country, an isolationist's view of the world and a subscriber to the Archimedes idea of wealth. When tariffs are imposed it means that the consumers within that country are hurt because they are "persuaded" to buy products from that country even if those products have poor performance characteristics and/or quality associated with them. I believe that consumers should be the final judge on the merit of product in the marketplace not government. Anything else is a limit of free will. The only time tariffs should be instituted are when another government has subsidized a company to produce product below costs and dump it on another. At that point, I believe it is the government's job to step in. I say this because there is a restraint on free trade when a government props up an industry by subsidies.

Isolationists such as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in my country (USA) like to whine and point fingers at trade agreements such as NAFTA and how they are sucking the jobs out of the United States. You can take these same arguments and find them anywhere else in the world including China. The restriction of trade in essence kills any sort of competitive advantage a country has of getting ahead because they must create all the products that are needed to sustain said country. For instance the United States has the internal resources to make any product in the world including plastic toys. However, it has been found by American business that it is not a fruitful endeavor to produce them in the U.S. because of high overhead costs associated with labor prices. Therefore most all plastic toy making and assembly happen in China instead. Well what does that do for the U.S.? Now more internal resources can be spent on things that are fruitful to make in the U.S. including computers, software, equipment, etc. By recognizing something that you cannot do as well as someone else both countries benefited. For a further example I give you the Research Triangle 25 years ago, a haven of the slogging textile industry, and the border towns along the Mexican side of the line. When NAFTA allowed free trade between the U.S. and Mexico many of these textile mills that used to inhabit the southern U.S. moved to the Mexican border. Why, because it was cheaper and economically more efficient. True, many U.S. cities were stung and never recovered from factory closings, however, RTP noticing the winds of change began to invest more heavily in science and technology industries there making it what it is today one of the foremost regions in the U.S. today. So as an end result we have two regions that in Mexico has become one of the best standard of living in the whole country in a matter or 10 years and RTP which has become a center of technology and industry.

This all ties into the failed Archimedes Idea of Wealth meaning that to become richer, someone must become poorer. What do you think is the best predictor of a nations wealth? Is it how many goods were bought by someone else or is the amount and how many times money-changed hands? If you said the first your wrong. Its not the Balance of Trade that makes a country strong, it's the Balance of Payments i.e. how many times you use money to buy things. Remember money itself was meant to change hands and has no intrinsic value but when capital is used to build things, make things, do things then that is true wealth.

Selected answers for rebuttal

To the Canadian pollution response on the board.

First all, I don't know how that one got moderated up so high but here is the fallacy in the argument. Personally, I could care less as a consumer what happened environmentally in another country. You were right at the end of the article being for free will but went south by saying "But when there is a good reason, then somebody should make it clear that I am doing the world a disservice by purchasing that product." Let the market decide not some bureaucrat. If there a television special comes on and people don't like what they see, let them choose not to buy the product, don't force them not to buy it.

To the response on trying to police transactions

Kudos! What makes anybody here think that many of these small African republics can police their own transactions? Better yet, who here thinks that someone wouldn't come up with a way to sidestep transactions by going through one of these countries? Corruption is a bad thing and while I do believe in helping others I do not believe giving someone a way to harbor crime is an answer.

To the response MS is leading you into a trap

Hey when did we give up our right to regulate countries which are incorporated within our own borders? WE DIDN'T! The WTO can't do one thing to stop the court process of Microsoft. The WTO by its nature is set up to deal with international trade conflicts not internal politics of its member nations so quit acting like a chicken with its head cut-off and read some international policy books.

To the response Re: Evil capitalists and the South American / Cuba connection

The reason capitalism in South American has faltered in those countries revolves around one word, corruption. You have seen it in Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, etc. Capitalism must have strong court system and mentality that there is fairness in order to thrive. When no fair government regulations exist, self-interest takes over on politicians part and capitalism is hampered. BTW, instead of in South America where there trying to create a middle class and there are poor everywhere, you can goto Cuba where everyone is poor and their no hope for prosperity, least till Castro dies.

To the response of No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no (ok I got the idea)

Go line up with Patrick Buchanan and Ross Perot. Don't you think the reason we had a debate for a few months in Congress both sides of the chamber was to make sure we didn't give up what you speak so passionately about. BTW, no rights were taken away as American citizens. There is not even a guarantee a. the WTO will last that long and b. anyone will follow the rules. The WTO's power is with the fortitude of the nations within it to carryout policy. No one is going to try to screw their biggest trading partner, the United States of America, even China won't. We do 3% of our GDP with China they do 50% with us.

To the response of Thoughts (the one with the polysci class discussion)

What you and your class fail to comprehend two things. One what you talk about is colonialism with manufactured goods. Actually the case is quite reverse from your own discussion. Most corporations moving into other countries i.e. GE, Coca-Cola, Maytag, use companies in other countries already established so that don't have to deal with local customs and regulations. This is the same way when either opening up a manufacturing plant or distributing a product in another country. The VAST majority of companies will not go into another country alone for one very good reason, ITS RISKY! If your interested, I can point in the direction of some articles on this subject. Two, your arguments about software do not take into account the benefit of using more polished software on existing industry. Say the Ivory Coast imposed a 500% tariff on Microsoft Office. Of course, this might spur some local people to get together and try to produce an alternative but wouldn't the better solution be to keep importing Microsoft Office but to also encourage through investment someone to come up with better or add-on software? It's the difference between competing and combining forces.

Well I'm tired and that's enough for the day.
Later.

OOOPS... da mirror on crack!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 00:16 · Score: 0

The monopoly power, presented by the courts, is a nice suggestion to microsoft to "Open Up", ala Open Source. Anotherwords... not enough people navagate da boat! If they do not... The company might find themselves in a bar, about to take a drink, and hear the words 86'ed!!! Muy suggestion... look at their [own] reflection... it might "Turn on a Light"... ah... ah... yeah... new perspective on how to turn a buck!

I apologize for my rhetoric. by evilad · 1999-11-28 02:27 · Score: 1

I'm concerned about selfish foreign entities dictating policy to my government. If that's an agenda, so be it.

I do care about the people of the world and I am in favour of the international co-operation you refer to. I am opposed to the value of that co-operation being evaluated strictly in monetary terms. I am also opposed to that co-operation being externally imposed upon national governments, who, as I have pointed out, exist for a reason.

If you wish to address China's human rights record, perhaps you should question the policy of _requiring_ my country to trade freely with them. I believe that to do so serves neither my people nor theirs.

I apologize for my earlier tirade. It was very late when I wrote it. I have attempted to simplify my stand and remove the psychobabble. Is it possible that you might reiterate your argument, and remove _your_ rhetoric?

Re: representative democracy by dalroth5 · 1999-11-28 02:59 · Score: 1

I completely agree that too many times our governments turn out not to be very representative at all. I vote in my rep. on issues A, B, and C, only to have it arrive at the seat of power and vote completely the wrong way (IMO, of course) on new issues D, E and F. Happens all the time.
We've heard about 'true democracy', also sometimes known as 'true anarchy', but that requires us to stay at home all the time 'cos we've got to vote, vote, vote all those referenda.
Even with the Internet, even if unique IDs were possible, we probably still wouldn't want to do that. Representatives it is, then. Doh! And if so, the WTO.

--
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF

Re:Finally, something good coming out of Redmond.. by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-11-28 03:00 · Score: 2

Did I understate that I feel that powerful Americans are also responsible for this lousy state of affairs? They think that they WTO has power, and they respond accordingly. Unfortunately for us, those dopes themselves have power here and we get screwed over.

But I don't like there being a body which has very great and nearly-unassailiable power over me, but which is not accountable to me. The WTO is representative of governments (and largely of corporations), but that's not the same as being representative of the people. It should be, but it's not.

I don't care if Foosylvania imposes a tarriff on US goods for something. Because hopefully, that's what the people of Foosylvania want. But no one has the right to override Foosylvania's decision. There are consequences and ramifications to any act, and that one's not somehow exempt; you have to be prepared to live with the results of your actions. But I wouldn't want every other country in the world to suddenly tell them that they can go to hell unless that's actually what each and every one of them, on an individual basis, each representing the will of their people, wants. The WTO as it presently stands seems to not be doing this. That's my problem with them.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Being Mired in Debt is What Government is About by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 03:13 · Score: 0

Most governments entire money supplies are based on currencies underwritten in debt. If the entire US debt were to be paid off the money supply would practically evaporate.

In any case, I hope most governmment disappears. I'd be satisfied if all government did was punish people for force or fraud, adhere to a limited constitution and protect its citizens against invasion (and that can be provided by local militias coordinated regionally -- if you don't believe it ask the Swiss)

There are very few government functions that can't be provided more efficiently in the private sector. Schools can be paid for by the attendents and those who can't afford schools can receive charity scholarships. If you cant get charity then educate yourself. Books are relatively cheap and the best of books are much better educators than the best of professors.

Practically the judicial system, jails, roads and military should be government based. The roads should be maintained by a group of constantly competing contractors -- same for other utilities (phones, cable, sewers, water etc). The utilities will be paid for by usage based fees paid to the current contractor.

Taxes necessary for the rest of the system would be paid for by a minimal sales tax collected by regional governments (in the US -- the states) and a percentage would be forwarded to the federal government. If the federal government gets out of hand the states could hold the taxes in escrow until the state representatives deem the federal government in compliance with a constitution.

That is the way the system should work. No need for the WTO. Freedom does not lie in that direction. The power to tax is the power to control and potentially destroy. I don't need control from the WTO. The WTO is literally taxation without representation. Political appointee flunkies don't count as representation.s

Sincerely,
Forbin

Microsoft Passport, eWallet threatened by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 04:10 · Score: 0

Of course MS doesn't want tariffs. They plan (actually currently have implemented) a scheme to insert themselves in the middle of as many online transactions as possible, taking a cut, of course. Passport, eWallet of course. MS touts Passport as a standard for storage of personal information, but the question they can't answer is why this information shouldn't be stored locally on the user's own equipment. The standard is an ok idea, but of course it is not the point. The point is to get into your (e)Wallet. Once a vendor begins using Passport services it will be very diffult to back out. Soon we'll find Microsoft tithing our transactions the same way they now tithe our computer usage. You can help crush this incipient threat by rejecting vendors who utilize Passport. Be sure to explain why!

Re:Microsoft Passport, eWallet threatened by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 08:48 · Score: 0

That is appearent... especially when you say "Microsoft" and "Micrasoft".

Careful now...

Why MSFT is wrong and the Enviros are right by WillAffleck · 1999-11-28 04:13 · Score: 2

OK, maybe some of you still remember the days when you coded for free or the thrill of it all, back before you were in on the IPOs (Red Hat, at $250 next week?), but here's a little World Economics 101 from someone who's invested hundreds of thousands overseas and thus profited from the WTO.

1. MSFT's idea about a moratorium on Net Taxes. Bad Idea. Look, read some Shakespeare, crack the spine, it's "Death and Taxes" that you can't avoid. Privacy costs, dude. Taxes will happen - either hidden in manufacturers or sellers costs, or out in the open with a VAT or GST, but it's gonna get you and you might as well deal with it.

2. Why the Enviros are right. Yes, you heard me, they're right. Any economic system is a system of "theoretical" laws which impose an arbitrary system of rules upon transactions. Without these, we don't get what are called "public services" and then only the rich (me, not you) can afford to pay what it really costs. All production has true costs - environmental pollution (yes, EVERYTHING causes pollution, just to varying degrees, some of which is easier to recycle through the environment or mechanical means), mineral costs, labor, water (this last one is more critical than you realize), and so on. Any "world trade" system must either assign a cost to pay for the pollution, or subsidize it at the cost of the receivers of pollution (hint - not the rich states). A system which allows corrupt politicians that people like me bribe to argue in my interests so that their country gets the "invisible" pollution quite literally stinks.

You can argue about how trade is really free till you're blue in the face (great, if you're a Celt), but it ain't. And when you make some serious bucks off of trade, I might listen to your rantings about how MSFT is right and the Enviros are wrong, but that won't happen anytime soon.

--
Will in Seattle

Much ado about a real battle by WillAffleck · 1999-11-28 04:24 · Score: 2

Well, all the planes were booked up solid from Santa Barbara and San Francisco, so I had to come back Saturday with my son. Tons of limos and press people flooding in. Not much banner hanging - the main stuff is in NYC or Paris really. Bunches of marches, none of which will be visible by the WTO attendees. Counter demonstration by right wing nutcases who can't count at the Space Needle monday night. Probably, in a city with about half a million population, you're looking at 50,000 to 100,000 protesters, mostly local churches, labor groups, and environmental groups.

Massive silence on the part of the media - they're pretending like nothing's happening, so as not to scare away all the tourists. Docks will shut down tuesday, so will a lot of other things (I get to telecommute).

--
Will in Seattle

There is no agenda this year by WillAffleck · 1999-11-28 04:27 · Score: 2

Didn't you catch that? We (the US) tried to bluff and get our way (labor issues) and the EU tried to bluff and get their way (enviro issues), and the rest of the countries didn't vote for either, so ...

No Agenda This Year

Not that that changes any of the deal-making. Had fun on the plane rides with some of the attendees - quite amusing.

--
Will in Seattle

...sure, they're one to talk by iceT · 1999-11-28 05:06 · Score: 1

This from the same company that, if you run a web site driven by a SQL*Server Database, you have to buy an unlimited-user license for SQL*Server... Can you say $22,000?

--
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.

Sales tax by seanb · 1999-11-28 05:43 · Score: 2

Your post relies on the assumption that sales tax of some form is needed to keep governments from being "mired in debt."

Many states and nations do quite well today without sales tax of any form. In fact, meny people are completely opposed to the idea of sales tax because it is "too regressive."

I suspect that in 100 years, governments will still be able to tax property and income. Even if they are unable to tax you for spending your money, they will be able to tax you for earning your money and for having your money!

Re:Finally, something good coming out of Redmond.. by Pointman · 1999-11-28 06:58 · Score: 1

And, accourding to the US Constitution, ratified treaties have force of law over even the Constitution. Therefore, when GATT and NAFTA were ratified by the US, the US has agreed that it is the supreme law. We're screwed....

Artical VI Section 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--
Smith & Wesson: The original Point-and-Click interface.

Re:M$ Against Duties - 22 cents Meg in Australia by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 12:21 · Score: 0

Already have them. ISDN costs a fortune, plus 22 cents per megabyte. Basically, we only have one telco over here. I exagerate - its not duties per se, but a telco doing well indeed. M$ will face problems because of this - if they want this online download scheme. I may be wrong - but is there not a 22% tax on software imports too??

Re:what about redhat - OK if less than $100 (AU60 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 12:40 · Score: 0

In Australia, if the duty is 22% and total duty is less than $20 local currency- customs lets it through - duty free - as 'not worth the paperwork' - (except booze, drugs and fags, and undesirable publications). So 2 or 3 CD's - no problems is a fair rule. Any thing more than the cost of a parking ticket - the govt wants a cut.

WTO has moved far beyond tariffs... by homunq · 1999-11-28 13:43 · Score: 2

Since the WTO sees everything through the lens of trade, any law that could affect trade counts as a tariff to them. That includes environmental laws (such as the famous sea turtle ruling among many others), labor laws, human rights laws, etc. Would it be free trade if UCITA-like provisions are rammed down sovreign countries throats (by punitive tariffs), as could very well be a consequence of the Seattle TRIPS (trade-related IP) negotiations?

The WTO puts unprecedented power to challenge laws into the hands of corporations. Anyone who thinks that they won't try to use that new power for whatever purpose suits them, rather than just legitimate free trade, is deluded.

(And see the text of the sea turtle ruling, linked above, for the WTO's attitude towards open process... basically, if you're not a government or a corporation with money on the line, don't bother sending them briefs, they won't even read them.)

--
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3

The WTO Doesn't benefit poor countries! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 14:05 · Score: 0

"The WTO is a tool of the capitalist countries to force their economical model (capitalism, of course) on those countries"

I'm not a big fan of capitalism, but trade has historically been very biased. Wealthy countries have benefited because they have been able to set the terms of trade with other nations to favour themselves.

The WTO undermines local development and penalizes poor countries

The WTO's "most favored nation" provisions requires all WTO member countries to treat each other equally and to treat all corporations from these countries equally regardless of their track record. Local policies aimed at rewarding companies who hire local residents, use domestic materials, or adopt environmentally sound practices are essentially illegal under the WTO. Under the WTO rules, developing countries are prohibited from following the same polices that developed countries pursued, such as protecting nascent, domestic industries until they can be internationally competitive.

for more information check out:
http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/rulemakers /topTenReasons.html
and http://www.wtocaravan.org

Media Silence by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 15:24 · Score: 0

"Massive silence on the part of the media - they're pretending like nothing's happening, so as not to scare away all the tourists."

The media is being pretty quiet on this issue. For something that will affect our environment, health care, education, and job security, it is being kept to the business section of the papers if it appears anywhere at all.

However, other media does exist and is available for Radio, TV & Newspapers, even if they can't afford to send someone to Seattle or give them time to become an expert. Live Video and Audio Feeds will be available. Alternative Media is hopping on this issue. For more information on WTO protests.

Democracy and the WTO by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 16:00 · Score: 0

"We have no such hope wrt the WTO; they serve the best intrests of real people in name but not in deed. "

I was just going to add part of "10 Reasons to Dismantle the WTO", by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, but I started reading it again and thought that it applied to this discussion, so:

1. The WTO prioritizes trade and commercial considerations over all other values. WTO rules generally require domestic laws, rules and regulations designed to further worker, consumer, environmental, health, safety, human rights, animal protection or other non-commercial interests to be undertaken in the "least trade restrictive" fashion possible -- almost never is trade subordinated to these noncommercial concerns.
2. The WTO undermines democracy. Its rules drastically shrink the choices available to democratically controlled governments, with violations potentially punished with harsh penalties. The WTO actually touts this overriding of domestic decisions about how economies should be organized and corporations controlled. "Under WTO rules, once a commitment has been made to liberalize a sector of trade, it is difficult to reverse," the WTO says in a paper on the benefits of the organization which is published on its web site. "Quite often, governments use the WTO as a welcome external constraint on their policies: 'we can't do this because it would violate the WTO agreements.'"
3. The WTO does not just regulate, it actively promotes, global trade. Its rules are biased to facilitate global commerce at the expense of efforts to promote local economic development and policies that move communities, countries and regions in the direction of greater self-reliance.
4. The WTO hurts the Third World. WTO rules force Third World countries to open their markets to rich country multinationals, and abandon efforts to protect infant domestic industries. In agriculture, the opening to foreign imports, soon to be imposed on developing countries, will catalyze a massive social dislocation of many millions of rural people.
5. The WTO eviscerates the Precautionary Principle. WTO rules generally block countries from acting in response to potential risk -- requiring a probability before governments can move to resolve harms to human health or the environment.
6. The WTO squashes diversity. WTO rules establish international health, environmental and other standards as a global ceiling through a process of "harmonization;" countries or even states and cities can only exceed them by overcoming high hurdles.
7. The WTO operates in secrecy. Its tribunals rule on the "legality" of nations' laws, but carry out their work behind closed doors.
8. The WTO limits governments' ability to use their purchasing dollar for human rights, environmental, worker rights and other non-commercial purposes. In general, WTO rules state that governments can make purchases based only on quality and cost considerations.
9. The WTO disallows bans on imports of goods made with child labor. In general, WTO rules do not allow countries to treat products differently based on how they were produced -- irrespective of whether made with brutalized child labor, with workers exposed to toxics or with no regard for species protection.
10. The WTO legitimizes life patents. WTO rules permit and in some cases require patents or similar exclusive protections for life forms.

It is a pretty concise list of upcoming threats

See the WTO Caravan for more info

ummm... by Oblio · 1999-11-28 18:43 · Score: 1

I think you are reading this wrong.

What they are saying is that treaties, like the constitution, are "the law of the land" and override the state constitutions and state law.

--
Pax -- Ob

Re:ummm... by Pointman · 1999-11-30 20:49 · Score: 1

My poorly put point exactly. The Supreme Court seems to think otherwise, though, and has ruled otherwise. Of course they're dumbasses, too.

--
Smith & Wesson: The original Point-and-Click interface.

Re:Finally, something good coming out of Redmond.. by Oblio · 1999-11-28 18:50 · Score: 1

I can't really think of any good reasons to use a tariff except possibly leveraging "big country" buying power to optimize trade levels. There are almost always better ways of changing behaviors or seeking non-economic solutions than tariffs.

To the extent that the WTO reduces tariffs, I would say it is a success, however, you can see in economic data that non-tariff barriers have actually risen at higher rates than tariff barriers have fallen. As a matter of fact, there are so many ways of duplicating the effect of a tariff, without actually imposing one that I would argue that the WTO is practically ineffectual as an economic machine.

What the WTO is efficacious at is political change. (I'm not sure what this is worth, but I think it is true).

I guess the long and the short of it is that the WTO serves a very valid purpose, doesn't effectively limit the soveriegnty of the nation, and actually does some good.

--
Pax -- Ob

Tariffs aren't that important by Oblio · 1999-11-28 19:09 · Score: 1

Tariffs are one way to achieve an import restriction. There are many effective non-tariff barriers. Hell, If I ran a exporting country, no one would ever tariff me: I would immediately enact VERs to counter the effects of the tariff (or at least to reap their "rent").

My whole point is that tariffs just don't matter that much. If you have a non-economic goal that you want to support (say environmental protection), you can simply use a non-tariff measure to achieve your goal without WTO intervention.

Of course, I would argue that this is a bad idea. Trade simply isn't that important. Maybe 3% of GDP tops (see Krugman on this). If you have a policy in mind, you should target that policy directly, not through a secondary channel. Find a political solution through a treaty, don't eat the welfare inefficiency associated with price control.

As an aside, I would say that the "credible threat" of tariffs are actually more important than tariffs themselves. But now I'm rambling... =)

--
Pax -- Ob

Microsoft is Intelligent by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-28 19:40 · Score: 0

To Quote: Vergnes presented a Microsoft ``white paper'' on electronic issues and world..... Oh look, they have figured out that paper is white. Well done Bill. Now fix your software you fucking morons!!!!!!!!

Damn Straight! (kinda) by Oblio · 1999-11-28 19:54 · Score: 1

Paul Krugman said (paraphrased)"You go to a doctor for medical advice, and you go to a lawyer for legal advice, so why do people take economic advice from people who aren't economists?".

Of course Krugman doesn't make many freinds. =)

In any event, I agree. What was more interesting was the classification of software as "good" or "service". MS favors the status quo of "good", while leveraging a licensing scheme. You purchase the "licence to use a good" rather than a service. Seems kind of a thin line to me.

On textiles, I'm not sure that textiles are the most heavily subsidized, but the MFA (Multi Fibre Agreement) is certainly the most complicated stack of international law I think you could find.

--
Pax -- Ob

Poorly done rant by Felinoid · 1999-11-28 21:34 · Score: 1

Eeek it was a poorly done rant I did...

I'm basicly trying to say it's good to put a hold on teriffs becouse I feel the people in power are to ignorent of technology to do any sort of software tarif with out doing masive damage.

It's not clear becouse it's a really stupid rant... It takes a lot of digging and I'm sorry for the low quality of my post...

--
I don't actually exist.

Monday scorecard: Police 2, Mayor 3, Protesters 4 by WillAffleck · 1999-11-29 05:35 · Score: 2

Well, it's been groovy in Seattle so far. Went and deposited my E*Trade check (yeah, cashed out of RHAT at $119, but my new townhouse closes next Tuesday, so am still happy) and tons of protestors. Mostly Qui Lin Gong (you know, that Chinese Spiritual Movement they lock in prison for life, and there's a HQ just East of Seattle) with 2-3 people on every streetcorner. Hundreds of them.

Then got to Washington Mutual at Westlake Center, past the carousel and police city. Must have been 50 cops in 5 blocks. Protesters can only get within 2 blocks of the Convention Center. I just wanted lunch at the Blowfish Cafe, but would have had to walk 8 more blocks, so gave in and ate at the Westin (where tons of delegates staying, and media). Got a nice view of the Turtle March - hundreds of them, a nice giant Whale, probably 1000 protesters, with ok signs. Police were cool, protesters were cool, very Seattle.

Protesters shut down the Convention Center though, via telephone. And I got a bonus parade during lunch. Had interesting discussions with hotel staff, some pro-trade, one from El Salvador who was worried that there might be riots and all. Told them so long as the police let us get our Lattees, we'll be fine.

--
Will in Seattle

Re:Finally, something good coming out of Redmond.. by Pointman · 1999-12-01 01:36 · Score: 1

For those asking for references on this:

The first such Supreme Court ruling was in the case, Ware vs. Hylton in 1796 (1). The taking of Hylton's property to fulfill a treaty with Great
Britain, in violation of the "due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment was upheld.

In a more recent case, Missouri vs. Holland (2), the Supreme Court decided in 1920 that powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution could be given to the national government by treaty.

In 1942, the doctrine that treaties supersede or over-ride the Constitution was extended to apply to executive agreements negotiated by the President,
or in the name of the President by members of the bureaucracy. In this case, United States vs. Pink (3), the Court held that a personal agreement
between President Roosevelt and the Russian Foreign Minister, Litvinov, nullified provisions of the lasws of New York state, and of the American
Constitution, which forbid confiscation of private property.

Footnotes:

1: 3 Dall 199, as quoted, MacBride, Treaties vs the Constitution, pg 41
2: 252 US 416 (1920)
3: 315 US 203 (1942)

--
Smith & Wesson: The original Point-and-Click interface.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Asks WTO Not to Impose Software Tariffs

201 comments