thinktank says US will owe $100 billion [Archive]

DeadMoneyDad

10-14-2007, 09:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It so funny to me when I saw Bush and the Republicans on TV today talking about how much "free trade" helps the economy of the US and the world. Yet they are so against free trade when it comes to protecting the horse racing lobby and other people who stuff money in their pockets so they will fight to ban internet poker. Typical Republican hypocrisy at it's finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who beleives most politicans from either party has a bad beat in their future.

D$D

Mr Sarcastic

10-15-2007, 11:40 AM

Who is going to collect ? The Belgian military ?

JavaNut

10-15-2007, 01:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who is going to collect ? The Belgian military ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really get it do you? Nobody has to collect anything. If US do not comply the end will be that any US patent or any copyrighted material can be 'pirated' legally. No US exports, no US economy. The days when the US industry drove the world economy has been over for decades, and the former eastern block and china have only started turning the wheels. Remember when the USD was close to the GBP? How is it these days? How is the US trade deficit and the budget deficit? US is relying heavily on the rest of the world to keep the wheels turning.

If US isolates itself from the rest of the world it will be 1929 over again, except the rest of the world won't really feel the effect.

So to answer your question, the Andorran Navy will do just nicely.

AKA Squared

10-15-2007, 01:45 PM

Oh, you'll feel it.

bwehrm

10-15-2007, 01:54 PM

This whole issue is rapidly becoming a major economic story for the US. Why has this not been part of the political discussion, specifically the recent debates?

meleader2

10-15-2007, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This whole issue is rapidly becoming a major economic story for the US. Why has this not been part of the political discussion, specifically the recent debates?

[/ QUOTE ]

because the american public as a whole is a retard who can't feed themselves

JPFisher55

10-15-2007, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This whole issue is rapidly becoming a major economic story for the US. Why has this not been part of the political discussion, specifically the recent debates?

[/ QUOTE ]

because the american public as a whole is a retard who can't feed themselves

[/ QUOTE ]
That includes our most of our major media outlets, politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

DeadMoneyDad

10-15-2007, 03:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This whole issue is rapidly becoming a major economic story for the US. Why has this not been part of the political discussion, specifically the recent debates?

[/ QUOTE ]

because the american public as a whole is a retard who can't feed themselves

[/ QUOTE ]
That includes our most of our major media outlets, politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lately I've been classifying US citizens into two groups.

Those that have a hole in their heads,

and,

those that have their head in a hole.....

D$D

Karak567

10-15-2007, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is going to collect ? The Belgian military ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really get it do you? Nobody has to collect anything. If US do not comply the end will be that any US patent or any copyrighted material can be 'pirated' legally. No US exports, no US economy. The days when the US industry drove the world economy has been over for decades, and the former eastern block and china have only started turning the wheels. Remember when the USD was close to the GBP? How is it these days? How is the US trade deficit and the budget deficit? US is relying heavily on the rest of the world to keep the wheels turning.

If US isolates itself from the rest of the world it will be 1929 over again, except the rest of the world won't really feel the effect.

So to answer your question, the Andorran Navy will do just nicely.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know nothing about economics, obviously.

DeadMoneyDad

10-15-2007, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is going to collect ? The Belgian military ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really get it do you? Nobody has to collect anything. If US do not comply the end will be that any US patent or any copyrighted material can be 'pirated' legally. No US exports, no US economy. The days when the US industry drove the world economy has been over for decades, and the former eastern block and china have only started turning the wheels. Remember when the USD was close to the GBP? How is it these days? How is the US trade deficit and the budget deficit? US is relying heavily on the rest of the world to keep the wheels turning.

If US isolates itself from the rest of the world it will be 1929 over again, except the rest of the world won't really feel the effect.

So to answer your question, the Andorran Navy will do just nicely.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know nothing about economics, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny enough it was all the "smart money" that was jumping from high buildings almost exactly 78 years ago. The average guy's only concern was getting landed on by the "smart money"!

D$D

JavaNut

10-15-2007, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You know nothing about economics, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only macro and micro economics at university level, a quite bit beyond the 101 stuff you get in college.

So I guess that you teach post grad economics? Or hold a doctorate in economics? Or?

Ace0fSpades

10-15-2007, 07:15 PM

OK, so suppose this happens and the US is forced back into WTO, etc; what is the outcome of all this? Does this mean that US players will no longer be restricted from currently banned sites? If so, I'm assuming the US will put regulations in place. Is another possible outcome that the US provides regulated sites only? I'm trying to see the bigger picture.

bwehrm

10-15-2007, 07:59 PM

Yeah it seems to get tricky at that point. How is the Fed going to make the States allow online gambling?

yjbrewer

10-15-2007, 08:24 PM

The Us is a bunch f gangstas. We tell peole they cant have nukes but we have em. We invade countries for no reason. So what someone says we owe 1 billion. Do u think we will pay. We will laugh at the face of the world and they will still ask us for protection. Damn I hate repupblicans!

DeadMoneyDad

10-15-2007, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so suppose this happens and the US is forced back into WTO, etc; what is the outcome of all this? Does this mean that US players will no longer be restricted from currently banned sites? If so, I'm assuming the US will put regulations in place. Is another possible outcome that the US provides regulated sites only? I'm trying to see the bigger picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bigger picture is the US will at some point have US based on-line poker sites.

Either they will be forced to accept off-shore sites, or someone will force them to accept a new or existing US site. Or some combination of the the three.

The $365 Billion dollar question is how big a bet will it take for the US gov't to fold.....

D$D

yjbrewer

10-16-2007, 12:01 AM

The US has pocket AA suited and they just flop 7 of a kind. Some one tell Bush what to do and he will blow them up? I dont see any major changes until Hillary or Obama get in office.

Legislurker

10-16-2007, 12:54 AM

this has devolved into BBV/zoo type bickering. Maybe withdrawl with Milton seems enticing.

Thremp

10-16-2007, 01:11 AM

Karak,

I think not following this ruling will give China and other far eastern economies free reign on violating US copyright laws which the US has been trying to get them to follow. It'd be a huge setback in that regard.

DeadMoneyDad

10-16-2007, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Karak,

I think not following this ruling will give China and other far eastern economies free reign on violating US copyright laws which the US has been trying to get them to follow. It'd be a huge setback in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US will IMO have to block all on-line gaming or lisence it. There seems to be no middle position.

Although I could see a Wexler type poker on-line solution making all this go away for the US and the current administration. I just don't see it happening before Jan 2009 at the soonest.

D$D

whangarei

10-16-2007, 04:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Although I could see a Wexler type poker on-line solution making all this go away for the US and the current administration.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

A Wexler-type poker solution does not make the WTO issue go away. DUCY?

xxThe_Lebowskixx

10-16-2007, 04:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Karak,

I think not following this ruling will give China and other far eastern economies free reign on violating US copyright laws which the US has been trying to get them to follow. It'd be a huge setback in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I think this is similar to China's copyright issues in the sense that the ruling is completing meaningless.

Richas

10-16-2007, 07:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I think this is similar to China's copyright issues in the sense that the ruling is completing meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. China can claim that they have illegal copying that they try to prevent and in any case the US does not really want sanctions on Chineses goods that keep Wal Mart prices low. The US position on China is to persuade them to do more, occasionaly talking tough.

In this case it is definitely the US government and Antigua can benefit by using the IPR sanctions plus the EU and the ROW will happily have a pop at some parts of the US export trade and demand greater access to US markets in other areas.

The US will be facing a big cost to maintain UIGEA and the Wire Act, China has little to fear in terms of US sanctions given their huge trade surplus and because all they need to do is gaol a few more pirates to be off the hook.

Skallagrim

10-16-2007, 11:54 AM

It will all depend on the price tag. The US is no position to totally withdraw from GATTS and the WTO. The current US administration will never back off its anti-gambling stance unless forced to by congress. Congress will only force the issue if the price tag is big enough to hurt. That will depend on the outcome of the pending hearings.

Small price tag, Bush Admin will pay it.

Big price tag, Bush Admin will want to pay, but Congress will act (money talks). Congress' action would have to be either a total ban on online gambling or a totally open to foreign competition but regulated market.

The out of the box solution would be for Congress to authorize (and maybe regulate) all online skill gaming (and include their pet projects like pari-mutual horse racing and fantasy sports as skill games - and hopefully poker) while banning all online games of chance (and define sportsbetting as a game of chance to placate the leagues). This isnt quite the Wexler bill, but the Wexler bill is a good place to start.

Skallagrim

JPFisher55

10-16-2007, 12:05 PM

IMO, if and when the WTO grants Antiqua's request to lawfully ignore their IP obligations to US, then the music, movie and entertainment industry tells DEMS fix it or no more money. Soon thereafter, a bill to repeal UIGEA and exempt online gambling from all federal gambling laws is attached to must pass Iraq funding or other must pass budget bill.
However, no IP sanction and the Bush administration can skate. The legitimacy of the WTO is at stake. It either grants Antiqua's request or no small to medium nation, and most large ones, will not honor its decisions.

Vex

10-16-2007, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The out of the box solution would be for Congress to authorize (and maybe regulate) all online skill gaming (and include their pet projects like pari-mutual horse racing and fantasy sports as skill games - and hopefully poker) while banning all online games of chance (and define sportsbetting as a game of chance to placate the leagues). This isnt quite the Wexler bill, but the Wexler bill is a good place to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible idea.

1> It is not up to Congress to "authorize" anything. Everything is supposed to be legal unless it is made illegal by law, not the other way around.

2> Splitting hairs is dangerous. What if poker ends up on the wrong side of the skill vs. chance split? Facts don't matter here; they rarely do in politics.

3> It is not up to Congress or anyone else in the Federal Government to determine what is or isn't gambling. That's a state power.

Skallagrim

10-16-2007, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The out of the box solution would be for Congress to authorize (and maybe regulate) all online skill gaming (and include their pet projects like pari-mutual horse racing and fantasy sports as skill games - and hopefully poker) while banning all online games of chance (and define sportsbetting as a game of chance to placate the leagues). This isnt quite the Wexler bill, but the Wexler bill is a good place to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible idea.

1> It is not up to Congress to "authorize" anything. Everything is supposed to be legal unless it is made illegal by law, not the other way around.

2> Splitting hairs is dangerous. What if poker ends up on the wrong side of the skill vs. chance split? Facts don't matter here; they rarely do in politics.

3> It is not up to Congress or anyone else in the Federal Government to determine what is or isn't gambling. That's a state power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

1) the choice Congress will be forced to make if the WTO sanctions are significant is simple: Ban all online gaming or ban none. Which do you really think is more likely, especially with the NFL/FOF/nanny-staters putting the pressure on? Your otherwise correct statement that congress doesnt authorize things is irrelevant.

2) Poker could end up on the wrong side, yes. But you have to play politics - if all online gaming is banned to comply with the WTO, poker is already on the wrong side.

3) States rights are not relevant here - the internet is by definition and design "interstate commerce." Thats a Federal responsibility under the Constitution. A state can say what it wants about gambling within its borders, but the Feds get to say what they want about gambling across borders. Plus states rights are irrelevant to the WTO.

The major point is that there is virtually zero support for legalized online sportsbetting, and plenty of well financed opposition. My "out of the box" idea was to find a way to keep poker OK without having to make sportsbetting OK. You got a better idea? Lets hear it if you do.

Skallagrim

bwehrm

10-16-2007, 01:09 PM

There has to be some relevance in regards to states rights and the WTO, at least indirectly. If the Feds allow gambling but a state does not, won't that still cause free trade conflicts with the WTO?

DeadMoneyDad

10-16-2007, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I could see a Wexler type poker on-line solution making all this go away for the US and the current administration.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

A Wexler-type poker solution does not make the WTO issue go away. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is DUCY? Dumb Unknowing Chatty Yahoo?

Wexler type bill makes a good potion of the WTO go away on the skills game bit. Congress might be able to live with that. We don't know unless they can some how complete the circle.

The US then says it is established law long before GATT that unresitricted sports type betting is and had been illegal. (almost 50 years of established Wire Act law)

First Congress has to repeal the UIGEA.

Then Congress writes a decent bill that creates a level playing field for all prospective, past and current operators can operate under. The easy solution...

This will not happen as the B&M's figure they have the muscle to keep anyone who "violated" the UIGEA from getting a shot at the US market. This is why PP got out of the market, they want a future on-line room.

If Mason and Bluff are right this is why control of the PPA board is important as FT & PS are the most likey to be thrown under the bus and have the most to loose.

So forget and ignore the unrestricted sports book hype, it just isn't going to happen, if they push too hard they will gum up the works for the on-line poker world. We have enough problems as it is without their help!

D$D

AKA Squared

10-16-2007, 01:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Only macro and micro economics at university level, a quite bit beyond the 101 stuff you get in college.

So I guess that you teach post grad economics? Or hold a doctorate in economics? Or?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's rewind the tape, shall we?

[ QUOTE ]
No US exports, no US economy. ... How is the US trade deficit...

[/ QUOTE ]

So we're in the weaker position because we sell things to the rest of the world, and we're in the weaker position because the rest of the world sells things to us. I guess "university level" doesn't teach you how to manage a coherent paragraph.

JPFisher55

10-16-2007, 02:52 PM

Congress will not ban off-track pari-mutual horse racing because the horse racing lobby and industry donate too much to Congress. Congress will not ban online fantasy sports because the operators and sports leagues, major donors, want online fantasy sports. Congress will not ban online state lotteries because the affected states would leave the union and we cannot fight a civil war again. Ok the affected states could not afford all the federal mandated spending and would go bankrupt; same thing.
So the only alternative is permit all online gambling. Then after a few years, Congress will pass a law permitting licensed and regulated online gambling businesses to operate from US at high tax rate. Ok Congress might try a IGREA solution, but this will not fly with WTO. No other nation taxes or regulates foreign online gambling sites, not even UK.
But I think that the granting of the IP sanction is only 50/50 and now Jay says decision may take to 1st quarter of 2008. So anything will take a long time.

whangarei

10-16-2007, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What is DUCY? Dumb Unknowing Chatty Yahoo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do U C Y -- I think it's a Sklansky thing.

[ QUOTE ]
The US then says it is established law long before GATT that unresitricted sports type betting is and had been illegal. (almost 50 years of established Wire Act law)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no international trade lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this argument doesn't make the WTO issue go away.

Jay Cohen

10-16-2007, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I could see a Wexler type poker on-line solution making all this go away for the US and the current administration.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

A Wexler-type poker solution does not make the WTO issue go away. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wexler type bill makes a good potion of the WTO go away on the skills game bit. The US then says it is established law long before GATT that unresitricted sports type betting is and had been illegal. (almost 50 years of established Wire Act law)

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite to the contrary, the Wexler bill would bring the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

If the US is claiming they have a moral problem with remote gaming, adding more while still blocking foreign competitors does not bring them closer to compliance.

The WTO doesn't make any artificial distinctions among types of gambling. If it were about skill, lotteries would be gone way before sports.

Skallagrim

10-16-2007, 04:33 PM

Jay, as usual, is absolutely right on this issue.

But he isn't as sneaky as me. The part of GATTS at issue does not specifically define "gambling" but it does pretty much require all online gambling or no online gambling.

So the US Congress defines "gambling." And does it in a way that allows things most people support (which Al D. and the PPA will insure includes poker) and excludes things most people dislike (sports betting and to a lesser extent slots and other classic "against the house" games). Of course everything not defined as gambling has to allow for foreign competition.

At the very least, the US CAN THEN ARGUE that it is complying with the WTO ruling. And poor Antigua and Jay can start another round of litigation. I dont like what that does to Antigua and JC, but I feel I have to think of us poker players first.

Skallagrim

AKA Squared

10-16-2007, 04:39 PM

There are, of course, non-arbitrary reasons to distinguish poker from player-vs-house games.

JPFisher55

10-16-2007, 04:56 PM

Skall, I think you know that argument has already been settled by the WTO. Their panel decision used a very broad definition of gambling. The WTO will not accept a narrower definition of gambling. I agree that it is all or nothing. But I don't see how the US could be further out of compliance with the WTO; more hypocritical maybe, but that would be difficult.
But I am not sure that the WTO will really enforce its ruling by IP trade sanction. Like most international organizations, with the UN in the lead, it may take a lesser action that renders its decisions meaningless. I hope not, but I think it's a coin flip.

Skallagrim

10-16-2007, 05:27 PM

Various games were discussed in the WTO opinions JP, but I cant recall where they specifically defined "gambling." I know the original agreement has no specific definition of "gambling services."

Just because everyone assumes it means certain things, doesnt necessarily mean those assumptions are true.

Mr. Cohen is the expert here, and I will deffer to him or anyone else who can show me a WTO definition of what is or is not gambling. But I see no reason why, for example, the US could not ban all online gambling and rule that poker is not "gambling." Hell, why cant we declare it a "sport" like they did in Russia?

Skallagrim

Jay Cohen

10-16-2007, 05:33 PM

Fuether out of complaince in the sense that they either need to allow access to Antiguan companies or eliminate all remote gambling. They would be adding one more type, but maybe it's like being more pregnant. Who knows?

Besides they would still have remote sports wagering in Nevada which completely obliterates any argument against sports.

Antigua would not need to start another case, just go back to a complaince panel. It would take three to six months from start to finish and I am confident the US would still be found out of compliance.

In the meantime, the Antiguan sanctions would be moving forward.

JPFisher55

10-16-2007, 06:05 PM

Skall, I read the panel and appellate reports. It's true that they did not specifically mention poker, but fantasy sports were mentioned and included as gambling. I read that as an indication of a very broad definition.
Maybe poker would not be gambling, but a skill game, which is fine with me.

xxThe_Lebowskixx

10-17-2007, 01:26 AM

where are you guys getting that anyone in the world will be allowed to violate USA IP if the USA doesnt comply with this ruling?

Jay Cohen

10-17-2007, 01:39 AM

http://www.antiguawto.com/WTOListPg.html

See entry #73:

Pursuant to Article 22.2 of the WTO’s Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), Antigua and Barbuda requests authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the United States of concessions and related obligations of Antigua and Barbuda under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the “GATS”) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the “TRIPS”).

...........
Summary of Countermeasures Because the withdrawal of concessions solely under the GATS is at present not practicable or effective, and the circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify Antigua and Barbuda exercising its rights under Article 22, Antigua and Barbuda requests authorization to suspend concessions and other obligations under the TRIPS. For the reasons given above, Antigua and Barbuda intends to take countermeasures in the form of suspension of concessions and obligations under the following sections of Part II of the TRIPS: Section 1: Copyright and related rights Section 2: Trademarks Section 4: Industrial designs Section 5: Patents Section 7: Protection of undisclosed information

xxThe_Lebowskixx

10-17-2007, 07:45 PM

Jay,

Where do you see things headed now?

xxThe_Lebowskixx

10-18-2007, 09:38 PM

I just want to make sure I am getting this correct. There is no more room for objections from the USA. They are already found guilty of failure to comply. Now, the WTO is go decide the rate and terms of compensation awarded to Antigua?

Given this precedent, how long will it take for other countries to also seek compensation for the USA government.

What happens if the US refuses to honor the Arbitrators conclusions?

Legislurker

10-18-2007, 11:09 PM

The WTO is an agreement. Its not up to the US to "honor" the obligations. Antigua will just simply ignore their previous agreement to honor copyrights and patents. And our other trading partners will buy it. Its not like we have to hand over $ or secrets. I guess Bush could invade if he wanted to to stop it. Im not really sure Bush even cares or particularily knows about this beyond authorizing his Christaminions to do as they see fit. I mean he does get to bed by 9PM.

Jay Cohen

10-18-2007, 11:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to make sure I am getting this correct. There is no more room for objections from the USA. They are already found guilty of failure to comply. Now, the WTO is go decide the rate and terms of compensation awarded to Antigua?

Given this precedent, how long will it take for other countries to also seek compensation for the USA government.

What happens if the US refuses to honor the Arbitrators conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to make predictions here.

Your first statement is pretty accurate. The present panel will determine the amount and type of sanction. There is no appeal of this panel or any of the earlier ones that have already ruled against the US.

As far as other countries go, they would have to bring their own cases. So far none have shown the mettle to do so. In the meantime the US is trying to withdraw their commitment in the sector so they can put this to bed.

The sanctions are for the panel to determine and Antigua to take. The US can only stop them if they come into compliance. I suspect they would have to convince another compliance panel that they are in compliance if they actually did anything half way. I don't think Antigua is obligated to take them at their word.

dlk9s

10-19-2007, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know nothing about economics, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only macro and micro economics at university level, a quite bit beyond the 101 stuff you get in college.

So I guess that you teach post grad economics? Or hold a doctorate in economics? Or?

[/ QUOTE ]

You lamented that the weakening dollar will hurt the United States' ability to export. It's the opposite. When the dollar is weaker, that means other currencies are stronger. Thus, other countries, as well as their businesses and residents, can afford to buy more U.S. goods and services. Thus, U.S. exports increase and the trade deficit shrinks. Of course, there are negatives to a weaker dollar, but it's not all bad.

If I'm completely wrong, I will not take offense to being corrected. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

FiveAce

10-19-2007, 11:25 AM

Jay,

What is the next step? Is it the WTO determining the type and amount of sanctions? Also, what is the time frame for this next step to be decided? And what is the time frame for Antigua to start taking action on the sanctions? Thank you.

John

Orlando Salazar

10-19-2007, 11:39 AM

Problem is, we mainly export capital goods and IP (technology, movies, etc)

spino1i

10-19-2007, 12:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jay,

What is the next step? Is it the WTO determining the type and amount of sanctions? Also, what is the time frame for this next step to be decided? And what is the time frame for Antigua to start taking action on the sanctions? Thank you.

John

[/ QUOTE ]

Jimbo

10-21-2007, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is, we mainly export capital goods and IP (technology, movies, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, agricultural products are our primary exports.

Jimbo

Jay Cohen

10-21-2007, 02:16 PM

The hearing was last Thursday the 18th.

The panel gave both sides written questions. I don't know the nature or the number of them. I am not sure when they are due, probably in one or two weeks.

After that, we wait. That's what's next.

DeliciousBass

10-24-2007, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know nothing about economics, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only macro and micro economics at university level, a quite bit beyond the 101 stuff you get in college.

So I guess that you teach post grad economics? Or hold a doctorate in economics? Or?

[/ QUOTE ]

You lamented that the weakening dollar will hurt the United States' ability to export. It's the opposite. When the dollar is weaker, that means other currencies are stronger. Thus, other countries, as well as their businesses and residents, can afford to buy more U.S. goods and services. Thus, U.S. exports increase and the trade deficit shrinks. Of course, there are negatives to a weaker dollar, but it's not all bad.

If I'm completely wrong, I will not take offense to being corrected. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it was the weakening dollar he was refering to...I think it was the, "Oh, um...we need to cancel our original order of 6,000 and we'll only need copy of (Invincible/MS Vista/Guitar Heroes 3/etc) thanks."