Your Wrong

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
"Antigua can't handle much more tourism."

Sure it could. They have plenty of beaches and very little development of them. The major tourism constraint has been airline service and investment capital.

"Any deal can't give them different tariff treatment/market access than that they give other nations."

Sure it can. It would be a settlement of the WTO case. Also, FWIW, the Caribbean Basin Initiative expires soon.

"Antigua is so small that the size of the gaming busiess it had/had can't be replicated in another industry for them."

Huh ? Why couldn't that same workforce be put to work for other call centers, in other industries ? As for the rating of their banking system, most Canadian Banks have subsidiaries there. The remaining banks could be acquired by US-based concerns, given the right incentives.

As for MC/Visa cost analysis, I agree Antigua labor is both expensive and not reliable. However, it is English speaking and can point to call cener success for the online gaming industry. Also consider what VISA/MC and say BofA liability is for processing all those credit card transactions over the years for online gaming ? Aiding and abetting anyone ???

The potential is there for a deal, if the parties are serious and online gaming is expendible in the eyes of Antigua.

I am not saying that deep-sixing online gaming in Antigua WILL happen, and think it will not, but it is odd to insist it cannot happen.

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me put it this way. Settlement can't be achieved by violating the WTO. You cant give preference to Antigua over other countries in the financial sector. They can agree to open a sector, but not to antigua exclusively. Thats the basic premise of MFN, same status to all trading partners.
It could possibly happen as part of the recommittment deal , but I am pretty sure opening a part of your market in these deals means opening it to every trading partner. Thats what makes the WTO work for everyone.

[oldbookguy]

This is a question, legis, not a statement.

So, if that theory / assertion is correst, then the negotiations ongoing with the E.U. to open up sectors will also apply to all trading partners too, correct?

I do hope this is true, it will give us a bigger hammer to help defeat the deal making since everyone will have the same access if any is granted to the E.U.

obg

[Legislurker]

I would think so. GATS is not entirely the same as the tariff schedule part of the WTO, but my understanding is that
MFN still applies. Read the language of how GATS was written, its each country agreeing during the last "round" to open up sectors to trade. You could open or exempt, but everyone pretty much had to agree with everyone else's level of openess or closedness. For instance, the EU opted out of cross-border gaming, not US gaming, but all gaming.
The entire premise of the WTO was to thwart bilateral honey deals that excluded the world from trade, though customs unions like the EU and NAFTA and Mercosur have thwarted it some. Im sure its rife with exceptions, but only ones already negotiated. Remember everyone has to be placated before the recommittments are finalized as well. The EU wants concessions in industries it has an absolute advantage in like legal services, so they could care less if Indian lawyers can hang signs in the US. The EU will still benefit the most.

Antigua's scope for negotiation for a "deal" would be not related to the recommitments, but in telling the dispute settlement body the US complied. Say they struck a deal where a trial period for just the companies in Antigua were allowed to operate 3 years to assess the situation. I don't see that though I think Antigua floated it before. Then, conceivably the US would be in compliance, case closed, no recommitment penalties. But, they can't say no gaming, Antigua can now sell direct home insurance to everyone in the US with no corporate tax. That would violate the entire idea of what the WTO is about.

[Keyser.]

my wrong?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like comparing Beer vs Wine. There both alcohol. Make one legal and the other not doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad legislative comparison

For most, sports betting is to poker like moonshine is to wine coolers.

[Quanah Parker]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The window is closing on the PPA momentum to get legislation passed before the games dry up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

The question is how do we at least prop it open long enough for the PPA to gain traction?

If this were 1776 I'd call for a "convention".

Just to be fair geographically perhaps in St. Louis?

JP we could all meet at your house! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

You have an over sized West County McMansion don't you? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Perhaps a virtual one?

Let's try something!


D$D

[Legislurker]

Why are people so bummer on the games "drying up". The next day after poker is acknowledged legal online the money will flood online. Advertizing has barely started in the US. Look at the UK with athletes, bus stops, billboards, and everyday media abuzz with gambling ads. If Tuff insists on full disclosure I did meet with an ad exec of a small firm to discuss how to make money advertizing remote gaming if the day came, but my real objective was to [censored] her. I was not paid. Poker is still wildly untapped, mostly downstream though. The tables with blinds .10 and down and tourneys with buy ins under $5. The blinds from .25-$5 should be able to achieve pre-UIGEA status as well, almost instantly. Im not experienced or knowledgable at all of the NL1k and up crowd or green chip limit. I really doubt poker will decline this generation, unless the US has a major recession, or a new game to bet on emerges.
Granted, my earn rate and lifestyle are crimped considerably.

[JPFisher55]

Sorry D$D, those days are in the past. I'm afraid my abode will not suffice for a meeting place. IMO your concern about games drying up is misplaced. I still find the games profitable. We have time, be patient.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are people so bummer on the games "drying up".

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker IMO is still growing, on-line play is declining.

After the UIGEA I can find more "juicy" home games than ever before!

Tuff and I were just talking about this fact. He and I may not know nor agree on all the real reasons; sci-fi fears, scandals, deposit hurdles, withdraw problems, hand histories, bots, HUDs, grinders, multi-tabling, (let alone multi-tabling, datamining, computerized HUD using, semi-bot, "computerized sharks") and the like. Or even the relative weight to apply to the problem or solution.

It does seem pretty clear at least for your average recreational player that NO ONE given the high level of personal greed in the "poker community" is looking out for the "good of poker" let alone trying to limit the short term or long term damage to on-line play.



D$D