Cato Forum on WTO issue.

[Legislurker]

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3822

Im still undecided if i can make it, its an 8 hour drive, but Id like to hear Mendel in person. I don't think it will be on CSPAN [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't make it to the Cato Institute, watch this forum live online.

[/ QUOTE ]

[oldbookguy]

Thanks for reminding me of this.
ALSO, we all need to e-mail our reps in the Senate and House to make them aware of this and suggest they either attend or watch.

I sent the following to all (plus the text of the Cato news release:

On Wednesday, July 25, 2007 the CATO Institute, a very respectable Washington Think Tank will be holding a Policy Discussion regarding the recent WTO ruling in the matter of Antigua-Barbuda v. the U.S. over the dispute of Cross Border Supply of Gaming.

Though I feel your office should have someone in attendance, it may be viewed online as well.

The CATO Press Release: www.cato.org /
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3822

obg

[Jay Cohen]

The USTR or a representative from the US Government declined to participate. What a surprise!

[Legislurker]

Jay, you expecting a press release today on Antigua's submission of its sanctions request to the committee meeting today?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't make it to the Cato Institute, watch this forum live online.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

"Cato forums are broadcast live over the Internet. Broadcasts are archived 24 to 48 hours after the event has completed."

The archived video will be at www.cato.org/realaudio/audiopages.html

[oldbookguy]

Major Wager has a good current article today on this @
http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mess-ha...gainst-u-s.html

from the story:
Millan said Washington accepted that U.S. gambling laws were not in compliance with its WTO obligations. But he said Antigua's request for retaliation was unnecessary because the U.S. was negotiating compensation with all interested WTO members — despite having originally argued that it was exempt from sanctions or having to pay compensation.

In communications / letters we need to play this part in bold up as harming American Citizens and further placing American businesses at a decided disadvantage in the world market!

obg

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]

Major Wager has a good current article today on this @
http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mess-ha...gainst-u-s.html

from the story:
Millan said Washington accepted that U.S. gambling laws were not in compliance with its WTO obligations. But he said Antigua's request for retaliation was unnecessary because the U.S. was negotiating compensation with all interested WTO members — despite having originally argued that it was exempt from sanctions or having to pay compensation.

In communications / letters we need to play this part in bold up as harming American Citizens and further placing American businesses at a decided disadvantage in the world market!

obg

[/ QUOTE ]


Wouldn’t any compensation have to be approved by Congress?

And wouldn’t any compensation be tantamount to a subsidization of online Horse Race betting and online lottery sales as it’s the statutory protection of these industries that has caused the problem, and the removal of this legal protection that would make this problem dissolve away?

[JPFisher55]

Neither Congress nor the rest of US government have anything to do with the compensation. It is in the form of permitting Antiqua to levy tariffs against some US good or service, subsidize some Antiqua industry that competes with US or, in Antiqua'a case ignore US intellectual property law to permit pirated software, music etc. These actions would normally violate WTO, but might be permitted to Antiqua as compensation.
However, the US could then retaliate against Antiqua but doing so would violate WTO.
I am unsure if the WTO can survive if the US ignores it to that extent or even continues its present course in this dispute.

[tangled]

I don't think I made my questions clear enough. The "compensation" I was refering to was the one from the article cited by OBG. My interpretation is that the US is going to try to just payoff the complaints against them. For example, Antigua wants $3+ billion, so the US offers, say $2 billion. In exchange for the easy cash Antigua would (hypothetically) agree not to sell cheap I-Pods.

Since Congress controls the "purse strings", a payoff/compensation would have to be approved by Congress. At least, that is what I'm asking.

Is that more clear?