Comments on: Possible Threat to WTO Structure Defused http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:06:33 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Yves Smith http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure.html#comment-2641 Yves Smith Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:41:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure-defused/#comment-2641 Steve,<br/><br/>Agreed, this has much more to do with taxes and domestic interests than the fig leaf of morality. Steve,

Agreed, this has much more to do with taxes and domestic interests than the fig leaf of morality.

]]> By: Steve http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure.html#comment-2633 Steve Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:32:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure-defused/#comment-2633 public order --> casino lobby<br/>public morals --> 41 state-sponsored lotteries<br/>offshore --> untaxed winnings public order –> casino lobby
public morals –> 41 state-sponsored lotteries
offshore –> untaxed winnings

]]> By: Yves Smith http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure.html#comment-2630 Yves Smith Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:23:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure-defused/#comment-2630 Anon or 2:40 PM,<br/><br/>You are right, I didn't explain the logic per the press very well, and the logic is somewhat defective. The US's original disruptive act still stands. The supposed "defusing" is the WTO claiming it's OK for the US to defend its values, but even trying to limit the damage of the US action that way still leaves a very large loophole that other countries can exploit.<br/><br/>The NYT (and your comment re DRM) suggests the US may come back to the table, but the problem is undoing (or limiting) the original action isn't trivial, particularly since the US reached a settlement with most other nations (the usual recourse, BTW). Anon or 2:40 PM,

You are right, I didn’t explain the logic per the press very well, and the logic is somewhat defective. The US’s original disruptive act still stands. The supposed “defusing” is the WTO claiming it’s OK for the US to defend its values, but even trying to limit the damage of the US action that way still leaves a very large loophole that other countries can exploit.

The NYT (and your comment re DRM) suggests the US may come back to the table, but the problem is undoing (or limiting) the original action isn’t trivial, particularly since the US reached a settlement with most other nations (the usual recourse, BTW).

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure.html#comment-2629 Anonymous Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:40:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure-defused/#comment-2629 How is this defused? The real threat wasn't that Antigua would become a pirate haven but that other countries would imitate the US. Which is now much more likely since it can be done with financial impunity.<br/><br/>Antigua could still make $21 million go a long way by seeding very small quantities of DRM-disabled intellectual property and then sit back and watch the real pirates handle further distribution. In other words, they could cause economic losses out of proportion to their own economic gains. How is this defused? The real threat wasn’t that Antigua would become a pirate haven but that other countries would imitate the US. Which is now much more likely since it can be done with financial impunity.

Antigua could still make $21 million go a long way by seeding very small quantities of DRM-disabled intellectual property and then sit back and watch the real pirates handle further distribution. In other words, they could cause economic losses out of proportion to their own economic gains.

]]> By: Yves Smith http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure.html#comment-2620 Yves Smith Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:36:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure-defused/#comment-2620 nc jim,<br/><br/>Agreed, I didn't like the way the AP story characterized the row. The Bloomberg story, which the earlier post cited at greater length, made it clear the US position was pretty undefensible. <br/><br/>And yes, one has to be suspicious about the morality argument, when we have casinos and lottos galore.<br/><br/>The WTO decisions smells of being a cowardly way out, of succumbing to the US's intransigence. Even if the WTO wanted to de-escalate the fight, I wish they had settled on more meaningful sanctions, which would probably be 5-10 times higher. nc jim,

Agreed, I didn’t like the way the AP story characterized the row. The Bloomberg story, which the earlier post cited at greater length, made it clear the US position was pretty undefensible.

And yes, one has to be suspicious about the morality argument, when we have casinos and lottos galore.

The WTO decisions smells of being a cowardly way out, of succumbing to the US’s intransigence. Even if the WTO wanted to de-escalate the fight, I wish they had settled on more meaningful sanctions, which would probably be 5-10 times higher.

]]> By: NC Jim http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure.html#comment-2617 NC Jim Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:49:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/possible-threat-to-wto-structure-defused/#comment-2617 <i>The trade body found that the U.S. had the right to prevent offshore betting as a means of protecting public order and public morals.</i><br/><br/>Isn't it just peachy that Bush is protecting my morals.<br/><br/>Where is the Libertarian wing of the GOP? This smells of religious social engineering. If Democrats tried to impose similar controls on business (as opposed to personal) activity, they would be labeled communists and Kudlow would howl for a month. A more cynical explanation is that this action is to remove competition with Vegas and other domestic gaming sites. The trade body found that the U.S. had the right to prevent offshore betting as a means of protecting public order and public morals.

Isn’t it just peachy that Bush is protecting my morals.

Where is the Libertarian wing of the GOP? This smells of religious social engineering. If Democrats tried to impose similar controls on business (as opposed to personal) activity, they would be labeled communists and Kudlow would howl for a month. A more cynical explanation is that this action is to remove competition with Vegas and other domestic gaming sites.

]]>