There has been feverish talk in the press recently as to the possible effects that the recent criminalisation of online gambling in the USA will have on the British market. Many have suggested that the UK government will follow suit, resulting in a prohibition on the activity within British borders, while others argue that this is, in fact, too good an opportunity for the UK government to pass up. It is argued by these individuals that, if the UK were to begin attracting American gamblers who now have nowhere else to go, the financial gains available to the Exchequer would be too great a temptation.
Online gambling is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the service industry in Britain. One need only look at Betfair, one of the market leaders, for evidence of this; last year the company recorded year-end profits of $44 million, off the back of a sports book which was only established in 2000. Similarly, the taxation of online gambling is one of the most easily available sources of revenue for the Exchequer; it is a seemingly never-ending stream of money which can be very easily taxed, particularly bearing in mind the general public antipathy towards gambling. It is this very concern as to ‘social cost’ of the activity, rather than the potential financial gain that it represents, that makes regulation and taxation politically possible.
It is the same antipathy which informs the growing opposition to the government’s legalisation of online gaming. It is thought in many quarters that the social cost far outweighs the social benefits and, as such, there are fears that the actions of the American government could pave the way for the outlawing of online gambling in the UK. However this seems unlikely; the British government has already expended large amounts of time and money establishing licensing laws around online gambling. Indeed, the government is now actively soliciting for business from companies who are to be exiled from the US, in a similar fashion to that seen in Antigua, whose government is offering to licence US gaming sites – albeit, of course, at a price.
The British government has a liberal history as far as online gambling goes, as illustrated by their actions with regard to the EU. As members of a common market, EU member states are obliged to accept goods and services (including the provision of online gaming) from all other member states, without prejudice. When a special exemption was made for online gambling, several member states sought to outlaw the practice. Britain, however, along with states such as Denmark, preferred to legislate and regulate, as a result of their belief that people would find a way of gaming regardless of its legality – the state might as well, therefore, try to make some money out of it.
It is for precisely these fiscal reasons that it seems almost certain that the process of legalisation and regulation of the online gambling industry will continue apace in Britain. The importance of the sector to the Exchequer is too high; paradoxically, in fact, the outlawing of the activity in the USA should cement this position.
Indeed, it is likely that we will see an even more markedly rapid growth in the sector as American gamblers look for a similar, but legal, gaming experience. This will have positive effects for the British gambling community; increased demand will mean an increase in the number and quality of services available. Similarly, on a more basic level, the more players taking part in a game, the higher the jackpots will be, or the more competitive the odds available. This can only be a good thing for players.
Watch the video related to USA politics
Complete video at: fora.tv Author Fareed Zakaria criticizes American political culture for ignoring global issues, and for focusing on short-term political benefits at the expense of long-term prosperity. —– The rise of other nations need not mean a decline of the US, says Zakaria. He foresees a future where the US no longer dominates the global economy, geopolitics and culture, and it needn’t be seen as a negative development, he believes; our nation needs to learn to understand other …
Don’t worry. Obama “gets it.” How did you like his speech in the MidEast? Changing the course of our country is largely the job of the “youth” of every country. America’s youth spoke loudly when Pres. Obama was elected. Now the World is listening to the U.S. like never before with hope in their hearts. I’m grateful to be alive in America to see the anticipated transformations occur
America is seeing its politics at the worst in the whole of its history as its policies are not right and the problems to be addressed are getting worsened. It seems to have thus lost the ability of achieving short term gains of things that matter because of a feel of supremacy it has always had about itself. Its foreign policy indicates the unwillingness to get in the game. It needs a shift of attitude in not talking to dictators for improving the conditions there and for the sake of its image.
MNC’s and TNC’s are on point, as Zakaria notes.
But like he says, who’s gonna break it to the masses? Obama? Change? I guyess that IS a start but he’s so vague, and all the globalization media barrage isnt being received as expected. North Americans are retreating into their shells: peak oil crew, environmental extremists, the polyanists etc.
I guess its up to the globally aware to push this thing through and make sure it doesnt get still born…
You wouldnt beleive the dirty looks i get from Americans just for learning Chinese & Korean. Fareed is right, young people like me do get the globalized world we live in, its the Rush Limbaugh crowd and I would dare add some older libs as well who dont get it.
tha is what 2 terms of Bush would do to you ……….beware of the ” false conservative”
American diplomats went around the world. Americans. I don’t want attack other countries.(as Zakaria wanted to attack Iraq) I don’t want to defend other countries. We can do fine on our own. We can prosper and keep our civil liberties if we relearn to mind our own business.
LONG LIVE COL. LINDBERGH
We have wasted resources on the rest of the world. Lets take care of ourself. Nonintervention in other affairs. Entanglement with none.
I agree with this guy. We can get it back too. We should be looking for a way to expand the foreign embassies we have here into whole sovereign cities. We need to boldly retake the leading edge of political leadership in the search for ways to achieve a lasting global peace.
@ryer46..
america ranks 13th not the 1st in the quality of life index – as per the The Economist Intelligence Units quality-of-life index, 2005. And you still think ur the best?
If you'll email me your address, I'll mail you a shirt.
Because Jews own the banks banks control the money.
Who's the moron who said there is a large Jewish population in the US, less than 5% of this nation identify themselves as Jewish. There are more Filipinos in this nation than Jews why don't we pander to the Filipino vote
We're more entertaining?
In politics, a chief of staff is the primary aide to a political leader or position.
The White House Chief of Staff is the highest-ranking member of the Executive Office of the President of the United States and a senior aide to the President.
The duties of the White House Chief of Staff vary greatly from one administration to another. However, he/she is responsible for overseeing the actions of the White House staff, managing the President's schedule, and deciding who is allowed to meet with the President. Because of these duties, the Chief of Staff has at various times been dubbed "The Gatekeeper" and "The co-President".
Any country is passing from democracy to comunism. Socialist presidents are beeing elected but any of them is ending with democracy. Chávez was reelected president of Venezuela in a world-wide recognized election. Including the United States recognized the Venezuelan election as beeing democratic. And is too soon to say that Latin America is turning to socialism, those leaders were elected only a few years ago, many presidents in Latin America are still right-wing. 10 years ago almost all presidents of Latin America were from the right-wing. Things change, today is the socialist wave, tomorrow may be another wave. And the US don't has the moral right to care about Latin America, why do you care so much with us? Leave us alone. Anti-Americanism is the main fuel of leftism in Latin America.
The Republicans are the conservatives. The Democrats are the liberals. Actually about 40% of the electorate here considers themselves Independent and these are the voters who will decide the election. Some states do not require you to declare a party affiliation. In those states all registered voters can vote for any candidate of either party. Some states have "closed primaries" which means you must be a registered Republican or Democrat and you can only vote for the slate of candidates in the party of your registry. The "closed primary" states have this rule supposedly because some voters of another party would deliberately try to get a weak candidate of another party to win the primary.
Because the vast majority of Yahoo answers participants are American. When there aren't enough questions about foreign politics, more American politics questions appear.
elephant- republican party
donkey- democratic party