Economic Competition Scrutinized

"One sign of a firm's power in a marketplace is its ability to charge prices above its own costs for producing the product, known as a markup. In 1980, markups averaged 21%, according to research by economists Jan de Loecker, Jan Eeckhout and Gabriel Unger. Over the past four decades, the average markup has risen to more than 54%.

Overall consumer-price inflation was largely subdued during this period, but the cost of producing consumer goods and services was even more subdued, leading to big gains in profits for firms and diminishing the gains to workers and consumers, the research showed.

With the rise of a few big companies, jobs also have become concentrated there. John Haltiwanger, a University of Maryland professor, finds that the share of U.S. jobs at young, small firms declined to 16% in 2018 from 26% in 1987. During the same period, the share of jobs in older, larger firms rose from 41% to more than half.

Mr. Haltiwanger's research shows that the U.S. economy became less dynamic during this period, with fewer new jobs created by startup firms, less job-hopping by workers seeking out new opportunities and slower worker productivity growth.

A wide range of industries shows large concentrations of dominant firms. In candy, two firms control 60% of U.S. sales, according to the Open Markets Institute, a research organization focused on combating monopoly power. In mobile-phone services, four firms control 98% of market share; in airlines, four firms control 76% of the market; in hearing aids, four firms control 84% of the market; in eyeglasses, three firms have a 61% share, according to Open Markets.

In an earlier era, the federal government and U.S. courts sought to stop large concentration in industries, in part to protect small businesses. In 1966, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a federal government action blocking the merger of two Los Angeles grocers, Von's Grocery Company and Shopping Bag Food Stores, that would have given the firms a combined 7.5% of local market share. Courts later began veering away from aggressive restrictions on concentration in industries as economists saw benefits, such as lower consumer prices, to firms having dominant footprints in markets." [1]

1. U.S. News: Economic Competition Scrutinized --- Biden sides with view that big players harm marketplace even as they keep prices low
Hilsenrath, Jon. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]12 July 2021: A.4.

Pasaulinis mokesčių sandoris

 "Tarptautiniai derybininkai suskirstė savo darbą į dvi atskiras idėjas, žinomas kaip ramsčiai. 

Pirmasis ramstis, kurį pastūmėjo Europos šalys, įskaitant Jungtinę Karalystę, suteiktų daugiau mokesčių galios šalims, turinčioms dideles vartotojų rinkas, ir atitrauktų galią iš mažų mokesčių jurisdikcijų, tokių kaip Airija.  

Antrasis ramstis, kurį veda JAV, nustatytų mažiausiai 15% mokestį kompanijų uždarbiui visame pasaulyje. Nustačius šį lygį, Bideno administracija gali lengviau bandyti didinti mokesčius JAV įmonėms iki 2 trilijonų dolerių per dešimtmetį, nes JAV tarifai gali pakilti aukščiau, nesukurdami reikšmingų galimybių įmonėms išvengti mokesčių, pervedant iš vienos šalies į kitą pelną ir adresus. “[1]

Pasibaigtų Lietuvos verslininkų krokodilo ašaros, kad jie pabėgs nuo didelių Lietuvos mokesčių ir paliks Lietuvos mokytojus be duonos kasnio.

 
1. Global Tax Deal Faces Big Hurdle in Congress
Rubin, Richard. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]12 July 2021: A.1.

Global Tax Deal

"International negotiators split their work into two separate ideas, known as pillars. Pillar One, pushed by European countries including the U.K., would assign more taxing power to countries with large consumer markets and pull power away from low-tax jurisdictions such as Ireland.

Pillar Two, driven by the U.S., would impose at least a 15% tax on companies' world-wide earnings. Setting that floor makes it easier for the Biden administration to try raising taxes on U.S. companies by up to $2 trillion over a decade because U.S. rates could rise higher without creating significant opportunities for companies to dodge taxes by shifting profits and addresses." [1]

 The crocodile tears of Lithuanian businessmen would end, that they would escape the high taxes of Lithuania and leave Lithuanian teachers without a breadcrumb.

1. Global Tax Deal Faces Big Hurdle in Congress
Rubin, Richard. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]12 July 2021: A.1.
 

What does a liberal offer to do with migrants in Lithuania?

 Here is what the liberal writes:  

"There are tens and maybe hundreds of millions of unhappy people in the world who are unable to create prosperity in their countries. And ready to travel where that prosperity is already created by others. Let's not forget that almost a million Lithuanians have moved to richer European countries. Let's go to the nearest refugee camp with the Lithuanian šakotis or croissants - they dreamed so much about Paris."

Do you want hundreds of millions of migrants in Lithuania? You will have it. Liberals will let them in. Bake the šakotis.

Ką liberalas siūlo daryti su migrantais Lietuvoje?

 Štai ką rašo liberalas:

"Pasaulyje yra dešimtys, o gal ir šimtai milijonų nelaimingų žmonių, nesugebančių susikurti gerovės savo valstybėse. Ir pasiruošusių keliauti ten, kur ta gerovė jau sukurta kitų. Neužmirškime, kad tokia galimybe pasinaudojo beveik milijonas lietuvių, išvykusių gyventi į turtingesnes Europos šalis. Tai gal nuvežkime į artimiausią pabėgėlių stovyklą po lietuvišką šakotį ar kruasanų – jie juk taip svajojo apie Paryžių."

Norite šimtų milijonų migrantų Lietuvoje? Bus. Liberalai įsileis. Kepkite šakočius.

Who voted for such donkeys in the Lithuanian government? Why do they need a fence near Belarus?

 "As of today, the construction of the barbed barrier, which is planned to be built 550 kilometers, has also started, and a decision has been made to start building a fence on the Belarusian border, said minister  A. Bilotaitė. However, border official Liubayev assured that even after the construction of the wire barrier and later the physical fence, officials, having seen migrants on the other side and heard a clear request for political asylum, would continue to receive them without hindrance in accordance with the basic principles of EU law since the migrants will already be in the territory of Lithuania." 

It is clear that that fence is only needed for propaganda - we are not sleeping, we are doing something for 41 million. euros, our taxpayers’ money. 

Kas rinkote tokias asiles į Lietuvos valdžią? Kam joms reikalinga tvora prie Baltarusijos?

 "„Nuo šiandien pradėta spygliuoto barjero statyba, numatyta pastatyti 550 kilometrų, taip pat priimtas sprendimas pradėti statyti tvorą su Baltarusijos pasieniu. Mes matome, kad tai galėtume padaryti pakankamai greitai, kaina būtų tokios tvoros apie 41 mln. eurų“, – žurnalistams penktadienį sakė A. Bilotaitė.

Vis dėlto R. Liubajevas patikino, kad net ir pastačius vielinį barjerą ir vėliau – fizinę tvorą, pareigūnai, išvydę migrantus kitoje jos pusėje ir išgirdę aiškiai išreikštą politinio prieglobsčio prašymą, juos ir toliau turės netrukdomai priimti vadovaujantis kertiniais ES teisės principais, kadangi šalia tvoros jie jau bus Lietuvos teritorijoje."

Aišku, kad ta tvora reikalinga tik propagandai - mes nemiegam, mes kažką darom už 41 mln. eurų, mūsų, mokesčių mokėtojų, pinigus.