正版中国 | 正版软件限时免费:2021-4-29 · 正版中国成立于2021年7月,以提供正版软件限时免费信息为途径,引导用户养成使用正版软件的习惯,以此促进国内版权氛围的改进。目前已经得到上百家软件开发者的支持！

手机应用软件 | 软件支持 | 产品资讯 | Garmin | 中国 | 官方网站:2021-6-15 · + 手机应用软件 13 + 电脑应用软件 9 页面布局 NEW Garmin Varia App no data. NEW Garmin Dive App NEW Garmin Explore App NEW Garmin Drive App 通过手机App管理Dash Cam设备 NEW Garmin Connect IQ Garmin Connect IQ一体化的在线商店，你可以 ...

Middle class New Jerseyans who were set to enjoy not paying the recently-dropped federal tax on health insurance plans will now get stuck with a state tax. Meanwhile the state still receives federal subsidies to drive down the costs of plans on its exchange.

This blatant tax hike on working people, that penalizes them for having health insurance, is just the latest mistake from Trenton.

New Jersey has also been adding massive new debt at the state and local level.

The state’s debt is $215 billion, “5 times the state’s total budget.”

“Among U.S. states, New Jersey’s net tax-supported per-capita debt ranks fourth-highest, according to the latest assessments from Moody’s Investors Service, the credit rating agency.”

Those numbers are about to get worse, as Governor Murphy’s $9.9 billion bonding scheme starts to go into effect. The bonds are supposed to be issued to counter coronavirus-related revenue loss.

The bonds do not require voter approval, but they will be backstopped by a statewide property tax surcharge if necessary. New Jerseyans already pay some of the highest property taxes in the nation. The state’s already overused credit card and the restraint of Democrat leaders are all that stands between them and even higher taxes.

That is, unless a lawsuit filed by Republican Gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciatarelli succeeds. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held previously that long-term debt can’t be used to balance the budget.

That’s not the end of the debt Murphy is working to add, and the state legislature has also moved legislation to allow localities to take on new debt, up to 30% of their budgets.

A lack of oversight is among the concerns with the local government debt plan:

“Sen. Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) said the bill allows local governments to borrow too much without direct state oversight, and doesn’t require local officials to exhaust all other options before turning to the bond market.

云豹加速器-小米应用商店 - Xiaomi:2021-5-7 · 小米应用商店提供云豹加速器免费下载,云豹是支持外网、外服游戏加速的全能加速器。采用国际光纤专线，安全私密一键跨境，不限流量畅游全球网站，超值赠送游戏加速，注册享免费体验。

New Jersey is playing a dangerous game for its future. The state has already lost taxpayers who have fled to other states in recent years, and now it is putting both state and local budgets into greater debt. Meanwhile, absurd tax hikes like the new tax on health insurance continue to be piled on.

What taxpayer is going to stick around to pay off all this debt for New Jersey, just so families and businesses pay all the costs for coronavirus and government sacrifices little to nothing?

Americans for Tax Reform recognizes the Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington incumbents and candidates who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge ahead of the August 4 primary election. The Pledge is a written commitment to hardworking taxpayers and to the American people to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

大陆用青蛙加速器上instagram-liuxixi1-ChinaUnix博客:2021-12-28 · 1、青蛙加速器加速器：上官网注册账号和密码 2.下载软件解压如图 3.解压完成登录注册的账号和密码 4.选择节点启动加速，连接成功查询IP地址（如我选日本的连，查到的就肯定是日本IP） 第5步：打开非死不可网站： 注册账号后就可以上了 第6步：登录

New candidates sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge regularly. For the most up-to-date information on this race or any other, please visit the ATR Pledge Database. 

Candidates can still make this important commitment to voters ahead of the August 4 primary by visiting: lywxy.githunkswara.com/take-the-pledge

The following candidates and incumbents have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge:

As the UK’s Independence Day quickly approaches, government officials have been planning for the first time in 47 years an independent trade policy for the UK. 

A major component of the new trade regime will be to achieve mutually beneficial terms of trade that invite competition where the UK has comparative advantage and avoids lopsided protections that restricted trade and always benefitted the EU more than the UK. 

Already the UK has signed trade deals with 21 countries that will take effect immediately after the transition period on January 1, 2021. Where a preferential trade agreement is not achieved, goods entering the UK will be met with a new tariff regime. The UK Global Tariff (UKGT) eliminates tariffs less than 2% and reduces complexity of 6,000 tariff lines.  On the whole, 50 percent of lines will be duty-free, a marked improvement over EU where only 28 percent of lines are duty-free.  

To ensure the smoothest transition the UK is still negotiating agreements with its largest trade partners: the U.S., the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, India and several others. 

The ideal agreement with the U.S. would not only eliminate protective tariffs on previously protected industries, but allow businesses, professionals, students, data, and finances to move freely between the countries that already enjoy a special relationship. In effect, a closer, more comprehensive, agreement with the U.S. could replace the UK’s expected losses to certain EU markets, a punishment for seeking independence.  

It is not hard to imagine that once independent, the UK could move from the 8^th on the Trade Barrier Index to competing with Singapore for 1^st, a badge indicating it utilizes the fewest trade barriers to restrict trade. 

Yet, special interests in the UK are working hard to replicate some of the most restrictive EU trade protections. These barriers, such as animal welfare standards that restrict imports of chicken cleaned with chlorine from the U.S. ensure UK consumers pay a premium to receive 90 percent of their poultry imports from EU producers such as the Netherlands and Poland. 

Leaving the EU and keeping these non-tariff measures in place, not only continues the carve out to EU producers, but serves as an additional negotiating burden. Under the new UKGT tariff regime imports of frozen chicken breasts would be subject to a 6 percent tariff that wasn’t there before, unless the UK concedes on something else in an EU deal to eliminate it.  

Instead of adopting a Singapore style trade regime the UK would be adopting failed Indonesian import substitution. There, similar excessive import controls force rice prices above a designated ceiling to two times the world price, contributing to unaffordability, malnourishment, and stunted growth.  

Besides being tasked with eliminating “Non-tariff barriers that discriminate against U.S. agricultural goods,” which make up 2 percent of U.S. goods exports. The USTR must also focus on eliminating the UKs threat to levy digital service taxes, ensure the UK adopts digital rules that prevent data localization or restrict data flows, ensure the UK adopt rules on state-owned enterprises, and increase market access for telecom and financial services competition, among other objectives.  Together these effect the economy, national security, and society on a much broader scale than chicken breasts.  

Time is running out. Both chief trade negotiators, Robert Lighthizer and Liz Truss, have expressed doubt a comprehensive deal will be struck and in place before the end of the year.  Certainly, there are barriers the U.S. can remove, but as long as EU rules continue to be carried over it is hard to prioritize what would otherwise be low-hanging-fruit: intellectual property, goods trade, and financial services.  

Congressional hearings of tech CEOs Sundar Pichai (Google), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), and Tim Cook (Apple) devolved into an hours-long circus as Democrats used the opportunity to create reelection campaign fodder.

The purpose of this hearing was to investigate alleged anticompetitive behaviors of dominant tech companies. About 25% of the questioning was somewhat related to antitrust policy—and this is a generous estimate. The remainder of questions revolved around partisan talking points like online hate speech, YouTube radicalization, and conservative censorship.

Antitrust law under the consumer welfare standard is designed to protect consumers from harm by monopolistic companies, not to protect companies from each other. None of the companies called before the Antitrust Subcommittee can be considered monopolies. Every one of them competes with other companies, tech or otherwise, both small and large, for revenue. And they are not using their strong positions in the market to harm consumers. Rather, they have each been using their resources to provide better products and slash prices.

Representative Armstrong (R-N.D.) wisely noted the harms of sweeping expanses of government power targeting certain companies, rather than going through the Federal Trade Commission’s already existent enforcement authority under the consumer welfare standard that operates on a case by case basis:

“When we try to hurt large companies, we entrench large actors and lock out new, smaller competitors."

On the rare occasion that Democrats’ questions were related to antitrust, the line of questioning belied the entire premise of the hearing: that concentration in tech is harming consumers. Time and time again, members of Congress asserted that Amazon and Facebook’s competitive strategies were harming their competitors by driving down prices. But the purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers, not competitors.

The mere fact that Apple was called to testify tells us that the hearing is not about antitrust; the hearing is about anger. Anger at tech for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are big.

Apple is in no way a violator of competition policy. Their primary business is hardware and software, not advertising, not data. They only hold 20% of the smartphone market, 13% of the personal computer market, and 28% of the tablet market. Tablets are the only personal device market in which Apple is dominant, and their share of that market is shrinking. As for operating systems, Android has more than double the market share as compared to Apple.  

“Apple does not have a dominant market share in any market where we do business. That is not just true for iPhone; it is true for any product category." ~Tim Cook

Apple created the entire App environment. Rather than keeping it as a closed system, they allowed individuals to create Apps which, once in line with certain conditions that provide security and support, can be downloaded by anyone on the App store. Some have complained that Apple’s App store discriminates against Apps that are not its own, but that opinion can’t be held for very long after looking into Apple’s policies, which they are very transparent about.

If Apple is a gatekeeper, what we have done is open the gate wider. We want to get every app we can on the Store, not keep them off.” ~Tim Cook 

In a particularly misguided line of questioning, Rep. Cicilline (D-R.I.) harangued Jeff Bezos for Amazon’s treatment of third-party sellers. “You say Amazon is only focused on what’s best for the customer. How is that possible when you undercut your prices and compete directly with third-party sellers?” Rep. Cicilline sees a conflict of interest between hosting outside retailers and offering low prices to consumers. He somehow fails to see that the diversity of retailers on Amazon drives down their prices, making products cheaper for consumers. 

Rep Cicilline went on to accuse Amazon of a litany of abusive business practices against retailers on its own site. He, along with several other members of Congress, claimed that Amazon exploited the small businesses it hosts through predatory pricing, and claimed that these businesses had no option other than Amazon.

There are 1.7M small & medium-sized businesses selling in Amazon’s stores. 200,000+ entrepreneurs surpassed $100,000 in sales in our stores in 2019. We estimate that third-party businesses selling in Amazon’s stores have created over 2.2M new jobs. ~Jeff Bezos 

In reality, Amazon has to compete with all retail, including Target, Costco, Kroger and Walmart, in addition to numerous online platforms that host third-party retailers, including Etsy, Facebook Market, EBay and Google Shopping. Even if this wasn’t the case, Amazon would have no obligation to host retailers on its privately-owned platform, and retailers have no obligation to use their services.

Like any retailer, Amazon could have chosen to keep their stores a closed system, selling only their own products. Instead, they opened the platform to hundreds of thousands of third-party retailers, many of whom are small businesses.

“20 years ago, we welcomed 3rd-party sellers into our stores & enabling them to offer their products alongside our own. We didn’t have to invite third-party sellers into the store. We could have kept this valuable real estate for ourselves.” ~Jeff Bezos

Rep. Raskin (D-Md.) complained that Amazon’s Alexa was a monopoly, since it holds a 60% share of the smart speaker market. But if you define any market this narrowly, you’ll find monopolies everywhere you look. If you define your neighborhood as a market, your local gas station is a monopoly. Of course, Alexa devices compete in a much broader market than that; the device competes with smartphones, tablets, and personal computers, all of which conduct most or all of the same functions.

Rep Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Neguse (D-Colo.) both incorrectly called Facebook a monopoly. Not only is Facebook not a monopoly, they are not even the dominant firm in their market—the largest social media platform is YouTube. Additionally, Facebook’s primary revenue source is advertising. They aren’t dominant in that market either; Google beats them out by a wide margin.

“In many areas, we are behind our competitors. The fastest growing app is #TikTok, and the largest messaging app is iMessage.” ~ Mark Zuckerberg

To provide one example, the cost of online advertising has plummeted 40% in the last decade. If Google has monopolistic power in the advertising realm, why aren’t they raising prices? The obvious answer is that there is robust competition in online advertising. Google competes with Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Comcast, and countless others for ad revenue. 

“Competition in ads — from Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Comcast & others — has helped lower online advertising costs by 40% over the last 10 years, with these savings passed down to consumers through lower prices.” ~ Sundar Pichai 

Democrats were also hostile to acquisitions and mergers, which they claimed were harmful to both consumers and competitors somehow. Rep. Neguse questioned Zuckerberg about acquisitions, condemning how successfully Facebook had acquired and improved various products and services. Never mind that these acquisitions improved the apps’ privacy and security features while making more apps free to the public. If the success of American businesses makes Democrats uncomfortable, then by all means we should let them weaponize antitrust law to beat private businesses into submission.

Those who want to expand government power favor a narrow definition of tech markets because they have no real evidence in terms of demonstrable consumer harm or rising prices. It allows them to build an antitrust case out of bitterness, and little else.

The presence of four companies—all of which compete with each other—should be sufficient evidence that there is no risk of monopolization. Competition in tech—from hardware to software to advertising—is robust.