Motivating Miss Daisy
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Driving around America for nine weeks and more than 10,000 miles, I’ve had a chance to see how our economy does and doesn’t work. The startups I visited were all good companies — reader favorites, after all — so they tended to shine. And their glow was generally green and even a bit altruistic, yet still based in for-profit philosophy. These are the kind of companies that create industries, build or renew cities and industrial centers — companies that create jobs in the kind of abundance needed to keep our nation prosperous. Yet in terms of government policy, it is as if they are unknown. The Obama Administration just successfully passed important small business legislation, for example, that has no value at all for tech startups. This probably shouldn’t surprise us: former President George W. Bush was clueless about this stuff, too.
The good news is that none of this really matters a lot: tech startups will continue to happen in great numbers no matter what Congress and the White House do. The bad news is neither institution would know a tech startup if they saw it and there probably are ways that government could help but won’t.
The new small business legislation intended to support startups is based entirely on debt — getting banks to lend money to small companies. But the only kind of debt that most tech startups know is credit card debt. Little tech companies grow by selling equity, not borrowing money. Short-term debt goes on plastic at 18 or 23 percent because no bank has — or will — lend to real tech startups in any significant amount.
They’ll finance new Burger King franchises, but lend money for electric cars or new kinds of data storage or — shudder — software? Forget about it.
Presidents Obama and Bush didn’t know this, Fed chairman Bernanke doesn’t know it, nor does Treasury secretary Geithner. None of these men have a minute’s experience with tech startups, yet our economy is almost entirely dependent on those startups for real recovery.
So since these distinguished bozos don’t know what to do, I’ll just throw out a couple ideas I came up with this summer on those long drives from town-to-town with the kids and Mary Alyce asleep in the back of the RV.
While equity is fine, debt is better: banks should lend to tech startups. They don’t because they can’t tell a good one from a bad one. They should because doing so would be good for both the economy and America. The way to do so is by lending not to individual companies but to baskets of companies. If banks don’t have the confidence to create such baskets themselves, heck, I’ll do it. I’ve visited enough startups to tell with a 85 percent certainty whether they have what it takes to succeed.
But even lending to a basket of companies that has a near-100 percent chance of delivering 3-5X on each loaned dollar, the banks still won’t do it because they are cowards lacking any — any — moral fiber whatsoever. They won’t do the right thing even if I make it low- or no-risk, because they don’t know what a right thing looks like anymore.
This is where there becomes a true role for government — to require that banks lend to those baskets of tech startups I put together. Make lending to tech startups a condition for even having a banking license.
While this make seem a wild-ass idea, isn’t that the essential nature of licensing? IF you want this privilege THEN you assume this obligation. And with tech startups representing only $20 billion in a $20 trillion economy, what’s the big deal? That’s the very chump change that can lead us out of recession and deflation and back toward world leadership.
Still they won’t do it.
Why? Because it’s too simple, yet not at all simplistic. But even more so because larger companies and institutions will lobby against it without even knowing why they do so.
So given that these no-brainer solutions are going to inevitably be ignored in favor of slap-dash programs that will benefit only special interest groups and not America with a capital A, I’ll throw out one last idea that just might make the cut, because it relies entirely on greed and self-interest to succeed. Those are two commodities we appear to have in limitless amounts.
We have here a syllogism, so stick with me:
1 — Since the Reagan era and the Laffer Curve we’ve time and again relied on tax cuts for the rich to stimulate our economy, the idea being that the money saved from taxation would trickle down to the rest of the population selling Big Macs and handing out shopping carts at WalMart.
2 — Alas, Laffer was wrong, in large part because rich people save most of their money, they don’t spend it, and spending is what expands (or in this case re-expands) economies. Hence the liberal idea of tax cuts just for poorer people who will actually spend their tax savings buying Big Macs and stuff at WalMart.
3 — Yet rich interests always win in these things because they are smarter about buying influence. This is a simple reality that is unlikely to change, so forget about the poor people. But cutting taxes for everyone is grossly inefficient as economic stimulus compared to cutting taxes for the non-rich.
4 — Rich interests have also shown an amazing willingness to do the most arcane and complex things to avoid paying taxes. Remember the tax shelters of the 1980s? Sheesh!
5 — Here’s the boffo payoff: the logical solution to restarting the economy, then, isn’t any of those crazy ideas like flat taxes or taxes on consumption. What will actually work is a short-term tax (or tax credit — they are the same thing if you squint) on savings. Forget about accelerated depreciation — make all non-reimbursed expenses of any kind 100 percent deductible in the current tax year.
It’s ass-backward, I know, but it would work. Give rich people a short term incentive to spend like poor people, then phase it out over time.
If we are metaphorically in the same position as FDR in 1938, this wacky policy would please the right while giving a financial boost equivalent to World War II but without the war.
Recession over.
I’m a bit confused because you were talking about the need to invest, yet the rich people investing are the very same people who can invest in tech firms.
Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but ratcheting up inflation accomplishes the same thing, since in effect it is a tax on savings. See Paul Krugman’s blog, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-higher-inflation/
Great idea. The US has already destroyed much of the market value that people had invested in their homes. Let’s destroy their savings too.
My savings are my pension. They keep telling us Americans are not saving enough for retirement – I’m starting to understand why.
I were sent here seeing as this weblog was tweeted by a gentleman I had been following and i’m delighted I made it here.
Exceptional blog and definitely assists with understanding the subject much better.
You make a lot of statements that you haven’t backed up and that much of MY reading on economics tells me are wrong. Your bullets read like a litany of bad left-wing talking points of the kind that got us into this mess in the first place.
And, from personal experience, I can tell you that I nudge into what Obama calls “the rich”. If I see a big tax hit next year, it will hugely affect my spending. And particularly on tech, and other discretionary spending that creates the more interesting and well-paying jobs.
And, contrary to your big plan, temporary windfalls don’t generally impress small businesses that much. What they need is stability. Right now small businesses don’t know what the cost of new employees will be over the next 5 years, and until they know, what would be the point of hiring?
The ridiculously botched health care bill, the increasing cost of often pointless regulation, and the knowledge that the enormous failed stimulus will need to be paid is causing all sensible people to pull back their horns and try to save what they can.
This is just another utopian fantasy in which the plan is to take my money and spend it on your pet projects.
Yes, like we’re not paying for uninsured people to get their healthcare in ERs– and who has ever known what would be in 5 years? NO ONE has. Typical Republican rhetoric.
Nice rob from the poor attitude. The super rich can’t wait to redirect whats left of SS into their pockets.
You Marxists that claim you want to help the poor, always seem to go about it in the worst possible way.
Your plan is always the same: kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.
When will you guys ever learn?
The first person, to say “socialism” or “communism” or “marxism” along with “Nazis”, “Naziism” and “Hitler” lose the argument, automatically. It’s the attempt to drop a nuclear bomb on an discussion dealing with nuances.
The fact is, public policy is very much like engineering… it’s all about aligning doable things to achieve a functional goal. Like engineering, it requires intense specialized knowledge – the average bloke can’t design an engine or a cpu – but unlike Engineering, everyone thinks they know how to do it. Dropping a nuclear bomb on the discussion is in essence, saying you don’t know how to do it.
But policy being a lot like engineering creates for a myriad of interesting discussion over the myriad of possible solutions. It is all engineering, which is to say, merely aligning things correctly then executing.
It doesn’t help to introduce ideology. If I believe that water runs up hill, then I’m going to scream that all engineering solutions contrary to that are un-American or socialist, or fasicst or naziist, or whatever… and where will that get us? Well, it won’t allow us to engineer any solutions in the real world, that’s for sure.
Ending the recession could be done in a myriad of ways. One way is health care reform.
This OECD study shows (see top graph on page 13) that the U.S. government already pays out more money, per capita, in health care expenditures than any other country, except Norway.
What that means is that if we implemented a single payer system tomorrow, say France’s often vaulted system, not only would every one be covered, you would get a TAX CUT. That means everyone that wanted to could go to work on Monday and ask to have their health care benefits monetized into their pay check. The result would create a surge in purchasing power for the average worker who currently receives health insurance benefits which is most of the working middle class.
In otherwords a surge in purchasing power would lead to a surge in demand, and that would thus, lead us out of the depression.
You might say this is socialism. I would reply, isn’t all insurance a form of socialism? In truth, it’s all just organizational arrangments: aligning what’s doable in order to engineer the best possible outcome.
In the insurance game, the bigger the pool, the lower the cost and the risk. The biggest pool is the entire nation. Why isn’t this done? Socialism, nee, welfare for private health insurance companies who benefit from special antitrust legislation and legislation that forces us to buy insurance from them.
The conservative talking points are antithetical to getting us out of the depression. We are a market economy. That means our economy is driven by demand. Demand side policies are antithetical to conservatives… they’re still talking supply side policies. That would be okay if we had structural inflation, but we don’t we have deflation (okay, .01 inflation in the last quarter) and up against the zero bound interest rates, aka a liquidity trap.
As we are a market oriented system it’s no surprise that 70% of our economy is based upon consumption. If you shrink consumption you shrink the economy. Supply side policies thus make no sense 80% of the time for a market economy. They are the arguments that one would make for a Soviet style economy which was all supply oriented – and worked well when demand was limited to things like t-34 tanks during WWII (because the demand for T-34′s was infinite). It’s always surprising to hear free market types scream supply side policies because it’s the ultimate form of hypocrisy – or evidence that they don’t know what they are talking about.
Running the economy is not like running your household. Running around screaming socialism, communism and marxism doesn’t help either. 30 years of supply side economics has gotten us nothing but concentrated wealth and a shrinking economy and society in a state of continuous crisis. Thank you conservatives for the wreckage. Like Uncle Ebeneezer they are always ready to serve up more wreckage.
Um, Cringely. Stick to tech because when you talk finances your ignorance shows.
No economist who uses data to back their theories argues that raising taxes on the “rich” raises us government revenue. It does just the opposite. Those tax shelters? When you raise taxes enough it becomes cost effective to hire people who have the full time job of minimizing tax impact to their employer.
Also exactly where do you think Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Mark Zuckerberg keep their money? In a cash savings account? No, they keep most of it in equity (i.e stock) of companies.
Now ask yourself what would happen to the stock market if Bill Gates, Mr Elison, Mark Zuckerberg and Mr Buffet all announced they where liquidating all their stock and “spending” their money on consumer goods? First, they can’t spend that much money so they would have to waste a lot, but say they could. Second the companies that they founded and which they own large chuncks of would get to watch their stock price’s make a big crater. And that would take your 401k with it, and it would take the retirement funds of most of america with it.
Think about it. If their savings is in stocks, bonds and investments (and it is), then what happens if they “spend” their “savings”?
R & D stops due to lack of investment, all stock prices will start to fall as the “Rich” sell their shares to get cash to spend. Companies suddenly have lower valuations, which means they can’t get new loans, so they can’t get the money to buy new inventory.
The us government will also get hit. Bond’s don’t just magically sell themselves, they have an interest rate, and a maturity date. If the us government find’s that it can’t sell its bonds at the price it wants, it has to raise the interest rate it pays, or lower the purchase price, either way this makes borrowing even more expensive and makes the national debt even more unmanageable.
But that’s OK, because then those evil “Rich People” will not have the money, so we can all be impoverished together.
Good plan.
Would someone who has a million dollars in high tech equipment and land count as rich? Good let’s take it away.
Oh. Wait, you mean a family farm needs a harvester that costs $400,000 and several tractors that cost more than $50,000 each and a $300,000 tiller, and a thousand acres (worth $Millions) and several giant barns costing tens of thousands each. Hit the farmers, and the small business that runs as a sole proprietorship (i.e. a husband and wife providing catering/consulting/child care/pluming/electrical work) which since they are not incorporated is being reported as “personal income”. Hit the life blood of this country with a crippling tax rate and lets see what happens.
Oh. They go out of business. Good job.
Oh, wait, no it’s a bad plan, and we have seen it tried before. It’s basic wealth redistribution as practiced in socialist countries around the world. Take the rewards of good decisions, hard work and effort away from those who have it. Don’t pay attention to the fact they earned that money by taking risks. Sometimes they earned it quickly, sometimes over the course of years of work, but generaly no one just walked up to them and gave them money for no reason.
So instead of letting them use the money they earned, lets take it away with special taxes and give it to some other group who we think deserves it more. That way they can buy gameboys, and go out for pizza’s, and buy new cars.
Banks:
Let’s review.
Before the U.S. Government got involved in funding banks with tax payer dollars to promote social change banks had a very simple design.
You and I walk into a branch and deposit $X into an account. It earns % Interest each year. So at the end of the year I can draw out my $X + the % interest earned.
This makes you what is called a Depositor.
Now You and I walk into a different bank and we both want to borrow money. Maybe it’s to buy a house (this is called an equity backed loan), or to start a business (backed by the equity of my inventory), or in rare cases I might want a “Signature Loan” or “Line of Credit” (this is only backed up by my good name, and any proof I have provided that I earn enough to pay it back.)
This makes us what is called a Borrower.
Let’s say we both want to get an equity loan, and the bank agrees to give it to us at a higher % interest rate. Wait, why are they getting to charge a higher % Interest rate? Why not just charge the same % Interest rate we got for our investment?
Well, it’s because one of us is going to fail to repay the loan.
You see The % Interest rate charged has a formula.
$ Needed to cover bad loans made to other clients +
$ needed to pay for banks operation (i.e. lights, computers, office space) +
$ needed to pay the interest rate promised to the Depositors (remember them)+
$ needed to pay the people making choices about who to makes loans to +
$ extra fudge factor to carry over from year to year, because we don’t always get it right in any one year.
Now if the bank always does it’s job right and enver get’s the formula wrong, then they end up with a surplus of money.
If they do it wrong they get closed down, and when you come back at the end of the year to get your $X + the % interest earned, you may be told “Well, we got it wrong, so here’s 50% of the $X you deposited. Sorry for losing your money”.
This scenario is what we call a bad thing.
So why would a bank be conservative and make loans only on those topics it understands well enought to not lose money? It’s very simple: It’s not their money to loose. It’s your money, and my money. So if we “require that banks lend to those baskets of tech startups”, they you are forcing me to take risks with my money that I don’t want to.
We have a vehicle for that kind of thing: It’s called equity investment, private financing, peer to peer lending, etc. See each kind of investing has a niche.
But we found out that people are stupid and will loan money to business that fail. So we made it hard to sell stock on the NYSE. If fact we made it so hard you can’t do it unless you are already a successful business. No small business allowed.
We also put rules can invest in private equity offerings, and rules on who can offer penny stocks, and rules on everything.
See, you can’t protect consumers from all risk of loss and at the same time require that they make risky loans to high tech start ups. It’s mutually exclusive.
So how do we fix this? Well we allow people to loan money again, without stupid rules.
One place we see this is in Peer 2 Peer lending like lendingclub. I make investments each month in people paying down credit card debt, remodeling a house, going to school, etc.
But because of the laws these loans can’t really be for that. What they are is simply signature loans. So you can say you want to borrow it to buy a car and then spend it on crack and I can’t do anything about it. So I only loan to people with good credit scores, and no history of bad debt. And I make about 500% of what I would make in a bank. But I also have people run off with bout 20% of my money each year. So when you average it out I still do OK because I make enough to cover those losses.
But I have to be involved, make choices, pick loans and take risk.
More government programs or regulation’s won’t make lending easier for business, it will make it harder.
You want to make it easier for small start ups to get funding? Remove some of the laws that make it so hard to borrow, don’t pass new laws that require someone to make risky and stupid loans with my money.
“The Obama Administration just successfully passed important small business legislation”
Dude, Obama doesn’t write or pass legislation. The Congress is full of idiots and charlatans and evil pricks — can’t blame that on Obama.
Then why is Obama trying to get people to re-elect them?
Because if Republicans get a majority in the house that will give them subpoena power to hold hearings on the Obama administration, including impeachment.
Obama may not be motivated by the fact that you and I don’t have a job, but as you might recall from the campaign, he’s very motivated when his own job is at stake.
Anyway, he doesn’t want to play defense to Republican majorities in the house.
On the other hand, if the Republicans held hearings on nonsense things like his birth status, it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. I’m more worried about them trying to wreck the economy even more than they have by giving more and more money to the rich at the expense of the commercial (demand) side of the economy – which is what wrecked the economy in the first place.
I am not lamenting that the Republicans didn’t win the last set of elections. The economy would be thoroughly in the ditch and supply side economics would be thoroughly discredited now with everyone but the pundits who are on the payroll of Republican billionaires.
“I’ve visited enough startups to tell with a 85 percent certainty whether they have what it takes to succeed.”
You must be a billionaire!
Every time I see a really good blog post I usually do some things:1.Show it to my relevant friends.2.Bookmark it in some of the popular social bookmarking sites.3.
Be sure to visit the blog where I first read the post.After reading this article I am really thinking of going ahead and doing all three!
Bob, if I read you right, you suggest a new “temporary” tax?
I am sure you are aware there is no such thing as a temporary tax.
There are, however, plenty of very temporary tax deductibles.
=-MDP-=
I think it is CRAZY that a billionaire like Meg Whitman, and a working Joe like me are in the same income tax bracket in California.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/109581636.html
PERSONAL INCOME TAX (PIT)
In 1980-81, the PIT made-up 35 percent of California’s General Fund. By 2000-01, it grew to 58 percent, before falling to 51 percent in 2002-03. At the same time, the share of the General Fund attributable to the corporate income tax had decreased from 14 percent to 10 percent. Likewise, the share attributable to sales tax had also decreased from 38 to 35 percent. We will now examine each revenue source, in turn.
From 1994-05 through 2000-01, the growth in PIT revenues was dramatic, evidenced by double-digit growth each year as depicted in the preceding chart. In 2001-02, the bottom fell out as PIT revenues decreased by 25.5 percent. Let’s examine the factors behind this decrease.
As most people already know, the decrease was due, in most part, to the loss of revenue from capital gains. The exceptional growth in PIT revenues in the late 1990s was almost entirely the result of the growth in capital gains. When the bauble burst, it took PIT revenues with it. As Figure 10 shows, the decline in capital gain income from 2000 to 2001 was over 50 percent, more than 100 billion dollars. This decline explains almost the entire decline in California’s PIT revenues.
Since capital gains and option income tend to be earned by the wealthiest taxpayers, the share of PIT borne by the wealthiest taxpayers fell dramatically in 2001, to a level below that in 1999.
I don’t know that Laffer was wrong, I just don’t think we know where the revenue maximizing rate is.
Considering that most of the “stimulus” that has been tried hasn’t stimulated anything – I am inclined to think that some funding for this makes a great deal more sense than that. The program could start small – and if it works and proves to be self-funding, expand it. I am a fan of experimenting with policies and pursuing things that work, so it would be a no-brainer if it turned out to be self-funding.
Ideologically I’m not really on the same page with you, but I think your ideas are much better than what we usually get from Washington, so keep it up. I think there are some policymakers who should read this because the terms you are thinking in are solid and constructive – and it might lead to something that works.
“This is where there becomes a true role for government — to require that banks lend to those baskets of tech startups I put together.” They already tried that with home loans and look where it got us. Investment should be left to those who have a stake in the success or failure of the company to motivate them to invest wisely. You’re suggesting taxpayers (me) should give your companies my money yet neither you nor the people running the company have a personal stake in it since it’s all dependent on involuntary taxes to pay for the failures.
Stop spreading misinformation. No bank was forced to make loans. In fact, most of the loans that busted up have been made outside of the CRA and the CRA has had more reliable loans than the others. The banks did this themselves, all the government did was make it easier for them. Please inform yourself, you make yourself look rather uninformed.
Taking away the risk of making a bad loan is the same as making a requirement to do so. That was the whole point of my comment. The government shouldn’t transfer the risk of Bob’s favorite companies to unwilling taxpayers.
I agree that the government shouldn’t transfer the risks of loans to taxpayers. But the comparison is wrong since this is not what happened in the 2008 crisis. The loans were not backed by the government. That’s why Hank Paulson wanted at first to let the banks fail since they made bad loans and the government had absolutely no obligation to save them. But he quickly realized that the size of the problem would bring about the total collapse of the total financial system so he decided to save some of them and not others to let them understand that they were on their own. The loans were never guaranteed by the government. The banks did this on their own with the help of totally unregulated derivatives that the banks were quickly selling to the blind investors who wanted a good return on their money (which is usually an indicator of something wrong).
This is why it happened in other countries too, the US government didn’t back the loans of the London banks nor the Icelandic banks. But they had the same problem: deregulation of the financial market to let the financial success that was happening in the US also happen in their countries. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Forget about changing the tax code or setting government policy, Bob. You aren’t big enough to do it.
Here’s what you could do: Put together a market basket of tech startups. Start a fund to lend to them. Look for investors to buy shares – say $1000 a pop, in $1000 increments up to $10000. When you hit $10,000,000 in shares sold, start lending. In due time, let the returns roll in to the investors. Put me in for a share – then we can kickstart our own little recovery.
It’s better than the status quo – all my money in savings since the market looks bad and could get much worse really fast. Better to lose it slowly than all at once. But a chance to invest in a market basket of entrepreneurs would be worth some risk.
Lucky i uncovered this site, will be sure to bookmark it so i can come by routinely.
Whoah! brilliant, thanks so much for this gem of information
Good share, great post very usefull for us… thanks!!
Nuts, Bob. If you want more of something, you subsidize it, less of something, you tax it. Taxing the rich to encourage them to spend their money just means we’ll have less rich. In the meantime, we’re subsidizing people to stay unemployed.
That’s just nuts.
It’s like with the Bush stimulus plan, where households got small checks to be used to stimulate the economy. The smart money was to use this in the most un-stimulating way — pay off debt. Which is exactly what I did.
It’s like your Dry Powder column. The rich will find some way to keep a hold of their money, regardless.
The way to get the economy rolling again is simply to remove obstacles to starting a business.
Like someone else says what a great blog this is. Generally I dont take the time with a comment though for your time and effort you have earned one. Nicely
Excellent blog post! I enjoy coming to your blog because of you guys always give us informative articles. I enjoyed it once again. I in the process bookmarking this website. I am going to subscribe to this feed also. Take Care! ……..
Thanks for publish really good informations. Your world wide web is great.I am impressed by the material that you have on this weblog. It exhibits how properly you comprehend this topic. Bookmarked this approach page, will appear back for extra. You, my buddy, awesome! I found just the specifics I previously explored all over the place and just could not uncover. What a ideal site. Such as this site your web-site is one of my new chosen.I like this info proven and it has given me some type of inspiration to have achievement for some reason, so maintain up the fine do the job!
An open eye to those who want to invest. You have to prepare for challenge that may take in and prepare your asset(money) of course.
Bob, you need a better comment despammer.
What a terrific design you have
your website posts are quite informative too! Thanks 
DSEzu6 gqldpilhzjdg, [url=http://nxhkxmqqfqen.com/]nxhkxmqqfqen[/url], [link=http://kvgzfgfetpwr.com/]kvgzfgfetpwr[/link], http://wdgnkwxwppsq.com/
Pretty good article. I just came across your site and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be coming back and I hope you post again soon.
great thanks man…
good thanks \o/
I’d be inclined to recognize with you here. Which is not something I typically do! I really like reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to speak my mind!
good (article|information) thanks
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
Why your site not working in IE7
Every time I see a really good blog post I usually do some things:1.Show it to my relevant friends.2.Bookmark it in some of the popular social bookmarking sites.3.Be sure to visit the blog where I first read the post.After reading this article I am really thinking of going ahead and doing all three!
Thanks, i think its useful, i added to my blog friends
Just tested an impressive resort in Seattle. Right it is, with the address and so this an individual can find it readily : Sorrento Hotel | 900 Madison Street | Seattle | WA 98104-1297 | (206) 622-6400
Your article reallymake sense. I’m gratified by the way you brought out ideas.
Simply needed to mention I truly appreciate your operate on this blog and the leading quality content articles you make. These type of blog post are generally precisely what keeps me personally going through the day time. I found this post right after a good buddy of mine advised it to me. I do a little blogging and site-building myself and I am always pleased to observe others contributing leading quality info towards on-line neighborhood. I’m likely to undoubtedly be subsequent and in addition have book-marked your internet weblog to my bebo account for other people to go to.
hi there, i just found your site on yahoo, and i would like to say that you write interestingly well via your web portal. i am truly impressed by the method that you write, and the subject is excellent. in any case, i would also like to acknowledge whether you would like to exchange links with my blog? i will be to the great extent than happy to reciprocate and put your link off in the link exchange area. waiting for your reply, i would like to convey my appreciation and gooday!
Buy $10 Replica Designer Sunglasses with 3-day FREE SHIPPING
hey,I just thought you might want to know that your website looks messed up when you watch it on my iphone. I’m not sure if it has something to do with my phone’s browser or your website? just saying
1M+_j diet capsules Fb037
uzliA1 hmm what them is that? custom?
In the united kingdom, studies demonstrate that about 70% from the woman human population do not use the beats by dr dre headphones and rather straps on ill-fitting, not comfortable ones.
My brother suggested I may like this blog. He used to be totally right. This submit actually made my day. You cann’t consider simply how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!
thanx mike
Pretty cool article, keep these great articles coming. I just love to spend time reading your posts!