Fair trade: savior or ruse?

Mexican coffee farmers in Chiapas have raised their incomes while enhancing the environment thanks to "fair trade," according to the NYT.  Meanwhile consumers can sip their coffee knowing that they are contributing to alleviating poverty and safefguarding the environment.  Seems like a win-win, right?  Yet, I can't stop myself thinking that there has to be more to the story.  We know that labeling products (e.g. "fair trade" coffee) is in general a good idea when consumers have a preference for improved labor practices or for environmentally-friendly production methods.  In principle, consumers who are willing to pay a higher price for these can thereby induce producers to adopt the production practices that the consumers value.  While this increases economic efficiency, it is not clear that it makes the growers better off by all that much. After all, the increased price simply compensates the growers for the added production costs incurred.

So for fair trade to have a real impact on poverty, there needs to be an added element: multinationals must be willing to transfer a larger part of their sales revenue to the farmers--but this is something that could be done by multinationals in any case, without the ruse of "fair trade." Perhaps the quid pro quo is this: "fair trade" increases consumer demand and therefore profits; in return firms pass on a higher price to the growers. This kind of "rent-sharing" assumes of course that companies like Starbucks are making excess profits. Otherwise, there would be no rents to share. 

This helps resolve another puzzle I have been thinking of for a while. At the cafeteria in the Kennedy School, "fair trade" Starbucks coffee sells for the same price as other types of Starbucks coffee. This is of course inconsistent with the standard labeling story under perfectly competitive conditions. So either Starbucks is pulling a quick one over us, or it is able to make excess profits (i.e., gouging consumers). If the latter, "fair trade" is just a means of increasing Starbuck's profits. It would be interesting to know how much of that really trickles down to the growers.

In any case, it would be good to have a serious industrial-organization analysis of the whole "fair trade" business.  Does anyone know of something along these lines?

Comments

[Gretchen Gordon]

On the fair trade question, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the fairtrade farmers have added production costs. Their production doesn't have to change at all, just how much they get paid. (With organic you could argue that farmers have added costs bc they have to go through a certification process. But they also don't have to pay for pesticides, which is actually a cost savings. At any rate fair trade doesn't mean it's organic.)
It's clear that starbucks is making excess profits off their cup of joe. But another factor in your calculation should be that the difference in price for starbucks doesn't have to be significant. Fair trade coffee cuts out the middleman distributors, and in some cases roasters, who take their own profit cuts. Fairtrade farmers usually form their own co-ops so they don't get robbed by middlemen. THat can then be a significant source for the extra money paid to growers. Starbucks also probably has to kick in a few cents as well.

But you might notice that in most starbucks the fairtrade coffee is for sale in bags, but is never "on brew." You have to ask for it specifically if you want a cup. (And their policy last I heard was that they have to brew it for you) The fact that starbucks offers fairtrade coffee probably has less to do with the cost or consumer demand, and more to do with the fact that their public image was the target of a major fair trade campaign, and that cost outweighed whatever increase they have to pay for the random bag of fairtrade coffee they keep on display.
There are plenty of little coffee shops that only offer fairtrade coffee and still make a profit.

I'm sure Transfair or Equal Exchange have an economic analysis.

On a separate note, did you recently write something on south to north capital flows? I'm looking for it, but can't find it.
thanks!
Gretchen

[Dani Rodrik]

Thanks. The added costs come when growers have to switch to different environmental management practices, to organic farming, or fulfill any of the other requirements of "fair trade." The NYT piece that started me on this talked specifically about the environmental requirements. And I am not sure I would regard Transfair and Equal Exchange as exactly impartial on this.
On the capital flows question, check http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik14. The work I am using in this piece is mostly a paper by Prasad, Rajan, and Subramanian, which you can find on the IMF web page.

[Luis Enrique]

As more farmers become fair trade suppliers, what is that likely to do for their countries' growth prospects? Might it retard productivity growth?

I have read fair trade advocates saying higher prices induce investment by fair trade farmer, but can you hold on to fairtrade status if your farm expands production beyond a certain point?

[AJE]

try

http://thefilter.blogs.com/thefilter/2007/02/fairtrade_updat.html

http://www.cberndt.com/Research.htm

[ron cronovich]

We won't really have fair trade until rich countries lose the big ag subsidies that impoverish millions of African farmers.

[Henri Tournyol du Clos, Paris]

Frankly, I do understand why that "fair trade coffee" fad should be so much discussed: it is about coffee, the brew around which the chattering classes in Continental Europe, and now the US, have congregated for two and a half centuries in public places, known as cafés, in order to ... chatter. So anything that has something to do with coffee has a high probability of being talked about and discussed and give rise to the weirdest theories.

However, my point is that the "fair trade" phenomenon has a very low probability of spreading to other products. It is first and foremost a "coffee" phenomenon, since, to most people, the reference prize in coffee is that of a cup of it in a public place, ie something which, for roughly 95%, is made of elements that have nothing whatsoever to do with coffee : manpower, rent, equipment, etc.

At home, I use one of the best (and expensive) industrial coffees in the world, Illy Nero, 250g of which retails online for 7€ and lasts my family more than a week to the tune of something like 4 double expressos a day. So even using luxury coffee puts the price of the expresso below 10 cents, a fair cry from the 1.20€ one has to fork out for a cup in the seediest of cafés in Paris.

Furthermore, the retail price of ground coffee has little to do with the price of coffee beans in the growing country itself : it incorporates transportation costs, roasting costs, marketing and distribution costs, etc.

So my guess is that coffee beans account for something like 1% of the price a café charges for an expresso.

In that case, one can see how easy it is for café owners, like Starbuck's, to appear to be doing valuable charity work through one of these "fair trade" schemes. It does not even cost them peanuts - as a matter of fact, peanuts would probably be more expensive... But in terms of public image, this has a huge leverage.

Now, the fad can spread to coffee bought in supermarkets for home consumption. Since people have in mind the price of coffee in a bar, they think naturally that when they pickup a pack of fair trade coffee instead of cheaper Nesbrand X they are getting good value for the implicit charity. Hum, hum.

I would, for once, side with The Economist, who ran a piece quite hostile to fair trade schemes a few months ago. This is a fad, and one should not build anything on fads. On the other hand, I would say that, in the long run, it is Western consumers buying better quality coffee that will be helping coffee growers in poor countries.

[Michael Greinecker]

Your link doesn't work, you included the point.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik14

[Leonardo Becchetti]

Dear Prof. Rodrik

I'm a full professor of Economics at University of Tor Vergata Rome (Phd at Oxford University) who has worked for several years on fair trade. I'm quite happy that an economist of your level and with your attention to social issues is interested at the issue.

I have worked on three directions: i) IO models of mixed oligopoly in which profit maximising incumbents (like Nestlè or Starbucks) react to the entry of fair trade producers both in prices and ethical stance. I have various versions of the basic model with static and dynamic law of motion of consumer tastes and different hypotheses on costs of "ethical distance". The basic analytical framework is a horizontal differentiation model in which distance is reinterpreted as willingness to pay something to foster development of south producers. These models easily show under which conditions incumbent (partially) imitates FTs and also address the issue of whether the incumbent would choose ethical imitation without the fairtraders.
The nice finding of the model is a paradox of a (mixed) duopoly which creates more social responsibility than a benevolent planner which maximises welfare of (North) consumers (including ethically concerned ones) would do.

ii) empirical analyses on consumers in the North in which I estimate their demand for FT producs and their willingness to pay for them (the paper is forthcoming on World Economy).
iii) impact studies on the effect of fairtrade on primary producers in which we test the effects of FT affiliation on various measures of producers' wellbeing and compare affiliated to a control sample (the paper is in second revision at World Development).

With this research I got some ideas on benefits, critical points an potential of fair trade.
I also elaborated responses to the two main criticisms on fair trade: i) distorsion of market prices ii) why it is better than the alternative of buying a standard product and giving money for charity.

To say something on the points you raised remember that Starbucks is a second mover, profit maximising imitators of FT pioneers which are the trade organisation which invented it. Their price breakdown is transparent differently from that of Starbucks (as far as I know) and includes a countercyclical mark-up on prices which goes up to 100 percent in period of low stock market prices on commodities such as coffee and cocoa. The mark-up is much higher on bananas.
The actual story of fair trade is a complicated competition between labelling organisations, alternative trading organisations, imitators such as Starbucks, dedicated retailers (world shops).
Consider that pioneers are not profit maximisers since their main goal is social inclusion of the producers (of course they do moderate profits) and that dedicated retailers are cooperative or not for profit enterprise with a significant share of volutary work.
Hence they do not need excess profits to transfer more to primary producers.
Another way to pass more to primary producers is by cutting margins of intermediaries (this can be done also by profit maximising entities).
On the field fair trade has been important also for its antitrust action on the local monopoly of moneylenders and transporters.
At the moment fairtraders are always more aware that capacity building and technical assistance is crucial to their success. There is nothing much different in fair trade from investment in a new differentiated product in the food industry (such as creating a new wine in Italy and the US). The difference is that it occurs by helping marginalised producers.
Fair trade discloses something very important also on the nature of individuals and firms.
Individuals are far from the homo oeconomicus simplification as their purchases and willingness to pay in excess for the FT feature of the products reveals.
And not only profit maximising firms exist but also cooperative and not for profit firms which compete with profit maxisising firms on the markets, even though they are obviously a minority.
What fair trade pioneers have done so far is limited but contagion effects are important. The crucial problem today is asymmetric information. The "ethical content" of the product is not an experience good. By buying more fair trade coffees you do not improve your knowledge of ethical content of fair trade. The crucial issue is therefore labels and competition among them. In an ideal world a variety of credible labels should signal exactly to consumers what each actor in this field does.

To answer to another comment to your blog. It is not true that FT is limited to coffee. At the moment its higher market share is 49 percent of bananas sold in Switzerland. In Europe its rate of growth (from low absolute levels of course) has been of 20 percent per year in the last 5 years.

We do not know whether fair trade will prosper as such but the novelty is important.
Consumers can vote with their portfolio by looking not just at price and quality but also to socially responsible features of products. This is simply an increase in democracy and participation. If the fair trade schemes will not work the market will find a similar scheme to satisfy these new consumer tastes. The door is open and the principle will become always more important. In financial markets the same is happening (SR funds which adopt one or more social screenings account for one tenth of all financial investment in the US).

I just discussed my work in several conferences in the last years and just last week in Rome in a series of seminars with Kaushik Basu.
I would be very happy to share some ideas with you.

Beyond the limits of theoretical modelling I accumulated some wider knowledge on the issue by consulting various actors in this field.

In a very famous, stimulating and provocative quote Keynes said in 1931 that “For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not [underlined is ours]. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."(Keynes, 1931)
In spite of all its imperfections and limits, Fair Trade and more in general the economics of social responsibility, by “creating (economic) value with values” seems to have something to do with the capacity of making the “fair useful” (in terms of value creation), thereby abridging the 100-year “transition” of the Keynes’ prophecy.

Here below you can find references to my work which is downloadable (the working paper part) on Repec on the Faculty website
Unfortunately versions of these papers you find in internet are not fully updated. I can provide you more recent ones.

1. L.Becchetti F.C. Rosati, 2006, Globalisation and the death of distance in social preferences ad inequity aversion: empirical evidence from a pilot study on fair trade consumers, CEIS Working Paper, n.216 and World Economy (forth.)
2. Becchetti, L., Costantino M., The effects of Fair Trade on marginalised producers: an impact analysis on Kenyan farmers, CEIS Working Paper (under second revision at World Development)
3. Becchetti L., Giallonardo L., Tessitore E., Corporate Social Responsibility and Profit Maximizing Behaviour, CEIS Working Paper
4. Becchetti, L. Solferino, N., 2003, On ethical product differentiation, CEIS Working Paper n.188
5. Becchetti, L. Solferino, N., 2003, A virtuous interaction between pressure groups, firms and institutions: a subsidiarity principle in a horizontal differentiation model CEIS Working Paper n. 194.
6. Becchetti L., Giallonardo L., and Tessitore M.E., 2006, Consumer driven market mechanisms to fight inequality: the case of CSR/product differentiation models with asymmetric information, ECINEQ working paper.
7. Leonardo Becchetti, Luisa Giallonardo, and Elisabetta Tessitore, 2006, "Consumer driven market mechanisms to fight inequality: the case of CSR/product differentiation models with asymmetric information" ECINEQ working paper n. 50

[Eric Crampton]

Henri is pointing at the right answer. There's little cost difference between fair trade and regular coffee because the cost of beans is a minor fraction of the cost of a cup of coffee at the retail level. Tim Harford discusses this in his Undercover Economist book.

[Douglas Knight]

From what I've heard, the price differential of buying fair trade coffee in a grocery store is passed on to the farmer, while in coffee shops it is usually price discrimination. I'm surprised to hear that there is no premium at Starbucks, especially if it is the beans, not the cup, as Gretchen Gordon says.

[Sonia]

Consider a couple of other possibilities. Most coffee beans whether fair trade class or not are the same price at a retailer yet there are probably some within class differences in the cost of production and also the wholesale prices. By selling all (or most) of beans at the same price the retailer discourages switching beans. Also by selling brewed coffee at the same price the retailer encourages the buyer to think that the retailer is a providing a charitable service foregoing profit. A third possibility is that the fair trade coffee is inferior in some respects (less fresh whatever). The buyer prefers more value added to the producer and less to roaster importer etc.

[Sonia]

Leonardo de Becchetti is quite stimulating. Where does the Ethiopia vs Starbucks branding controversy fit in? Could a similar analysis apply to environmental issues,e.g. electricity purchased from scrubbed coal?

[Rav Casley Gera]

I'm not a trained economist, so forgive me if my response lacks the rigour of some others. But I suspect Prof. Rodrik is confusing Fairtrade (which is a clearly defined system with its own branding) with an array of other, vaguer "ethical" marketing schemes.

The Fairtrade Foundation awards its mark to products based primarily on the proportion of the wholesale price that goes to the farmer. There are a few minor environmental factors, but these would require minimum adaptation for small farmers.

These are the standards of "official" Fairtrade:

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_standards.htm

There are, however, a host of other ethical products out there - Kenco, for example, have just launched an "ethically sourced" coffee range, without really explaining what that means. Many of these do include environmental aspects, and may indeed increase costs to producers.

It's understandable for economists, who after all tend to value free markets, to be skeptical of Fairtrade. But the collapse of the prices of coffee and other primary goods in the last twenty years, owing partly to IMF-sponsored overproduction, makes it necessary - non-fairtrade farmers have been forced in recent years to sell coffee crops for less than production cost.

These examples give an idea of the benefits. While we should be skeptical of the "ethical industry," the benefits of properly assessed Faitrade goods are demonstrable.

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/about_benefits.htm

The Economist's point about Fairtrade was the opposite - not that it doesn't work, but that it works too well. By raising incomes, it argues, Fairtrade discourages diversification. There may be something in this. But it's important to note that farmers who can barely feed their families are unable to make the capital investments needed, even merely in seed, to diversify. A better income - and a promise of a fair price into the future - is surely a more fertile environment for diversification and innovation? In other words, poor people in developing countries haven't diversified from cash crops because they're stupid, but because they can't afford to. I don't have numbers for this to hand, but I'm sure it's been demonstrated.

I'll admit to being quite frustrated that intelligent and highly educated economists seem so eager to dismiss Fairtrade without properly investigating it. It seems unfair to call a "fad" something that has been expanding its market share for over ten years; and which has transformed and, indeed, saved thousands of lives in developing countries. And to suggest it's limited to coffee is, as pointed out above, simply false.

Of course, Fairtrade won't expand nonstop until it affects 100% of agricultural exports. But unlike organic, it's at least technically possible for it to do so: enough food *can* be generated under Fairtrade conditions, because they're not primarily environmental but about the supply chain.

There is no reason in theory why all farmers can't recieve a living wage for popular agricultural exports that are generating huge profits further up the supply chain.

[wkwillis]

This is not the first fairtrade situation. One of the earlier ones is when the German chocolatiers persuaded the Spanish government to abolish slavery in Sao Tome and Principe around the turn of the century.
Technically it wasn't slavery, it was a labor draft with a 90% death rate, but the Germans wouldn't stand for it and got it abolished.

[yves]

When consumers buy fair trade versions of products from big-time sellers, consumers have no idea what happens to the money and if their purchases are helping those particular producers. Specifically, it is unclear what happens to our money when we buy the Fair Trade Blend (FTB) at Starbucks. Are the FTB sales revenues earmarked for a special "producers fund"? If so, is Starbucks taking a hit by not charging more? It would be interesting to see how revenues match up to the cost structure, if at all.

This is entirely different from making the decision to shop at a purely organic store or farmers market.

And different from Burger Kind's decision to shift to buying only "free-range" eggs for use in its restaurants.

Another separate matter is the use of the word "fair" when describing trade, and whether we have a shared understanding of what that means (and whether a real definition even exists).

[Leonardo Becchetti]

I realize that my first intervention was a bit general and I want to provide a quick response to the specific issue posed in the blog (can Starbuck claim that its fair trade coffee has higher profit margins even though it is sold at the same price of the other coffees ?).

The question is simple is we consider the breakdown of the coffee price in the traditional and in the fair-trade value chain.
Consider that farmers receive around 10 percent on the final coffee price in the standard (non fair-trade) value chain while they receive directly up to 100 percent more from fair trade (20 percent of the final price). Actually the extra payment provided by fairtraders is not constant across time but anticylclical. Data of the last 20 years tell us that the additional payment of fair traders goes down to an additional 10 percent when the stock market coffee price booms (it happened for short periods several times due to climatic shocks in Brasil) and goes up to an additional 100 percent or more when the stock price is low (factors which bring it down are technological progress in cultivation and the strong increase in supply from Vietnam).

Hence, put the price of coffee equal to 1 (euro or dollar) for simplicity.

Starbuck by adopting the fair-trade approach must pay 10 cents more (if we consider the 100 percent additional payment) but can still increase profits if consumers’ willingness to pay for the additional “ethical” feature of the coffee is higher than 10 cents (which is just a 10 percent more on the final price). Hence by selling the final coffee at 1.11 its claim may be true. If Starbuck cuts margins of local intermediation (which is one of the goals of fair trade) the condition may be further relaxed.
The problem is that Starbuck claims that it sells the fair-trade coffee at the same price than other coffees (which can be easily verified, even though not in Italy were we do not have Starbuck shops). Hence, if this is true, it must save more than 10 cents elsewhere in the value chain. It can happen either by reducing the roaster share (it is usually around 18 percent of the final price) or the local intermediation share (around 20 percent of the final price). Are such drastic reductions in these shares plausible ?

Consider also that, even though Starbuck mimics fairtraders in paying the additional amount to farmers, fairtraders do much more. They generally cut the local intermediation and pay first level producers association up to 25 percent of the final price for the provision of public goods to affiliated farmers (technical assistance, education, health, etc.). We found in Kenya that support to the producer organisation is as important in terms of effects on farmers’ wellbing as the direct contribution to producers. This is integral part of the fair-trade issue. It is even more difficult that Starbuck can do both things (additional payment to farmers, payment to the producer association) by doing more profits and without changing the final price.

Other differences between Starbuck and fairtraders: i) dedication of Starbuck to fair-trade is related to its capacity of making profits from the FT products (and therefore to the conditions stated above), that of pioneers goes beyond since they are not profit maximisers. This means that they have less constraints in pursuing social goals; iii) pioneers may say that they have a 100 percent faitrade product portfolio, while Starbuck should be evaluated (by ethical consumers) on its net social responsibility outcome (difference between its social responsible activities and the others).

For all these reasons ethically concerned consumers should welcome as an important contagion effect the move of Starbuck but should vote with their portfolio for the pioneers if they want to foster further this bottom up process which increases social responsibility in the market economy

[Michael Greinecker]

On related news:

www.economics.com.au/?p=809

[Martin Richardson]

There is some other analytical economics on fair trade, beyond Becchetti and Adriani: see http://www.ecocomm.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp481.pdf

[Swarnim]

Dani, possibly the kind of paper on Fair Trade that you wanted to see back in April?

http://eprints.otago.ac.nz/716/01/DP_0709.pdf

[Swarnim]

Oops, didn't see that Martin Richardson had posted a link already.

[Rishabh Tagore]

Dear All

It is my pleasure to come in touch with you!
I am an 11 year old student at United World College of South East Asia, in Singapore. I would like to learn about fair trade and how it affects the environment in association with my school work. Could you please answer these questions for me?

How does globalized trade affect the environment?

How does fair trade support the environment?

What can consumers do to support fair trade?

Thanks a lot! |

[rolex watches]

This is clearly replica watches the job for our legal fraternity to engage the establishment to necessary breitling watches steps by filing petitions in various courts. IF one fails another should be cartier watches filed taking every one to task. It is rolex watches useless to suggest ways and means to solve tag heuer watches the day to day problem to well paid employees tissot watches of government controlled establishments. Only active omega watches judiciary will resolve this problem.
http://www.watchvisa.com
http://www.watchvisa.com/breitling-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/cartier-watches.html

[rado watches]

Why is everyone just montblanc watches willing to accept power cuts? Don't you think that patek philippe watches having continious power is your right? If people aren't going to demand rado watches 24X7 power, don't expect anything zenith watches to change. The government needs to look at other sources parmigiani watches of power generation. The only solution is more power panerai watches production. Nothing less.
http://www.watchvisa.com/montblanc-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/patek_philippe-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/rado-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/tudor-watches.html

[rolex watches]

People usually say :"Seeing is believing." http://www.tt88times.com
Each attempt has a corresponding gain, in part or obvious, or vague. At least we have the kind of satisfaction After I bought this watch ,in a sense,it means a great deal to me. http://www.fashionhairfu.com

[tiffany jewelry]

At present this season's jewelry!

[Lifting Equipment]

Action Handling Equipment Ltd is one of the most trusted names in the UK when it comes to material handling equipment, lifting equipment, office supplies, industrial weighing equipment, packaging and warehouse equipment.

[lachou]

I like these articles , democratic countries formulate policies are both team and the interests of the people of power, but the undemocratic countries rarely for the interests of the people, http://www.jerseysky.com it is the sorrow of many democracy, I like the western and northern state policy.
http://www.cheapsaleing.com

[Moncler]

I am a senior student, I Love your blog as i love study english, I learn much from this post, i ths very much.

[jordan shoes]

Thanks for sharing your article. I really enjoyed it. I put a link to my site to here so other people can read it. Came across your blog when I was searching bing I have found the bit of info that
I found to be quite useful.

[jordan shoes for sale]

I think this is a great post. One thing that I find the most helpful is number five. Sometimes when I write, I just let the flow of the words and information come out so much that I loose the purpose. It’s only after editing when I realize what I’ve done. There’s defiantly a lot of great tips here I’m going to try to be more aware of.

[jordan shoes]

It's good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, than now i have the link which i was looking for my research.

[Moncler]

The web of losses that you describe in NC are offset by a web of gains in Boston. Restrict trade, and I pay more for my socks, do not eat dinner in Boston, and the web of losses you described in NC happens in Boston

[ugg boots]

a story

[gucci outlet]

ruse I think.

[shane]

http://www.srt.com.pk/desktops.html

[Dubai deals]

If you ever doubt the existence of a wonder in such a modern period, come here at Dubai and watch out all the Dubai deals at the single spot. Dubai deals are countless depending upon your own likes and dislikes and shopping preferences.

[w.a.]

fairy it is only the name! what is inside we 'll see in the nearest future!

[Account Deleted]

hi !
It's good to see this information in your post..

There are so many people have replayed here,and i would like to take part in.
Dissertation Writing

[Account Deleted]

raf

Thanks a lot for sharing.

[Account Deleted]

the standard (non fair-trade) value chain while they receive directly up to 100 percent more from fair trade (20 percent of the final price). Actually the extra payment provided by fairtraders is not constant across time but anticylclical. Data of the last 20 years tell us that the additional payment of fair traders goes down to an additional 10 percent when the stock market coffee price booms (it happened for short periods several times due to climatic shocks in Brasil) and goes up to an additional 100 percent or more when the stock price is low (factors which bring it down are technological progress in cultivation http://www.mbtfootwearusa.com/

[Account Deleted]

Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips.
I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future Term Paper Writing.My opinion is that this article is very nice.==

[Account Deleted]

Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post
Generic Viagra

[Account Deleted]

Great information, you have a wonderful blog and an excellent article!!
Regards,
Generic Viagra

[Account Deleted]

Hola,
Realmente buen trabajo, hay muchas personas en busca de eso ahora van a encontrar suficientes fuentes por tus consejos.
También se espera para más consejos acerca de que,
Regards, メファキン

[Account Deleted]

hey buddy,this is one of the best posts that I’ve ever seen; you may include some more ideas in the same theme. I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post.
Generic Viagra

[Account Deleted]

The Emancipation Proclamation was a prosaic statement by Lincoln that seemed like it was a revolutionary treatise on the future treatment and freeing of African Americans, but in fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was simply a politically inspired ruse.

Project Management Firms

[Account Deleted]

helpful advises above.laptops

[Account Deleted]

So for fair trade to have a real impact on poverty, there needs to be an added element: China Wholesale Beads

[Account Deleted]

Helpful advises above. I have noticed that many people are using twitter for marketing. I would love to try this too for my business.
birthday parties

[Account Deleted]

Hie primum ipsum visitabo hic. Ita multi inveni in vasa interesting maxime Weblog eius discussionem. Tons de tuis commentationes articles, suspicor non sum solus omnem habens fructum praesens est! sustine bonos vsus.
Regards,
Ports Automation

[Account Deleted]

Skönt att vara besöka din blogg igen, har det varit månader för mig. Väl här artikeln som jag har väntat så länge. Jag behöver den här artikeln för att slutföra mitt uppdrag i kollegiet, och den har samma tema med din
Generic Levitra |
ttp://www.bellspharmacy.com/maincategory/7/generic-levitra.html

[Account Deleted]

Raf
raf

Thaks for comment.

[Account Deleted]

Raf
raf

Thanks to you ...

[Account Deleted]

Raf
raf

Thanks for this ...

[Account Deleted]

I have wanted to learn more about particular topics, but not many websites would help me out in informing me the way I expected. This left me with many question, but after reading your article, I got an answer to all my questions. You are too cool dude!!!

Regards,
Generic Drugs Exporter

[Account Deleted]

Thank you for sharing to us Please one more post about that..
http://www.onlinemedicalstore.net/allergy-lioresal-baclofen-c-1_26

[Account Deleted]

Be Nice to visiting your blog again, it HAS been months for me. Well this article that I've been waited for long with. I need this article we complete this assignment in the college, and it Has Sam topic with your article. Thanks, great share.
Kamagra

[Account Deleted]

hey buddy,this is one of the best posts that I’ve ever seen; you may include some more ideas in the sametheme. I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post.
http://www.bellspharmacy.com/category/4/kamagra.html

[Account Deleted]

Many places and centers offer business and trade promotions to both buyers and supplier.What about the differences in skill intensities across industries? The job losses in the relatively unskilled-labor intensive battery industry should have little effect on the relatively skilled-labor intensive machinery
sexshop
sexyshop
sexshop online

[Account Deleted]

You made some good points .I did a little research on the topic and found that most people agree with your blog. Thanks.

organic seo service

[Alec A. Jacobs]

thanks for the nice read - I'll come back for more. Reverse Cell Phone Lookup

[Account Deleted]

recover powerpoint:

Great article. Thanks for sharing information with us, this blog is very interesting,

[Bernard Atkinson]

That sounds good I appreciate this post..!
academic book reports

[Linda Roverson]

Thank you so much for this very useful and helpful post!
descriptive essay