I was visited today by a cabinet minister from a medium-sized, middle income country (which shall remain nameless for the purposes of this post). He explained that, among other challenges, he faces the task of attracting foreign investors to his country. He related the story of how he has just induced a large IT multinational to make a big investment by providing it rent-free space for 10 years on a public site. In view of the subsidy, he had to bring the finance minister on board. But he said that had not been a problem. The finance minister was happy to approve the benefit.
When you hear this story, which one of these two responses comes closer to how you feel about it:
A. Great! Another government gleefully wasting the public's money. When will those developing countries learn that you do not get ahead by distorting market forces. If the multinational needed a subsidy to be persuaded to come in, the social value it produces must be less than the social cost of the resources it will gobble up. Plus in this instance, the subsidy goes straight to foreigners.
B. How wonderful! For once a finance minister who understands that sometime you may need to grease the wheels of market forces to get you the kind of investments that you need. It may cost the budget money, but these kinds of things are the tonic on which growth depends. Economic development requires structural change, which market forces do not adequately reward. If this enables the country to set up a new IT hub, the policy will achieve its purpose.
Think about that one for a while.
And then see if the following piece of information changes your mind. The minister told me that he had looked at the pros and cons of giving the multinational the subsidy, and in the end he had figured that the likely increase in property values from the multinational's presence--and the extra taxes that would bring in--made the subsidy a good deal for the government. Now which one of these positions do you take:
A. Yeah right. I bet this argument was fed to the minister by the firm itself. Probably on the back of a napkin with some kind of graph...
B. Well, entirely possible. Sometimes you do need a pioneer investor to get things started. Many industries in the developing world have been spawned from initial investments like this one--often made on a non-commercial basis.
And finally, suppose now you are told that the country in question is one that has averaged 4 percent growth on average (in per-capita terms) for the last 4 decades. Which would be your response?
A. Well clearly they would have grown even faster without policies of this kind.
B. I knew it!
So, what kind of economist are you? A Type-A one or a Type-B one?
UPDATE: OK, seeing the range of views reflected in the responses below has been quite useful, I think. And I do apologize for presenting such a simplistic, A-or-B kind of picture, when pretty much everything I write calls for nuanced, context-specific responses. The reason I presented this choice is that I find many economists go instinctively for the A-position--something that is fully borne out in the responses below. In reality, and (I emphasize) sometimes, the B-position is the one that really pushes an economy go forward For my own views on these issues I am afraid I have to refer the interested reader to lengthier accounts. See this and this.
Type A's suffer from incredible confusion. They seem to ignore the abundant lessons in economic history... AND, despite the fact that many of their models may be cool, they fail to realize those very models are often USELESS when applied to the intricate circumstances of the real world. If I had to make a choice, it would definitely be B.
Posted by: aly k | July 03, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I'm not an economist (i work in IT) but i'll stick my neck out and would say 'Type B'. (Is there a subsequent post with the answer forthcoming?)
Posted by: cvj | July 03, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Could I put my hand up for camp 'C' - confused (again)?
I ask because, to me, the story seems illustrative of one of the distributive perils of globalisation.
Once upon a time, to an extent, firms had to live with the laws where they lived. Because of this, it was possible (in theory, at least) to charge true costs and to offset negative externalities through taxing and spending.
Now, to an extent, companies can go country shopping using as leverage when negotiating, the "we could go elsewhere" factor.
Of course, it may well be the case that having the firm there, public subsidies and all, ends up being a greater welfare maximiser than not having them there. So my argument isn't one against globalisation, per se, I'm just pointing out that the balance of power has changed and this may lead to less *equitable* outcomes.
Oh - and a question - vis a vis domestic savings and firms how significant was foreign investment in the rise of the Asian Tigers and China?
Posted by: terence | July 03, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I'll say a, with reservations. I recognize the reallity of B's position, but I am skeptical about government's ability to consistantly pick which situations require greasing and to avoid the temptations of corruption. I don't think it's impossible, just hard.
Also, in your example, wouldn't a more generic policy be better? Maybe some sort of generic subsidy on investment. That way the government wouldn't have to figure out specifically which companies should get subsidies.
Posted by: jsalvati | July 04, 2007 at 01:16 AM
I guess it boils down to whether you believe that the government should be engaged in industrial planning and picking winners and losers; or you believe that government central planning has been proven a failure and the market should pick the winners and losers.
I think central planning, even on a small scale, is a bankrupt policy and should be avoided.
Posted by: tom | July 04, 2007 at 01:34 AM
Ofcourse the ansewr is easy and can be found in some places! I found it long ago at
http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/deveco/v36y1991i2p229-242.html
Posted by: Torben | July 04, 2007 at 01:37 AM
I am very skeptical of B. Rarely do government projections turn out as expected, just look at our own budget predictions. We can't even get next quarter's GDP right, but this government minister's projections over 10 years are to be trusted? And the correct measure of benefit is NOT the amount of extra taxes that can be collected by the government. Just by this minister's thinking, I would guess the real benefits aren't going to be as great as expected. That's what I think given the information available.
Posted by: BJ Feng | July 04, 2007 at 01:43 AM
Throw me (yet again) into the distrustful/unbelieving/OMG camp.
IMHO this anonymous country should send these rent-seekers packing and follow up with a swift kick in the a$$. If these alleged capitalists can't cut the grade without corporate welfare, they can Cheney themeselves.
How on earth will home-grown businesses compete with the government perks that are tendered to the multinational? Is this anonymous mid-sized nation prepared to offer identical tax advantages to home-grown business in direct competition with the mulinational?
Posted by: Idaho_Spud | July 04, 2007 at 01:43 AM
I don't see the point of this pigeonholing...
It all depends on the opportunity cost of that public land, no?
Posted by: Gabriel M. | July 04, 2007 at 03:49 AM
Let me guess. I would say the country is Portugal, the minister is Manuel Pinho, the multinational is Nokia, and the purpose of the investment is to create a research center in the University of Aveiro. At least the description fits nicely this case. Please note the amount of the subsidy was not publicly disclosed.
Posted by: João Castro | July 04, 2007 at 04:34 AM
Mr João, what's the point of calling this exercise out of its abstract principles, as the author wanted it?
Posted by: Vasco R | July 04, 2007 at 06:23 AM
Theory of second best...
It depends on what other countries are doing (unfortunately). Prisoners dilemma, being good is better for everybody, being good when others are bad is a fools errand.
Posted by: reason | July 04, 2007 at 07:22 AM
Because the original question is too easy :-) (Type-B for me)
However I don't think Portugal has averaged 4% growth for 40 years; I'd classify it as small- not mid-sized; and high- not middle income. How about Malaysia?
Posted by: Cormac | July 04, 2007 at 07:25 AM
Most probably the firm was looking somewhere cheapish and attractive to young graduates, to set up a facility and thought "while we are at it we will see how much leverage we have on the government". They don't really need the subsidy, but knowing the government will dance for them is a definite plus.
Posted by: reason | July 04, 2007 at 07:28 AM
nice choice a or b
not a or z
they both share a common willingness
to attach no weight to why this is on the table at all
it/ip tnc monopoles
and tnc controled
north market access
neither is a sharply
drawn
fact in any
formal models
of development i've seen
where tnc firms are seperated out from
the other cross border players
this tax arbitrage game can be seen for what it is
a vicious race to the bottom by states desperate to win the contest
to host the next
tnc landing pad
if i'm by default
a type b
its with a type a fury
Posted by: paine | July 04, 2007 at 07:37 AM
"Prisoners dilemma" : That's exactly it. If every country on earth does the same, then they don't win anything by doing it, but they have highered the profit of companies and lowered what the states get.
Posted by: jmdesp | July 04, 2007 at 07:45 AM
If the country is a capitalist democracy then giving special favors to a single firm violates the principles behind both philosophies.
The first because firms should invest only when they see a clear way to make a profit. Governments should only subsidize enterprises where the conditions are not going to be profitable, such as in fundamental scientific research.
The second because it is undemocratic. It violates "all men are equal before the law". If there was a policy of any firm moving into a region, such as with development zones than one could make a case for it being "more" democratic. It would still be anti-capitalistic.
So the issue boils down to one of societies really believing the doctrines they preach to the populace or just doing what seem expedient at the moment.
Of course, violating either precept leaves the field open to corruption. This is one of the issues now in the US with the revolving door between government and K Street.
Posted by: robertdfeinman | July 04, 2007 at 07:49 AM
ok. i cant determine a or b based on the above info. my decision will be based on personal assessment of the govt's ability (though may be wrong or emotionally/idealogically biased) or at least i have to understand their track record. i am worry abt govt failure too, but it seems more sensible to do sort of valuation with available info. i dont know if this tyoe of question is actually testing your ideological inclination or whether you could shake your bias off to be as rational as possible(?).
Posted by: ocean | July 04, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I'm on the B side, but I can't wait to hear what Professor Rodrik has to say.
Posted by: unarmed | July 04, 2007 at 10:19 AM
If the investment can possibly bring about knock-on effects, such as:
– People recruited by the company gain experience in working for a multinational IT company which they can then use in other ventures
– Wider exposure for national IT innovations and companies
– Boost other, possibly national companies, that provide complementary services
– An increase in tax revenues
Then providing rent free space for 10 years is a very small price to pay.
Posted by: Ricardo | July 04, 2007 at 10:48 AM
A year from now, it turns out that the company benefiting from this arrangement has a near monopoly position in that country, is accused of abusive practices in dealing with its employees, suppliers, distributors/customers and competitors, and is found to be involved in a public official corruption scandal.
A1. Just because this one abused its position does not mean every business acts like this.
A2. It took a year?
B. The period of laissez faire must end, so here is a laundry list of regulations and interventions designed to stem such problems while promoting industry: ....
I'll also throw in with Gabriel.
Posted by: Eric H | July 04, 2007 at 11:13 AM
The number of 'A's above does indeed show the influence of anti-govt ideology on policy here in the United States, and explains the shriveled state of public investment, outside of the military. In the long run this is a competitive disadvantage for the United States.
Posted by: dissent | July 04, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Emphatic Type A
The first economics book I ever read was Hazlitt's 'Ecomonics in One Lesson' - I never forgot that lesson.
Posted by: Kit | July 04, 2007 at 12:22 PM
My vote is for B types, but with reservations. I believe in the fact that industrial policy guided by policymakers have 50-50 chance of success and failure. But a small, middle income country growing at 4 percent definately needs some boost in terms of FDI's and policymakers facilitating it seems like let's give it a try. However, i would still like to know about the investment climate in the country to make a better decision.
Posted by: Mayank | July 04, 2007 at 12:53 PM
its not about investment
financing
unless there is a payments deficit and
foreign machines need to be bought
mostly its about technical skill transfers
and ultimate
dependence on external markets
both
transfers and foreign markets
are controled
by the trans nats
get this straight
emerging mid level nations can self finance
if the investment
is in progress
ie
in home building the capacity to produce
world class products
and
leads to
higher value added
per hour
Posted by: paine | July 04, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Its a hard one. One thing I know for sure how the country has performed so far (4% growth year on) has nothing to do with the answer.
The issues are many and these must include the longterm crowding out effect of the IT firm on domestic indigenous growth - this is important because it is a MULTI NATIONAL and it could leave any time!!!
Posted by: Cho | July 04, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Since most of us will agree that the aim here is to develop the private sector, why don't we try to imagine the point of view of a local private business. Let's call it point of view "C". It would go something like this:
On rent-free space:
C. What the heck? Why don't I get a land lease reduction?? These guys are going to be able to undercut my prices and overun my market. Damit!
On justifying the subsidy with higher property tax revenues:
C. These guys are ALSO going to push up my long-term lease costs and the rent costs of my employees. The government is subsidising my competitors costs with the hope that it pushes up my operating costs, personal living costs and the living costs of my employees. AARRGGHH!
And on the growth rate of 4% per capita for the last 4 decades:
C. Yeah. That was hard working, unloved private sector business men like me. And we were working against these bone-headed bureaucrats that have no feel for a free market and what is required to develop it. Leave us the hell alone to do business.
Maybe it is better to leave the market to oversized, inefficient multinationals with political clout, and to instead invest in the S&P500.
Posted by: Maurice Pigaht | July 05, 2007 at 06:52 AM
I forgot to add. The above position would put me firmly in category "A". Although I regret the ideological tone in Professor Rodrick's depiction of this position. I take this position as a result of my experiences working in and with private sector SMEs in the face of such misguided government policies.
Posted by: Maurice Pigaht | July 05, 2007 at 07:06 AM
I wasn't either until I noticed that the country was growing at 4 percent a year -- that implied that it was reasonably well-run but could really use a boost, so this sort of experimentation was perhaps worth a try.
It's not that I disagree with industrial policy; it's clearly the only way any nation has yet found to develop. It's that the line between industrial policy and outright rent-seeking is so very fine.
Posted by: Kimmitt | July 05, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I think both types are pretty good examples of why people hate economists.
Type A is a bigotted know it all, while Type B is a corrupt plutocrat.
Posted by: soullite | July 05, 2007 at 12:44 PM
The country is the United States, guys.
And the benefactor is Wal-Mart.
I'm refusing to answer unless I'm assured that whatever is built there isn't going to cause more damage and clean-up costs to the local state after it's abandoned for a cheaper locale than the incremental gain from putting it there in the first place.
Posted by: Ken Houghton | July 05, 2007 at 04:08 PM
I would choose B.
Posted by: Sarosh | July 05, 2007 at 08:36 PM
Ken, but the United States is not a 'medium-sized, middle income country' and members of cabinet are not called 'ministers'.
Posted by: cvj | July 05, 2007 at 09:57 PM
I'm an A-level Economics student, and I'd go for B all the way. I actually live in a Third World country that has benefited a lot from FDI, and IMHO rent-free space is a very small price to pay for the jobs the MNC can create. What else is the land going to be used for anyway? A row of sundry shops? If we don't bring in MNCs to generate growth, someone else has to provide jobs - and it's usually government-aided/government-owned companies because the private sector in 3W countries don't have the guts/skills to go it alone. Either way the gov's going to distort the markets. I apologize if this doesn't make sense, I'm obviously out of my league here :P
Posted by: J | July 06, 2007 at 07:46 AM
My knee-jerk reaction is B. In terms of applying economic theory to policy in developing economies, it's safe to assume that people will respond to incentives, and that you can create a market if you remove all the barriers. But it's never safe to assume that resources are being allocated efficiently (or even somewhat efficiently) economy-wide.
For some economists, if someone is going to claim that social values and prices aren't equal, the burden of proof is on the person making that claim to say why. In my opinion, exactly the opposite should be the case when we're talking about developing countries.
Posted by: ben | July 06, 2007 at 10:03 AM
The real question might be whether subsidizing rent for one player is the best policy response when it is assumed that there is underinvestment and absence of entrepreneurship. Maybe there's not enough information to figure this out.
Another question is: How would we measure success? Suppose this multinational does come to the country, and starts exporting "new" goods. In order to pronounce the policy a success would we have to find out that the country's cost structure was suitable for export of that good (even before the subsidy), but a that information asymmetries (or some other market imperfection) prevented that understanding? Does anyone know of empirical studies of industrial policy that show that such information was "discovered" ex post, by looking at return on capital numbers or some comparable measure? It seems that studies seem to cite the mere presence of a new export industry as evidence that industrial policy has "worked". But that might be due only to the subsidy itself and not any inherent strengths. Might it also reveal survivorship bias?
Lastly, industrial policy would seem to require bureaucrats skilled at knowing when certain policies, companies, or industries haven't worked, and cutting them off. In a democratic policymaking frameworking, especially in a poor country (or any country for that matter), it seems unlikely that once a policy decision is made to subsidize a particular industry or company that the decision could be easily reversed. Is industrial policy more suitable for non-democratic regimes? What do the examples of Korea, Taiwan and Singapore tell us? I don't know.
With respect to pruning out the bad apples, it seems as though one of the strengths of the market process is that it more readily weeds out failed ideas. I guess I would be skeptical about the attempt to replicate this element of the market process through a government one, even if it was marked by transparency and accountability.
I have very few answers but have enjoyed the discussion greatly.
Posted by: Krishna | July 06, 2007 at 01:33 PM
My first response is B though I am sympathetic to A.
My notion is that increasing there are increasing returns to localized investment, otherwise no one would pay NYC rent.
However, I am also sympathetic to the notion that government officials push development policies that don't meet a cost-benefit analysis.
Posted by: Karl Smith | July 06, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Nike Shox|Nike Shox Sale is special for you with a very pretty design
Posted by: nike shox sale | January 09, 2010 at 04:13 AM
Don't waste your time on a man/woman, who isn't willing to waste their time on you.
Posted by: Ugg london | January 11, 2010 at 09:33 PM
CHI flat iron by Farouk system. Direct from the manufacturer, this genuine Chi ceramic iron comes with valid, one year warranty!
Posted by: chi flat iron | January 14, 2010 at 04:02 AM
great ,I like it
Posted by: chi hair straightener | January 19, 2010 at 01:07 AM
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
Posted by: rolex watches | February 25, 2010 at 10:29 PM
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
Posted by: rado watches | February 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM
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
Posted by: rolex watches | April 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM
People usually say :"Seeing is believing." http://jordanmass.com Each attempt has a orresponding 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://boon-shoes.com
Posted by: nfl jersey | April 30, 2010 at 01:44 AM
People usually say :"Seeing is believing." http://jordanmass.com Each attempt has a orresponding gain, in part or obvious, or vague. At least we have the kind of satisfaction After I bought nfl jersey ,in a sense,it means a great deal to me. http://www.fansshirt.com
Posted by: ugg classic knit | April 30, 2010 at 01:46 AM
People usually say :"Seeing is believing." http://fansshirt.com Each attempt has a orresponding 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://boon-shoes.com
Posted by: jordan shoes | April 30, 2010 at 01:48 AM
Thank you for introducing me the useful information.And .....Totally boring. can you tell me where is the red and gold colors...? I predict a very low seller....I look forward your answer.thank you!
Posted by: mbt shoes | May 07, 2010 at 02:20 AM
you may have got a piont of there, but I will still keep up my mind. how do you think about gucci outlet|gucci sneakers|gucci handbags sale on tiffany jewelry|links of london|tiffany jewelry sale| as well as gucci men shoes|women gucci handbags|women gucci boots? 545
Posted by: gucci outlet | May 07, 2010 at 03:32 AM
私はアメリカではないので、ブログの記事は、よく書かれて、私はとても好き読み取り、すべての単語の私は非常に理解、ほとんどまだ読んでいないが、私はあなたの資料では、知識を学ぶことを望んでまた、我々は良い友達になることを願って。ありがとうございました! !
Posted by: replica rolex paypal | May 20, 2010 at 02:12 AM
Hmm great site..
Posted by: Indonesia Furniture Handicraft Wholesale Marketplace | May 24, 2010 at 01:41 PM
The number of 'A's above does indeed show the influence of anti-govt ideology on policy here in the United States, and explains the shriveled state of public investment, outside of the military. In the long run this is a competitive disadvantage for the United States.
http://www.cheapshoeshop.com/Nike-Basketball-Shoes/Kobe-Bryant-Shoes.html Kobe Bryant Shoes
http://www.moncleroutlet.net/
Posted by: vibram shoes | June 29, 2010 at 04:26 AM
Of course, violating either precept leaves the field open to corruption. This is one of the issues now in the US with the revolving door between government and K Street.
Posted by: Moncler Jackets | July 01, 2010 at 04:45 AM
Your passion walker fitness or weight in different ways? Is there a better option is to MBT M.WALK shoes. Your shoes will improve posture, strengthen the main battle tanks for sale many different muscles and help burn more calories. But you may decide to buy a stumbling block, the price is in his shoes. Not everyone can afford sneakers.The way, we main battle tank manufacturers, direct impact on our health. If we go straight to the Health and spinal cord is still the correct position of the knee. On the contrary, if we follow the wrong attitude, we have to have some physical pain.
So I decided to go to Marseilles, Discount MBT Sport Shoes, barefoot shoes clean technology. The technology for the manufacture of main battle tanks and sports shoes.
Doctors and physical therapists are so fascinated, their ultimate use and recommend these MBT Sport Grey shoes, their patients.
Posted by: http://www.mbtsandal.com | July 03, 2010 at 03:21 AM
Why we choose [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/mbt-panda-c-12.html]MBT Panda[/url]? Because [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/]MBT Sandals[/url] is totally different with other footwear. MBT is very special, it has a positive on the entire body, not just the feet. MBT shoes actives your muscles instead of
undermining them. It is unstable, not stable.
The sole is curved, not flat.In other words: It is the antithesis of a shoe.
The mission of our [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/mbt-imara-c-8.html]Discount MBT lmara Shoes[/url]: To make people all over the world aware if the benefiits of MBT and to help them live healthier and better liver.
Wholesale MBT shoes, MBT shoes discount, cheap MBT right now, hope you could grab the chance.
Posted by: http://www.mbtsandal.com | July 10, 2010 at 03:30 AM
Your passion walker fitness or weight in different ways? Is there a better option is to [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/mbt-mwalk-c-25.html]MBT M.WALK[/url] shoes. Your shoes will improve posture, strengthen the main battle tanks for sale many different muscles and help burn more calories. But you may decide to buy a stumbling block, the price is in his shoes. Not everyone can afford sneakers.The way, we main battle tank manufacturers, direct impact on our health. If we go straight to the Health and spinal cord is still the correct position of the knee. On the contrary, if we follow the wrong attitude, we have to have some physical pain.
So I decided to go to Marseilles, [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/]MBT Kisumu Sandals[/url], barefoot shoes clean technology. The technology for the manufacture of main battle tanks and sports shoes.
Doctors and physical therapists are so fascinated, their ultimate use and recommend these [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/]MBT Sandals[/url] shoes, their patients.
Posted by: http://www.mbtsandal.com | July 12, 2010 at 03:03 AM
[url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/]Cheap MBT Shoes[/url] shoes coach seems unlikely as the project caught the imagination of young fashion. With their thick, curved only sensible wide straps, they look like you need something, if you wear one leg shorter than another sort.
Despite its unique Africa and the United States, [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/mbt-tariki-shoes-mens-black-p-97.html]Cheap MBT Tariki Shoes[/url] and trainers, in the past 8 years, is considered the modern-day any solution, answer questions from the lead back to your fat ass.
Posted by: http://www.mbtsandal.com | July 12, 2010 at 03:08 AM
Investment comes with the risk of the loss of the principal sum. The investment that has not been thoroughly analyzed can be highly risky with respect to the investment owner because the possibility of losing money is not within the owner's control. The difference between speculation and investment can be subtle. It depends on the investment owner's mind whether the purpose is for lending the resource to someone else for economic purpose or not
Posted by: investment costa rica | July 16, 2010 at 01:05 PM
DMOZ4U is a quality Free Web Directory, human edited Free Web Directory with quality internet resources. Submit free link, or find websites of your choice.
Posted by: free web directory | July 18, 2010 at 09:29 PM
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
http://www.nikeairmaxshoe.ocm
Posted by: lachou | July 26, 2010 at 03:57 AM
every day,every hour,and every minute is special; and you don't know if it will be your last. Therefore, we must cherish the time.
Posted by: coach handbags | July 26, 2010 at 08:00 PM
Yet, my mother refused and said that the high quality was too undesirable. It was unsuitable for me. Even though my mother said so, I sticked to buy it. Apparently, my mother knew the fact well. The very bag has been broken. Its life was only 7 days. Seeing as the proverb says, “Easy come, easy go.” The very first of all replica handbag has warned me to look before I leap, yet I can not control myself to buy the bags just I love.replica paul picot watches
Posted by: vinux | August 05, 2010 at 09:21 PM
This article is to my feelings, thanks for your sharing, hoping to see more useful content, refueling
Posted by: Moncler | August 15, 2010 at 09:50 AM
Water Lillies brought out the essence of life. http://www.uggsbailey.co.uk/sitemap.html LIJ
Posted by: classic cardy | August 20, 2010 at 04:28 AM
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.
Posted by: authentic jordans | August 23, 2010 at 02:15 AM
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.
Posted by: jordan shoes | August 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM
If I speak in the Cheap Authentic NFL Jerseys tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all Official NFL Jerseys knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my USA Jerseys Shop body to the flames,but have not love, I gain nothing.Love is patient, NFL Jerseys love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it NHL Jerseys keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always MLB Jerseys hopes, always perseveres.Love never NHL Hockey Jerseys fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in MLB Baseball Jerseys part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappea. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became NBA Basketball Jerseys man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.And now these three remain: faith, hope and NFL Football Jerseys love. But the greatest of these is love. http://www.jersey-usa.com/sitemap.html LIJ
Posted by: NFL Football Jerseys | August 29, 2010 at 03:36 AM
LLC Supplies different types of chemicals used in oil sectors in the Middle East and around the world.
Posted by: kcl Technical Grade | September 21, 2010 at 01:56 AM
Happiness always generous person concomitant with, Riches always accompanies with faith, Wisdom always and noble person concomitant, Charm will always be with sunshine person concomitant, Let all the wishes with you always.
Posted by: Nike Air Max 1 | November 02, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Happiness always generous person concomitant with, Riches always accompanies with faith, Wisdom always and noble person concomitant, Charm will always be with sunshine person concomitant, Let all the wishes with you always.
Posted by: Nike Air Max 1 | November 02, 2010 at 10:17 PM
The innovative design with super quality and shinny colors with different styles make clearance Coach Wallets on sale at coachoutletvip.com become one of the most popular brand wallets all over the world, content with coach mens wallet cheap on sale and discount coach purses for women. With help of multilayers inside design from cheap coach wallets outlet for sale, you can collect different kinds of cards and put money inside that you want to. I'm sure you'll find what you want among the great amount of clearance coach purses on sale here. Welcome to coach online store and buy them now. Enjoy the fashion world now.
Posted by: Coach Wallets | November 09, 2010 at 01:48 AM
raf
Thanks a lot.
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 22, 2011 at 06:42 AM
Yesterday, my friend bought a cheap designer handbags which is so beautiful...df
Posted by: Account Deleted | April 08, 2011 at 09:16 PM
Raf
raf
I like it ... Thanks !!
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 29, 2011 at 08:01 AM
Raf
raf
Thanks to you !!!
Posted by: Account Deleted | June 04, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Raf
raf
Thanks for comment ...
Posted by: Account Deleted | June 11, 2011 at 12:50 PM
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 online
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 19, 2011 at 06:09 PM
Thanks for sharing your article. I really enjoyed it. I put a link to my site to here so other people can read it
sexyshop
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 19, 2011 at 06:10 PM
Many places and centers offer business and trade promotions to both buyers and supplier
sexshop
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 19, 2011 at 06:10 PM
Hi Buddy, Your blog is really design as clean and superb, I like your post and the information of your blog is very interesting, I really enjoyed it and I also want more information about this, thanks for sharing.
organic seo service
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 13, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Before researching online airline travel information, it's a good idea to know what your specific travel needs entail
Online Reservations
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 28, 2012 at 07:39 AM