It is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally

The quotation comes from the The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by the great economist John Maynard Keynes. He was good at these short sayings of encapsulated wisdom. Unfortunately, his economics are less productive in the real world. President Obama gave us a test of Keynesian economics, with his massive spending and massive deficits. What we got were massive deficits, high unemployment and inflation on the way.

Keynes would not have lasted so long if he didn’t get some things right, maybe a little is good while a lot is pernicious, but the problem of Keynesianism is not so much the theories themselves. The problem is how attractive the basic idea of spending money you don’t have is to people and politicians. Lord Keynes gave politicians intellectual justification for their bad habits. It is like convincing a boozer that rye whiskey is good for him and wondering why he likes to drink so much.

I have an imperfect understanding of Keynes. There is no shame in this. You could spend a lifetime trying to understand his writings w/o success. But I probably understand Keynes better than most politicians, since I have actually studied it. Politicians understand Keynes almost as a type of free lunch. They can spend w/o taxing to cover spending. They can expand the power of government and call it economic growth. They don’t have to understand the details of theory. They know that can get political power. As Keynes himself said in another of his pithy phrases, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

Spending money you don’t have ruins individuals and it ruins states. There is used to be a saying among accounts, “he who spends what isn’t his’n, pays it back or goes to prison.” But since the state runs the prisons and has the monopoly on coercion, it gets away with spending money it doesn't have. The result is rising prices. There is a lag time, so the spenders often gain the short term gain and leave office before the consequences come. We are seeing inflation now in some things. Who will Obama blame? Next year, when you are paying more for everything, remember that it was Obama government policy that gave it to you. Don't let him blame "the rich", "the companies", "the foreigners" or "the banks". Inflation is always and everywhere primarily a government creation, since government controls the money. This problem is as old as history. Rulers have always been tempted to give away more than they had. When they don't have any more, they debase the money.

I have confidence in America. We have faced and overcome every challenge that has come our way. No foreign power can defeat us, but even America can take the wrong road. I think of Argentina. Let me stipulate that in size and greatness it is nothing like the U.S. But a century ago, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world and one of the best places to live. It had fantastic resources, an intelligent and able people and no significant foreign enemies. But it was taken over by leaders who promised too much, governments that seized too much power and by pernicious idea that government should be responsible for planning the economy.

Leaders said they spoke for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the “shirtless ones”. Great countries are not destroyed by outside force. They rot from within. The people ask their country to do too much for them and stop asking what they can do for their country. They demand more rights w/o the corresponding responsibilities. They look to politics instead of work to provide for them. Politicians love this. With their enormous egos, some actually believe that they do indeed have the ability to manage the economy. But it doesn’t work. The rosy predictions don’t come true. Politicians identify villains within the country and use these villains, often the most productive people in the country, to justify the lack of progress of their misguided policies. The circle starts again with the country in even more trouble.

When I see our president starting his campaign a year and a half before the election & before there is even an opposition candidate and when I see him doing it by going on the class-warfare attack, I do wonder about it. Same old stuff, same old politics again. Too bad that in politics it is still better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.

Posted by Christine & John at April 24, 2011 9:13 PM
Comments
Comment #322221
If the reader interjects that there must surely be large profits to be gained from the other players in the long run by a skilled individual who, unperturbed by the prevailing pastime, continues to purchase investments on the best genuine long-term expectations he can frame, he must be answered, first of all, that there are, indeed, such serious-minded individuals and that it makes a vast difference to an investment market whether or not they predominate in their influence over the game-players. But we must also add that there are several factors which jeopardise the predominance of such individuals in modern investment markets. Investment based on genuine long-term expectation is so difficult to-day as to be scarcely practicable. He who attempts it must surely lead much more laborious days and run greater risks than he who tries to guess better than the crowd how the crowd will behave; and, given equal intelligence, he may make more disastrous mistakes. There is no clear evidence from experience that the investment policy which is socially advantageous coincides with that which is most profitable. It needs more intelligence to defeat the forces of time and our ignorance of the future than to beat the gun. Moreover, life is not long enough; — human nature desires quick results, there is a peculiar zest in making money quickly, and remoter gains are discounted by the average man at a very high rate. The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll. Furthermore, an investor who proposes to ignore near-term market fluctuations needs greater resources for safety and must not operate on so large a scale, if at all, with borrowed money — a further reason for the higher return from the pastime to a given stock of intelligence and resources. Finally it is the long-term investor, he who most promotes the public interest, who will in practice come in for most criticism, wherever investment funds are managed by committees or boards or banks.[4] For it is in the essence of his behaviour that he should be eccentric, unconventional and rash in the eyes of average opinion. If he is successful, that will only confirm the general belief in his rashness; and if in the short run he is unsuccessful, which is very likely, he will not receive much mercy. Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.

Those who invest in the long term have to defend much, and take less obvious risks in the market, while the short-term folks can always pursue or react to the herd.

Spending money you don’t have ruins individuals and it ruins states.

I think it’s amazing how courageous Republicans are in taking up arms to defend the country against policies they just spent the last decade taking up arms to defend.

The Republicans can’t have failed to notice, as they issued one tax cut after another, that the nation was going further into deficit. To run a deficit to improve the economy is a Keynesian act, by definition. Problem is, rather than raise consumer demand by employing people directly, the Republicans decided to pass the money up to the rich, an act Keynes would have critiqued as putting a ridiculous amount of faith in the economic goodwill and altruism of that economic class.

Alan Greenspan, and the conservative economists were all maintaining that we had to keep the interest rates at rock bottom, a practice that practically screamed for people to borrow, and discouraged them from saving.

Everything you accuse us of being responsible for, you were doing, and doing with gusto. Success has a thousand fathers, but this failure is your orphan. Republicans won’t acknowledge that they beget this bastard of an economy. Your people left the money supply wide open, which left the Fed little option to soak up the drop in aggregate demand, besides those Quantitative easings I’m sure you’ll be blaming on Obama, and the Stimulus package I’m sure you’ll deny did any good to your grave.

The issue borrowing isn’t taking out the debt, it’s taking it out without the real means to pay it back.

The Republicans are fully willing to take on massive amounts of debt, when they are in power, and it suits their political goals. They’ll take swipes at liberal programs and liberal initiatives, but they’ll pour billions into corporate welfare, feeding the Pentagon budget, and giving their rich friends tax cuts.

As for class warfare, please drop the pretense. Most of your initiatives are built on attacking the interests of the poor, while you turn around and give tax cuts, subsidies, tax breaks, no-bid contracts and regulatory freedom to your rich friends out there. You are waging class warfare, with what I find the sickening hypocrisy it takes to make poor people standing up for their rights and interests an exercise in politically incorrect greed.

It’s apparently alright to pad the pockets of profitable healthcare and insurance companies, military contractors, and energy companies, to make the rich richer, but God forbid we should use deficit funded tax dollars to instead rebuild this economy from the ground up so we can get back to paying for what we get out of of government, and paying back the debts we took out to make your folks richer.

Like I said some time ago, you can carry an economy on people’s backs, or on people’s shoulders. The Republicans think that they’ll improve the economy by increasing the costs and burdens of the middle class, and alleviating those of the rich and powerful.

Me, and most of the Democrats believe that by strengthening the poor and middle class, we reinforce the foundations of the consumer economy, of which their spending measures about two thirds.

A person looking to get out from under a heavy debt load might look for a better paying job than they have now, and by getting it, have more income to pay for both their debts and their present needs.

Governments always have the same job, but they can change policies, raising more revenues, and investing in programs and initiatives that improve the economy that pays those revenues.

It’s time to quit fruitlessly padding already full pockets that aren’t being emptied in the hoped-for flood of altruism. It’s time to put our money in a position to do this country some good.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2011 11:45 AM
Comment #322236

“Inflation is always and everywhere primarily a government creation, since government controls the money.”

Actually, our government delegated that function by law to the Fed. It controls the money supply and is the primary actor in managing inflation/deflation. Only the Fed can “print money.” It has been the policy of the Fed with its quantitative easing program to convert Treasury bonds held by the public into cash reserves to stimulate borrowing and to create incentives for investments in more risky assets (equities, commodities, etc). The idea is to inflate the asset side of our national balance sheet. The rationale for the Fed is that there is insufficient inflation and a danger of deflation.

The government can influence the amount of financial assets held by the public by its spending and taxing policies. However, it is the Fed who determines the actual amount of money circulating in the economy. A good example is the last few years of the Carter administration and the first few years of Reagan. Despite a huge tax cut and deficit spending by the Reagan administration, inflation actually decreased during that period through the actions of the Fed under Volcker who was determined to ring inflation out of the economy. Volcker made money too expensive to borrow (create through the fractional reserve banking system). He effectively decreased the money supply despite deficit spending and tax cuts. It caused a severe recession but inflation has not returned since that time in any negative sense.

If there is concern about inflation, look to the Fed for a primary cause. Take a particular look at the purpose of the second quantitative easing program as described by the Fed.

Posted by: Rich at April 25, 2011 6:39 PM
Comment #322238

Stephen

Republicans spent like Democrats during the four + years they held the Senate/House and Presidency. (you recall that 2001-2 Democrats controlled the Senate by one vote. I point to this since, you will claim that Democrats are not in control now when they are in a more powerful position).

In the last four years when the Democrats controlled the House/Senate and especially the two years 2009-11 when they controlled all three, they spent like nobody ever before.

So lets agree that Republicans did wrong by spending too much. Democrats are spending even more. Both should stop. Republicans were castigated for their wasteful ways and now claim to have seen the light. Democrats still hold to their old ideas.

Posted by: C&J at April 25, 2011 6:53 PM
Comment #322239

re “my” rich friends - I don’t have any or if I do they are good at keeping it a secret. I have friends who work hard and I think they should benefit from their hard work and intelligence.

Obama grew the government. Now he wants to grow taxes to pay for it. Not honest, not good.

Posted by: C&J at April 25, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #322254

C&J-
The Republicans did not tax or spend responsibly. They did not tax, or offset, to cover what they spent. They did not cut spending overall, or offset from somewhere else, to make up the losses from the tax cuts.

To emphasize spending alone is dishonest, if not a sign of faulting thinking on the subject. Tax cuts must be treated as the reduction of revenues that they are. Military spending must be treated like any other spending.

I mean, your friend Mitt Romney accused Obama of “one of the biggest peacetime spending binges in American history.”. Did it just slip his mind that we’re fighting at least two wars at the same time right now? That this costs something, and that Democrats can’t just stop the wars and the costs with them?

Republicans did permanent long term changes to our policy, changes not easily undone, or, as in the case of the tax cuts, difficult to remove without a fight from them.

The Medicare changes, the War, and the Tax cuts form the bulk of the long term spending, in terms of the deficit.

So, I don’t get where your people have any room to condemn us as if it were our idea to set these things in motion. You want credit for these policies when they’re popular, and you’re in power, and you’ll insist on America bearing the cost sooner or later, but it doesn’t seem like the Republicans have the courage of their convictions to face up to the fact that the deficit is dominated by their policies.

Republicans haven’t seen the light. They just play people who have on TV. Your wasteful ways continue. You support wars you’re not willing to pay for. You support tax cuts you can’t possibly cut enough to offset. That just about ends any rational claim on your part that you’re practicing fiscal virtue here in any shape or form.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment #322257

Come on SD, you almost said it, we are involved in 3 wars. You can say it…

I believe SD is in for a real shock come Nov. 2012.

Posted by: Bill at April 25, 2011 11:58 PM
Comment #322258

Stephens

We had record high revenues in 2006. IF we had not raised spending by so much, it would have been a surplus.

I am very reasonable about this. I don’t object to any tax rise. Most people agree that 1999 was a good year. Let’s get back to the levels of spending (as % of GDP) of that year and tax to support that level of spending.

Re wars - as Bill points out - three of them. Sometimes even Obama has to act. Beyond that, recall that President Bush, unlike President Obama, went to Congress before he got into Iraq and the Senate, controlled by Democrats in 2002, authorized the use of force. I know you will say that the Democrats were incompetent to make this decision, since Bush was so much smarter and tricked them, but it is still a decision they made.

Re biggest peacetime spending binge - okay, 1999 is too much to ask for spending for now. Just go back to 2007. We almost has a balanced budget that year even though it was the year of the surge in Iraq and wartime spending was much higher. Then if Obama can finally end those wars, which you think are unnecessary, we will be fine.

It was scary in 2009 with all the spending. Some was useful, but a lot was stupid, such as cash for clunkers. We were deceived also by the supposed spending on infrastructure. What the Obama folks did was put up lots of signs saying they were going to work, but then did nothing special.

Finally - about seeing the light - you doubt Republicans are serious about spending cuts. Democrats don’t even talk about them. Their general idea is that we should raise taxes and spend more. There is not much hope in that.

Posted by: C&J at April 26, 2011 4:55 AM
Comment #322260

Bill-
You don’t get the joke. Romney’s one of the top candidates, and he neglected to remember those big damn wars. Your people have a problem, really: you get these nice people who spent all their time trying to be centrists, trying to moderate between the hard line of their party and the Democrats, but because of that Tea Party thing, all of them went nuts, started pushing the conspiracies and the not-so-moderate conservativism they’d rejected before.

And you know what? It defeats the point. They put themselves in a position where they can please nobody. The Tea Parties want purity, the rest of America wants moderation, and you can’t have both of those at once.

C&J-
The Tax cuts did not benefit the middle class, who did not see substantial increase in either jobs or compensation during that period. The Words “Jobless Recovery” were heard again and again. More to the point, the main tentpoles holding up the economy were the Housing Sector, which was in the midst of its speculative boom, and Wall Street, which was then using that speculative boom to leverage itself to a suicidal level, but make about 41 percent of the money in the economy at that point.

You got your record revenues, but that business very soon dried up as the foreclosures started becoming more frequent, and the home values stopped going up. The literature I’ve examined says that the housing market started going downhill at about that point.

Wall Street and the Non-bank leanders (often the same people) started suffering, too, their models having been built on the unrealistic assumption that the top of the hill would never be seen in the housing market, that the trend line would continue upwards indefinitely.

Once that stopped being true, you started seeing those lenders go under, long before the Democrats could change things themselves, with or without your filibusters killing a vast majority of their bills. The dates alone prove that the problem started early in that Congress, too early for some radical piece of Democratic Party legislation to have done a thing. Laws take time to work, and screwups of this magnitude don’t happen overnight.

This was, in the nonpolitical sense, a progressive collapse. The Housing markets stopped going up, the people who bet on that continuing couldn’t balance their books, feeding back into their ability to lend, which even further depressed the housing market. And since these underregulated lenders were often parts of banks, their credit problems started infecting the big banks, who started reining in spendin, and their frivolous loans started making their asset sheets practically meaningless.

Panic, but in slow motion until AIG and other dealers in derivatives started going under, triggering counter-party obligations that compromised the finances of the banks. The banks compromised, needed credit didn’t get out to businesses, and they had to shut down or lay people off to keep their finances straight. But that in turn crushed consumer demand, and caused even more unemployment.

And at the start of it is that bubble that was helping to finance your record revenues. We’re paying now in revenues for what minimized your deficits.

And this wasn’t a peacetime spending binge, this was emergency measures to save the economy. If your people had been in charge, you would have done the same, and you would have had to. That’s the sorrow and the tragedy of your approach. Republicans lambasted Democrats ove Rahm Emmanuel saying that a crisis shouldn’t be left unexploited, yet they are willing to exploit one of the worst financial crisises in American history for that purpose, and worse yet, inhibit needed economic measures that could get us out of that hole in the meantime.

That’s what makes me sick about it.

Oh, by the way: Cash for Clunkers worked. Demand for vehicles stayed high after that, and people tended to exchange clunkers for efficient vehicles. But for politics sake, your party can’t admit it’s true. You can’t admit the stimulus triggered growth and reversed the recession, preventing it from growing further into a depression. No, it has to be a failure, because otherwise there’s no use for anti-government Republicans.

As for Republicans seeing the light, it’s not on spending that I was talking about, it was on deficits, and their tax cut and oil subsidy votes prove that they’re not serious about cutting it at all costs. You have these isolated fiscal policies that you insist upon, but as a whole, your policies add to the deficit even now.

So don’t go lecturing me about fiscal responsiblity, or the redemption of the Republicans, because I haven’t seen it. They cling to the same errors, so why should I give them credit for doing better?

The Republicans can do nothing at this point, but trash and prevent effective policy so the Democrats don’t end up looking better than them. But the Republicans had better watch out, because now they have the House majority, people actually expect good and productive policy out of them, not more games, not more political BS and attempts to ramrod unpopular agenda items down the country’s throat.

I knew this would happen if the Republicans were let back in so fast. People just didn’t figure that the party that could vote moderately in the nineties just no longer exists. Your party’s taking a flying leap to the right, and hasn’t looked back since. Unfortunately, the nation hasn’t taken that leap with you, and you’re confusing victories in trashing the Democrats, and getting people to reject them with victories in getting people to see things your way, all the way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2011 8:38 AM
Comment #322261

Stephen

I benefited from the tax cut and I am middle class. My daughter, who started her first full time job, got a cut. Everybody who paid taxes got a cut. If you didn’t get a tax cut, you didn’t pay taxes.

Re “jobless recovery” you will be hearing that term again with Obama. Let’s see if you figure out a way to change that word.

Re spending - the “tax cut” did not create the deficit. Tax revenues hit record levels in 2006. That means MORE than in 2000. But spending had increased even more.

As I wrote, I am reasonable. Give us the tax rates of 1999 and the spending levels of that year. You will immediately complain that Republicans are not ready to raise taxes, but I will say that the Democrats are not ready to being spending under control. Unless we bring spending under control, all the taxes will just go into the hole.

re subsidies to oil - do you know what those “subsidies” mostly consist of? It costs a lot of money to look for oil. Much of the time, none is found. When anybody spends money in the course of their work, they can deduct that on taxes. If it costs you more to produce something than you get back, you have a tax loss. Democrats call this a subsidy.

It would be really great is everything we did was successful. But its not. If you pay taxes on your gains but cannot deduct your costs, you will quickly be out of business. Of course, maybe driving productive firms out of business is what you want. Then the government can get involved and take over.

Posted by: C&J at April 26, 2011 8:54 AM
Comment #322278

C&J-

I benefited from the tax cut and I am middle class. My daughter, who started her first full time job, got a cut. Everybody who paid taxes got a cut. If you didn’t get a tax cut, you didn’t pay taxes.

From what tax bracket? Bush lowered the lowest bracket, but then didn’t lower another bracket until it got up to the rich, where the one bracket was eliminated, and another reduced to Pre-Clinton levels. It’s not just rhetoric, look at the brackets of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills. The inheritance tax, too, only affected the rich.

I know you want to tug on my heartstrings about that, but you’re kidding yourself if you think that will get me to ignore the raw facts of that case.

The Jobless recovery is the result of a system that is still weighted heavily towards the finance sector, towards speculators and bankers, rather than towards productive, industrial, and consumer-oriented business. Obama’s added back a million jobs so far, but he certainly has far to go. The question is, is your party helping or hurting? Is the fact that Republicans still jealously try to hold onto the power they have what’s keeping this country back?

Regarding spending: it’s no surprise the deficit skyrocketed under the Republicans, if that’s your thinking. Revenues matter, however politically incorrect it is for Republicans to discuss the fact that taxes are necessary to fund government.

We had spending under control. We created a billion dollar healthcare reform law that didn’t add a billion dollars to the defict. But to do that, taxes were part of the bargain, a part we didn’t shy away from.

Your party, on the other hand, started two new wars, and one new entitlement, with no such offsetting rise in taxes. That is what was irresponsible. There was an arguable need for at least one of the wars, and for the Medicare drug benefit, but if you just drop that on the national budget and don’t arrange for it to be paid for directly, it will contribute to the deficit.

To say nothing about a policy whose direct effect is to lower the revenue available to pay for things.

My party can face the reality of budgeting. Yours apparently can’t, and throws cheapshots and scapegoating claims at the Democrats in order to distract people from the sorry mess that is modern fiscal conservatism.

re subsidies to oil - do you know what those “subsidies” mostly consist of? It costs a lot of money to look for oil. Much of the time, none is found. When anybody spends money in the course of their work, they can deduct that on taxes. If it costs you more to produce something than you get back, you have a tax loss. Democrats call this a subsidy.

Because it is a subsidy. Backdoor, perhaps, to allow it to fit within the rigid confines of Republican political correctness, but a subsidy nonetheless. And to who? The corporations making the record profits.

It was instituted as part of the 2005 energy bill, if I’m not mistaken. Was the effect to lower gas prices? No. Why aren’t these private busineses paying for their own exploration, their own expenses?

We’re sinking money into an enterprise bound to return less and less on investment over the long term, for reasons I can’t understand.

You keep on saying we should raise oil prices, yet you support this subsidy. You keep on saying the market should determine the cost of oil, yet you refuse here to take a stand on forcing that barrel of oil to cost what it actualy costs!

Of course, maybe driving productive firms out of business is what you want. Then the government can get involved and take over.

Isn’t the point of the free market that if the firms are productive enough for their costs, they can survive on their own? You seem to already have the government involved here to make sure your friends don’t have to be put to that test.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2011 1:27 PM
Comment #322308

Stephen

re markets - the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Think of yourself as a business person. Your business consists of finding and selling rare sea shells. They are, as the name implies, rare. so you spend a lot of time looking for them and the searching costs money. Do you think the expenses involved in searching are a legitimate business expense.

Or put another way. You are that same businessman. You employ a person to look for shells. He looks for three weeks w/o finding anything. Should you still be required to pay him?

It is a subsidy if government gives money. It is not a subsidy when the productive firms keep their own money.

A barrel of oil costs different amounts depending on where it comes from and how hard it is to get. Oil from Saudi costs almost nothing to produce. The “real cost” would be something like $5, if the Saudi government didn’t take a big cut. A barrel of oil from oil shale costs around $50 to produce. There are more expensive sources. Most of the cost of the gas you buy is in the price of oil, which means that, in imported oil, most of the cost goes to foreign governments. In the U.S. the second biggest component in the price of gas is taxes by states and the Federal government. So who knows what the “real cost” would be. taking out the government cuts, it would probably cost between $5 and $50 a barrel. Of course, demand would rise, pushing the price back up.

Posted by: C&J at April 26, 2011 9:17 PM
Comment #322365

C&J-
Such logic about subsidies is how Republicans managed to make the tax code thick enough to stop cannon rounds, and why companies like GE and Exxon Mobil don’t pay their fair share in taxes.

If we’re taking up the cost instead of the companies, our bottom-line as taxpayers suffers to make theirs better.

If you truly believe in the free market, the price of sea shells should encompass the costs of searching for them.

As for Gas taxes? They are commonly used to keep our roads in good condition, so the question would be, would we be trading one kind of efficiency for another, and getting a worse deal in the bargain?

How about we look to future proof our energy economy, rather than cling to a fuel source in decline?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #381175

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 3:52 AM
Post a comment