Advice to impressionable young minds who want to change the world

Yesterday (June 19th) I had the opportunity to speak to the fellows in the Koch Associate program in DC.  The program brings in recent graduates for a year to work in the network of think-tanks and go through a series of training programs designed by Koch.  It has proven to be a very successful program.

My talk was on how to think about the problem of "transition" and how to engage in "transition analysis" and I mainly drew on my experience in East and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union, as well as more recent work on development economics in general (Latin Ameria and Africa) and also 'reconstruction' efforts after war, and after natural disaster.

Prior to my talk, however, I gave 3 general pieces of advice aimed at serious, smart, and impressionable young minds who want to change the world:

1. DON'T CONFUSE COMMITMENT WITH DOGMATICISM

Science, I argued, progresses by the commitment of scientists to propositions.  This is a very Polanyi point to make, but one that is essential.  A lot of people NOT involved in science (including philosophers of science) have no clue how science makes progress and they claim that it is all about self-subversion.  Clearly self-criticism is important, but it is not how science progresses. Science progress by the dogged pursuit of an agenda by some scientists confronting the dogged pursuit of others in the field.  Science should HURT when propositions are wrong.  But for something to HURT the one who is proven wrong had to sincerely believe they were right.  The boldness of the conjectures is positively correlated with the level of commitment the scientist has to the proposition.  We want BOLD conjectures subjected to refutation, not weak ones.  That means the scientists will have STRONG opinions, and too often that is confused with dogmaticism.  It is not.  In fact, as I have said here before, dogmaticism is never really a problem at the individual level, it is really a problem at the level of the discipline. As long as there is open scientific/scholarly competition in the field, dogmaticism doesn't do damage to the advance of science/scholarship.  To claim otherwise is in fact, I would argue, to misunderstand how science progress, and how the best scientists in human history have in fact worked.  However, system-level dogmaticism must be rejected at all times because that will kill scientific progress.

2. DON'T CONFUSE FAUX HUMILITY WITH REAL HUMILITY

In this post modern age, it is commonplace for people to assert that we don't know anything.  I don't know, you don't know, we all don't know.  Aren't we all really cool because we don't know anything?!  NO, it is not cool to not know, in fact it sucks to not know certain things.  There is a real joy to figuring things out and if you want to think seriously about issues, start figuring things out rather than claiming that we don't know anything.  Also, the progress of knowledge is not a simple linear path from the unknown to the known, but it also isn't just a stab in the dark either.  The phraseology is the more we know, the more we know we don't know.  We have an expanding sphere of knowledge and as knowledge grows the sphere expands --- that is the area of the known expands, but as the sphere expands the surface (or awareness of) of the unknown also expands.  This is the humilty we learn from scientific progress, not the false humility that none of us knows anything.  No, most opinions on economic policy are wrong and we know them to be wrong because they are not based on either logic or evidence.

If we think about issues with regard to economics for a minute we might be able to clarify this. First, the economic world which we occupy is a complex phenomena comprised of an intricate web of interconnections, historical path dependencies, and engulfed in as Keynes put it "the dark forces of time and ignorance." That is the situation in which the economic actor finds himself. But that is not the plight of the economists, who instead is studying the matter and trying to understanding the coping strategies and institutional mechanisms that emerge to aid in coping with time and ignorance.  In other words, the knowledge of the economist is different from the knowledge of the economic actor.  We as economists have access to knowledge that actors within the economy do not.  This is an important point stressed by Hayek, but sometimes forgotten by the extreme subjectivists.  You can indeed have an objective science that is concerned with studying the subjective perceptions of opportunities for exchange and production for profit --- it is called the entreprneurial theory of the market process.  Knowledge of the theory of the market process doesn't mean you could be a businessman, let alone a regulator of that process, but it does mean you can understand the "explanation of the principle" underlying the order produced in the market process.  Knowledge is sweet, lets not sour on it.

3. SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER, DON'T STRATEGIZE WITH POWER

The key issue for individuals who want to change the world is to realize that the problem is not different political parties, but different rules of the game.  it is the structure of governance, not who is governing that matters most.  Focus on changing the rules and find rules that are incentive compatible with the "game" you hope to promote.

Related to this, the idea of communicating economic ideas so they don't hurt might make you popular on the lecture circuit, but it will not help change the world.  Again, let me repeat, science shoudl hurt.  Also strategizing with others over how to water-down a message from economics to those in power so they may adopt it doesn't work either.  The expert at watering down economics might rise to high political office, but he will not advance truth in economics or in policy.

In my opinion, I told the fellows, the most important books they could read this summer are: Richard Epstein's Free Markets Under Seige, and W. H. Hutt's Politically Impossible? both published by IEA.  Epstein emphasizes the low hanging fruit in public policy, and argues that if we just focused on the simple economic problems that politics gets wrong and get them right we would improve the plight of millions of people world wide --- lower tarrifs, lower taxes, cut back regulations, eliminate price and wage controls, etc.  LOW HANGING FRUIT. There are complicated issues in economic public policy, but for 90% of the problems we face in the world it is the low hanging fruit issues that distort the world an harm the lives of so many.  Think of the current food crisis and examine the rise of protectionist policies world-wide that is preventing the gains from trade from fixing it.  LOW HANGING FRUIT.

Hutt, on the other hand, emphasizes that it is the economists responsibility to speak truth as they see it to power, and never to compromise their message.  The simple reason is that if the economists water-downs his message, the politican will water-down even more in the policy process, and by the time the advice become actual policy it will be unrecognizable to the economist. Rather than the economic voice being given an hearing, it is completely muted by the economists own consent.  NO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER AND DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES IN TERMS OF YOUR POPULARITY WITHIN THE POLITICAL REALM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure how well my message was received, but that is it in a nutshell.  Be bold and seek truth; be humble, but also confident in what you know and don't lose your curiosity in trying to figure things out; and based on your search for truth and discovery of truth, speak that truth loudly and clearly to power if given that chance. DO NOT COMPROMISE THE TRUTH FOR THE SAKE OF PERSUASION, INSTEAD BE PERSUASIVE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

Comments

[PK sympathizer]

In terms of policy, how would you suggest they put Hayek's macro policy suggestions into practice?

On a similar tack, are their any Austrian responses to what, IMHO, are Sraffa's devastating criticisms of Hayek's Prices and Production?

How would you, as Sraffa put it, suggest that policymakers keep the money rate of interest (as if there were just one money rate) equal to the so-called natural rate? As Sraffa rightly argued, outside of equilibrium there are a multitude of natural rates. So would you, seemingly like Hayek in his reply to Sraffa, suggest that the policymaker keeps the money rate (problematic I know) equal to the natural rates?

Neutral money in Hayek's sense makes no sense outside of equilibrium. Of course, I may well be missing something.

[Steve Horwitz]

Hi PKS. I'll take a shot at answering this one.

First, you should read my *Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective* (Routledge, 2000) to see why Hayek is right about all of this. I'll try to do it short justice here.

1. There are a number of ways to think about "neutral money." For me, the best is that monetary institutions should minimize the influence on prices that come from the "money side" of the exchange of money for goods. Nothing can do this perfectly, but a monetary regime that avoided inflation and deflation and was as effective as possible at keeping the supply of money equal to the demand to hold it at the prevailing price level would be as close as we could get. Put differently, stabilizing MV would be close enough.

2. The way you do that is through a free banking system. No policy advice to a central bank will enable it to put into practice an attempt to get the market and natural rates together better than would a free banking system. Here too, it's not perfect, but at least it penalizes banks when they deviate from charging market rates that don't match the natural rate.

3. So yes, the right policy is to keep the market and natural rates in synch with each other. And yes, the natural rate is unobservable, but the underlying notion, as a measure of overall time preference, is still crucially important.

I would add that one reason for the disagreement between Sraffa and Hayek is conflicting conceptions of capital and its role in the microeconomy. I'll leave that as a tantalizing thought for further discussion.

(PS: don't ask Boettke any macro questions, it just makes his brain hurt :) ).

[Rafe]

Love the low hanging fruit analogy!

I envy people who have not yet encountered Bill Hutt, they have got such a treat ahead of them. For a taste http://www.the-rathouse.com/Revivalist4/WHHutt.html
I have always thought of him as a kind of Austrian and Randy Holcombe included him in his book of Austrians.

At the risk of making Pete's head hurt some more, what he said about dogmatism was made by Popper (can't find the cite when I need it) but it is "methodological dogmatism", to stick with an idea to find out how good it is and not to give up just because people react against it. I tend to agree with Bartley's critique of Popper's formulation in favour of a more detached or zen-like stance that Bartley called pancritical rationalism.

Nice point about individual dogmatism being trumped by open discussin in the community of scientists. That was Popper's point (made in 1945) about the social nature of science which he put in a chapter that also attacked the mentality of central planning and provided a critque (in advance) of the strong program in the sociology of science. http://www.the-rathouse.com/OpenSocietyOnLIne/Chapter-23-Sociology-of-Knowledge.html

[Scott Erb]

I had a former student over for coffee last night who transfered to Georgetown. She told me about one of her professors, a psychologist named Karl Pribram, 89 years old (born in Vienna in 1919) who did landmark work studying the human brain. He came up with the idea that the brain, and perhaps reality itself is a hologram. Apparently he was ostracized by the physics community for a long time, and treated as a bit of a kook. But as particle physics developed and theoretical physics took on new questions about the nature of the world, suddenly his theory is gaining new traction, and he's being invited now to conferences and taken more seriously. She says he's delighted to finally see the physics community come around to at least taking his ideas seriously. That's commitment. Whether or not he's ultimately proven right or wrong, it's only dogmatism if you take it on faith, it's commitment if you go over the data and analysis and refuse to let the 'conventional wisdom' cause you to reject what your mind says is true.

Good bit on post-modernism. Philosophy can never get around skepticism, and post-modernism is just the latest variant of skeptical thought that's been around for over 2000 years. They'll never go away, they'll always think they are more clever than anyone else, but most of the world will ignore them.

[David]

A thought-provoking post. Some comments:

1 Commitment

I don't have any disagreement with Pete B's opinion, but I think it's worth pointing out that a commitment is ideally to an individual (unique) theoretical structure that sometimes combines parts of different research programs (in the Lakatosian sense) or applies an established program to a new field of application. However, students may have to develop competence in a specific program first (e.g. an understanding of Menger-Mises-Hayek-Kirzner may be the requirement for "Austrian competence"). Subsequently, productive creativity is often best served by not being dogmatically attached to all parts of the above combination, but importing ideas from other discrete programs; witness Lavoie with hermeneutics; Langlois with NIE and Witt with evolutionary theory. It runs in the other direction too: some economists have managed to integrate a partial Austrian perspective coming from non-Austrian approaches (e.g. Buchanan, Burczak, J. Potts) One of my favorite economists, Brian Loasby, even manages to combine A. Smith, Marshall, Hayek, Popper, Shackle and Penrose into a mix that is both persuasive and insightful.
The other side of the coin is that one may be well-advised to use the "mainstream" conclusions of one's chosen approach as "default assumptions" when dealing with areas that lie outside of one's immediate interest: an example could be to assume the Mises-Hayek business cycle theory to be true if business cycles are peripheral to one's interests.

3 Speak truth to power

While I agree with Pete's first paragraph, I'm not sure if it's really that important to communicate with politicians at all. Shouldn't we expect attempts to persuade reluctant politicians to have prohibitive opportunity costs in the generic case? The only reason for getting involved in politics that I can think of is when you already generally agree with a certain politician (as a subset of libertarians agree with Ron Paul), or if you agree with a politician on an issue that you consider both a priority and which is controversial, and then align yourself with a compatible politician even if you dont like his or her other policies (for example, in my case foreign non-intervention or free migration would qualify as issues that are both controversial and prioritized).

[Brian]

Nice post Dr. Boettke; it's full of juicy morsels and some great quotes, of which I'll attribute to you at a later date. I'm reminded of a lecture in Dr. Randy Simmons' Law and Economics course at USU where he said something to the line of "find out the rules of the game, then play by them..." Granted if we could change some of the rules and create the right incentives, the world would be a much better place.

[PKS]

Sraffa's point is that there are multiple natural rates (one for each commodity) outside of equilibrium. They would only be equal to one another in equilibrium (hence one could talk of THE natural rate). If we are in disequilibrium, however, your answer about free banking and the - question-begging - THE natural rate (unobservable yes) raises the following question: There are (outside of equilibrium) multiple market rates each of which are equal to one of the different natural rates. Therefore there are numerous different money growth rates (a free banking system or central bank) could engineer that would keep THE market rate (again question-begging) equal to one of the natural rates? So which natural rate is it to be?

It seems that you can defend free banking & the monetary equilibrium view without all Hayek's macro baggage (market rate, natural rate, etc).

Is there a good Austrian response to Sraffa? I only found one reference in your index (not on this topic) - I will read your book though. And no reference to Sraffa in Garrison's macro book.

Thanks for the response.

[Rafe]

Karl Pribram the psychologist had an uncle, also called Karl Pribram (1877-1973) who was an Austrian-born economist. http://library.albany.edu/speccoll/findaids/ger005.htm

Pribrams prolific body of work on neurophysiology may not have much to offer economists but a possible exception to that is a book that he wrote in collaboration with George Miller and Eugene Galanter when they were together at the Stanford Centre for Advanced Study in Behavioural Sciences circa 1959. The book is "Plans and the Structure of Behavior" with the central motifs being the Image (borrowed from a book that Boulding wrote at the Centre in 1955) by and the Plan. The Image is our knowledge of the world and the Plan is the guide that we use to act in the world. The idea of the plan, and the way that plans are formed, ranked and revised, turns out to be a powerful device to explore many aspects of behavior, like the role of instincts, learning skills, including language, some nondynamic aspects of personality, and heuristics.

[Steve Horwitz]

PKS - my book discussion won't suffice as a response to Sraffa. I meant it more as a recommendation for an alternative approach.

As for Austrian responses to Sraffa specifically, I'm trying to remember if there's a good one out there. Garrison might have taken him on in a paper or two outside of his book. And I can't remember if Lachmann dealt with him directly.

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

[Robert]

My name is a link to a paper critiquing Austrian business cycle theory from a Post Keynesian perspective. Section 2 is a survey. A more recent version of this paper is under review from some journal.

[matthew mueller]

All,

The interesting debate has not been the exchange between Hayek and Sraffa, but between Keynes and Hayek (see Hayek's book "Contra Keynes and Cambridge"). Very few economists take Sraffian (Neo-Ricardian) economics seriously anymore. I will make this post short and point you to Blaug's book "The Cambridge Revolution: success or failure?" In that book he is careful to note some important contributions that Neo-Ricardians have made, such as capital reswitching, but taken as a whole, their approach is just as sterile as the mainstream approach they are attacking. Sraffians are concerned with income distribution (not production or exchange) and to do this they focus all of their efforts on attacking the way neoclassical economists measure the means of production (capital and labor). Abstract assumptions are made, and equilbiria results obtain.

In short, Lachmann erred when he chose to write about the Hayek-Sraffa exchange and not on the Keynes-Hayek exchange. (And yes, Dr. Horwitz, Lachmann did deal with Sraffa directly; see his Austrian economics under fire paper and his monograph Macroeconomic Thinking and the Market Economy. Come on! You are supposed to be a Lachmannian! (: ).

The Post Keynesians, on the other hand, have much more to offer Austrians than the Neo-Ricardians. And Neo-Ricardians are very different from Post Keynesians. The two are not the same! Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor, it is true, associated with both groups, but American Post Keynesians emphatically do not. In fact, in King's "History of Post Keynesian economics since 1936" he correctly notes that Old Institutional Economics (Veblen, Ayres, etc.) has come to replace Sraffian economics in the larger post keynesian program.

[Arash]

Hello everybody,

I am actually re-reading Mr. Horwitz's book on Austrian macroeconomics. I am a big fan and think an answer to Sraffa's critique is there - perhaps only hidden. Mr. Horwitz puts great emphasis on the fact that Wicksell's 'in natura'-definition of the natural rate is "unacceptably unrealistic" (p. 80). In a barter economy, "the kinds of intertemporal exchanges we see in a monetary economy, not to mention the very capital goods that are the ultimate objects of those exchanges, would simply not exist" (ibid.). Unable to solve the calculation problem, the transformation of a manifold set of ordinal preference rankings into a cardinal mindset, no economy can evolve very much beyond Smith's "early and rude state of society." In a barter economy there will be no banking system which could lower or heighten the interest rate. Here saving comes close to the Keynesian ideal of pure hoarding (as was emphasized by Hayek). There is no loan market and if there is, it is only consumer loans traded (hard to imagine without money) and "investors" (Crusoe and Friday!) are confronted with different natural rates ... and they will choose the most profitable among them. That's it. But as Prof. Horwitz's argues, the natural rate of interest rests on a great, but fallacious capital theory. Further, the natural rate has to be understood in value terms, not in physical. It is a phenomenon of a monetary economy and disappears in Sraffa's barter challenge. Heterodox economics often accuses neoclassical as well as Austrian theory to misjudge the nature of the economy. This is a straw man. But money does not break the scarcity nexus, it just loosen it (p. 85). And this is what Sraffa always refused. Scarcity is alien to Sraffa's thinking, at least beyond the niche left open by Marshall. Sraffa really disliked the marginal revolution and never showed any understanding or interest in methodological individualism. In contrast to Mr. Horwitz who makes use of Myrdal's argument in respect to the weakness of Wicksell's natural rate, I would turn to the best theory of interest ever produced and accepted as such by Hayek in The Pure Theory of Capital in 1941: Irving Fisher's The Theory of Interest (1930). Here, the natural rate disappears in favour of the rate of return over cost (Keynes greatly misunderstood this approach. His investment theory is clearly opposed to the Fisher-Hayek approach). The rate of return over cost, or the rate of profit, is based on the opportunity cost principle and does not fall victim to any of those paradoxes which plague the theory of capital. In contrast to Keynes' approach, where a money-determined rate of interest directly determine the investments realized by simply cutting out project with a marginal efficiency of capital below the rate of interest, Fisher's rate of interest allows to choose between different kinds of investments, the profitability of which tends to be equalized by changing the composition of investment. The rate of interest and the rate of profit have to be in harmony with each other, but increasing the money rate does not simply cut out investment spending, but leads to a different choice between investment opportunities. If the nature of technology would be such that shorter investment periods would involve greater expenditures on capital goods the longer periods, the amount of investment would increase with increasing rates of interest. But nature has chosen differently (and reswitching perfectly fits this story).

[anon]

I wonder what Dr. Watson would think of your excellent remarks.

[James Hohman]

Thank you for speaking, Dr. Boettke. Your speech was very well received from we remote associates. We just wished that you had time to give us more.

[PKS]

Matt M. would do well to read Sraffa's review of Hayek's P&P before dismissing him. Matt is right, in so far as it goes, that Sraffa is a neo-ricardian and so on, but that has little to do with his 1931 paper. Sraffa blows up Hayek's 1931 book on its terms. That is why it is such a devastating blow to Hayekian macro. There is a very good reason why so many once-Hayekian students (and junior faculty) at LSE abandoned Hayek for Keynes.

Incidentally, I must thank Matt for pointing me in the direction of Greg Hill's work. Great stuff. It was Hill who pointed me towards Sraffa's 31 papers.

[matthew mueller]

PKS,

I am happy to see that someone else is reading Greg Hill's work! He is excellent, and I am surprised more economists don't give his work the attention it deserves.

Now I must admit that I have not read Sraffian economics as closely as my dismissive remarks merit. I can, however, point you to another excellent article on Sraffian economics entitled "The Sraffian Schools" written by Alessandro Roncaglia in 1991 in the Review of Political Economy, 3.2. It is important to understand what Sraffa was trying to do and, more importantly, what his followers have indeed done. This article will be very helpful in putting Sraffian economics in context for you. Now on the Hayek-Sraffa exchange, you are correct in noting Sraffa's rejection of the Hayekian natural interest rate. But why did he find this concept so unsatisfactory? My impression is that Sraffa's insistence on the importance of multiple natural interest rates illustrates the necessity of creating a "composite commodity" that can serve as the invariant standard (measure) of value.

Now let me respond more directly to your latest post.

1.) I have read Sraffa's review of Hayek's P & P book, in addition to his rejoinder to Hayek's reply article. I have also read Caldwell's excellent introduction as well as other academic articles that have covered the details of this exchange, including Lachmann's "Austrian Economics under Fire" and Lawlor and Horn's "Notes on the Hayek-Sraffa Exchange." The reason why I pointed out that Sraffa was a neo-Ricardian was because his attack on Hayek's capital theory is conducted on neo-Ricardian terms. Lachmann's paper on this exchange makes this exact point. It follows that the cogency of Sraffa's attack stands or falls according to the relevance of neo-Ricardian economics. And I don't think Sraffa, as you argue, destroyed Hayek on his own terms. Hayek in his reply article seemed confused about what Sraffa was getting at. Essentially, Hayek argued that it is important to understand the equilibrium implications of non-monetary analysis, while Sraffa "denie[d] that existing theories of equilibrium provide any useful description of the non-monetary forces at work." To attack Hayek on his own terms would involve a detailed analysis showing how his own logic is confused and inconsistent. Sraffa did not really do this. But others did. And these are not Sraffians, but Post Keynesians.

2.) And this brings me to my next point. Yes, a lot of Hayek's former students abandoned him to study with Keynes. People like Kaldor, Lerner and Shackle all flocked to Keynes, leaving Hayek in the dust. But I am not sure how Sraffa fits into this. Kaldor, Lerner and Shackle were never really influenced by Sraffa.

Now there are all kinds of Post Keynesians. But essentially Post Keynesians deal with a monetary economy with complex financial arrangements. This is the hallmark of Post Keynesian economics. Central to this is uncertainty, since the returns on any investment project, usually financed by debt, are uncertain, people place a premium on the possession of money to either meet uncertain calamities or execute *expected* profitable opportunities. The existence of money assures unemployment in an uncertain world. This is Post Keynesian economics. And this is very different from Sraffian economics.

I am happy to see that you are reading Greg Hill's work. But where did he ever cite the work of Sraffa? Email me at miller888sd@yahoo.com if you want to discuss these things in greater detail.

[matthew mueller]

Oh, and one more thing. My point in all this is that the important exchange was not between Hayek and Sraffa, but between Keynes and Hayek. And to my knowledge no economist on either side (Post Keynesian or Austrian) has really written about this debate. This would be a good research or dissertation topic. By 2012, if it hasn't been done, then I will do it.

[PKS]

Hi Matt,

Quick for now (stuff to do): Hill cites Sraffa in one of his CR piece reviewing Caldwell's book (p.76).

On the invariant measure (composite standard). Sraffa says that is how Wicksell would save the problem of keeping the money rate equal to the natural rate (assuming away problems about appropriate index number etc) right? I don't think he is actually advocating that. He asks how Hayek would have it done outside of equilibrium.

More later. I'll email you also. Thanks. Do you have your own blog?

[jrt]

Could someone post a link, or otherwise show where Sraffa's reply to Hayek can be found.

[jrt]

Also, what is wrong with the reply Garrison gave?

http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/garrison.pdf

All that I can see that is suspicious is that he seems to assume that the change in price of capital occurs more quickly than other things.

[write a dissertation]

Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics nice job keep it up !!!

[write a dissertation]

Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics nice job keep it up !!!

[Buy Essays]

Hi,
Thanks for the post; it has proven to be exactly what I needed. I appreciate the information, well thought out and written. Thank you

[Dissertation Writer]

Hi,

Nice info at this post thanks!!! I really like it.

[Writing Help]

Hi,
I personally like your websites; you have shared good information, useful one. Keep it up.

[Coursework]

Hi,
You obviously put a lot of work into that post and it’s very interesting to see the thought process that you went through to come up with those conclusion. Thanks for sharing your
deep thoughts.

[Custom Essays]

Hi,
Nice work, thanks again for sharing such an informative ideas. I appreciate the information, well thought out and written. Thank you

[College Term Paper]

Hi,
I personally like your post; you have shared good insights and experiences. This post will really help beginners, although it is basic but, it will help others in great deal in future. Keep it up.

[Harry]

This article is just perfect. It made my day. Thank you! And by the way, please do visit also http://www.smithcoronaribbons.com/ Smith Corona Ribbons http://www.sportcrafttabletennis.com/ Sport Craft Table Tennis http://www.supersolanohairdryers.com/ Super Solano Hair Dryer http://www.suspendersformen.org Suspenders For Men http://www.sweater-coats.com/ Sweater Coats

[medieval dress]

Thank you so much for sharing to the youth your brilliant ideas. Love them and may you continue to do these things so that many will be inspired.

[spss help]

I had your article and suddenly I was so surprised because its so useful for all,,Its so good to see this information in your blog ,,
Thanking you

[viagra online]

that luck for these boys who are born in cradles of gold, which never know what is the scarcity or poverty or at least feel a limitation in his claims, as their father and grandparents were brought into the world with good provision of money accounts, a kind of young.
Kathleen T. Ryan
Lane Tecumsah 3209
Cedar Rapids, IA 52 401

[cheap viagra in us]

I think young people must to learn history of the politics during last 3000 years first, it's can help them in future education.

[domasrisk]

Grissom shifted his eyes over at Brass, who was shaking his head back and forth knowingly.

[viagra]

How Does Viagra Work?

Viagra is very effective at treating erectile dysfunction.
The medication works by blocking a chemical that causes blood to flow out of the penis.
More blood in the penis means an improved erection.

[Justin]

Definitely a great read. You should check out:

http://sportcrafttabletennis.net
http://bedhardware.net
http://buyvitaminsupplements.org

[Premature Ejaculation]

Advices to impressionable young minds who want to change the world is a verry interesting post.

[Premature Ejaculation]

verry interesting posts on you blog. keep it this way

[bed rails]

This is great advice for the youth to change the world.

[viagra kaufen]

Good advice... young people is our future now.

[Honesto Cas]

I learn something new on different blogs everyday. It is always refreshing to read posts of other blogger and learn something from them. Thanks for sharing

[VimaX]

I am thoroughly convinced in this said post. I am currently searching for ways in which I could enhance my knowledge in this said topic you have posted here. It does help me a lot knowing that you have shared this information here freely. I love the way the people here interact and shared their opinions too. I would love to track your future posts pertaining to the said topic we are able to read.

[Mc Arthur]

I am thoroughly convinced in this said post. I am currently searching for ways in which I could enhance my knowledge in this said topic you have posted here. It does help me a lot knowing that you have shared this information here freely. I love the way the people here interact and shared their opinions too. I would love to track your future posts pertaining to the said topic we are able to read.

[Viagra for Sale]

You got a really great blog there man keep it up watching out for most posts.

[Viagra]

Amazing writing. The way you explained the thing is really awe some and simple.

[Viagra]

You got a really great blog there man keep it up watching out for most posts.