Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

A Joke about the Joke that is Antitrust Law

Recs

27

October 19, 2010 – Comments (39)

Let's change gears for a bit and talk about Antitrust Law.  I'm going to start by retelling a joke (actually it's two jokes) I heard from Walter Block.  Then in follow up comments (and follow up posts), I'm going to explain what Antitrust Law really is.  This law is not a friend of consumers, it's not used to keep big business from going wild, or any other nonsense you have been taught in school.

Joke #1

Three Soviet prisoners are sitting around comparing stories. Eventually the subject turns to what crimes they committed to end up in their predicament.  

The first prisoner says, "I came to work late and they accused me of cheating the State out of my labor services.

The second prisoner says, "I came to work early and they accused me of brown nosing."

The third prisoner says, "I came to work exactly on time every day without fail, and they accused me of owning a Western wristwatch."

Joke #2

Three American prisoners are sitting around comparing stories. Eventually the subject turns to what crimes they committed to end up in their predicament.  

The first prisoner says, "I charged higher prices than everyone else and they accused me of profiteering and price gauging."

The second prisoner says, "I charged lower prices than everyone else and thy accused me of predatory price cutting and cut-throat competition."

The third prisoner says, "I charged the same prices as everyone else and they accused me of collusion and cartelization."

If You Can Define the Terms, I am a Monopolist

Perhaps the most disgusting aspect of the mainstream economics profession is Antitrust and Monopoly Theory. You can't even say that it's "Theory" without getting a little bit nauseas.  Perhaps because their spectacular failures of the last decade, mainstream economics already suffers in your view.

Well, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Mainstream economic treatment of Antitrust and Monopoly works like this:

Step 1:  Developing an unrealistic, idealistic definition of competition.  Call it Perfect Competition.
Step 2:  Judge every industry against your bogus definition.
Step 3:  Take every industry and redefine the actual industry to make it narrow as possible.  If I am a cereal maker, I am no longer in the food industry.  I am not even in the breakfast food industry.  I am in the cereal industry, so they can exclude breakfast bars.  If they can, they'll put me in the cold cereal industry, to exclude oatmeals.
Step 4:  Prostitute yourself to the newly empowered Antitrust regulators to testify as experts about how Company X in its narrowly defined industry no longer meets the made up definition of Perfect Competition.  Hope that no one comes along and points out that you defined all the terms.
Step 5:  Collect the check.  Then campaign for more socialist reform.

If you think this formula is unrealistic, it's not.  That's actually what happened.  Mainstream economists defined all the terms.  Then they earned tremendous financial rewards by posing as 'experts' for antitrust lawyers (especially the ones hired by big business to crush competition, but we'll get back to that later.)  It was all about money, people.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Mainstream economists served as intellectual prostitutes to destroy American businesses on behalf of their competition and an overzealous government.  They whored themselves out.  

So what is a real monopoly?

A monopoly is any service where entry to competition is prevented by force.  If you can enter the field and are free-to-compete, it's not a monopoly.  If you are free-to-compete and lose, that alone does not make it a monopoly.  The other business is perhaps just better than you.

Examples:

In New York City, there are many taxi companies.  But you can't drive your own taxi and offer rides to customers.  You will go to jail.  That's a monopoly.  You are prevented from competing by force.  It doesn't matter how many taxi companies are given this monopoly protection.  It's still a monopoly.

However, if you have an industry dominated by one company, as in the case of ALCOA in the early 20th century, but you are free-to-compete with ALCOA, it's not a monopoly.  If you enter the industry and lose, guess what?  Tough breaks, kid.  They're better than you.  There is nothing you can do, unless an intellectual prostitute comes along....

More on ALCOA in upcoming posts. 

I open this up to questions and comments.   

David in Qatar 

39 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 19, 2010 at 3:51 PM, SkepticalOx (99.42) wrote:

Sigh. The intentions are honorable, but the results are horrendous when it comes to this. Heck, this could apply to most things government tries to stick a hand into. 

Report this comment
#2) On October 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM, SkepticalOx (99.42) wrote:

I remember you had something regarding patents in the past too. I think this is somewhat related (big corporations abuse IP law). Any thoughts on how IP law, patents, and etc. are related to this?

Report this comment
#3) On October 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM, kdakota630 (29.45) wrote:

Stossel just had a great article in the last day or two regarding the NYC taxis, as well as well as pharmacy licenses in Greece.

Link

Excellent blog, as usual.

Report this comment
#4) On October 19, 2010 at 4:24 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

SkepticalOx,

Sigh. The intentions are honorable, but the results are horrendous when it comes to this 

Well, I wouldn't say honorable, but there is definitely a demand by the public to deal with big firms.  I think the government preyed on this fear of bigness.  Muckrakers like Ida Tarbell and champagne socialists like Upton Sinclair also preyed on this fear.

Any thoughts on how IP law, patents, and etc. are related to this? 

Big business definitely uses IP law as a weapon to crush competition. You are right to say it is related. This is one of my weaker areas, mainly because libertarians have challenged me to rethink my views on IP, and I haven't fully understood their arguments.

kdakota630,

Another great Stossel blog.  Picking on the New York Times is shooting fish in a barrel :) 

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#5) On October 20, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Valyooo (99.37) wrote:

Lets go reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll abstract here:

In a free market, people can do as they wish.  If they chose to use force or form a group/gang/whatever, that is there choice to do so.

Now let us suppose that most people in a given society choose to do this.  They call this group the government.  Isnt it the free choice of everybody to allow a government to exist?  I don't HAVE to follow the law or pay taxes.  They can try to jail me.  They will probably win.  That just makes them a big, efficient gang.

If the free market demands a government then people will supply it.  Even though I hate hate hate big government if thats what the people want, wouldnt it be the opposite of liberty to stop them?

Report this comment
#6) On October 20, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Valyooo (99.37) wrote:

That is, they are acting in their own interest by electing and obeying officials

Report this comment
#7) On October 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM, SkepticalOx (99.42) wrote:

#5 No Valyooo. When your liberty infringes on the liberty of someone else, then that is not a society that makes individual liberty an ideal. Liberty is very much about protecting the small guy, the minority, the dissenters in society. 

John Stuart Mills addressed this:

[FROM WIKIPEDIA] Perhaps the most memorable point made by Mill in this work, and his basis for liberty, is that "[o]ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". Mill is compelled to make this assertion in opposition to what he calls the "tyranny of the majority", wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things. Mill's work could be considered a reaction to this social control by the majority and his advocacy of individual decision-making over the self. The famous Harm Principle, or the principle of liberty, is also articulated in this work: people can do anything they like as long as it does not harm others. All branches of liberalism—as well as other political ideologies—consider this to be one of their core principles. However, they often disagree on what exactly constitutes harm. 

Imagine you join a club for investors. You return for services you get from being in that club, say, special stock information, special trading tips, meetings, conferences etc., you pay a membership fee every month. That's your choice to be in that club. So then is it right for you to go over to your neighbor who didn't choose to be in the club and force him to pay a membership fee? No!

Report this comment
#8) On October 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

Valyooo,

In a free market, people can do as they wish.

Not true. Not sure where this comes from. A free market is based on property rights and contracts. Only the government does whatever it wishes.  It can do whatever it wishes because it has a comparative advantage in violence.

 If they chose to use force or form a group/gang/whatever, that is there choice to do so.

And then what?  They might one day become a government?  I think your view of anarchy is colored by tales of the Wild West.  Those are myths. Serious historical analysis of the Wild West shows that it was rather boring and nonviolent.

Isnt it the free choice of everybody to allow a government to exist? 

I think what you might be implying here is that people acquiesce in their own enslavement?  If so, I agree.  That's what needs to change for a state-less society to exist.  I don't think that will change any time soon.

wouldnt it be the opposite of liberty to stop them?

Not really.  You have the right to protect your life and your property.  You will probably lose though.  I would recommend not fighting government tyranny directly.  Subversion is much more fun anyway :)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#9) On October 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Imagine you join a club for investors. You return for services you get from being in that club, say, special stock information, special trading tips, meetings, conferences etc., you pay a membership fee every month. That's your choice to be in that club. So then is it right for you to go over to your neighbor who didn't choose to be in the club and force him to pay a membership fee? No!

Agreed. Is it also my right to bar that neighbor from access to the clubs services? By force if neccessary?

Report this comment
#10) On October 20, 2010 at 11:21 AM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

Agreed. Is it also my right to bar that neighbor from access to the clubs services? By force if neccessary?

Absolutely, if it is your club. Your neighbor would be the one initiating force.  Nor can you, by force, access any services he wishes to withhold from you on his property.

Here we come across one of the most interesting inconsistencies in modern liberal doctrine.  It states that you can bar access to your home any person, regardless of race, religion, sex, etc.  If they persist, it is understood that they are initiating force.

However, if it is a private club or business, modern liberal doctrine switches.  Now it is the property owner that is said to be using force by denying entry to any person. 

Why the switch?  It's actually quite simple.  Modern liberal doctrine does not view a business as private property. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On October 20, 2010 at 1:54 PM, starbucks4ever (97.68) wrote:

Hi whereaminow,

Suppose I buy 4 narrow strips of land from your neighbors (narrow to minimize my purchase costs), each strip, say, 100 ft long and 1 inch wide, on the northern, southern, eastern, and western sides of your house, consolidate them into a single lot and when I have you completely encircled I will start charging you for crossing my land each time when you go out of the house or come back to the house. Will you consider this a monopoly, or will you stick to Libertarian principles and argue it's business as usual?

Report this comment
#12) On October 20, 2010 at 2:29 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

zloj,

Preventing a path of egress is inconsistent with libertarianism.  It is a form of aggression - albeit a p*ssy-*ss form.

Here's a smiliar example:

You have an unruly child.  You decide that you are going to lock your child in the basement with escape.  Then you simply prevent food and water from going to the basement.

Are you committing aggression?  Of course you are!  You are preventing that child from egressing. 

So what to do about your example and my example?

In your example, there are multiple options.  Libertarian writers have already thought of a dozen ways to deal with that kind of jerk without promoting violence - with some form of community pressure/mutual interest being preferred.  There are a lot of ways to deal with a jerk.

For the parents in my example?

That's tremendously difficult. If the kid never escapes, he dies. The question becomes does a State or a libertarian community provide better justice.  If the kid does escape, the question becomes does a State or libertarian community provide better protection.  I will leave that to you guys to decide.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#13) On October 20, 2010 at 2:30 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

with escape

with no escape

Report this comment
#14) On October 20, 2010 at 2:36 PM, FleaBagger (29.28) wrote:

#11) This is the long form of the answer, so if you're in a hurry, skip to the last paragraph.

I think that the use of the term anarchy confuses some people, particularly when it comes to the presence or absence of law and governance in a free society. In an anarchy, there is law and even governance. The same laws that are present in almost every civilization in human history (for example: do not steal, do not murder, do not assault one who is not harming you), are present in an anarchy. Likewise, there is even governance. The difference is that participation governing institutions is understood to be voluntary: no involuntary taxes, no forced obedience to nonsense laws like the one against cannabis, and none of countless other tyrannies.

The governance in an anarchy could look like many different things. One thing it could not look like is the forced participation model we have today. Just as the free market is able to produce better incentives to succeed and please others economically than any government-as-we-know-it has ever been able to do, the same is likely true of the free market and law. We have already seen in the "Wild West" how a sheriff can, without initiating force against his clients, keep the peace, largely because so many of his clients were free, independent, law-abiding, and armed. Few wanted to start trouble in such a well-armed society.

Another benefit of a free society is the minds and attitudes of the people. No one will depend on the government because there will be no government stealing from productive people to give to the unproductive. (There will be no government giving to the rich, either.) There will be no government brutalizing peaceful potheads and vagrants, and freeing murderers on technicalities that have arisen from the court system's insular feedback loop. Such things are unheard of in a free society. The people will largely obey the laws because they will be their own laws. Those who don't will not be welcome members of society.

So a society of free people would not tolerate such a transparent display of aggression justified by technicality-based nonsense. A free society is not one where bureaucrats are bound by the letter of the law, but where every member reveres the spirit of the law. If anyone transgresses the principles of freedom from harm, freedom of property, or (as in your example), freedom of movement, they will be shunned and not protected by society. You would have no social framework with which to enforce your toll-taking, and enforcing it yourself would probably prove to be economically unviable.

Report this comment
#15) On October 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, FleaBagger (29.28) wrote:

David's answer wasn't on my screen when I composed, typed, and posted that.

Report this comment
#16) On October 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

That's ok Flea.  When it comes to explaining liberatarian principles, your abilities dwarf mine.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On October 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, starbucks4ever (97.68) wrote:

It's all very good, but I'd like to know how you are going to discourage this sort of behavior in practice. You can skip that community pressure talk. Even if you make everybody take a business ethics class, you will always have that one rich SOB who doesn't care. And you cannot challenge him in court because his land purchases are unassailable and the public driveway to your house has just been privatized in the name of market efficiency (you're not one those Commies who believe in public roads, right?).

As a Libertarian, you have no practical way to stop this racket. The only way to stop it is by admitting that some types of free enterprise should never be allowed to exist, and once you admit that you will no longer be a Libertarian.

Report this comment
#18) On October 20, 2010 at 3:07 PM, mtf00l (44.76) wrote:

Interesting...

Report this comment
#19) On October 20, 2010 at 3:18 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

zloj,

As a Libertarian, you have no practical way to stop this racket

Sure we do (and by we, I mean any person living in a free society), but let me first point that this racket is currently happening under the forced-participation model (very nice term, Flea!).  The very fact that you are writing about it is evidence of its existence in the current system and evidence of your frustration of the current model's inability to deal with the problem.  It is not evidence that the problem would exist in the non-State model or that if it did exist, the level would be such to cause you frustration.

First, you can examine how State-less societies have dealt with this problem.  Second, you can examine how you would deal with such a problem in a State-less society. If your answer is, "I would kill him," before you can come up with another solution, I would feel very bad for you. 

Personally, in your example, I would advocate ostracization combined with a show of community force.  I would recommend and try to persuade our sympathetic neighbors to provide armed escort of supplies into the trapped area and escort of supplies and person out of the area.  Of course this isn't groundbreaking.  This problem happened on the Frontier all the time, and my recommendation is often how they dealth with it.  In the not-Wild-at-all-West, ostracization and community pressure worked.  Would it work again?  Maybe, maybe not.

But I know this.  They didn't have the problem you complain about.  And we do.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#20) On October 20, 2010 at 3:26 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

But I know this.  They didn't have the problem you complain about.  And we do.

I'm sorry, I should be more clear.  The problem I am referring to is restricting freedom of movement.  In zloj's view, this is done by fatcats that buy up land.  But in my view, freedom of movement is restricted all over the world, all the time, by fatcats called government bureaucrats.  Do you have your papers (passports, customs forms, etc)?  Did you get naked for the TSA henchmen? Do you have a license to deliver services here?  Are you on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall?  Are you on the wrong side of the USA/Mexico border?  Etc.

With all of the amazingly abominable displays of the restriction of the freedom of movement, can you really reject a free society because you are afraid a fatcat might by land and box you in?  You're already boxed in!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#21) On October 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM, kdakota630 (29.45) wrote:

"...when I have you completely encircled I will start charging you for crossing my land each time when you go out of the house or come back to the house."

I would suggest doing so would be an act of aggression which would make charging entry to the property unenforceable, and therefore pointless to do in the first place.

Report this comment
#22) On October 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM, starbucks4ever (97.68) wrote:

My point was not to defend the powers-that-be, but to show that private business can set up a monopoly as easily as that big bad bureaucracy. In my hypothetical example, the ink has not dried on the paper before you appealed to the "community", which is another name of "local authorities", to put pressure upon the businessman who has just completed a 100% legal transaction. Effectively, you just defected to the statist camp, only you did not want it to be too obvious so you proposed some toothless state without any real legal power. By the way, how will your armed escorts reach you when they will have to trespass private property? By helicopter? Or by digging a tunnel under your house? And what happens if the community refuses to help because it doesn't like you for some reason or other?

Report this comment
#23) On October 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

My point was not to defend the powers-that-be, but to show that private business can set up a monopoly as easily as that big bad bureaucracy.

No, they can't. They don't have a comparative advantage on violence -  that's the defining aspect of a government, what separates them from a run-of-the-mill gang or a group of fatcat businessmen.  Therefore a private business cannot compel you to act and you are capable of resistance. 

In my hypothetical example, the ink has not dried on the paper before you appealed to the "community", which is another name of "local authorities", to put pressure upon the businessman who has just completed a 100% legal transaction.

I don't have to appeal to the community, but it's probably a wiser course.  I don't quite understand why working together should be viewed as detrimental.  The community is most definitely not another name for legal authorites.  My goodness, I can read socialists like Bourne, Shaw, or Chomsky and point out where they explicitly make a distinction between the two.  A legal authority derives its authority by compelling others to act by violence or the threat of violence.  A community is a group people that attempt to live together to maximize social benefits.  In your example, the transaction is not 100% legal, either.  Private arbitors would decide on the legality of the case, just as they always have in every society, both free and not free. 

Effectively, you just defected to the statist camp, only you did not want it to be too obvious so you proposed some toothless state without any real legal power.

Definitely not, since the community is not the State, as I made clear above.

By the way, how will your armed escorts reach you when they will have to trespass private property?

Liberty is the freedom to use your property as you wish as long as it does not abridge the freedom of others.  This is Libertarianism 101.  The person preventing freedom of movement has initiated force by preventing egress.  He has chosen the level of force that is acceptable to him, i.e. armed violence to extract a toll.  The choice was his.  We are not dealing with it.

And what happens if the community refuses to help because it doesn't like you for some reason or other?

Why would you want to live in such a community?  I'm a pretty cool guy, so I think I'll be fine.  You're getting into "what if my grandpa had wheels?" territory here.   

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#24) On October 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

We are not dealing with it.

We are now dealing with it.

Report this comment
#25) On October 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM, starbucks4ever (97.68) wrote:

This position will be difficult to defend. The businessman will simply say: "Yes, I blocked your freedom of moment because you didn't pay your bill. Capitalism is about efficient use of resources. Your freedom of moment is a resource like any other, and it cannot and should not be free. I am proud of what I did. I helped unlock the value of this land. These four pieces of land were quite useless before I bought them, but now, as one contiguous lot, they command an incredible pricing power. Can't you see the synergy?" How will you justify in community court why it's OK to buy control of your bread and water and road and electricity and sewage system, but not of your freedom of movement? 

Report this comment
#26) On October 20, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Option1307 (29.67) wrote:

Another interesting discussion, +1!

Report this comment
#27) On October 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

zloj

How will you justify in community court why it's OK to buy control of your bread and water and road and electricity and sewage system, but not of your freedom of movement? 

Well, you are absolutely right that it is difficult for communities to live together in harmony, free or not.  We have to make a couple of assumptions. 

1. The community values and understands the basic principles of liberty, like the one in comment #23.

2. The community's arbitrators (hired privately and voluntarily, of course, because they provide a quality service that is respected) apply libertarian law.  They would have immediately ruled that our businessman's efforts are illegal, despite his protestations of what he thinks capitalism is all about. 

If these assumptions do not hold, the situation will become more difficult and could even get violent. 

I don't believe that this type of society is possible today, which is why I never advocate any overthrowing of the system or anything like that.  I don't want to tear down the government.  I want to see the people exercise their free will to reject the government's presumption of Authority.  I already reject it, but alone that does me little good.  

I don't mind trying to influence people, but without understanding there will never be a lasting free society.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#28) On October 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM, starbucks4ever (97.68) wrote:

"1. The community values and understands the basic principles of liberty, like the one in comment #23.

2. The community's arbitrators (hired privately and voluntarily, of course, because they provide a quality service that is respected) apply libertarian law. "

These are great assumptions, but once we assume such a community, we may as well assume that it can elect a like-minded government, incorruptible, beholden to the ideals of liberty, etc. Surely such a government will not side with monopolies and your frustration with government will be pointless. But if instead our 309-million "community" is voting for the usual suspects I don't expect it will be much different on the grassroots level.

Report this comment
#29) On October 20, 2010 at 5:33 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

zloj,

The problem with government is not a lack of idealism.  The very same people that spoke so highly of liberty (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams) committed to law unspeakable abrogations of liberty as soon as they come to power!  John Adams had a man improsined for making fun of his obesity!

If our hypothetical community, now unchained from the yoke of its Authoritarian master, decided it could just "elect" the best libertarian leaders and give them government powers, they would enslaved by those same leaders within a decade.

The problem with government runs much deeper. 

And if you ever got the impression that I am full of easy answers and utopian reverence, you are absolutely wrong.  There's a reason I'm not a "revolutionary" :)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On October 20, 2010 at 6:23 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

David,

Posts 25-29 are the first I have ever heard you acknowledge a reality that moves beyond an irrational belief in a dream of libertarian ideology that has never lasted.

I believe that Democracy is the closest you will ever get to what you seek, a community living together to maximize social benefits, but it just doesn't look like what you think it should and sometimes - more often of late - its stupid gets loud. By which I mean those citizens shouting down attempts at rational discussions of healthcare.

Report this comment
#31) On October 20, 2010 at 7:04 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

Posts 25-29 are the first I have ever heard you acknowledge a reality that moves beyond an irrational belief in a dream of libertarian ideology that has never lasted.

You've never asked me the right questions.

I believe that Democracy is the closest you will ever get to what you seek

It might be the closest we have gotten (I would consider the Wild West much closer - real verion, not cartoon version, and some monarchies are closer than modern nation-states).  Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed was a real eye-opener.

but it just doesn't look like what you think it should

It's not the looking part, it's the acting part.

By which I mean those citizens shouting down attempts at rational discussions of healthcare.

I'm surprised they bother to shout. That's progress, I guess. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#32) On October 20, 2010 at 7:28 PM, kdakota630 (29.45) wrote:

whereaminow

Since you've been blogging here you've recommended a number of books, so I'm wondering if you can do me (and probably a large contingent of Fools) a favour...

One of these days (hopefully soon as Christmas will be here before we know it) to blog about, or compile a list of, books you would recommend.

Thanks in advance.

Also for everyone here including David, my 5-year-old son has just informed his mother and I that he wants to be able to speak six languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and Mandarin Chinese) so if anyone has any ideas there they would be very welcome.

Report this comment
#33) On October 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, whereaminow (21.31) wrote:

kdakota630,

Sure, I would love to do that. I've actually considered a blog about book recommendations before, but then I discovered how hard it was to put a comprehensive list together.  I'll be happy to give it a shot.

Btw, don't put Hoppe's book on your xmas wish list.  It doesn't make for merry holiday cheer :)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#34) On October 20, 2010 at 8:02 PM, kdakota630 (29.45) wrote:

whereaminow

Btw, don't put Hoppe's book on your xmas wish list.

Too late.  LOL!  I actually had a few of Hoppe's (or who I like to refer to as the non-wrestling Triple-H) on my wishlist, but that wasn't one of them until a half hour ago or so.

I've actually got a TON of books I waiting for me to read as I tend to accumulate them faster than I read them, but when people ask me for Christmas ideas all I can tell them are books and whiskey (Forty Creek Barrel Select if anyone is feeling generous), so any ideas you can provide would be excellent.

Report this comment
#35) On October 21, 2010 at 5:41 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

I'm surprised they bother to shout. That's progress, I guess.

I guess. Unless the shouting is to drown out the voices of A community is a group people that attempt to live together to maximize social benefits.

 

Report this comment
#36) On October 21, 2010 at 9:47 PM, xiaoqindf wrote:

====accept credit card and paypal
Build a dress style. Online best-selling N of autumn outfit

Autumn assembly by all the cool male stylish rider

Days cool autumn wear the most appropriate bunts such sweethearts outfit

Female's love high-heeled shoes fashion bags travel good companions

= = = = =  http://www.popbuynow.com = = = = =

Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35

Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35

T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16

Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34

Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15

New era cap $16

Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

= = = http://www.popbuynow.com = = =

Report this comment
#37) On October 21, 2010 at 9:47 PM, xiaoqindf wrote:

====accept credit card and paypal
Build a dress style. Online best-selling N of autumn outfit

Autumn assembly by all the cool male stylish rider

Days cool autumn wear the most appropriate bunts such sweethearts outfit

Female's love high-heeled shoes fashion bags travel good companions

= = = = =  http://www.popbuynow.com = = = = =

Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35

Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35

T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16

Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34

Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15

New era cap $16

Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

= = = http://www.popbuynow.com = = =

Report this comment
#38) On October 21, 2010 at 9:47 PM, xiaoqindf wrote:

====accept credit card and paypal
Build a dress style. Online best-selling N of autumn outfit

Autumn assembly by all the cool male stylish rider

Days cool autumn wear the most appropriate bunts such sweethearts outfit

Female's love high-heeled shoes fashion bags travel good companions

= = = = =  http://www.popbuynow.com = = = = =

Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35

Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35

T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16

Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34

Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15

New era cap $16

Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

= = = http://www.popbuynow.com = = =

Report this comment
#39) On October 21, 2010 at 9:48 PM, xiaoqindf wrote:

====accept credit card and paypal
Build a dress style. Online best-selling N of autumn outfit

Autumn assembly by all the cool male stylish rider

Days cool autumn wear the most appropriate bunts such sweethearts outfit

Female's love high-heeled shoes fashion bags travel good companions

= = = = =  http://www.popbuynow.com = = = = =

Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35

Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35

T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16

Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34

Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15

New era cap $16

Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

= = = http://www.popbuynow.com = = =

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement