« Abrupt Change of Authoritarian Regimes-Becker | Main | Gun Control—Posner’s Comment »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Christopher Graves

Jack, I do not see Hayek's arguments as either outdated or merely theoretical. In response to one of your points of derision that lacked argumentation, leftist versions of "social justice" are inconsistent with liberty as Hayek observed. If the government has the power to arrange people in a pattern regardless of any other considerations such as either merit or free choice of individuals, then the practical steps that the government must take to ensure the specified outcome will necessarily involve violating individuals' rights. It also disturbs the organic social order that had evolved over time in response to the vagaries of particular people in particular localities at a particular time. Hayek does allow for the state addressing problems such as pollution as well as a limited role for governmental social programs such as Social Security. But these issues should be dealt with piece-meal without fitting individuals into a grand design.

But I think you are correct to say that Hayek and other critics of the statist left were horrified by what they witnessed in the 1920's-1940's that continued in the Soviet Union until the 1990's. We can see from these experiences how the left deals with individual dissent and traditional folkways. They suppress them. The same process continues in a less overtly heavy-handed way in the welfare states of Europe, Canada, and the United States. We also have the economic stagnation and building hopelessness that we saw in the more consistently leftist nations under Communism. Those are the realities, now. The Twentieth Century has exposed the moral and practical failures of all schools of leftist theory and practice in hard, cold experience.

Christopher Graves

John, first, let's focus on the arguments and cut the personal insults. I agree with Christopher Hitchens when he says that when his interlocutors resort to the ad hominem, he can reasonably conclude that they have gathered that they cannot win the argument on its merits.

Now to the substance of your latest reply. You correctly say:

"Look at the basic way that government functions. It acquires information and then it acts on that information. 9/11 is the classic case study. Gov't was short on information about the hijackers, it poorly organized the information that it had, and it was totally ineffective in acting on what information it had.

As the world becomes ever more complex, with more information, moving faster all the time, it becomes ever harder for government to gather information.

To get a real feel for this problem, go read Lewis THE BIG SHORT, which is really story of how incredibly hard it was to acquire information about the financial markets. The people profiled went to extraordinary lengths to get information. The rest of the story was then how hard they had to work to make the information they had effective."

The point you make here is key to Hayek's criticism of central planning. There is no way for one person or one group of people to acquire and effectively process in a timely way all of the relevant information necessary for the daily functioning of an increasingly complex social "organism." This is why we should largely rely on market processes, and I would add, informal social processes such as custom and habit. The role of the government should be restricted, for the most part, to laying out the basic framework for people to usefully acquire and apply information, "on the spot," in a personal way using their own creative insights in harmony with face-to-face relationships with others whom they actually work and live with. Even less personal relationships that are still worked out among the individuals involved should still be left to the parties who interact. As you should know, patterns that evolve from these loose, informal processes are more effective and more just to the individuals involved. There can be a limited role for the state when Prisoner Dilemma-type situations crop up, but typically the evolutionary process is more effective than a planned process for the very reason you point to above. But the free, evolutionary approach might very well lead to overall patterns that many find distasteful.



It is late and I have to travel a long way tomorrow. Your response reads very honestly and I will do my best.

Let us talk about what one can learn from economics (and what one cannot). Common sense tells us that new factories are better than old ones and old ones are better than no factories at all. Factories are an investment of capital. They also are an accumulation of knowledge in how to make and operate the machines. It follows that a key key factor for the long term health of a society is the amount its invests in factories. Don't be literal. An office is a factory, hence why computers and software are an investment.

A healthy society is investing capital in factories, more every year because organizations that do not grow die.

The USA has been dying because we are not investing more in factories, plain and simple. This is observation of fact.

Now comes where you apply Munger and Buffett. Both write and speak often that they never pay attention to someone who stands to gain financially from what they say. For example, although investors, they never read company press releases or prospectuses or research from stock brokers. Also, they know to look for men with a hammer who are looking for a nail.

Every right wing economists in the world fails what I call this Munger/Buffett test of credibility. After the financial crisis, a whole bunch of economist and finance professors even admitted that the profession was bought off.

The same is true for a bunch of client change professors on the left who keep predicting that the sky is falling to get more grant money. Climate change warrants more serious attention than turning over the chicken coop to the foxes.

To be effective you have to realize that all of us have tendencies to make misjudgments based on our psychology. Munger will point you to the book Influence by Cialdini. Read such with care.

Once you start developing your checklists you will come to see that everything on the right is nothing more or less than use of psychology to mislead people. It is all propaganda from the rich to keep from paying their fair share of taxes.

When you start thinking like Munger and Buffett you will begin to see the disconnect and what we know and don't know.

Let's go back to our chronic under investment in this country. If you read Posner and all the right wing, you would think that the sole factor driving investment is taxes.

If you use your own mind you will figure out in about 2 seconds that is a lie. The "model" fails to consider that other factors also impact where people invest. For example, no one is going to invest in Egypt right now, even if taxes were low, because of all the risks of investing in a country on the brink of revolution and civil war (hopefully not). You think a little more an you will begin to realize that the way taxes are advanced make it pretty clear that the issue is a false one, intend to cause confusion and to mislead, especially if you can get prominent federal judges to do your bidding, spreading your lies. You ask yourself, taxes are important, but what about the leadership skills of the government, the morale of the people, etc.

Now lets continue with morale. America's lowest point in my lifetime was when Jimmy Carter was president. Our "deficit" was also at its lowest point and headed down. This proves that morale of the people trumps the deficit. The same is true about WWII. The deficit was twice what it was today, we have just witnesses horror beyond our imagination and were in a new cold war with Russia but morale, under FDR and Truman was far better.

By this point you begin to realize that policies don't matter but people do and you start to ask what are the intangibles that show one to be a possible leader.

I have to close with an interesting story about FDR. He picked two men to be President, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. When he meet Johnson, on election to Congress in the late 1930s, he told his staff that one day Johnson would be President. It happened 18 year after FDR's death.

You have to ask yourself, what did FDR see in Truman and Johnson (and as to the later, did he miss anything?)?

I will end here with an observation about art and literature. In my view, the purpose of art and literature is to all us to see ourselves. My concern about our society is that no one has looked at Johnson and explained what happened. Where is the book, play, movie or painting that every high school student studies about Johnson?

What in his character lead him to so badly misjudge Vietnam? Or, was he trapped by history and events? We like to think we have choices and options, but sometimes we don't.

I will close with this last observation about art. Today we have only two pieces of art by which to model our society---We have the Godfather movies and we have Michael Lewis with two books, Liars Poker and the Big Short. That's not much. We have more about police officers--Kojak and NY PD Blue were both extraordinary mental models. Sgt. Andy Sipowicz will be studied 500 years from now but not Obama.

In sum, stop listening to people who have then interests at heart when then talk to you. Apply the lessons of the Emperor Has No Clothes.

If you want to deconstruct economics further, then invert as I have done in looking at Wisconsin. The issue there is health insurance. If that is true, you have to ask, how could that be if Obamacare did what it should have done (given the grief caused by the two years leading to its passage and since). These facts show that Obamacare is flawed and that Obama failed his own flock, the union workers who got him elected are the people at the State House in Madison protesting about getting shafted.

Then say a pray before you fall asleep tonight, because the Republicans in Congress are worse and are going to drive us straight off a cliff in the next 6 weeks.

Christopher Graves

Here is the rub in attempting to foster democratic procedures in a culture that has not evolved, in the broad sense of the word, a liberal set of institutions, practices, and attitudes that govern a people's daily life, and that critical problem is this: a plurality or even a large majority might very well vote to implement non-liberal policies. These policies are likely to include include religious intolerance such as we see practiced in the vast majority of Islamic nations. It also includes economic policies that do not foster economic growth nor would they encourage the rise and dominance of a middle class that is of central importance in establishing and maintaining a liberal regime.

Here is a list of the fundamentals of an Islamic economy that might very well be implemented by a plurality vote in a democratic Islamic nation that has been influenced by Islamists:

"What Islamists offer as an improvement is an Islamic economic system. The key components of the envisioned Islamic economy are an Islamic banking system that avoids interest, an Islamic redistribution system based on Qur'anic principles of sharing and equity, and a set of norms to ensure fairness and honesty in the marketplace." Timur Kuran, “The Religious Undercurrents of Muslim Economic Grievances.” Database on-line. Available from Social Science Research Council, New York.

http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/kuran.htm. Accessed 10 May

While the set of norms to ensure honesty would be salutary for any economy, the first two guiding principles listed above in the Islamist program seem to run counter to what is needed for economic growth and a thriving bourgeoisie. While greed should not be encouraged, some degree of materialism is needed for a bourgeoisie, and this attitude is discouraged in Islam with its lack of assurance of personal salvation (in contrast to Protestant Christianity that relieves the religiously observant of constantly trying to appease God freeing them to pursue God's earthly "calling" for each individual's life), and Islam's concern for social and economic equality.

What is needed in nations such as Egypt is a social development that leads people to respect the individual as being autonomous as they retain a cultural and moral background that bonds people together implicitly encouraging them to act responsibly toward one another. Such a social unfolding is unlikely to be brought about by political means, even democratic ones. The lasicm of Turkey, imposed from the top-down, has not done the trick here as we are now seeing more clearly. And imposing democratic decision-making will also not do the trick without the supporting culture and sincerely held, internalized beliefs.

Christopher Graves

Spelling correction for my last post for purposes of clarity:

Three lines from the end of the post, 'lasicm' should read 'laicism' or "laïcité."



If Hayek says what you say he says---I have never bothered with turning a page---then Hayek was an idiot

It does not logically follow that because it is hard to govern that, your words, "The role of the government should be restricted."

A second flaw in Hayeks argument is that the same forces are at work on private institutions as well, as proved by Lewis in The Big Short.

As proved in the last three years, Hayek was totally wrong in believing that private actors can be left to their own devices. The markets that just blew up the entire world were very very private.

Hayek was a fool because, unlike Buffett and Munger, he would not foresee the destructive power of a synthetic CDO.

Hayek is an additional fool because his model doesn't deal with complex issues like: (a) global warming or (b) nuclear power.

It is self evident that neither issue can be addressed by restricting government power. The amount of information necessary to deploy nuclear power to meet our energy needs is stunning. There are fuels, several reactor models, waste disposal, location, etc. etc., and the big issue who will pay what when, that warrant serious effort by serious people.

One with an agenda of restricting the role of government has no place in such an effort---what role would some whose mission was restrict the role of government have in the Manhattan Project? Such a view is part of the problem not part of the solution.

This is why the Right never has answers, never will. All human activity that advances us and drives modernity is by definition change, revolutionary, and liberal.

This intellectual dishonesty is at the core of the right wing and the Republican Party. Look at the House's spending cuts which gut the future by cutting basic research but include an ear mark for GE's airplane that the Pentagon doesn't want because the plant is in a republican congressional district next to the Speaker. :<) You will never hear Posner complain about that!!!!

Thus, I return to my premise that the few of us who are moderates are right. The right has nothing to offer and should be totally disregarded at all times. The left (who are not Liberals) must be watched like a hawk. They have no judgment and no ability to solve problems as my note above on unemployment shows.

When Clinton was effective he was a moderate. He raised taxes and balanced the budget when the bond market needed such assurances. He moved to make "welfare" work. He dropped health care when he saw that it was an effort totally captured by special interests and would not work as promised or needed.

When FDR designed SS he was a moderate. He knew the FICA taxes were regressive, but income tax rates were 20 times higher 3% v. 60%. He new that first dollar taxes would rebut the false charge of malingering.


Chris: On perhaps missing the forest for a number of preconceived trees:

Hayek as "outdated?" A bit different working than my pointing out that he may have been reacting somewhat rationally to the "socialism" of post-Depression, wartime footing America, perhaps with an extra push from what soon became McCarthism.

While you decry "leftist versions" of "social justice" let's agree that what Hayek was attempting to sell was, at least, equally subjective.

Further, though I have not made any suggestions along the lines of "...........government has the power to arrange people in a pattern regardless of any other considerations such as either merit or free choice of individuals, then the practical steps that the government must take to ensure the specified outcome will necessarily involve violating individuals' rights."

One writing such today would have to be ignoring what the incompetent (negligent? worse?) "deregs" from the S&L mess to Enron, to the decade long negligence of regulating and policing a cancerous "financial sector" gone criminally rogue. As in ANY game, and capitalism is such, SOMEONE, has to make the ground rules and prepare the field upon which the game is to be played. It seems, Greenspan, learned that lesson, albeit too late with his eyes having been beclouded by fairy tales of ideology and one supposes, nostalgic memories of sharing bottles of wine with the similarly afflicted, self-centered, "objectivist" Ayn Rand.

As you mention "rights" one wonders if you've noted that most of "our?" banksters have been made whole and are again divvying up "performance bonuses", in Sach's case some $31 billion, (an amount on par with cuts being discussed in the House) replete with, obviously, unaffordable tax cuts while our working folks suffer the pain ranging from unemployment, the loss of home equity, and indeed the home itself, and after being conned (forced) into swapping a retirement program for a 401k (which never has worked for median wage folk) that has been heavily impacted as well.

There is no amount of airy-fairy ivory tower philosophizing that will serve to cover up what has been done to our nation under some distorted version of the gospel of Hayek and others who were wrong to begin with.

It's an EXTREME stretch, beyond the ability of even the most disciplined student of yoga to make ANY comparison of the USSR and the US in the post war, cold war, or any other era. IF that is what old Hayek was up to, his "work" would be that of "Fox News" of the era. TRUTH is America came home from the war and "high taxes" and all went on one of the fastest economic (and political power) growth period the world has ever seen, while the USSR failed to meet even ONE "five year plan" and finally imploded.

As for "the left suppressing individual dissent??" Do you have credible examples? My remembrance includes "leftists" leading the way since the civil rights era, on through Vietnam War protests and up through the days of Bush et al lying us into ill-advised, illegal, "preemptive strike" on a sovereign nation halfway around the world when I and other moderates went to the streets with a million others around the world to protest the scam. If there were leftists?? doing any suppressing, it was a feeble effort and one I'd not noticed.

The US?? As a "welfare state?" Here are "we" again dumping on those few who temporarily don't fit into our capitalist model? Or? are we joining together here against military pork? corporate subsidies on oil that has soared fivefold over the last decade, and similar subsidies for agri-biz as those, select, crops that are subsidized have more than doubled in price? the ethanol scam that our budget cutting teabaggers have yet to mention? or the increasingly frequent bailing out of corporations and whole sectors that have been allowed (by a seemingly moribund anti-trust division) to have become "too big" (and too endeared?) to be allowed to fail? If you and Hayek want to prune this field I say "Bring it!" But if you're dumping on those all too many, poor souls cast aside by what you see of our economic system......... I'll leave you to pour over Hayek's moldy tomes.

As for a "stagnant economy", the insightful would have seen this coming since the early 90's. The depressionary effect of stagnant wages were offset during the Clinton era by a roaring stock market and during the Bush era by the false wealth of soaring home prices and a fraudulent banking system that allowed homeowners to pull out more equity than existed.

Now, we are going to see if an economy 70% dependent on consumer spending, (haha) will prosper on its own as most folks trim their spending (or have it trimmed for them) to pay increasing oil and H/C costs leaving about zipnada for "going shopping".

One supposes Hayek would "cut taxes" and go off toe Crawford? to await the next boom? Even though we've bombs, drones and and intractable war to fund?

Lastly? Is it you, or old Hayek who wants to kill SS? One of our best of programs? Have you ever been to a nation that does not have SS? On what wages do "trickle down" to median and lower household, would you like to show us a budget in which caring for one's parents can be added to that of putting kids through our increasingly expensive colleges while attempting to save for one's own retirement? At some point don't you have to climb down from the seemingly oxygen starved heights of ivory tower "think tanks" and actually go out in the sunlight and see what is actually going on?


John: Good post! BTW I'd like to put forth a model of "right v left" that is not the see-saw of opposites but a circle. I find that those of an HONEST conservative bent have much in common with similarly honest progressives -- they can reside on one side of a circular table and solve many of our problems via respectful debate. Who's occupies the other two quarters of the table? Those most of us abhor, theocrats with agendas not unlike the mullahs of the Mid-east, along with a host of sycophants of all stripes who are open to being bribed by, now, over 100,000 lobbyists and a scattering of other junkyard mongrels who'd put their own meat well before the welfare of our imperiled nation.

When you get back or are comfortably ensconced in one of the all too familiar Hampton Inns or Hyatt Regencies somewhere.........

Perhaps we can explore what you feel is the President's lack of leadership given the real-politic of Repubs and 'baggers in the House? I'd posit that Obama with able help from Hillary are doing pretty well on the international stage and that while there was next to NO pressure on China to float its currency pre-Obama there is at least tension today.

A bit tough to measure, overall, in that it's been quite a while since the international scene has been this messy.

Before preparing your chute for the ride offered by House Repubs -- off yet another sizable cliff, I'd take faith, if not from the Senate where some facing uncertain election outcomes may go wobbly, that our President does have and well not be afraid to use, a case of veto pens that once used will have considerable value as political collectibles.

They are indeed staying up late to play a FOOLISH "no clothes" game of trying to recoup what they gave away as tax cuts to the top 2% by sawing away at effective programs that benefit low and mid-income working folk. The specter of them shutting down government in an all out effort to get rid of Sesame Street is beyond ludicrous.



Someone sent me a link to the following which is now up on FreeRepublic:

"For those of you who still think ObamaCare is a good idea, here’s how it’s affecting my family at the very moment I’m writing this…

"My 90 year-old mother has taken ill. High fever (103), throwing up, weakness, spasmodic cough and significant respiratory issues. Her neighbor took her to the ER. The doctor says that "due to the changes in Medicare under ObamaCare" (the doctor's own words) he could not admit her into the hospital, even though he thought she should be admitted.

"Kicked out of the hospital, even though she’s also a heart patient. Kicked out of the hospital, even though she runs a risk of developing pneumonia.

"Would anyone like to try convincing me at this point that the rumors of death panels within ObamaCare are false? Before the new rules took effect, she'd have been admitted without question. We're getting a nurse to stay with her so that (hopefully) she gets proper care.

"Those of you who pray, please pray for my mom.

"All this started mid-morning today. We're trying to get it resolved. How is it in America that a sweet little gray-haired lady, who never hurt a soul in her life, can be kicked to the curb like this? I took the time to blog it simply because this can happen to any of us. But nothing brings the realization home like having it happen at home."

Perhaps Chris is right and we should have a literacy test on voters that would keep this and every over Freeper from voting.

I would like anyone to explain to me how the Right Wing offers this family anything---they obviously believe that health care is free, should be free to themselves---but not anyone else, is all that I can discern.

Notice the writer didn't say, "So I got out my check book and wrote a check to take care of Mom." No he expects us, as tax payers, to foot the bill, but when we was him or her to foot the bill, "Oh No."

Christopher Graves

John, I suggest actually reading Hayek before commenting on his work. Hayek does believe in the state setting the ground rules in society that includes economic transactions in order to protect and for the benefit of the "average person." This includes protections against fraud.

Here is an article that discusses Hayek's views on the distribution of information and more recent theoretical developments in light of Hayek's views on information. Even some proponents of market socialism have taken Hayek's views into consideration in their economic theory.


Liability rules should apply to nuclear power plants. That is one, more market-oriented approach to highly dangerous enterprises. As for global warming, the "cap and trade" approach mimics a market and, if implemented properly and across nations, might deal with the problem of excessive carbon emissions while allowing greater flexibility for private industry than more direct government regulation.

The only alternatives that we have before us are not restricted to no government action or active, directive governmental action that tramples on individuals and civil society. Hayek is more between these two extremes than you are understanding his position to be. Again, I would suggest taking a look at his work.

Christopher Graves

Jack, I think my comments addressed to John also apply to many of yours in your latest reply to me. I have repeatedly addressed the banking crisis in previous discussions. Your comments above on this issue do not apply to any position that I have articulated on this blog. Economists and financial analysts working from an Austrian economics framework were critical of expansionary Fed policy, tax policy that discouraged saving, banking regulations and lending policies at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and excessive de-regulation in the financial industry while still providing bailouts.

Social democracy, socialism, and Communism are all variations of leftist political philosophy. I see the liberal left as an American version of social democracy. I see these as differing as a matter of degree, not in principle.

The focus on equal distributions of income and wealth is result oriented. If government follows policies to redistribute income in order to lessen unequal results, then people are being forcibly arranged in a pattern. Governmental policies to equalize opportunity or condition violates the property rights and other rights of those whose property is taken from them. Equality of result can also interfere with freedom of association. For example, John Rawls, a left liberal, holds open the possibility of abolishing the family if extensive and continual redistributionist efforts do not reach and maintain their desired societal goal.

Hayek's commitment to the rule of law is inconsistent with the left's desire to arrange people in a pattern of equality or as close to that pattern as possible. On Hayek's view, the state should lay down reasonable rules of order and then allow people to pursue their own goals within those bounds. The resulting distribution is not a concern on this view. At times, Rawls argues for the same approach to the law, but his Second Principle of Justice that demands as much equality as possible allowing only those inequalities that better the worst off is inconsistent with the stability of law and leaving people free to pursue their goals. State enforced equality is also inconsistent with allowing people to form social unions to jointly pursue agreed upon goals since this freedom can lead to exclusivity and unequal status and wealth.

There are lots of examples of the left suppressing dissent. Most any research that shows innate differences that give rise to inequality is regularly suppressed. Speech that includes religious speech that is critical of sexual misconduct is legally suppressed in Canada and some European countries. Criticism of religious, ethnic or racial minorities can be prosecuted in Europe. Religious expression is regularly censored in the U.S. PC codes on state universities in the U.S. are still in effect despite some court decisions striking them down as inconsistent with free speech, which they are.

Christopher Graves

To follow up my concluding comments just above, here is a reference to a recent article that provides clear evidence of the left suppressing a conservative viewpoint in higher education in the United States. UVA social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt's research on this matter was presented in the *New York Times* by John Tierney, "Social Scientist Sees Bias Within" published February 7, 2011, that documents discrimination against conservatives on college campuses in America. We also see that research that does not reflect a leftist bias being quashed. This trend goes back for decades.




I do not read anyone who does not understand a synthetic CDO or, in particular, do I pay the least bit of attention to someone who thinks that the way to regulate nuclear energy is with "liability rules."

Hayek was an idiot and a fool.



Here is the result of Hayak and tax cuts for the rich in action:

"Total U.S. manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 at 19.6 million people. That total has fallen consistently and painfully to 11.6 million now…a loss of eight million jobs…a loss of 40% of all manufacturing positions."

I know, never bother you with the facts.

writing company

magnificent job. I did not imagine this. This is a fantastic blog. Thanks!



interesting. Your very first substantive sentence is “Your response reads very honestly and I will do my best.” My response “reads very honestly.” Indeed. Why is it that people who also write that “Every right wing…” start with the assumption that everybody who doesn’t think like them and subscribe to their beliefs is dishonest? I see you are not a serious person. Have a good one.



Why do no think that I should presume that people are honest or that I believe what they say?

Especially, why should I do that for people who attack or associate with people who attack Obama for not being born in the US or not having the religious convictions he says he has?

Buffett and Munger teach to invert. If one inverts the right wing and presumes it dishonest, one will quickly sees the self interest that motivates all on the right.

And, if you read with care, you will see that I apply the same to the "left."


Why all this drivel about "Honesty" or "Dishonesty" in the Market Place? The fundamental Law of any Market is "Caveat Emptor" or "Buyer Beware". Which precludes any ideas about "Honesty" or "Dishonesty" and will eventually lead to Anarcho-Capitalism or some such thing depending on the political power and will of the various ideological factions at work. Such is the rational for Market and Business Regulation via Law. Which presents certain problems due to the various ideological factions trying to control, or not, the Law itself for their own ideological ends and personal aggrandizement.


Chris, Xavier, and NEH

According to documents in a court case, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes told a former publishing executive to lie to federal investigators vetting ex-New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik for a Cabinet post in 2004.

The New York Times reported Friday that former lawyers for ex-publisher Judith Regan said in sworn statements that Ailes and Regan had a taped conversation about Kerik. Regan had previously said a senior executive at Fox parent News Corp. advised her to lie about the now-imprisoned Kerik.

The plan, design, and intent of the right wing is to lie as early as possible, as often as possible, as much as possible.

Look at the Wisconsin Gov., who thought he was plotting with one of the Koch brothers to bring in troublemakers to case problems in Wisconsin.

Bathroom Living

Really the only fair conclusion is that large parts of our government are as corrupt and brittle as the Egyptians.

gmc canyon parts

I think this the larger the number of voters in an election, the smaller the chance of close election results.

discount mbt shoes

This article is very interesting, I like it. I will always come to visit after.I would recommend to friends more.

Spinal Stenosis

I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here. The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again since exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this increase.

sciatic nerve

We're a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with valuable information to work on. You have done a formidable job and our whole community will be grateful to you.


Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I will certainly comeback.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31