How America Embraced Lemon Socialism
America has embraced Lemon Socialism.
The federal government -- that is, you and I and every other taxpayer -- has taken ownership of giant home mortgagors Fannie and Freddie, which are by now basket cases. We've also put hundreds of millions into Wall Street banks, which are still flowing red ink and seem everyday to be in worse shape. We've bailed out the giant insurer AIG, which is failing. We've given GM and Chrysler the first installments of what are likely to turn into big bailouts. It's hard to find anyone who will place a big bet on the future of these two.
It gets worse. While Washington debates TARP II, the Federal Reserve Board continues to buy or guarantee or provide loans for a vast and growing pile of questionable financial and corporate assets, much of which are likely to be worth far less than the Fed has paid or guaranteed or accepted as collateral. We're talking big money here -- so far over $2.4 trillion. (The entire TARP -- parts I and II -- in combination with the proposed stimulus package come to just over $1.5 trillion.)
Taxpayers are on the hook for this Fed bailout money, too, of course. We have to pay the interest on the ever-growing debt used to make these payments or guarantees and loans. Yet while TARP II and the upcoming stimulus package are receiving a great deal of attention, this much larger public commitment by the Fed is not. That's partly because the media doesn't much of understand it, but also because the Fed is doing it in secret, using provisions of its charter never before utilized, and avoiding discussion before the full Board of Governors for fear such meetings would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Put it all together and at this rate, the government -- that is, taxpayers -- will own much of the housing, auto, and financial sectors of the economy, those sectors that are failing fastest.
Consider too that the government already finances much of the aerospace industry, which is still doing reasonably well but depends on a foreign policy that itself has been a dismal failure. And a large portion of the pharmaceutical industry and health care sector (through the Medicare and Medicaid, the Medicare drug benefit, and support of basic research). These are in bad shape as well, and it seems likely the Obama administration will try to reorganize much of them.
What's left? Most of high-tech, entertainment, hospitality, retail, and commodities. So far, at least, we taxpayers are not propping them up. And when the economy turns up -- perhaps as soon as next year, most likely later -- these sectors have a good chance of rebounding.
But the others -- the ones the government is coming to own or manage -- are less likely to rebound as quickly, if ever. If anyone has a good argument for why the shareholders of these losers should not be cleaned out first, and their creditors and executives and directors second -- before taxpayers get stuck with the astonishingly-large bill -- I would like to hear it.
It's called Lemon Socialism. Taxpayers support the lemons. Capitalism is reserved for the winners.
the government is coming...to manage
If only.
Thus far, there appears to be an aversion to acquiring voting (as opposed to preferred non-voting) stock/stock warrants.
January 24, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worse.
The Fed is enabling the CDS dealers, the Goldman Saches and the JPMorganChases of this world, to destroy Citigroup and Bank of America and most of the rest of the Wall Street banking system.
Conspiracy? Nah; just incompetence*.
* Remember August 2007 when da boyz had to give Bernanke a tutorial explaining derivatives?
January 24, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
to destroy Citigroup and Bank of America and most of the rest of the Wall Street banking system.
Maybe it's a new reality show, "Banker Tontine".
The last banker standing wins it all.
"There can be only one..."
January 24, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What youre saying is completely true. i agree with you.
children health
January 11, 2011 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 23, 2011 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, your link crashes my browser for some reason. If anyone else is having the same problem, I found the article reposted in full here.
January 24, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that Citi and BAC were the number 2 and 3 derivatives dealers prior to October 2008?
A history of JPMC's derivatives business is at http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/wall-street/2008/10/15/Credit-Derivatives-Role-in-Crash
"J.P. Morgan continues to dominate the world of derivatives. It has derivatives contracts tied to $90 trillion of underlying securities. Of that, $10.2 trillion are credit-derivatives contracts. Those mind-boggling totals are somewhat misleading. They reflect what is called the “notional” amount in the world of derivatives, based on the underlying amount of the contract, not its current value. When offsetting contracts are taken into account, that figure is whittled down to a much smaller—though still enormous—$109 billion of derivatives, of which $26 billion are credit derivatives. That’s the amount the bank could lose if all its trading partners went out of business, an extremely remote event. But the exposure is climbing, up 17.4 percent from the end of 2007. That’s equal to 20 percent of the bank’s net worth."
January 24, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Merrill,
this is not an atangonistic question, its for informational purposes only;
What benefit to the country or the economy is generated by these exotic investment instruments such as derivatives?
January 25, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the ostensible benefits are outlined in a Greenspan speech -- http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/Speeches/2005/20050505/default.htm
"The benefits are not limited to those that use derivatives. The use of a growing array of derivatives and the related application of more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and managing risk are key factors underpinning the greater resilience of our largest financial institutions, which was so evident during the credit cycle of 2001-02 and which seems to have persisted. Derivatives have permitted the unbundling of financial risks. Because risks can be unbundled, individual financial instruments now can be analyzed in terms of their common underlying risk factors, and risks can be managed on a portfolio basis. Partly because of the proposed Basel II capital requirements, the sophisticated risk-management approaches that derivatives have facilitated are being employed more widely and systematically in the banking and financial services industries.
To be sure, the benefits of derivatives, both to individual institutions and to the financial system and the economy as a whole, could be diminished, and financial instability could result, if the risks associated with their use are not managed effectively. Of particular importance is the management of counterparty credit risks. Risk transfer through derivatives is effective only if the parties to whom risk is transferred can perform their contractual obligations. These parties include both derivatives dealers that act as intermediaries in these markets and hedge funds and other nonbank financial entities that increasingly are the ultimate bearers of risk."
"counterparty credit risks" -- there's the rub.
Derivatives have some useful functions. A Credit Default Swap is basically an insurance policy against default by the creditor, which effectively increases the rating of the bond that is insured. This makes it more marketable, especially to institutions which may be allowed only to buy high quality credits.
However, derivatives should be standardized, traded and reported on by exchanges, and tied to the actual underlying instruments owned by one of the two parties, rather than being just side bets on financial events.
January 25, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent link, Ellen! One key point for me:
"Unlike a centralized exchange where an impartial counterparty holds the cash, the bilateral relationships in the CDS market lead to gross under-collateralization of CDS trades which are, in turn, governed by separate collateral security agreements. This leads to what one participant calls "a dirty float," where counterparties keep minimal collateral with one another and thus nobody is sure whether their contracts are money good. It is thus possible to run short positions against banks or other names and have virtually no collateral backing these trades, both for dealers and their customers. Why should the citizens of the industrial nations tolerate the existence of this unsafe and unsound market for another moment longer?"
I would add: Why should we bail out those side bets, what I call "gambling" here and here, which are a part of these "dirty" deals?
January 24, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be like a shell game where there's really nothing under one shells but high stakes bets that are backed by nearly nothing?
January 24, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dizzying!
When the spin density increases, typos become crucial if there is something substantial being said at all!
"Would that be like a shell game where there's really nothing under one shells but high stakes bets that are backed by nearly nothing?"
"one shells" could be "one's shells" or "one shell".
The core of the gambling element is the lack of material risk in the underlying instruments. Requiring significant collateral will tend to drive out the gambling elements, I think.
Aside: Somehow your question reminds me of Jason's posting style, of poker and of diplomacy in general.
January 24, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chairman Bernanke spoke at the May 2007 Atlanta Fed Financial Markets Conference.
With respect to "regulating financial innovations such as credit derivatives. He noted that consistency and a principles-based paradigm for the regulation of innovations is important . . . in contrast to a more rules-based approach or an ad hoc approach, which might regulate each instrument as it becomes available."
Yup; you have to actually understand the product if you're going to write a rule to regulate it. But you can yammer away about a principles-based paradigm -- whatever that might be -- from now till Sunday without ever having to actually do anything.
January 24, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't understand the product maybe the ones writing the rules ought to figure that neither do the people buying it and the folks selling it are most likely crooks.
January 24, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 17, 2010 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what's the alternative? I've read article after article after article griping and moaning about how much money we're spending and how awful it is that we should be bailing out the banks and Wall Street, but almost all of these articles are noticeably lacking in any viable alternative that wouldn't end up being even more disastrous. Frankly, at this point articles talking about how screwed we are without offering alternative are both unnecessary and unhelpful.
January 24, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your criticism, OSheaman, subject to the following proviso:
Because we're not being paid the big bucks to run the economy, we commenters are allowed to vent and rant without being required to come up with solutions.
January 24, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Christopher Whalen link you gave is not all nattering nabobs of negativism with no solution offered. This is the summary paragraph:
January 24, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only cure is to try to gradually bleed the inflation caused by these instruments out of the economy.
And, going forward, subject any person or institution investing in these instruments to the potential losses hidden by them, no questions asked and no "too big to fail" arguments permitted. Institutional investors would not be permitted to invest in any instrument of this type without a 100% collateralized guarantee.
Yes, economic growth would slow, perhaps significiantly. But it would dramatically lessen the possibility of global crashes like the present one in the future.
January 25, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point,poised on the edge of world wide decline of unforcastable proportions, rescuing these companies is the quickest way of preventing bad from becoming worse: Public Works take years. Tax rebates take months and are uncertain. A company that doesn't go bankrupt is an immediate avoidance of a drain on the economy.
If you want to punish the management, force them to do push ups or something ;you could cut their bonuses ( yawn).And wiping out shareholders is an unaimed missile , who knows who owns those shares? And what the knock-on effect would be when funds owning those shares meet the withdrawals which aretriggered by those write offs, by liquidating their holdings in healthy companies. Healthy up till then, that is.Forcing directors to resign would be fine, they're redundant, play no part in actual management and won't be missed-be my guest.
You can't maximize independent variables. The object of this exercise is to avoid a Depression.
If you want to create an Industrial Policy that's an interesting topic. Remind us in a year's time.
It's by no means sure it'll be possible to avoid the onrushing train wreck or that if it is possible ,we know how to do it. One thing we do know is that permitting avoidable bankrupties ain't the way to go.
January 24, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
permitting avoidable bankrupties
No worries, mate.
Just give me the 700 billion to spend, turn me loose on wall street for a few days, and I'll come back with all the bank stock and enough change for a few big Macs.
Then there will be no bankruptcies; only happily bought out shareholders, and unemployed managers finding new careers.
January 24, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goforit!
January 24, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goforit
I mean, I do understand that after I've bought, oh, I don't know, 30% of citibank at 3 bucks, I might have to start paying three fifty, but still, we're talkin' bailout money in orders of magnitude greater than the entire cap value of these turkeys.
How does that make sense? If we just bought them, then they wouldn't have any credit problems, cause they'd be us.
January 24, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would not surprise me if some are buying up bank stocks on speculation of a buyout. But don't forget that buying stock on the open market gives you voting power but doesn't put capital into the banks. If anything banks should be forced to raise added capital from private markets at these very low prices. That dilutes stockholder values nicely while leaving them in the game.
I wonder if GS, which is now a commercial bank, and apparently is relatively free of mortgage mess liabilities, is looking at making some acquisitions and buying low-priced stock as a prelude to takeover. If you take over the bank, you don't have to worry about bankruptcy (the main issue for private speculators at this point re BAC, C, and a few others).
January 24, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses, And all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again!
Don't sit on a high wall of debt if you're an egg. The current economic team helped to put Humpty Dumpty on that wall. Humpty fell and now Obama's horses and economic team are trying to put him back together again. No one is telling the King: Humpty Dumpty is broken.
January 24, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a version of this on change.gov or whitehouse.gov or whatever the heck they are using these days!
January 24, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to actually pay for the bailout, not defer it to future generations.
The top marginal tax rate was 94% under Eisenhower, and there were more brackets. That seems about right.
Giving yourself a "golden parachute" or an obscene bonus was pointless; taxes would just eat it up before it ever got to you.
Maybe an asset tax too: 10% of any personal assets over $50 Million goes to the IRS.
January 24, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
$50 million is not that much money. Start the asset tax at a lower %age at $50 mil and make it steeply progressive.
We do want to be fair.
January 24, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree.
It's ludicrous that if Pete Peterson's secretary gets a raise, her tax on the increment will be the same % as he would pay if he earned another million or so.
A corallary of your view is that ,given a 94% incremental rate, Congress could abandon its populist but counter productive micromanagement of executive compensation and contemplate a sharp but temporary harvest in executive taxes-soon ending since litigation- averse Comp Committees would be deterred from such waste of share holders assets and move to incentives tied to long term improvement in shareholders' value ,de-emphasizing quarterly eps growth in favor of higher market price over time, most particularly over the time until they expect to retire and cash in those options.
January 24, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh? How are the taxpayers on the hook for Federal Reserve bailout funds, and what debt on what loans? Are you mixing up Treasury with the Fed here? The prior context was FRB, not T.
As far as I know, the FRB is simply printing the money it lends out on corporate paper etc., engaging in apparently insane monetary inflation. That is not at all the same as borrowing by T which does of course indebt taxpayers.
January 24, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. In the first instance "printing of money" leads to inflation which will ultimately have to be offset by "reducing the supply", causing unemployment which will be a burden on some future inhabitants (tax paying or not) rather than a tax. But a benefit to those still employed able to get more value for their money.
But maybe we're both wrong. I'd be happy to be corrected.
January 24, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what you're saying, flavius.
If the Fed stops "printing money" down the road, that doesn't directly translate into increasing unemployment. If the short-term monetary inflation stimulates the economy, unemployment will be fixed fiscally. Of course if we get addicted to monetary inflation (as some would argue we already are) that will definitely be a problem down the road. And it's possible that even short-term money printing will leave many poorer in real terms anyway. So don't think that I favor printing money, to me it's theft, equivalent to counterfeiting.
January 25, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly have no basis for disagreeng.
January 25, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How has the U.S. Govn't managed to allow the banking industry to work on a completely different set of rules on making a living than we have to live by?
January 24, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy question to answer: There are massive amounts of money to be made by engaging in the shell game financial industry. Our country lionized those who did that, always hoping some of it would dribble down to us. If that industry had been regulated the economy would have grown at a sustainable rate, fortunes wouldn't have been made, lost, made again in a single day of trading, and our major loss would have been a big reduction in billionaires - don't we need an endless supply of those? We sure acted like we did.
January 24, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a question of a financially insignificantly group, though made up of almost the totality of the county, of individuals to the political system and the few with much money and jobs to offer to politicians and staff!
January 24, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are these the same people who drove the ship over the falls?
Same people that hang with the school of kenron lay and use a.a.accounting style for fake visuals.
Can these people do anything except cover-up the disaster they took part in?
Who picks these people to redue disaster? Their ship that went over the falls will not go back up the falls.The ship hit the bottom and is broken to bits.The captain is wondering in shock.
Get real people with real mental assests to sanitize the mess first. Then take a look.
In india the people who did this type business are in jail with no bond.They do not get to continue to pretend.
January 24, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they not suspending mark-to-market accounting? Someone please explain to me!
January 24, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall Thatcher did something like this but in a sort of reverse order. When the UK was on it's knees after the war much business/industry was socialized and began eventually to get back on it's feet. Thatcher got in and sold off all the profitable industries and kept the lemons for the government.
January 25, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the last gasp of empire. The guys who run the banks and car companies are obsessive control freaks who have been pushing for mergers for two decades to assure their control over vital industries. With their size, they can then buy Congressmen, cabinet posts, whatever they need to assure domination. The banks merge to absurd size, then push guys like Hank Paulson into power where their interests can be protected. We pay the bill; they stay in charge. Ave Imperator!
This would have the stench of conspiracy theory, except one thing - it doesn't work any longer. There's no question that the empire mindset is what is creating these "lemon capitalist" bailouts, but the simple fact is, it's a dumb idea, poorly executed. If these guys were smart AT ALL, they would have been running their businesses and not worrying about how to subvert democracy.
Empire-sized businesses must be allowed to fail, and a new culture of American entrepreneurialism must be allowed to flourish. When our culture turns away from neo-mercantilism and back toward new ideas, free will, and free markets, only then will we fix the economy and prepare ourselves for a peaceful, prosperous 21st Century. Imagine a place where American ingenuity can be allowed to stimulate growth, not billion-dollar payouts to the worst businesspeople in the world! It's positive and possible.
January 25, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Capitalism is Lemon Socialism.
And the federal government is NOT you and I and every other taxpayer -- the federal government just used our money.
January 25, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because, and he knows this, shareholders, creditors and executives and what they do and how they function is called CAPITALISM.
And CAPITALISM is how this country is run.
Rather simple, is it not? Sheesh!
January 25, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lemon Socialism is quite the use of crony words, the kind of ambiguous wording that Repugs love use to "label" any money designated to help economically depressed individuals instead of their giveaways to corporations through their "trickle down" theories that have never worked and never will work.
The only good thing is, is that we, the people, are the ultimate contact holders and thus can change the terms of the contract anything we feel like it. The banks need to be re-regulated from the top down and many of our federal regulatory agencies turned into protection offices for corporations rather than what these regulatory agencies were designed to do, to protect the taxpayer and consumers (the American people - who pay for them) and NOT the corporations.
If we're really going to see CHANGE, than Barack Obama had better FIRE all those cronies the Bush Administration hired to run the US regulatory agencies, and nothing will change until Barack re-staffs them utterly. Obama is so far, offering nothing but figleaf policies for serious missues of office in these Agencies.
Now, it's nice that Barack is offering to infused the US with big debit funny money, but it will all be for not, if indeed our DLC President doesn’t fix the real problems, the wide spread cronyism of the last administration. It’ll all amount to nothing but a huge wallpapering over of problems with yet another huge round of throwing money into another taxpayer looting operation designed to float the problem rather than to FIX IT. It'll be just another scheme like all the crap that went on during the Bush Administration. Bush didn't just fuck-up the DOJ, that mobster corrupted everything across the board in US government and he did with the Democratic Party looking on and doing NOTHING about it.
January 25, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The banks are frankly using the bailout money to pay for their long term survival and the purchase of their failing brethren. If our Treasury and Fed weren't run by bankers, but by Joe the Citizen (or Jane the Environmentalist or Potential Small Business Owner) maybe they would have provided the money directly to consumers on the condition that the money be spent on mass transit, autos (on a sliding scale to reward high to infinite mpg), efficient appliances, weatherizing homes, geothermal, etc.
The banks act like such grownups when citizens do business with them and now they are just children demanding that others clean up their mess. Having their peers provide the solution seems a little absurd.
The government could have given out coupons good for strategic, quality purchases or the payment of debt (let the banks recapitalize that way). Maybe citizens should be recapitalized according to the proportion of their income that they pay for local, state and federal taxes. That sounds like shared sacrifice to me.
Fewer banks too big to fail and plenty of happily spending consumers might have been the result.
January 25, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two most frightening words in the English language:
Financial innovation
January 26, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't "lemon socialism" just the latest (and by far largest) instance of the “state of permanent receivership” described by Cornell’s Ted Lowi 30 years ago in “The End of LIberalism? (I heard a Lowi speech back then as I recall he said “In America, we don’t socialize industries or the means of production; we socialize risk.”) Its a subtler explanation of the "too big to fail" argument. I’m not usually a Cato fan, but they were right to flag it recently (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/19/the-united-states-of-permanent-receivership/)
January 26, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our country would be a far better place if Mr. Reich and some of the posters on this thread were in charge of financial policy.
The thing I fear most about President Obama is his relative orthodoxy on financial matters. Reliance on the Geithners and Summers of this World has just caused a big mess, and I see few real reformers in positions of power over financial markets or policy. Clearly we can all agree that the decision to let Lehman fail was one of the worst and basically a proximate causes of our current predicament. It just would have made me feel so much better if the President had chosen anyone else besides one of the key players in that fiasco to preside over the Treasury.
January 27, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh Financial innovation is strange just like the guy who wrote about the 4Inkjets Review. You need to understand them well to get to the point of it
February 16, 2010 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lemon Socialism. Taxpayers support the lemons. Capitalism is reserved for the winners.... that something new and unusual i have heard along with that i like Online Postage Service which is fast
February 21, 2010 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
welcome to the 21st century ... Coffee Flavors
April 8, 2010 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
e loans for a vast and growing pile of questionable financial and corporate assets, much of which are likely to be worth far less than the Fed has paid or guaranteed or accepted as collateral. We're talking big money here -- so far over $2.4 tr
bags factory.
August 17, 2010 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The federal government -- that is, you and I and every other taxpayer -- has taken ownership of giant home mortgagors Fannie and Freddie, which are by now basket cases. We've also put hundreds of millions into Wall Street banks, which are still flowing red ink and seem everyday to be in worse shape.
Very much valuable points.Chicago movers
September 13, 2010 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our country would be a far better place if Mr. Reich and some of the posters on this thread were in charge of financial policy.
The thing I fear most about President Obama is his relative orthodoxy on financial matters. Reliance on the Geithners and Summers of this World has just caused a big mess, and I see few real reformers in positions of power over financial markets or policy. Clearly we can all agree that the decision to let Lehman fail was one of the worst and basically a proximate causes of our current predicament. It just would have made me feel so much better if the President had chosen anyone else besides one of the key players in that fiasco to preside over the Treasury.
Kramer & Frank, P.C.
October 23, 2010 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was definitely wrong to bail out the banks and not impose any conditions on them. Robber-baron capitalism lives again. Buy Cartier Watches
October 28, 2010 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall Thatcher did something like this but in a sort of reverse order. When the UK was on it's knees after the war much business/industry was socialized and began eventually to get back on it's feet. Thatcher got in and sold off all the profitable industries and kept the lemons for the government.NY Criminal attorneys
November 14, 2010 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses taking time and real effort to make a good article !!
Seo Services
November 20, 2010 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exciting post... These tips are very useful especially to those who want to avail in this topic.
Business Solutions
November 22, 2010 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and got a lot from them. To me, you are doing the great work.
Marketing Solutions
November 23, 2010 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! I'm just starting out in community management/marketing media and trying to learn how to do it well - resources like this article are incredibly helpful. As our company is based in the US, it's all a bit new to us.
Web Designing
November 24, 2010 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really
very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.
Natural Health Remedies
November 25, 2010 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today's Pc Parts
Great post with a lot of very usefull resources. Thanks for sharing.
November 26, 2010 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's some good stuff in here, and I did find it amusing at times. It is an interesting choice to write in tone which will only serve to alienate those whites that are on the fence. Very dramatic and not a little adolescent.Office Cleaning Service
November 29, 2010 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Permanent PR7 Text Links
Thank you so much for your work on keeping the site together and keeping these flowing.
December 28, 2010 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steven B Dodge-I think, it's good step by American Government but there should have some relief for tax payer.
January 7, 2011 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ilchi Lee-Lemon Socialism support to private companies, it points to a corruption of free-market capitalist systems, which would normally allow defective companies to fail.
January 12, 2011 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's left? Most of high-tech, entertainment, hospitality, retail, and commodities. So far, at least, we taxpayers are not propping them up. And when the economy turns up -- perhaps as soon as next year, most likely later -- these sectors have a good chance of rebounding.Lottery Results
January 21, 2011 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo Sites
Hey about i do believe your weblog is rather F - Enjoyable i found it in google and i set it on my favorite list wish to see further great posts from u shortly.
January 22, 2011 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fail was one of the worst and basically a proximate causes of our current predicament
canadian pharmacies
February 20, 2011 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Send Flowers to anyone any time any where through our services flowers to uae | flowers from china
March 14, 2011 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was actually what I was looking for, and I am glad that I finally came here! This for sharing and keep up the good work...
online degree
bachelor degree
March 29, 2011 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I learned something today! Thanks!
master degree
associate degree
March 29, 2011 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have learned a lot from this.
phd degrees
March 29, 2011 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your article I have found many new and useful information about this subject. the diet solution program
April 2, 2011 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin!
Cooling System
April 4, 2011 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest this site to my friends so it could be useful & informative for them also. Great effort.send mothers day flowers New Zealand.
April 20, 2011 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink