Sunday, May 27, 2012

Why are we so concerned about income inequality?

Much attention has been given to the apparent growing income inequality in the U.S. and other economies.  However, there has been almost no discussion on whether income inequality is indeed the enormous social issue that we claim it to be.


As a naive economist, I subscribe to the belief that wealth is just a mean to an end.  Ultimately, what drives "utility" is consumption.  While there is certainly a linkage between wealth (income) and consumption, that relationship is really not as strong as we think it is.  Indeed, if you would allow me to be controversial for the sake of stimulating a lively debate, let me assert: "As long as the distribution of real consumption is fairly sensible, people should not be so upset about income inequality."

Capitalism and its free market mechanism have come under significant attack in the recent years. However, if we are willing to take a step back and not focus so narrowly on the imperfection of this system for determining production and consumption, we will find that Capitalism has accomplished what a socialistic central planning system intended to but never could.

On the production side, Capitalism has largely been successful at ensuring that productive resources are controlled/managed by the most productive individuals.   Whether you like them or not, highly intelligent, driven, educated and ambitious people tend to be in charge of producing goods and services for the rest of us to enjoy.  Rather than thinking of these people as the feared bosses, they are really servants to our whims.  The minute they fail to anticipate our tastes and needs, they are replaced by the next guy who can (e.g. the firing of Disney Film Chief Rich Ross after the disastrous  John Carter movie release). 

On the consumption side, we really don’t have vastly inequitable "real" consumption in this country.    One really cannot say that a millionaire drinking a $200 bottle of wine with his filet Mignon at Ruth Chris has 50 times the quality of living (dining) than an average Joe having a coke with his In-and-Out burger.  For that matter, driving a 250K Bentley isn’t 10 times better quality of life than driving a 25K Camry; a 50 million dollar Beverly Hills home isn't 100 times better quality of living than a 500K house in Irvine; Seinfeld isn't any funnier on a 80in 3-D enabled LED than a 35in plasma. You get the point.  I do not believe that large income inequality leads to large standard of living inequality (or "real" consumption inequality), which is what matters at the end of the day. (*For this article, I punt on the issue of poverty as it is outside of the scope. The pertinent class conflict I am concerned with here is the middle class vs. the 1%.)

The invisible hand has very cleverly devised a two tiered pricing system, where the goods and services that the high earners consume are priced at sufficiently high levels such that these earners do not consume all of the goods and services that they produce.  Instead of hording goods for personal enjoyment thus creating scarcity in consumption for the rest of us, these top producers horde claims to factories, stores and financial institutions (which are not at all tasty to eat or fun to play with) and, instead, consume rather modest quantities of meats, vegetables, mortars, bricks, water, metals, electricity, petrol, etc. etc. relative to the average Joe.  Oddly enough, they seem enormously concerned about the rest of us not growing our consumption and not feeling optimistic enough about life to spend money!  (Frankly, on the things that really matter, I am not sure that they have less rebellious teenagers,spouses who hate them less, cuter grandchildren or a more comfortable death...)  

People simply fail to understand just how clever the invisible hand is---when left relatively free to function properly, it will adjust prices such that the proper productions occur and the proper consumptions occur.  Look all around us, the free market system has ensured that those, who wish to be slaves to the shifting tastes of the masses, get to do so in exchange for the false hope of a significantly higher quality of life to sooth their injured souls.  The very same free market, which hands them that million dollar bonus check also prey on their insecurity and sell them a  Gucci bag for $3000 and still make sure that they feel sufficiently "not enough" versus their peers to work more and do more.  The invisible hand understands all too well that this is the only way to make sure that these extremely productive workers produce plentifully for us and consume modestly relative to their production.  Tax these slaves for their fascination with paper money, shame them as greedy bastards---I suspect that we might get better outcome by erecting bronze busts in their honor while selling them naming right to libraries for $20 million and Picasso's for 5 times that.

I wish people would focus on the "objective" of an economic system---to ensure that the most productive members of our society produce goods and services that society desires and to consume only a modest fraction of what they produce. 

I wish people could see how much "real" consumption equality has been achieved by capitalism, when compared with other economic systems.

I wish people would understand how necessary and wonderful is this market system, which encourages income inequality to induce proper innovation, labor supply and production only to take it largely back in the most underhanded fashion to produce "real" consumption equality.

Instead of discouraging the high earners from producing more and therefore earning more[1], we should really focus on discouraging any message, where we make it obvious that they can't take it with them when they die.


by jason c. hsu

[1] I fully acknowledge that not all high earners are high producers.  People are sensible to question why investment managers are so well paid when they hardly produce any investment performance. However, I think that's the anomaly rather than the norm.  Most top earners are doctors, executives of significant corporations, technology innovators and entrepreneurs.

30 comments:

Unknown said...

Hi Professor Hsu,

I came across this article earlier today (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/too-much-faith-in-markets-denies-us-the-good-life.html) and thought you might be interested.

Anonymous said...

The Skidelskys make a few critical assumptions which need to be identified. First, they make a global statement that a good life is achieved by consumption of more leisure, and less work. This statement has truthful components, though it is not unconditional. Some workers derive immense satisfaction and well-being from their careers. Some do not. An immediate consequence of legislating such a principle is the life choices of hundreds of millions of people are made without their consent, essentially prohibiting the rightful autonomy of living a live according to free will. We can all agree there is no ethical boundary you, I, or any wise person can draw perfectly dividing society's consumption of work and leisure in the pursuit of some greater objective function. The intent of such a law is beautiful, however, its application is destructive.

Second, the Skidelskys tell an incomplete story of a worker who earns a high income. Their implication is high earners accumulate resources, leaving mere scraps for the rest of the income distribution. This attribution neglects the rich story of money which drives capitalism. Even if these folks simply accumulate financial assets, as the Skidelskys pose, are they not providing the capital lifeblood to the businesses we all work for? Is letting others borrow their resources while not in use unethical? The answer is unequivocally no.

Anonymous said...

I would be curious about your thoughts on the following article, which argues that too much inequality lowers consumption.

www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality

Anonymous said...

Stiglitz is a nobel prize winning economist, and his prescriptions are markedly less extreme, and markedly more reasonable than the Skidelskys. Though I still disagree with Stiglitz, and for reasons similar to those I offered regarding the Skidelskys.

The main point Stiglitz makes, that societies deteriorate under too much income inequality, is true. But again, conditionally true. We can validate its truth by looking to historical situations where financial and economic oppression lead to extreme variation of the income distribution in a society, serving as a catalyst to civil unrest, and ultimately the undoing of the oppressors.

Income inequality lies on a continuum, so can we point to the threshold where society is at risk of deteriorating? And to what extent is financial and economic oppression practiced in the modern United States?

Ultimately, these are the questions which Stiglitz must answer. Notice he does not provide answers, because he knows he cannot without risking his credibility.

Furthermore, I would add in the context of the world today, and in the context of history, the United States ranks as one of the least financially oppressive nations. Because of this, Americans are more accepting of Mark Zuckerberg earning a billion dollars than Egyptians are of Hosni Mubarak earning a billion dollars, and rightly so.

jason c hsu said...

I think it is very important to distinguish between two very different drivers for income inequality. (1) Income inequality that is essentially exogenously imposed on people and (2) income inequality that is endogenously drive by market forces. So how might income inequality be imposed? If the state fails to provide complementary resources to help labor become productive or outright enslave labor to rob workers of their economic rent, then income inequality is exogenous. Think of many totalitarian states and the poverty which is endemic in those states. Endogenous income inequality is driven by market's taste for certain skills and attributes. High income earners are paid a lot of money because they are key ingredients in producing things that people are willing to pay for.

Certainly the two types of income inequalities are not mutually exclusive. In many "free market" economies, the lack of quality public education can create exogenous income inequality.

However, to the first order approximation, endogenous inequality is a function of one group of people being better at finding employment in high paying sectors, which are generally sectors that produce very desirable goods and services. Even mortgage bankers! People certainly appreciated the goods that they were selling---a low cost speculative tool to bet on housing prices with huge leverage. All of us loved that product and took full advantage of that betting tool.

I think it is dangerous to think of dividing up the pie as a zero sum activity in the long run. The activity of dividing up the pie is the activity of allocating investment capital (far more so consumption) to economic agents. If we do not believe that there is value in the efficient allocation of investment capital to managers and entrepreneurs, then central planning would have worked just fabulously and financial institutions would be unnecessary. We pay the more productive people more, because we want them to do more of the same. Paying the less productive people more would seem counterproductive to future production. Ultimately, we would like to ensure that the highly paid people reinvest smartly and consume very sensibly (which they do) and the less well paid people consume adequately and can borrow to consume when needed but then generally avoid coming into control of productive assets or investments.

Tsechien Hsu said...

There are some possibilities that endogenous income inequality might cause endogenous inequality in consumption level. The famous example is the inequality generated by the Heckscher-Ohlin-type trade flow. Integrating into world economy increases the real income of some factors while decreases that of the others. It is natural to think that the decrease of real income accompanies the deterioration of real consumption.

Even though there are some evidences showing that most of world trade flow is not driven by difference of factor endowment, many empirical and theoretical research papers show endogenous income inequality might cause unequal real consumption. For instance, Yeaple (2005) demonstrates that trade generated by increasing return causes redistribution of real income among agents. Data also reveal the widening gap between real income of skilled labor and unskilled labor during the last 25 years because of skilled biased technological progress and international trade.

Notice that those forces are caused by invisible hand. There is no market failure and there is no inefficiency of factor allocation. However, it indeed generates inequality in both income and real consumption.

John T said...

I am almost ecstatic to read your 'apology' for the Capitalistic system, and I agree fully with your statement "I wish people would focus on the "objective" of an economic system---to ensure that the most productive members of our society produce goods and services that society desires and to consume only a modest fraction of what they produce. "

An objective structure that would support this objective view would be to levy taxes only on sales transactions - and not on any form of static property. A sakes/use tax, paid by the procurer of goods and or services works like a "power factor adjustment" (placing Reactive Market Pressure and Reactive Market Currency in phase)and allowing the market economy to properly invest energy (resources) into long term business growth. It would bring back the 'Blue Chip Stock' - stocks having long term value and stability, allowing corporate owned stock to be used to collateralize bank loans at 90+ percent of share value. Remember AT&T in the 1950's and 1960's? Applied fully to the Cash and Financial markets, this approach creates tax revenue in proportion to trading volume in dollars. It would restore sanity to the market and eliminate the charade of nanosecond trades - or at least turn a significant revenue stream toward supporting common community goals.
In 2012, the top 25 stocks traded at $80,000 per second. A 5% tax would have yielded $880 Billion. 25 Stocks.
Doing the whole market, we can eliminate truely regressive taxes - taxes on passive property. Implemented correctly, Income taxes dissappear, Capital Gains taxes dissappear, Property Taxes dissappear. The IRS dissappears and becomes a "Board of Equalization".

This structure automatically supports your 'objective' model without denigrating or misleading anyone - even the hardworking, smart, intelligent, captains of industry. It would put a few charlatans out in the streets, looking for productive work, instead of Derivatives on Stock Futures.

GreenEngineer said...

I can think of several good (i.e. not based on jealousy or entitlement) reasons to object to extreme inequalities of income or wealth:

1) Inequality endangers democracy: We should do what we can to minimize the impact that money has on elections. However, what we can do in that direction, practically speaking, is very limited. Money will always influence politics to some degree, no matter what we do. Having a large fraction of society's assets controlled by a very few people will, inherently, give those people a disproportionate degree of control over the political process.

2) Inequality distorts markets: This works two ways.
One is that when you have a lot of money chasing a limited number of investment opportunities, you wind up with enormous bubbles, e.g. in commodities. These bubbles have a real, negative impact on people for whom money is a means to survival rather than a counter token for social achievement.
In markets for e.g. real estate, the very rich can simply price other folks out of the market entirely. This has bad long term effects on social demographics; you lose a lot when, for example, your city cops can no longer afford to live in the city they protect, or your service people have to commute long distances to reach their (poorly paying) jobs. (Most affordable housing initiatives are an attempt to address these problems, but they are kludges that don't work terribly well.)

3) Most of the very rich do not deserve their wealth: Before you say so, yes, there are some very rich folk who have become that way by providing valuable goods and services (Brin, Page, Jobs, etc). But they are the minority. The vast majority of the very wealthy have achieved their status either through the financial industry, or the extractive industries (coal, oil, mining; also timber and agriculture - these activities are could be sustainable but are not, as they are currently practiced in the industrialized world).

The financial industry sector does provide some useful services, but the greatest wealth in that industry currently accrues to those who commit fraud, abuse the law, create instruments for the express purpose of hiding/distorting risk (whereas risk management is supposedly one of the services being provided), or bet against their customers (fiduciary responsibility, anyone?).
The extractive industries are those industries that profit by liquidating natural capital in the least expensive, most destructive ways possible. Externalized costs are not merely part of doing business - they are the entire basis of profit. Those costs, by the way, fall disproportionally on those who cannot protect themselves through legal means, i.e. the poor.
There are many good, hardworking people in both of these sectors. But the folks at the top, the ones who are making the real money, are almost exclusively parasites who enrich themselves by impoverishing everyone else.

To be clear, I am not arguing for absolute equality of wealth. A distribution of wealth based on contributions and capabilities is reasonable and appropriate; these problems don't start to become serious threats to the stability of your society until the differential becomes extreme. But it has done so in the last 40 years, and particularly in the last 10.

In terms of the issues which concern me, the problem is not really inequality of wealth per se. The problem is one of disproportionate concentrations of power. Extreme concentrations of power always can (and thus will) become coercive. As such they are inherently destructive to democracy. The libertarians understand this in the context of government power. What they largely fail to understand is that the threat is equally great from private concentrations of power - we must protect our civilization from the political oligarchs, but we must equally be on our guard against the plutocrats.

GreenEngineer said...

So how might income inequality be imposed?

Another way, often overlooked, is by permitting the externalization of costs onto poor communities.

For example, the childhood asthma rate in West Oakland is six times the national average, largely due to the proximity of the Port of Oakland (truck and shipping pollution). It's really hard to concentrate on your homework when you can't breathe; doubly so if your family lacks the resources to get you the necessary medical support.

Another example is the predominantly poor communities in the eastern US which have to live with mountaintop removal mining, which poisons their air, water, and land.

Howard L. said...

Economics theory often lacks humanity, Comparing a Bentley to a Camry ignores millions of Americans who can't afford a reliable automobile. Punting the issue of poverty is a facile way to avoid a huge problem in a hypothesis. Is our society just as strong now as it was before the inflation of the income of the 1% vs. the 99% sucked billions of dollars in the direction of those who least need it? Leveling the playing field through legislation is not socialism, it's the justice of restoring the balance of economic power lost to financial and political influence.

Anonymous said...

Why is it not the 1.37% versus the 98.63%? I'll tell you why, because there is no logical discriminating argument. You have a hollow slogan, and not much else.

Let's say we tax that top 1% back to poverty. We take all of their money, all of their assets, everything. Who gets it? Those tax revenues are like trying to put out a wildfire with a garden hose. The proposition is ridiculous. There is not nearly enough in that 1%'s wealth to treat all of the cancer, provide Ivy League educations to everybody, and solve hunger, housing, employment, and transportation.

So among these morally serious, competing dilemmas, how do we slice the pie that is those new tax revenues? Who does the slicing? Who is deciding what schools receive more funding, and what schools do not? Who gets medicine, and who does not? How much treatment is good to provide for pancreatic cancer? What is "too expensive"? Is this decided by a committee? An expert? Congress? Who are these wise people?

Please tell me how.

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting 'apology' for Capitalism, but I think you and many of your fellow apologists create a false dilemma between central control and unrestrained corporate capitalism. The reality is that the disparaity between the top and the average has been growing over the last 40 years. We weren't a socialist state 40 years ago, so saying that the corllary to the status quo is central control is a straw-man argument. Nor do you have to tax the top into poverty. But if you reduce the incentive for them to make more than, say, 150 times the salary of the average worker vesus 300 times, then they might in turn spread the wealth since paying themselves more would just result in paying it to the government which they definitely don't want. It's a simple incentive program. If they choose instead to keep concentrating income at the top, then the government will make sure that their employees get access to healthcare, education, and retirement benefits through their taxes. But we first have to agree that one of our 'objectives' is a more equitable society - just to clarify I did not say completely equitable - if a CEO could be rich in 1965 being paid 24 times the salary of an average worker then why can't that be the definition of rich today? By the way, I agree that punting on poverty is complete evasion, especially since the extreme income disparity makes the income distribution significantly skewed.

Anonymous said...

Let's take your world, for example, and cap salaries at 150x times the average labor earnings in the US.

In other words, everything beyond $5 million dollars a year is taxed at 100%.

Do I have to point out the kind of stupidity that ensues in such a society?

Anonymous said...

Also, you do violence to the basic idea of economic freedom with such an argument for statistical social engineering.

You forget CEO's are paid by the firm's shareholders. So your case is against the salaries shareholders are *freely choosing* to pay their executives, because we all know executives will try to maximize their earnings, just like everybody else. The fact a highly developed market exists for corporate leadership beautifully illustrates these people have *skills* which command a market price.

Really, you need to stop using the term *income* inequality and start talking about *skill* inequality, because even after controlling for bias and discrimination, *skills* overwhelmingly explain *income*.

And so if you want society to advance itself, it must be done so through the acquisition of more marketable skills.

Simply taking money away from employees with advanced skill sets immediately overprices their labor, and is an incentive for these workers to leave our economy and offer their productivity in a place where they are more apt to receive a fair wage.

Coach Factory said...

ray ban sunglasses, coach outlet, michael kors outlet, michael kors, nike air max, nike shoes, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, louis vuitton outlet online, louboutin, nike free, michael kors outlet, burberry outlet online, gucci outlet, kate spade outlet, air max, true religion jeans, chanel handbags, ray ban, air max, true religion outlet, tory burch outlet, jordan shoes, nike free, toms shoes, longchamp outlet, ray ban sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, prada outlet, michael kors, true religion, ralph lauren, louis vuitton, prada handbags, coach factory outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton handbags, tiffany and co, oakley sunglasses, longchamp, louboutin, nike air max, coach factory, coach purses, air jordan, burberry outlet online, louboutin, coach outlet store, polo ralph lauren

Coach Factory said...

oakley, ray ban, cheap sunglasses, cheap sunglasses, ray ban outlet, ray ban outlet, moncler, moncler, ray bans, louboutin, gucci, ray bans, ugg, cheap oakley sunglasses, cheap oakley, rayban, canada goose, canada goose, oakley sunglasses cheap, oakley sunglasses outlet, tn pas cher, discount oakley sunglasses, oakley outlet, ray ban, canada goose outlet, moncler, raybans, rayban, oakley sunglasses cheap, ray-ban, oakley sunglasses cheap, oakley outlet, oakley vault, ugg boots, ray ban, oakley sunglasses outlet, ralph lauren, canada goose, canada goose, ray ban sunglasses outlet, canada goose outlet, oakley vault, cheap oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses outlet, cheap sunglasses, oakley outlet, moncler outlet, oakley vault, cheap oakley sunglasses

Coach Factory said...

supra shoes, beats by dre, mcm handbags, montre pas cher, lululemon, soccer jerseys, abercrombie and fitch, birkin bag, north face outlet, jimmy choo, timberland, mulberry, ray ban pas cher, ferragamo shoes, ralph lauren, new balance shoes, oakley pas cher, yoga pants, louis vuitton, nike free, air max, louis vuitton, karen millen, valentino shoes, mont blanc, hogan, chi flat iron, celine handbags, vans, juicy couture outlet, ugg boots, burberry, soccer shoes, ugg boots, herve leger, reebok outlet, nfl jerseys, bottega veneta, hollister, insanity, asics, lancel, ghd, wedding dresses, hermes, rolex watches, nike air max, p90x, converse shoes, marc jacobs

750unique said...

2015-07-28song
air max 2015
longchamp pliage pas cher
ray ban sunglasses
longchamp outlet online
ralph lauren polo shirts
true religion jeans
soccer outlet
retro jordans
michael kors handbags
kate spade
michael kors purse
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags
pandora charms sale clearance
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton sito ufficiale
michael kors bags
air jordan uk
michael kors
cheap snabacks
football jerseys
rolex watches
coach outlet store online
cheap jordans free shipping
tory burch outlet
coach outlet
burberry scarf
prada shoes
cheap oakley sunglasses
burberry handbags
mcm bags
tory burch shoes
cheap oakleys
prada outlet store
ray ban outlet

Chenzhen 20160303chenzhen said...

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
nike free 5.0
louis vuitton bags
gucci handbags
toms outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton outlet
kate spade handbags
louis vuitton outlet stores
true religion outlet store
cheap ray ban sunglasses
michael kors outlet online
coach outlet store
oakley vault
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
ugg boots outlet
ray ban sunglasses outlet
kobe 8
gucci handbgs
cheap oakleys
cheap oakley sunglasses
coach factory outlet
tory burch shoes
jordan 3 retro
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
ray ban uk
michael kors canada
ugg slippers
louis vuitton purses
hollister clothing store
kate spade outlet
louis vuitton handbags
hollister clothing
abercrombie clothing
ray ban sunglasses
20160316chenzhen

Libin Huang said...

20160317libinkobe shoes
nike outlet store
michael kors outlet online
cheap mlb jerseys
cheap nfl jerseys
futbol baratas
louis vuitton outlet
nfl jerseys
kobe bryants shoes
louis vuitton outlet online
mulberry uk
air jordan shoes
michael kors outlet
soccer jerseys
nike free 5
air force 1 shoes
ray ban sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
rolex watches
michael kors handbags
cheap jordans
michael kors handbags
puma outlet
longchamp handbags
michael kors outlet store
michael kors wallet sale
ed hardy clothing
hermes belt for sale
pandora outlet
louis vuitton bags
air jordan shoes for sale
true religion jeans
cheap jordans
thomas sabo outlet

قمم التميز said...

شركة تنظيف بالدمام
شركة تنظيف منازل بالدمام
شركة تنظيف بيوت بالدمام
شركة تنظيف فلل بالدمام
شركة تنظيف شقق بالدمام
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالدمام
شركة جلى بلاط بالدمام
شركة تنظيف بالخبر
شركة تنظيف منازل بالخبر
شركة تنظيف بيوت بالخبر
شركة تنظيف فلل بالخبر
شركة تنظيف شقق بالخبر
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالخبر
شركة جلى بلاط بالخبر
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالدمام
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالخبر
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالخبر


Anonymous said...

Warna Bola Online ini sangat pribadi itu mencerminkan karakter Agen Bola Sbobet Casino Poker Online Indonesia Terbaik dan terbesar di dunia musik bola

chenlina said...

chenlina201604230
coach outlet
mont blanc pens
louboutin
adidas nmd
louis vuitton handbags
nike roshe runs
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
hollister outlet
louis vuitton
cheap jordans
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
christian louboutin shoes
jordan 3 white cenment
ray bans
tory burch handbags
adidas outlet
ray ban sunglasses
kobe 11
christian louboutin outlet
kobe 9
coach outlet clearance
air force 1
hollister
ed hardy clothing
polo ralph kids
coach factory outlet online
ralph lauren uk
kate spade handbags
mont blanc
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet clearance
nike free run
replica rolex watches
michael kors handbags
lebron 13
as

Gege Dai said...

jianbin0706
cheap football shirts
oakley sunglasses wholesale
mulberry sale
cheap jordans
true religion outlet
toms outlet
burberry outlet
snapbacks wholesale
longchamp pliage
ray ban sunglasses
tiffany outlet
nike blazer pas cher
ralph lauren uk
links of london jewellery
pandora outlet
ralph lauren polo
jordan pas cher
oakley sunglasses
true religion outlet
prada sunglasses
swarovski outlet
rolex watches,rolex watches,swiss watches,watches for men,watches for women,omega watches,replica watches,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex
michael kors outlet
ray ban sunglasses
links of london
hollister
basketball shoes
louis vuitton bags
mbt shoes outlet
ray-ban sunglasses
ralph lauren pas cher
tory burch outlet online
tory burch outlet

Gege Dai said...

jianbin0706
cheap football shirts
oakley sunglasses wholesale
mulberry sale
cheap jordans
true religion outlet
toms outlet
burberry outlet
snapbacks wholesale
longchamp pliage
ray ban sunglasses
tiffany outlet
nike blazer pas cher
ralph lauren uk
links of london jewellery
pandora outlet
ralph lauren polo
jordan pas cher
oakley sunglasses
true religion outlet
prada sunglasses
swarovski outlet
rolex watches,rolex watches,swiss watches,watches for men,watches for women,omega watches,replica watches,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex
michael kors outlet
ray ban sunglasses
links of london
hollister
basketball shoes
louis vuitton bags
mbt shoes outlet
ray-ban sunglasses
ralph lauren pas cher
tory burch outlet online
tory burch outlet

Unknown said...

ralph lauren pas cher
ferragamo outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap nike shoes
yeezy boost
hermes birkin
the north face jacket
basketball shoes
ugg australia
nike trainers
chanyuan0930

قمم تميز said...


شركة تنظيف منازل بالدمام
شركة تنظيف منازل بالخبر

chenmeinv0 said...

michael kors outlet clearance
burberry outlet
louis vuitton purses
rolex watches outlet
louboutin pas cher
mbt shoes
louboutin shoes
coach outlet online
canada goose sale
cheap uggs
michael kors outlet
montblanc pens
cheap ugg boots
louis vuitton outlet
chanel outlet
fitflop sandals
coach outlet online
michael kors
coach outlet
adidas trainers uk
ugg outlet
jordan shoes
cavaliers jerseys
tiffany and co jewelry
cheap rolex watches
doudoune canada goose
chaussures ugg
ray ban sunglasses outlet
cheap jordan shoes
louis vuitton handbags
chenyingying20161103

caiyan said...

north face jackets
ralph lauren outlet
louis vuitton outlet
chaussures louboutin
cheap oakleys
buy red bottoms
timberland boots outlet
cheap uggs
ugg australia boots
oakley sunglasses
20161109caiyan

raybanoutlet001 said...

bears jerseys
boston celtics
nike huarache trainers
chicago bears jerseys
salomon shoes
oakley sunglasses
new orleans saints jerseys
michael kors handbags
detroit lions jerseys
los angeles lakers jerseys