Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy
Investment does.
“Consumer spending makes up more than 70 percent of the economy, and it usually drives growth during economic recoveries.”
–“Consumers Give Boost to Economy,” New York Times, May 1
Every quarter, when the government releases its latest GDP figures, we hear the familiar refrain:
“What the consumer does is vital for economic growth.”
“If the consumer starts saving and stops spending, we’re in big trouble.”
“Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the economy.”
The latter “fact” is repeated regularly in the news reports from the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times.
The truth is that consumer spending does not account for 70 percent of economic activity and is not the mainstay of the U. S. economy. Investment is! Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living. In the business cycle, production and investment lead the economy into and out of a recession; retail demand is the most stable component of economic activity.
Granted, personal consumption expenditures represent 70 percent of gross domestic product, but journalists should know from Econ 101 that GDP only measures the value of final output. It deliberately leaves out a big chunk of the economy — intermediate production or goods-in-process at the commodity, manufacturing, and wholesale stages — to avoid double counting. I calculated total spending (sales or receipts) in the economy at all stages to be more than double GDP (using gross business receipts compiled annually by the IRS). By this measure — which I have dubbed gross domestic expenditures, or GDE — consumption represents only about 30 percent of the economy, while business investment (including intermediate output) represents over 50 percent.
Thus the truth is just the opposite: Consumer spending is the effect, not the cause, of a productive healthy economy.
The Importance of Say’s Law
This truth prevails in the marketplace: It’s supply — not demand — that drives the economy. Savings, productivity, and technological advances are the keys to economic growth. This principle was discovered and developed by the brilliant French economist Jean-Baptiste Say in the early nineteenth century and is known as Say’s law. In fact, he invented the word “entrepreneur” to describe the primary catalyst of economic performance.
Is retail sales a leading economic indicator? Each month the Conference Board releases its Leading Economic Indicators for the United States and nine other countries. The ten U.S. leading indicators are:
- manufacturers’ new orders
- building permits
- unemployment claims
- average weekly manufacturing hours
- real money supply
- stock prices
- the yield curve
- new orders for nondefense capital goods
- vender performance
- index of consumer expectations
As you can see, almost all of the indicators are linked to the early stages of production and business activity.
Misleading Consumer Confidence Index
What about the Consumer Confidence Index that the media highlights every month? It turns out that the title is misleading. The questions asked consumers are more about business conditions than spending attitudes. Here are the questions consumers are asked to determine their “expectations”:
- Are current business conditions good, bad, or normal?
- Do you expect business conditions to be good, bad, or normal over the next six months?
- Are jobs currently plentiful, not so plentiful, or hard to get?
- Do you expect jobs to be more plentiful, not so plentiful, or hard to get over the next six months?
- Do you plan to buy a new/used automobile/home/major appliance [note: these are all durable consumer goods, not unlike durable capital goods] within the next six months?
- Are you planning a U.S. or foreign vacation within the next six months?
In other words, the much-touted “consumer” confidence index is more a forecast by consumers for business, employment, and durable goods than “retail sales” and consumer spending. It does not ask any questions about food, clothing, entertainment, and other short-term buying, because these expenditures seldom change from month to month.
The reality is that business and investment spending are the true leading indicators of the economy and the stock market. If you want to know where the stock market is headed, forget about consumer spending and retail sales figures. Look to manufacturing, capital expenditures, corporate profits, and productivity gains.
Beware of Keynes’s Law
The reason we hear so much about the consumer is because the media and political pundits still live under the spell of Keynesian economics, which teaches that demand creates supply. Keynes’s law is just the opposite of Say’s law (supply creates demand). According to Keynesians, consumer spending drives the economy and saving is bad when the economy is in a short-term contraction.
In reality, increased savings can actually stimulate the economy, even if consumer spending is anemic. A recent study by the St. Louis Fed concluded that in the short run, “a higher saving rate in the current quarter is associated with faster (not slower) economic growth in the current and next few quarters” (Daniel L. Thornton, “Personal Saving and Economic Growth,” Economic Synopses, St. Louis Fed, December 17, 2009).
How is this possible? When people save more, interest rates fall and business can afford to replace their old equipment with new tools, spend more on research and development, or develop new production processes. So while consumer spending may stay low, business spending can pick up the slack. Remember, in a dynamic economy the decision by businesses to spend more investment funds and hire more workers is a function of both current consumer demand and future consumer demand. And don’t forget, during a recession corporate profits often recover first, without an increase in customer demand, because companies can boost profits by cutting costs and downsizing.
In the long run new business strategies and spending patterns increase productivity and lower prices to consumers, which in turns means the consumers’ purchasing power increases. As the St. Louis Fed concludes, “A higher saving rate does mean less consumption [in the short run], but it could also result in more capital investment and, ultimately, a higher rate of economic growth…. [T]he growth rate of real GDP has been higher on average when the personal saving rate is rising than when it is falling.”
Granted, the ultimate function of business activity and entrepreneurship is to fulfill the needs of consumers, and the most successful firms are those that satisfy their customers. But more important, who discovers the new, improved products that consumers desire? Who is the catalyst that determines the quantity, quality, and variety of goods and services? Did the consumer come up with the idea of personal computers, SUVs, fax machines, cell phones, the Internet, and the iPhone? No, these technological breakthroughs came from the genius of creative entrepreneurs and the savers/capitalists who funded their inventions.
Pingback by Sweep Picking - do you need to know sweep picking to learn economy picking? on 17 May 2010:
[...] Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty [...]
Pingback by How long can the healthcare industry sustain the fledging US economy? | consequences of global warming on 17 May 2010:
[...] Consumer Spending Doesn't Drive the Economy | The Freeman | Ideas … [...]
Pingback by The Myth of Consumer Spending - Civitas Review Online on 17 May 2010:
[...] economist Mark Skousen discusses in this excellent article, consumer spending is indeed not the driver of the economy. The truth is that consumer spending [...]
Comment by Allen on 17 May 2010:
I think Mark Skousen makes a very timely point given the fragile state of the economy. If the study by the St. Louis Fed concludes that saving is critical for growth, then we should be skeptical of increases in consumer spending as indicators of an economic rebound. What the economy needs now more than ever is an increase in saving – and current monetary policy surely isn’t helping on that front.
Pingback by Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty « The Chocolate Savant on 17 May 2010:
[...] Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty. Posted by TheDarkLordJeff Filed in Government, Media, Money, Politics Leave a Comment » [...]
Pingback by Consumer Spending Doesn’t « Defund & Disobey on 17 May 2010:
[...] Courtesy, The Freeman Online [...]
Pingback by links for 2010-05-17 « Overton’s Arrow on 17 May 2010:
[...] Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty (tags: economics statistics GDP spending consumer consumption FEE) [...]
Pingback by Chapter 7,13 | The San Jose Bankruptcy Law Blog on 19 May 2010:
[...] Consumer Spending Doesn't Drive the Economy | The Freeman | Ideas … [...]
Pingback by Discover The Specifics About Legal Credit Card Debt Elimination on 19 May 2010:
[...] Consumer Spending Doesn't Drive the Economy | The Freeman | Ideas … [...]
Comment by Brandon on 11 July 2010:
It’d be nice if he showed us his calculations at the beginning of this article instead of just saying “I calculated this.” What, I’m supposed to just take his word for it? Show me a little EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, Mark!
See, this is what I hate about Austrian economists: their fear of or problem with empirical analysis and providing evidence for their claims. So much of what they claim, esp. guys like Hayek and von Mises, is simple observation and logic, but in complex fields like economics, oftentimes that doesn’t cut it. You need MORE. Anyone can make an economic claim and sound right. But that’s how fallacies spread.
Pingback by Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy | Drewt333's Blog on 3 August 2010:
[...] Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy Posted on August 3, 2010 by drewt333 Amplify’d from http://www.thefreemanonline.org [...]
Comment by Kevin Beck on 24 August 2010:
I’ve always been confused by this paradox, too. Demand can only be the driver if there is no rationing of resources. Extending this a little further, we come to the point that demand and supply would always be in equilibrium. If this is true, then all intermediate inventories (at the manufacturing and retail levels) would be zero. We would always sell everything that was produced, or else we would produce something different! Forget it, Keynes: You have set up a complete fallacy. Sadly, we have had pathetic politicians that think they know just as much, and have used this “plan” to do what they always do: Make things as bad as possible so they may blame someone else, and then propose solutions to their own disasters.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 24 August 2010:
Kevin,
It isn’t a paradox; it is a reciprocal relationship so neither theory is correct. The polarization of economics into supply versus demand is the same artificial dichotomy as debating whether the chicken came first or the egg.
Demand for new technology drives innovation. If there wasn’t a demand for the cure for cancer then no one would be researching it. So contrary to Says Law supply is not driving the economy because demand can exist in a supply vacuum. In this one regard Keynes is correct but that’s where he and I part ways.
Once the product is invented supply combined with demand sets the price. If the cure is rare (gold) then the price will be high relative to demand. If the supply is common (grass clippings) the price will be low relative to demand.
Supply is neither the cart nor the horse and neither is demand. Trying to determine which is in the front and which is in the back is as pointless as debating which portion of your heart pumps the most blood.
Comment by just some MBA on 10 September 2010:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or to put it in statistical terms correlation does not prove causation. Daniel L. Thornton’s paper found a weak correlation between savings and GDP but I quote “Of course, it would
be incorrect to conclude that the higher saving rate was responsible for the faster economic growth.” (Daniel L. Thornton, “Personal Saving and Economic Growth,” Economic Synopses, St. Louis Fed, December 17, 2009).
Your argument is flawed.
Comment by RobVG on 12 September 2010:
Doesn’t consumer demand drive the demand for captial goods. I work in construction and we aren’t buying new equipment because people aren’t buying houses. What are capital goods use for if not for producing the “final” GDP?
Comment by Cry Aboutit on 14 September 2010:
RobVG:
First off, I have to make the disclaimer that I am not an economist…I am an accountant for a construction company.
But I will still try to answer your question to the best of my ability, and let more learned people support or refute it from there.
We should examine why people aren’t buying houses–is it because they aren’t spending as much as they normally would or because their savings have been devastated because they were tied up in what turned out to be poor investments? My inkling is that it is the latter reason.
If people save more, it looks kind of ugly in the short term: people aren’t taking out as many loans and they aren’t buying houses. But then the banks have to respond: they have to attract people and businesses to get loans, to spend instead of save. So they lower the price of their product. Interest rates drop.
When those interest rates drop, it is cheaper and therefore more attractive to take out a loan, and people buy houses, businesses buy new work vans, trailers, handlers, scaffolding, etc.
But then, why isn’t the super-low interest rate strategy employed by the Fed working? I don’t know for sure (refer to my disclaimer), but I think it’s because there was an artificially high demand brought about by an artificially low interest rate. These interest rates weren’t the natural adjustment to saving, they were the equivalent of spraying ether in the intake. So a lot of the houses you built probably shouldn’t have been bought in the first place. Comforting, I know.
One of my buddies works for a spec builder and they have rolled back big time. They won’t start on a parcel until 60% of the houses are sold. I think they learned the hard way on that deal.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 15 September 2010:
MBA,
I’m not sure who you are addressing?
RobVg,
Cry did a good job of explaining the issue. What prompted the housing bubble and the current trough is that DC (Barney Frank and Baby Bush among others) were pushing the concept that everyone and their pet iguana should own a home.
Banks started handing out loans like penny candy to anyone that could sign their name regardless of if they could pay it back or not.
When the loans started going bad in volume investors and banks got slammed (thus the bailout). A similar event occured when the Germans tanked the Mark turning lucrative war debt loans into worthless paper.
Banks have become more cautious who they lend to (overly cautious in my opinion) so there isn’t any credit to purchase the homes that were developed during the boom. Scarcity of homes decreased at the same time scarcity of credit increased which means there are plenty of homes but no one can get the money to buy them.
There are several reasons dropping interest rates haven’t reversed this not the least of which is banks being reluctant to give out loans except to the most qualified/ As long as banks are not giving people loans and people are afraid they’ll lose their job no one is going to build more or buy more.
To return to my heart analogy, if you restrict the blood going into the heart (money) neither side is able to function.
Comment by Maria on 7 December 2010:
I’m not a economist. My perspective is simply from my experience. I was unemployed for over a year for the first time in my life. I had to move to another state to find a decent job. I still had to take a cut in pay and living standards which means I’m not spending or investing like I used to. There are no good jobs. I have college education, over 20 years of experience and can articulate and interview well.
Without jobs and consumer willing to buy the products and services, and investments that these businesses provide, there is not recovery. Without jobs consumers do not have the ability to spend, invest and buy these incredible ideas and therefore businesses will not prosper either. Not everyone in any economy can be a producer. So we need both consumers and producers.
Businesses come up with ideas because they have customers/buyers to sell them to, otherwise what is the point? How do they make a profit without buyers?
We need to compromise and take care of both the consumers and the producers. Greed is the problem and wall street is a symbol of greed. Wall street reform is needed, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Is going to take a huge economic depression worse than what we have now. And it will happen.
Demand and supply?? Supply/demand. It seems to me that Why supply/produce without demand. supply without demand does it work? I’m only using common sense here.
Good article though!!!
Comment by Anonymous on 7 December 2010:
And if the savings aren’t there to supply the demand, how can business function?
Without greed, what would motivate any of their economic action?
Finally, businesses don’t produce what is “demanded”; they put out a product, and IF people HAPPEN to want it, they prosper. Businesses don’t know what people want, so really the satisfaction of demand is really a matter of luck.
Comment by Anonymous on 7 December 2010:
And, Maria, if prices were lower I imagine the lower salary would not be so bad? Forgive my lack of sensitivity, I’m not in the same position as you?
Comment by NoPhd on 20 December 2010:
The argument about whether consumption stimulates production or vice-versa always has a which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg? quality about it. I lean towards Mark Skousen’s view for a very simple reason: When you think about it, most people want to consume. What person, whether he lives in the U.S. or Outer Mongolia, couldn’t think of something he’d like to purchase if he had the funds with which to buy it? In contrast, production involves work. And while some kinds of work may be satisfying, generally speaking people would prefer to consume than to work. This tells me that production is the thing that needs to be encouraged. If people are producing and earning wages, consumption will take care of itself.
Comment by Roger Clites on 20 December 2010:
Excellent analysis, Mark. Of course I’d think so, I taught the same thing to my students for many years
Comment by James Madison Fan on 20 December 2010:
Anon,
That’s less true for some businesses than for others.
Market testing can minimize the potential flop factor before the project gets funded. A new restaurant can do taste tests for food quality, look, etc.. A new electronics gadget can base reaction and price on prototype.
Most businesses fail because their business plan didn’t adequately cover the portion of the market they intend to serve or leave out related aspects that seemed unimportant such as atmosphere, location, competition, and similar products either in existence or pending.
A restaurant may have excellent food and good prices but end up empty because the location is too remote, the atmosphere isn’t appealing, the customer base in the area is too small, or the service stinks. These issues can be easily overlooked especially when we’re discussing a first time small business owner rather than a corporate venture.
The intangibles typically make or break a business so it is important to get out of the numbers on the page and look at the people in the room.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 20 December 2010:
Mr. Clites,
As a professor I am interested in how you would respond to the following argument:
All of the investments Mr. Skousen outlines are a function of the 70% chasing the 30%.
An entrepreneur that buys capital, invests in new tech, and better productivity isn’t going to last long even if he’s making the best buggy whips on the planet because no one needs buggy whips no matter how advanced, well made, or easily produced. Production is there but demand is not.
I don’t see how you can separate Demand from Supply. In fact, treating them as seperate entities seems counter productive to me.
Comment by Troy Camplin on 22 January 2011:
Me on Say’s Law (and literature):
http://theliteraryorder.blogspot.com/2011/01/says-law-and-literature.html
Pingback by Money is Not Wealth « The Solution is the Problem on 24 January 2011:
[...] by secretaries of the Treasury long before Tim Geithner—does not mean it makes any sense. As Mark Skousen argued last year, economic growth proceeds from value, savings, and investment. Follow a strategy of [...]
Comment by Spectre on 11 February 2011:
Broadly speaking, we are endowed with two forms of “unrealized” value/resources from the beginning: “physical matter” and “human ability.” It is the application of “human ability” to “physical matter” that yields resources. “Human ability” is thought to be infinite; that the creation of “physical matter” is within the grasp of “human ability.” If true, the only constraint on the world in which we live is “time.” Because of the constraint of “time,” we are forced to exist in a world with infinite wants/needs, and finite “physical matter.” It begs the question, is the sole end of “human ability” to develop a means to create NEW “physical matter?”
Given the state we exist, there are infinite wants/needs, which is to say DEMAND IS INFINITE. Also in the state we exist, there is finite physical matter (humans are physical matter), which is to say SUPPLY IS FINITE. Given the state we exist with infinite demand and finite supply, which side of the equation has greater value?
Demand comes from both suppliers and demanders. Supply only comes from suppliers. Supply and demand can serve productive (value-adding) ends or consumptive (value-subtracting) ends. When the interaction is to serve productive ends, demand comes from suppliers demanding inputs from other suppliers. When the interaction is to serve consumptive ends, demand comes from consumers who demand outputs to convert into “less-valuable” supplies.
If I had to make a value judgment, I would argue that the economy -in the state it exists today- should be “positive value-driven.” That is, productive (value-ADDING) activities must come before consumptive (value-SUBTRACTING) activities. If true, I think this helps answer the question posed above: is the sole end of “human ability” to develop a means to create NEW “physical matter?” I think the answer is yes. If suppliers demanding supplies from other suppliers to create more supply is considered a value-adding activity, then this seems to confirm the ends the economy is geared towards: infinite supply.
Think about it. Over “time”, “human ability” has devised ways to use less to meet the same demands. I think what to take from this is that the economy, in order to sustain itself at any given point in “time” (before “human ability” devises a way to create NEW “physical matter), must have a greater amount of productive (value-adding) activity than consumptive (value-subtracting) activity. If consumptive activity becomes greater than productive activity, the economy becomes “NEGATIVE value-driven.” This means the economy is subtracting value faster than it is adding it, which, if left unchanged will result in an exhaustion of available supplies for both productive and consumptive activity. The exhaustion of available supplies is synonymous with the words: recession/depression/correction. The economy will stay in a recession/depression/correction until productive activity grows to exceed consumptive activity, or consumptive activity falls below productive activity, or a combination of the two. I think if one really examines the activity of the economy, it can clearly be seen there is a “value-driven structure.” Austrians use very detailed concepts such as the “capital structure” and “structure of production,” to explain the same thing: the business cycle. I only make use of the broader “value-driven structure” model, as I believe it to be “more accessible” to the common person, especially anybody who has attended business school.
In sum, we cannot play fast and loose with words, we have to be accurate in their use. “Productive supply and demand” leads “consumptive supply and demand” in a “positive value-driven economic structure.” Whereas, “consumptive supply and demand” leads “productive supply and demand” in a “negative value-driven economic structure.” Whether supply or demand comes first is really the wrong question. The right question to ask is whether the interaction between supply and demand is yielding a positive or negative “value driven economic structure.”
Pingback by Major Interview with Mark Skousen on His Life and Works in Economics, Finance and the Freedom Movement on 15 August 2011:
[...] 30% of the US economy, not 70% as is commonly reported. For more detail, see my recent article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/consumer-spending/ I’ve incorporated the 4-stage model and GDE in my own textbook, “Economic Logic” [...]
Pingback by Bernanke: Consumer Blahs the Problem | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 9 September 2011:
[...] Timely Classic “Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy” by Mark [...]
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 9 September 2011:
Re: Anonymous
“Businesses don’t know what people want, so really the satisfaction of demand is really a matter of luck.”
Something tells me you’ve never been in a successful business, whether as an employee or an owner.
No business wants to go out of business. It’s true that business start-up failure rates are high, but that’s generally because the entrepreneur is testing the market and quickly discovers there isn’t one. There’s loss, sure, but it’s not large and the economy quickly equalizes as the failed entrepreneur finds a new line of work. And it’s not all for naught: the next time a young, energetic entrepreneur needs a loan from the bank, the bank has a better idea of what to expect. The process of discovering what exactly people want is just as important as the final result.
As for established business… well, I don’t see how you can claim that it’s luck, or that they’re completely ignorant of what people want. Again, it’s true that a lot of ventures don’t capture the market in one fell swoop, and one idiot at the wheels can sink the entire ship, sure. But it’s part of the learning process to pitch what you expect the customers will like, then take the immediate feedback from the market and either expand it or get rid of it. That isn’t luck, but rather much like a scientific experiment: you hypothesize and then test your theories, and use the feedback to refine it for next time.
It’s the process of scientific discovery that helps businesses to create useful services over time.
Re: James Madison Fan
“All of the investments Mr. Skousen outlines are a function of the 70% chasing the 30%.
An entrepreneur that buys capital, invests in new tech, and better productivity isn’t going to last long even if he’s making the best buggy whips on the planet because no one needs buggy whips no matter how advanced, well made, or easily produced. Production is there but demand is not.
I don’t see how you can separate Demand from Supply. In fact, treating them as seperate entities seems counter productive to me.”
You’re really throwing up a strawman, here; sure, if people make what people don’t want to buy, whether in a high savings or high consumption environment, the investment will tank.
That’s not the issue that this paper is focusing on. The issue, I believe, is which one comes first in the process, and which one needs to be stimulated in a recessionary period. Both are important as if either the consumption isn’t there or the investment isn’t there, nothing good happens.
When you consider it as “Production” and “Consumption” rather than “Supply” and “Demand”, you’ll see what the author means when he emphasizes the role of investment. Obviously production comes first; the economy can’t consume anything if it hasn’t produced anything. More accurately, you as a person can’t get anything without first having something valuable (like your labor, knowledge or skills) to trade away.
There is little consumer demand for processed lumber, for example, but once the money is invested and the business starts paying it’s employees, those employees are in a position to consume. The business then sells the lumber to the companies than need it.
A idea for a business or venture is generally worthless to the average consumer; R&D and fancy plans means little to these people. What they want is the finished product, but to get there you need investment.
Stimulating consumption does nothing to help this process: the fact is, businesses borrow and pay their employees in the immediate because they are expecting greater returns in the future; they expect the consumption will come much later, well after the production is finished.
Yes, you won’t sell anything if there’s no demand for your product. But you won’t sell anything if you don’t make it, either, and making it comes before selling it.
Comment by Bmac6446 on 27 October 2011:
To Brandon, I ask, Can you show me where the Austrians were ever wrong? I can show you decade after decade of “new economic” failures. There’s your empirical evidence.
Comment by Bmac6446 on 27 October 2011:
People! Say’s Law is not complicated if you’ve ever taken Econ 101. How is anybody consuming without a supply? Are they buying imaginary goods? In order for there to be a supply there must first be production. Before production there must first be investment in capital goods. Before the investment in capital goods there must first be capital from savings. Keynes tried to flip this around by saying first comes the demand, then the supply. Really? Does anyone want to buy a cold fusion reactor today? Not many. Why? There’s no supply of cold fusion reactors today. First must come savings, then investment into cold fusion research. Once the end product is produced for consumption then through entrepreneurship, a supply is on hand for consumption. Who wanted to buy a home computer in 1980? Nobody! How can there be a demand for a product that isn’t even supplied?
Pingback by Microsoft vs. Apple: 2012 and Beyond | YOLO Trader Alerts on 2 January 2012:
[...] “That’s not my approach,” he said. “Henry Ford once said, ‘If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, “A faster horse!’” It’s entrepreneurship, productive investment, and creative innovation that create a higher standard of living. Consumption is the effect – not the cause – of prosperity. (This is known as Say’s law) [...]
Comment by Free Legal Aid on 4 February 2012:
Sites in this way are really helpful to me personally . For certain I will place a link to this page on my Post page. I am sure my visitors will definitely find this very useful. Thanks alot : ) !
Comment by a2622376 on 5 February 2012:
I’ve said that least 2622376 times. SCK was here
Comment by Siesta Key Vacations rental on 5 February 2012:
You are a very capable person!
Comment by thermador pro harmony range on 6 February 2012:
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your website? My blog site is in the very same niche as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thank you!
Comment by canterbury electrician on 6 February 2012:
Normally I don’t learn post on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to take a look at and do it! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, quite nice article.
Comment by london photocopiers on 6 February 2012:
I intended to put you a very small observation to help say thank you once again for all the unique strategies you have shown in this case. It’s certainly shockingly open-handed with people like you to supply unhampered what a lot of people could have marketed as an electronic book to get some money for themselves, specifically given that you could have done it if you ever decided. Those points likewise acted like the good way to realize that other people have the identical interest like my personal own to realize somewhat more on the topic of this condition. I’m sure there are millions of more pleasurable instances up front for individuals that read through your blog post.
Comment by Pawnbrokers on 7 February 2012:
My mate and My hubby and i turned exclusively expressing a exceptionally dilemma, he’s got oftentimes endeavouring so which you could verify each person drastically wrong. Designs experience employing this happens to be vivid even though in the what normally ideas I’m. I merely at this point internet based sent my mate my internet site to indicate her the come across. 1 time neglecting your internet internet site That identified himself savings and will also be seeking out it really is which were identified to educate yourself about to read the paper your the latest!
Comment by Male Health on 7 February 2012:
Do you have a spam issue on this website; I also am a blogger, and I was wondering your situation; we have created some nice procedures and we are looking to trade solutions with others, be sure to shoot me an email if interested.
Comment by lotus tarot on 7 February 2012:
Very well timed post for me. All I’ve been hearing recently is affiliate marketing online and list building. And I’m finally taking motion via writing an e-book to accomplish both! I am truly reorganizing my complete enterprise based mostly on affiliate advertising online and referrals! Promoting other individuals’s merchandise is a solid gig. http://www.efreepsychicreading.com/lotus-tarot
Comment by Oram Plus Discount on 7 February 2012:
Hmm is anyone else having problems with the pictures on this blog loading? I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Comment by office copiers on 7 February 2012:
Thanks for each of your hard work on this blog. My daughter takes pleasure in carrying out research and it’s easy to understand why. All of us know all relating to the powerful way you present insightful strategies by means of your blog and as well as invigorate response from website visitors on that article and our girl has always been being taught a lot of things. Take advantage of the rest of the year. You have been carrying out a glorious job.
Comment by fotografia slubna bydgoszcz on 7 February 2012:
Hello my friend! I want to say that this article is awesome, great written and include approximately all significant infos. I’d like to peer more posts like this .
Comment by search engine optimization in kent on 7 February 2012:
It¡¦s really a great and helpful piece of information. I am happy that you just shared this useful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Comment by swiat fizyki o elektrycznosci statycznej sprawdzian on 7 February 2012:
Thank you so much for giving everyone an extraordinarily pleasant possiblity to read articles and blog posts from this blog. It is always very brilliant and packed with amusement for me personally and my office acquaintances to visit your site at the least thrice in one week to read the newest issues you will have. Not to mention, we are always satisfied considering the beautiful methods served by you. Some two areas in this post are particularly the finest we’ve had.
Comment by Moipsmeri on 7 February 2012:
I am sure you will love dvd to flv converter at my estore at my estore
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 8 February 2012:
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to a site that we link to because we think they are worth visiting, as we use their service against spam links with success[...]……
Comment by Alkane Benzene on 14 February 2012:
Business spending on capital goods, new technology, entrepreneurship, and productivity are more significant than consumer spending in sustaining the economy and a higher standard of living.
Why is entrepreneurship so important, because they have indentified a market need. Produce something that people either need or want.
Comment by Gretta Bullett on 9 March 2012:
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’ve done an impressive job and our entire community will be thankful to you.
Comment by Inspirational Quotes on 23 March 2012:
This web site is basically attention-grabbing i’m looking for is there any other examples? however anyway thanks very much because I found that i used to be probing for.
Trackback by Paul Jefferson on 26 April 2012:
Paul Jefferson…
[...]u Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written a be[...]…
Comment by Oppoksbek on 2 May 2012:
[url=http://buypropeciahereonline.com/#9268]buy generic propecia[/url] – buy generic finasteride , http://buypropeciahereonline.com/#5988 propecia 1 mg