Creative Destruction

January 16, 2007

Capitalism in Action

Filed under: Economics,Politics — Brutus @ 3:42 pm

I’ve been struggling to get my head around some issues that have cropped up in past posts relating to how free market capitalism delivers the best of all possible opportunies for regular folks to improve their lot. Well, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has the dirt on income inequality, or if you prefer, income concentration. Here’s a graph showing the trend since the first Gilded Age:

income concentration

The complexities of the capitalist system are invariably too complex to chalk up this graph to one or two factors, such as the tranformation of the progressive tax system into a regressive one, the abandonment of a regultated, Keynesian economic policy in favor of laissez faire capitalism, and the abandoment of the Bretton Woods treaty. However, the results speak pretty clearly: if you’re already super rich, you’re in a considerably favored position to enhance your already monstrously large share of the pie. (Short version: it takes money to make money.)

Whereas some market fundamentalists insist that this result is just, proper, and entirely to the benefit of everyone — especially since acquisition of large piles of capital supposedly stimulates investment and creates jobs down the line for less well-heeled folks — I interpret it more as a morally bankrupt system operating without any sense of social justice.

If that interpretation doesn’t come out of the simple fact shown above, New York Magazine has an article called American Roulette by Kurt Andersen that provides opinion and context on top of some interesting further data. The metaphor adopted in the article is that we are now in a sort of “casino economy,” where the odds are rigged in favor of the house (read: the rich) and the losses suffered by the poor become, literally, the gains of the rich. The data that supports that contention includes a wage gap (CEO to average worker) an order of magnitiude larger than it was in the seventies; a drop in median income over the past five years, which according to a NY Times citation is “the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers”; and an increased likelihood (1/6 today vs. 1/14 in 1970) of family income dropping by half. In effect, the few blazing success stories provide the faint hope shared by the masses of hitting it big, not unlike casino or lottery gambling. 

An interesting byproduct — a harbinger of things to come, perhaps — of the prolonged shift of capital upwards is that Tesco, a large retailer operating in the United Kingdom, has announced plans to build employee housing. Why, you might ask? It’s because Tesco’s staff can’t afford to live where they work, and the company has been suffering from high employee turnover as a result. Makes me wonder when Wal-Mart will similarly branch into real estate. It’s undoubtedly too early to adopt the unfair characterization of the company town, but considering how budding central economies have devolved into that practice before, it’s worth being vigilant.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, that corporation has implemented new employee scheduling software, which promises to streamline or optimise certain labor practices for the employer while having some fully anticipatable and deleterious effects on employees. For example, Wal-Mart is able to track hours to cap employees below full-time status (to deny benefits) and is able to use the software to place employees “on call” to meet customer surges or send employees home during lull periods. Not everyone thinks this flexible scheduling is necessarily a bad thing. Naturally, someone will find in it some benefit to some nonrepresentative employee.

It used to be that Socialism and/or Communism offered the Holy Grail of a worker’s paradise. Free market capitalism has replaced the siren’s call of those defunct ideologies but has yet to deliver fully on the promise. But that’s the subject of a longer, more involved post on market fundamentalism I’m still mulling.

18 Comments »

  1. Rich people are irritating when you aren’t one. No doubt about it. And, good capitalist that I am, I believe that the way CEO’s undermine the companies in their care by over-handsomely rewarding themselves is…well, it’s not good capitalism.

    But this growing sense of scandal at the way the rich are getting richer only makes sense if the poor are getting poorer. And (leaving aside the Tesco example because the problems in the UK lately are both complex and not anything resembling capitalism) they’re not. The vast majority of those classified as poor in the US earn above minimum wage, own their own home, at least one car, at least one color television with cable…and so on. The economy was once measured by a market basket of goods, but this was abandoned (at least by the punditry) in favor of “income disparity” — presumably because pretty much everyone can afford to eat these days. Obesity is a bigger problem for America’s poor than starvation. Ponder that for a moment.

    Really, what is the point in taking the slightest notice of what the rich have? However irritating it is, it’s none of our business, providing it doesn’t take anything away from us and we are living well enough. Who cares if the rich live like gods, provided ordinary people live like kings?

    Comment by S. Weasel — January 16, 2007 @ 7:18 pm | Reply

  2. Morally, an equally important part of the casino economy is that most people who get rich do so with a large element of luck involved.

    Admittedly, certain skill sets and actions are necessary to put you in the pool of people who might get rich. But, within that pool a great many fail, and a handful succeed wildly, because we have an economy that is structured to create a modest number of spots for big winners, and only some people qualified to fill those spots end up in them.

    In our economy any CEO of a big company will get rich. The system rewards the heads of large, non-governmental for profit businesses disproportionately. Lots of qualified people seek those jobs. Few get them. The difference between moderate affluence and massive wealth is largely a matter of luck.

    Likewise, the iron law of oligopoly virtually insures that in new industries, many firms will start enterprises and only a handful will survive. The winners and losers often arise for reason that have little to do with merit. A large part of the result has to do with pure (or more often impure) luck.

    Comment by ohwilleke — January 16, 2007 @ 8:05 pm | Reply

  3. Worries about CEOs are worries aimed at the wrong end of the curve. What are the opportunities available for the working poor to improve their lives? Whats modeling is being provided to kids in the inner cities, the trailer parks, the backwater towns, demonstrating the proper path to make an economically viable life? What incentives and disincentives do governments provide that encourage self-reliance, entrepreneurship, business formation, human capital acquisition among the poor?

    That’s where a sound critique is going to originate, in my view. Unfortunately – see Brutus’ earlier comment about liberals having good intentions but being clueless about the way incentives and human nature operate – we have a lot of problems in our society in this area that are caused, not only by the “greed” of the corporate few, but also by the perverse incentives funded by the weary middle. Don’t go from your $6/hr part-time job to $12/hour at Sears – you’ll lose your health coverage if you do. Don’t save money for college – you’ll lose eligibility for grant money if you do. And on and on.

    The greatest tragedy in American social policy of the middle and later 20th century was the abandonment (and active derogation) of the principle known in the bone by the social workers of the late 19th and early 20th century – social progress comes ONLY through individual progress, and individual progress comes ONLY through self-reliance and independence. Teach a man to fish, and you’ll feed for him a lifetime; give a man a fish, and he’ll be at your door every mealtime until he dies.

    Comment by Robert — January 16, 2007 @ 11:18 pm | Reply

  4. You raised some important moral questions about wealth distribution, with your conclusion that capitalism is morally bankrupt. Yes ceo pay is much greater compared to the seventies but that was when the top income tax bracket was 75% compared to 35% today. Not as progressive but not regressive either. I have always been fascinated with the question of which is preferable. A society where every one is more equal in wealth with median income of $15000 or a society like ours (very skewed distribution) with median income of $20000.

    In the first society there would be very few extremely poor people and no extremely rich people and this is supposedly morally preferable. But that would make the world as a whole prefer immoral societies, because few people immigrate to egalitarian economic countries and a lot migrate to liberalized economic countries escaping more statist nations for more risk/reward opportunities.

    Nations or states tend to be less culturally diverse the more socialized their economies are. That tends to lend credence to the fact that society immorally prefers to share wealth only with like people. But it is contrasted by reality. The United stated has the most culturally diverse population of any industrialized nation and it is the influx of new people and ideas that continues to develop new advances that are even enjoyed by more socialized countries even though they would not exist at all if not for the less socialized United States.

    And Walter Williams has pointed out that in capitalism ones so-called selfishness is rewarded for serving ones fellow man voulentarily. The baker baking bread for a greedy profit feeds the person who willingly bought it to horde with their family. Compared versus the morally bankrupt idea of voting high taxes or regulations on a minority of rich people to pay for and subsidise poor people through coercive (government) means.

    Comment by ts — January 17, 2007 @ 12:10 am | Reply

  5. S. Weasel wrote:

    Really, what is the point in taking the slightest notice of what the rich have? However irritating it is, it’s none of our business, providing it doesn’t take anything away from us and we are living well enough. Who cares if the rich live like gods, provided ordinary people live like kings?

    I’m not irritated by others’ being rich. I’m irritated that the system is rigged in their favor. I also reject the idea that ordinary people live like kings. We may have lots of electronics to keep the proletariat revolt quelled, but there are simply too many people without health care or access to real, quality education, which is not exactly kingly. It’s also improper to judge our current level of social justice on a standard of living from years ago.

    Comment by Brutus — January 17, 2007 @ 1:29 pm | Reply

  6. Robert wrote:

    we have a lot of problems in our society in this area that are caused, not only by the “greed” of the corporate few, but also by the perverse incentives funded by the weary middle

    I’m not sure that the examples you give of perverse incentives are very realistic or representative. The one that is everywhere around us, however, is the seduction of the masses with consumer goods, which is very much fueled by corporate greed. It’s arguable whether corporations owe the public anything beyond endless marketing campaigns. It’s probably more the role of other institutions to act as antidotes to the commericial machine, but I’m not sure that any are doing that effectively. At the least, government shouldn’t be made the handmaiden of corporate interests — another long argument to be made elsewhere.

    Comment by Brutus — January 17, 2007 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  7. What’s wrong with being seduced by consumer goods? Consumer goods are fun. They make life better.

    Comment by Robert — January 17, 2007 @ 1:45 pm | Reply

  8. Worries about CEOs are worries aimed at the wrong end of the curve. What are the opportunities available for the working poor to improve their lives? Whats modeling is being provided to kids in the inner cities, the trailer parks, the backwater towns, demonstrating the proper path to make an economically viable life? What incentives and disincentives do governments provide that encourage self-reliance, entrepreneurship, business formation, human capital acquisition among the poor?

    It isn’t clear to me that concerns about the uber wealthy are really as divorced from the concerns of the less well to do as economics often suggest.

    The 80% of this country that doesn’t have a college degree has stagnated economically for the past 35 years or so, while the 19% who have college degrees but aren’t extremly wealthy have made moderate gains, and the top 1% of prospered. The top 20% of sucked up virtually all of the country’s substantial economic gains for an entire generation. While it is theoretically possible that this is because only the top 20% has increased productivity in an entire generation, the plausible alternative hypothesis that something is broken is the social system that distributes the economic fruits of economic growth to people is broken.

    Also, while I agree with Robert that policies like Medicaid eligibility rules and the earned income tax credit create perverse incentives that make it hard to lift oneself out of the working class and into the middle class are bad policy, I disagree with the broader proposition that:

    The greatest tragedy in American social policy of the middle and later 20th century was the abandonment (and active derogation) of the principle known in the bone by the social workers of the late 19th and early 20th century – social progress comes ONLY through individual progress, and individual progress comes ONLY through self-reliance and independence. Teach a man to fish, and you’ll feed for him a lifetime; give a man a fish, and he’ll be at your door every mealtime until he dies.

    Self-reliance and independence are all good and well for the majority of the population — able bodied, mentally sound, socially functional, non-elderly adults — the people who overwhelmingly make up employed suburban America.

    But, the lesson we have learned in the last 80 years or so, is that rather than failing, capitalism works too well. It very efficiently sorts those who are currently productive from those who are not and rewards them accordingly.

    The trouble is that a large share of the population is made up of the disabled, children, mothers of young children who would thrive better if cared for by a mother instead of a day care who lack valueable skills that make their labor a big contribution to the economy, the elderly, people who are disfunctionally dimwitted, and people who aren’t retarded but lack the social skills to function in a normal work environment or lack of wisdom to avoid scams and workplace exploitation.

    Our economy ruthlessly and brutally deprives these people of economic resources. This is perfectly consistent with incentives to maximize economic production, but is not consistent with the notion that there are basic social obligations that we have to everyone in our society. The libertarian ideal posits that voluntary charity and family ties can meet their needs. But, history has shown that these forms of private giving are insufficient to meet the need.

    Some of these people are capable of making sheltered or marginal economic contributions.

    Where I live, for example, a large share of grocery store bagging and shopping cart retrieval jobs are filled by developmentally disabled adults, which is in part a corporate commitment to doing right by people who aren’t capable of doing much else.

    Many vagrants (a large share of whom a veteran’s screwed up in subtle ways by their war experiences and/or people struggling with substance abuse) contribute economically by doing odd jobs and recycling cans.

    Many older children baby sit, or do lawn work, or run lemonaid stands, or sell items in school or club fund raisers.

    But, it is morally inappropriate to have an economy that bases the standard of living of people in these situations on their economic contributions alone.

    Social Security, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid have lifted almost all of the the elderly, the obviously disabled, and young widows with minor children, out of abject poverty into a marginally working class existence. But, no similar generosity is availiable to those with more subtle impediments which present equal economic challenges and are equally hard for people (or people helping them) to get them out of. This is why we need a mixed economy.

    Comment by ohwilleke — January 17, 2007 @ 2:16 pm | Reply

  9. I’m not irritated by others’ being rich. I’m irritated that the system is rigged in their favor. I also reject the idea that ordinary people live like kings. We may have lots of electronics to keep the proletariat revolt quelled, but there are simply too many people without health care or access to real, quality education, which is not exactly kingly. It’s also improper to judge our current level of social justice on a standard of living from years ago.

    Well, if you’re not irritated by the rich, you’re a unique specimen.

    Don’t confuse health care and health insurance. If you go into a hospital with a burst appendix, they have to remove it for you (then they’ll probably try to shift you to a teaching hospital more suited to charity work, but they can be forgiven that). Everyone gets emergency health care. As for the rest…I was off insurance for several years. Do you know how much a doctor’s office visit is? About $60. A tetanus shot was $25. Complete annual bloodwork was a little over $100. I managed all my routine health care needs for less money than I spent on car maintenance.

    We’ve made such a bugbear out of “not having health insurance” we’ve forgotten we all used to live without it for everything but the most serious illnesses. It was there for when you got hit by a car or found a suspicious lump. The great majority of us without health insurance will never need the great majority of what it offers.

    It used to be called “catastrophic health insurance” because catastrophe what it was intended to insure against. Going back to that standard would go a long way to making it more affordable via sticking-your-hand-in-your-pocket.

    As for education, every town in America has a free library. No finer education to be had than a love of reading. The thing that is hard to get is credentials. We jiggered it so you can’t get the lowest of white collar jobs without a degree, and you can’t get a degree without falling over the finish line tens of thousands in debt.

    Trying to make education affordable is pushing on one end of the see-saw. I’d rather see us push on the other. For example, acknowledging that a great deal of work does not require a degree. Any corporate job for which a liberal arts degree is required, for example, is just using that degree as a way of gauging whether you are able to take instruction and stick at a boring task for four years. College is a very expensive way to prove that.

    And how about we remove the stigma on trades and trade schools? A liberal arts degree is hardly the be-all and end-all of human accomplishment. Some people are happier working with their hands. Here’s a well-kept secret: a surprising number of them make more money than doctors. Tried to get an electrician lately? They laugh at your petty kitchen light switch problems. They can afford to.

    It is entirely right and proper to apply the standard of living from years ago. We are still the same bipedal mammals we always have been. Why should “social justice” — whatever that may be — have changed?

    Comment by S. Weasel — January 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm | Reply

  10. ohwilleke, I should have you writing my posts for me. I especially like the part about capitalism working too well as a economic sorting mechanism.

    S. Weasel wrote:

    As for education, every town in America has a free library. No finer education to be had than a love of reading. The thing that is hard to get is credentials.

    I wish education were really so simple. Part of one’s education is first learning to read and then developing a skeptical point of view toward what one reads so as to avoid being taken in too easily by unscrupulous writers. Neither of those behaviors appear magically, without teaching, guidance, and wisdom. And somewhere in there, too, is the actual learning that credentials symbolize. Response to the other arguments about liberal arts education I’ll hold in abeyance.

    It is entirely right and proper to apply the standard of living from years ago. We are still the same bipedal mammals we always have been. Why should “social justice” — whatever that may be — have changed?

    We may be the same biologically (not always, but since the last 100,000 years or so), but we’re hardly the same culturally as those even a few years ago (think about how radically different everything was pre-Internet). Social justice doesn’t exist in the natural world. To take the food chain as an example, only a fool would blame a bear for killing and consuming its prey. Similarly, the weather doesn’t consider its victims in the Gulf Coast or the South Pacific. Humans don’t live on that level anymore. Time has raised us somewhat above a dog-eat-dog survival imperative, and social justice has evolved within civilization as an institution for restraining “animal” behaviors among humans and for collectively caring for those less able to fend for themselves. The cultural context for such determinations doesn’t extend very far back in time — not even a few generations.

    Comment by Brutus — January 17, 2007 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  11. Trying to make education affordable is pushing on one end of the see-saw. I’d rather see us push on the other. For example, acknowledging that a great deal of work does not require a degree. Any corporate job for which a liberal arts degree is required, for example, is just using that degree as a way of gauging whether you are able to take instruction and stick at a boring task for four years. College is a very expensive way to prove that.

    There is lots of truth in this observation. When I lived in New Zealand, sixteen year old high school dropouts routinely secured jobs as book keepers, construction estimators, and other jobs that would rarely be filled by anyone without at least an associate’s degree in the United States.

    Journalists used to be mostly high school graduates, and it isn’t clear that their work is better for having earned degrees. Elementary school teachers used to attend “normal school” or simply started teaching straight after high school, and many did fine without formal instruction in instruction (we require little or no instruction in instruction of professors who teach far more complex subjects in universities). Much of high school honestly is a waste of time for someone pursuing skilled trades — those students received a watered down version of a curriculum designed to prepare students for university instruction that they will never receive — learning to critique poetry or enjoy Shakespeare can be life enhancing, but who says that the ages of 15 to 18 is the best time for 99% of the population to acquire these tastes for high culture. Even lawyers largely learned their craft on the job until the institution of the law school was invented in the 1870s, despite the degree to which it is an erudite professional field little different in the aptitudes it requires than it was when the country was founded a hundred years before law schools were invented, to a large extent by lawyers.

    No country in the world is more degree endowed than the United States, not even credential happy Germany where even waitresses receive formal instruction and licensure in many cases, and much of that is empty, despite the fact that the most developed nations with which we compete place far fewer economic barriers in the way of obtaining a higher education, and provide free secondary education comparable to a U.S. private prep school education to many talented youths. While American graduate school education is second to none in qualiity, our high schools suck by international standards.

    The flip side of the issue, however, is that there is little doubt that the Asian economies like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan owe their prosperity in large part to a concerted effort to educated children and young adults better, and that ill educated nations also tend to be poor.

    Comment by ohwilleke — January 17, 2007 @ 7:11 pm | Reply

  12. Humans don’t live on that level anymore. Time has raised us somewhat above a dog-eat-dog survival imperative, and social justice has evolved within civilization as an institution for restraining “animal” behaviors among humans and for collectively caring for those less able to fend for themselves. The cultural context for such determinations doesn’t extend very far back in time — not even a few generations.

    I’m afraid I regard any form of justice that has only evolved in the last three generations as demonstrably false. We aren’t so clever, and our great-grandparents weren’t so primitive. If you mean that we have only recently sworn off slavery and colonialism, but declare we have replaced it with a compassionate, meritorious governing class that “cares for those less able to care for themselves,” I submit that you have just spoken the modern, kindly name of slavery and colonialism. Either we all treat each other as grownups, with equal rights and responsibilities for our own care, or it’s same old rulers and serfs again.

    The number of people in any Western society genuinely unable to be responsible for themselves is quite small — surely too small to be worth all the political effort. It’s certainly not the great swathes of society targeted for ‘help’ by our meritocracy.

    Comment by S. Weasel — January 17, 2007 @ 7:37 pm | Reply

  13. Does the source of the chart say anything about who’s in that Top 1%? How much turnover is there?

    Comment by Joe — January 17, 2007 @ 10:31 pm | Reply

  14. What an excellent question, Joe.

    There’s an old saying in Lancashire: “from clogs to clogs in three generations.” I suppose clogs must’ve been what the poor wore. Anyhow, it means one generation founds a fortune, the next builds it and the third fritters it away. It doesn’t always happen in three exactly, but very, very few last beyond three.

    I don’t know from social justice, but that’s surely a bit of poetic justice right there.

    Comment by S. Weasel — January 18, 2007 @ 9:39 am | Reply

  15. Boy, I sure am glad to know that all is well with the world, I’ve been watching my guys who build your houses teeter along the edge of economic disaster from day to day and I had no idea that was how it’s supposed to be. A skilled trade gone to hell and somebody thinks trade school is a cure? No, it works out fine, we just in-source peons from a 3rd world hole and …

    There is a very serious economic incentive for the “well-off” to share around a little, it’s called keeping your life. We can continue on down this path for awhile longer, but at some point a disaster looms. Why exactly other than starvation avoidance are these guys supposed to bust their tails all day in all kinds of weather? They don’t want or expect to get rich, they expect to have some level of security in their lives, maybe even be able to buy a blue collar house and a reliable used pickup, but nooo… the dead hand of the market has spoken. These guys tend to be a little unsophisticated in their approaches, generally if it doesn’t move and it should, get a bigger hammer.

    It’s pretty easy to be self-satisfied and smug when you’re on the winning end of a rigged game.

    Comment by Chuck Butcher — January 21, 2007 @ 3:32 am | Reply

  16. The most typical arguments regarding the disparity of wealth have to do with the scarcity of the commodity involved, very few are qualified to hold a particular job, very few put put large amounts of money into investments, very few are devotedly entreprenuerial and this is true. Now it certainly might be debatable that the CEO pool is anything like as narrow as the compensation reflects, but put that to the side. Each of these catagories has a dependence on assets and these assets owe their existence to labor. At the root of any wealth is somebody doing the dirty work, the NYSE could not exist if there were no product holding up the paper that is exchanged.

    Workers also have a product, their labor, so they trade that for a share of the economy. The problem is that their product is not one that can be withheld from the market until prices rise, the market is artificially manipulated, and the market has through advertising devalued the product. Systematic assaults on organized labor have reduced its influence, flooding the market with 3rd world labor or removing the market to 3rd world markets creates an artificial surplus, and the glorification propaganda campaign for higher education ignores that for good reasons 75% will not or cannot participate in it.

    One would have to return to the cultural and social mindset of the Robber Barons to find a similar construct. My above warning about violent repercussions is not simply heated rhetoric, this nation narrowly avoided such at the end of the 19th Century. It is certainly true that lifestyles of today far surpass those of the late 19th Century, one needs to ask it that rationale is to be applied to that period and compared to 10th Century lifestyles? No, we don’t need to have health care for that bunch, they made it 45 years and plowed enough ground for the aristocracy to get by.

    The problem is that you’ve made a serious mistake, you’ve taught the peons to read and write, put a picture box in the livingroom that shows how it can be, and let them be raised by people who did better and didn’t see that huge disparity, and most foolish of all, you’ve allowed them to be armed.

    I’ve noticed in many of the above comments a certain style of writing, that of the report. That style of writing only comes naturally to someone who practices it, in this venue I prefer a conversational voice, and the writers’ voice and the content are interesting when taken as a whole. You probably apply that critique to mine, maybe not quite as consciously as I do, but the contrast and gradations are interesting.

    Comment by Chuck Butcher — January 21, 2007 @ 4:56 pm | Reply

  17. I’ve noticed in many of the above comments a certain style of writing, that of the report. That style of writing only comes naturally to someone who practices it, in this venue I prefer a conversational voice, and the writers’ voice and the content are interesting when taken as a whole.

    Posts in a conversational voice, like men’s lives in a state of nature, are often nasty, brutal and short. Give me civilization and a little formality any day.

    Comment by ohwilleke — January 22, 2007 @ 12:49 pm | Reply

  18. Chuck Butcher wrote:

    The problem is that you’ve made a serious mistake, you’ve taught the peons to read and write, put a picture box in the livingroom that shows how it can be, and let them be raised by people who did better and didn’t see that huge disparity, and most foolish of all, you’ve allowed them to be armed.

    The peons are simultaneously (1) the labor engine that drives capital acquisition, (2) the mass market for material goods, and (3) the potential source of revolt over what some of us regard as the injustice of the system as it’s currently operated. But you’re wrong that the living room picture box stokes the fires of revolution. Rather, it’s a form of digital morphine, supplying the motivation for participation in the system by the numbing (and knowingly false) promise of better living through ever greater levels of consumption (an implicit precondition for capitalism), which normally requires an debt load that would choke a horse. So the paradox is that the typical peon desires the very things that are strangling him.

    I’ve noticed in many of the above comments a certain style of writing, that of the report. That style of writing only comes naturally to someone who practices it, in this venue I prefer a conversational voice, and the writers’ voice and the content are interesting when taken as a whole.

    You’re certainly welcome to comment and write in whatever fashion suits you. I’ll write according to my own dictates. I note that your grammar and punctuation often require two readings for me to decifer your intent.

    Comment by Brutus — January 22, 2007 @ 1:37 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: