Globalization With a Human Face

Jagdish Bhagwati on the trouble with protectionism, how to deal with climate change, and why NAFTA was bad for free trade.

Free trade is never more necessary—or vulnerable—than in times of economic distress. The current global downturn is no exception. Protectionist barriers have shot up all over the world, including the United States. Earlier this year, Congress killed a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks to transport goods across America and included “Buy America” provisions in the stimulus bill banning foreign steel and iron from infrastructure projects funded by the legislation. More disturbingly, President Barack Obama, after chiding Congress for flirting with protectionism, initiated his own ill-advised affair by imposing a 35 percent tariff on cheap Chinese tires.

If the world manages to avoid an all-out trade war of the kind that helped trigger the Great Depression after the U.S. imposed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930, it will be in no small part due to the efforts of one man: Jagdish N. Bhagwati, an ebullient and irreverent 76-year-old professor of economics at Columbia University. Bhagwati has done more than perhaps any other person alive to advance the cause of unfettered global trade.

A native of India, Bhagwati immigrated to the United States in the late ’60s after a brief stint on the Indian Planning Commission, where he learned first-hand the insanity of an economic approach that tried to modernize a country by cutting it off from world trade. Since then, he has devoted his efforts, both in academia and in the popular press, to showing that there is no better way of improving the lot of both advanced countries and the developing world than through free trade. His path-breaking contributions to trade theory have put him on the short list for a Nobel Prize in economics.

Though a dogged trade advocate, Bhagwati is anything but dogmatic. He is a free spirit who draws intellectual inspiration from many disparate ideological camps. A self-avowed liberal, he is also something of a Gandhian social progressive, though Gandhi himself supported economic autarky. Bhagwati works with numerous Third World NGOs on a host of human rights issues. Yet he has no problem taking on these groups—or his famous student, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman—when they question the benefits of trade. In fact, he devoted his 2004 magnum opus, In Defense of Globalization, to a point-by-point rebuttal of these critics. Although he doesn’t vote Republican because he dislikes the party’s nationalistic jingoism, he readily declares that Democrats pose a far bigger threat to international exchange than Republicans.

This summer Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at the Reason Foundation, interviewed Bhagwati in his New York office.

reason: You have been on the short list for a Nobel Prize in economics for your contribution to trade theory. Could you explain what your main contribution is?

Jagdish Bhagwati: My breakthrough in trade theory was very simple, as all breakthroughs are. Back in the 1950s, when the case for free trade was widely regarded as less compelling analytically than today, protectionists had one very powerful argument on their side. They noted that a country necessarily benefits from free trade only when markets are perfect—that is to say, only when market prices reflect true social costs can we expect these prices to guide allocation correctly. Take pollution. Say your production process makes you spew things into the air and water but you do not have to pay for this pollution. Then the social cost of harming others is not being taken into account by you and hence your production costs are less than the “correct” social costs.

So you could take two points of view. The time-honored view was that when there is such “market failure,” or what might be better called a “missing market,” the case for free trade was compromised and any form of protectionism was justified. I argued that if you had a market failure, fix that, and you are back to perfect markets and the legitimacy of free trade. So, for example, you can have a polluter-pay principle on the environment. If you do that, then there’s no damaging spillover which has not been taken into account.

The proper policy response then is not to abandon free trade but rather to fix the market failure and then to embrace free trade. This was a revolutionary thought. For 200 years, serious economists had abandoned free trade in the presence of market failures of one kind or another.

reason: In Defense of Globalization was addressed to non-academic critics of free trade and globalization who claim that globalization does not have a human face. What was your argument?

Bhagwati: When I was in Seattle in 1999, when everything went haywire as far as trying to get a new round of trade negotiations, I realized that the young people who were agitating, and some of the older folks also, were not interested in whether trade was good for national income and prosperity. They were claiming that globalization has an adverse impact on a whole lot of social issues—gender equity issues, environmental issues, the effects of globalization on the polity and democratic rights. In short, to use the fetching phrase, they were concerned that economic globalization lacked a human face.

My book addressed precisely such issues. I found that, contrary to the fears of the critics, most social agendas were advanced rather than handicapped by globalization. Globalization, I concluded, had a human face.

Take women’s issues, for example: If you look at what happens to the gender gap on pay inequality, it turns out that you can make a perfectly solid argument that in fact it’s narrowed rather than widened as a result of international trade. The reason is very simple: If a man is paid twice as much as a woman, when they are both equally competent, that is inefficient. So when you are engaged in international competition, you’re really not going to be able to indulge your prejudice in this way. This will lead to more demand for women and less for men, bringing pressure to bear on their relative wages in the direction of greater pay equality.

Two brilliant young women, Sandra Black and Elizabeth Brainerd, did their dissertation at Harvard on this hypothesis. They found that in two decades in internationally traded industries in the United States, the gender wage gap narrowed faster than in non-traded industries. Trade had thus been good for an important social objective, not a drag on it.

reason: You still hear the argument—President Obama made it during his campaign—that we want fair trade, not free trade.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    He's right that NAFTA contains a lot of other provisions. However, a lot of those provisions are either labor and environmental provisions supported by the various people who oppose free trade in the first place (so they're mocking provisions put in at their own insistence), and a bunch of the others are provisions indicating at what pace countries have to drop their barriers, again put in by people who don't like free trade.

    NAFTA didn't take place immediately; many of the provisions are phased in.

  • ||

    The problem with the anti-globalication folks is that they directly contradict themselves on these issues.

    The complain, on the one hand, about provisions in trade agreements that advantage developed countries over developing nations.

    Then they turn around and complain that there aren't enough labor and environmental protections in the bill.

    Somehow completely missing the fact that is IS the labor and environmental protections which advantage developed nations over developing nations. As they are intended to.

  • ||

    Jagdish Bhagwati on the trouble with protectionism, how to deal with climate change, and why NAFTA was bad for free trade.

    Oh, I could have told you that without having to interview Mr. Bhagwati.

    Protectionism: Immoral - unduly restricting the choices of consumers. Doing in peacetime what warring states do to each other in wartime.

    Climate Change: There is NOTHING that needs to be done about climate change - it is like asking what can we do about the problem with evolving species. or the crash of galaxies.

    NAFTA: It was bad for free trade for the simple reason that NAFTA has NOTHING to do with Free Trade. NAFTA is a contract for managed trade between three brokers: the American Government, the Mexican government and the Canadian government. The producers and buyers were not invited.

  • Chad||

    It's interesting that such a well-respected economist doesn't know that most western European nations have higher economic mobility than the United States. Oh well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility

    Chalk it up to one more American assuming we are #1 when we ain't. This seems to be becoming a real bad habit among conservatives.

  • ||

    So, Chad,

    If I sent you to an article that said...

    Using the ratio of an individual’s current income to that of their parent’s, there is no academic consensus whether the United States has less or more relative mobility than other industrialized nations.

    ...would you take that to mean that the United States has higher economic mobility than most western European nations?

  • Chad||

    If it also said

    France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark all have more relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have less mobility. According to this study done by Miles Corak, The United States ratio of relative mobility is 1, whereas the other countries mentioned with more mobility have a range of 1.25 (France) to over 3 (Denmark). However, at least one other recent study has concluded that relative mobility is about the same in the US.

    then yes, I would.

    When there are conflicting studies, it is reasonably safe to assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle, which in this case implies that the noted European countries probably have somewhat higher economic mobility than we do, and that is unlikely that we have more, in contradiction to Baghwati's claim.

  • ||

    When there are conflicting studies, it is reasonably safe to assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle,

    So you agree that the standard consensus on global warming is exaggerated, Chad, and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle?

  • Chad||

    The "middle" of the peer-reviewed studies overwhelmingly confirms AGW theory.

  • ||

    When there are conflicting studies, it is reasonably safe to assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

    You did of course notice that virtually all the references to that Wikipedia article were from economicmobility.org, with a modest sprinkling of americanprogress.org and a dash of urban.org.

    If I came across a Wikipedia article whose references were almost entirely from globalwarmingisahoax.org, would that mean the global warming "truth lies somewhere in the middle"?

  • Chad||

    Umm, economicmobility.org is non-partisan and is even sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a stalwart of the right.

    Is there no depths to which you will not sink in order to find excuses to ignore data that conflicts with your religion?

  • Spencer||

    it is a Wikipedia article so it is reasonably safe to assume that none of it is true.

  • ||

    I must say that it is new and surprising to me that the father-son relative quintile mobility appears to be lower in the US. It is particularly surprising that the majority of that effect seems to be due to the bottom quintile -- especially given the much greater addition of immigrants to the lower quintile in the US. Unless, of course, the studies don't account for that.

    In any event, Bhagwati is talking about the culture of social mobility, not the reality of relative intergenerational economic mobility. Culturally, with regard to economic mobility, the US is an outlier.

    See Figure 1 of International Comparisons of Economic Mobility where out of 27 countries surveyed, those in the US had the absolute fewest respondents saying the differences in income in the country are too large and the absolute fewest respondents saying it is the responsibility of government to fix that problem.

    While you are there, take a look at the big box of caveats with regard to such relative intergenerational comparisons across nations.

  • Chad||

    I think all the survey points out is that first, Americans are further right than anyone else, and two, they are plain ignorant of how poorly we fair with respect to economic mobility. They largely assume we are number one, and therefore think there is no problem.

    It really does amaze me how far right we are. When Democrats try to move our health care system from the most right wing in the industrialized world to STILL THE MOST RIGHT WING in the industrialized world, Republicans scream "socialism!!!!" and claim the apocalypse is coming.

  • ||

    But there is a tendency, particularly on the part of the Democrats, to become totally self-righteous on everything and this is the way it has to be and if you disagree, then you’re a Republican.

    That's hilariously true.

  • Chad||

    It's easy to be self-righteous when you are right, and put your money where your mouth is.

  • ||

    If you're right, why not just argue your position on the merits, instead of getting all huffy and self-righteous when someone disagrees with you?

    It's people who don't have a real arguement that cover up for it by getting offended at dissent.

  • ||

    Serious question here: If a man making $20/hr in a factory loses that job to outsourcing and has to get a $8/hr job to get by how is that good? It looks like a $12 net loss to the economy, so what is the benefit?

  • ||

    The same product that used to cost $20 now costs $4 as a foreign import. So the guy making $8 can afford twice as many of them.

  • DJF||

    I haven’t seen any large drop in product prices even when they are imported from factories which pay $5 a day let alone $8 an hour. Where are these massive price drops at? The only place I have seen big drops in prices has much more to do with automation of production such as electrons not in dropping of wages

  • ||

    If the price drops (or quality improvements) are to happen, there has to either be some new entry of competition or some increase of existing firms' production to increase supply.

    Otherwise, outsourcing by itself is just a means of firms increasing their profitability. In a competitive market, profits do the heavy lifting of incentivizing more production/new competition to come on the market and push down prices.

    Maybe the products where you aren't seeing big price drops are produced in uncompetitive markets with restrictions to entry (patents, regulatory compliance, criminal activity, zoning, trade barriers, licensing, tax/legal preferences to established firms, etc.)

    And this assumes demand is constant. Maybe it's enough that prices haven't risen faster than they already have with an larger and richer population to increase demand.

  • ||

    There doesn't have to be a new entry, there just has to be sufficient competition already in the market.
    One existing company can undercut another's prices by outsourcing production.

    Unless they have a cartel or a monopoly, then prices will drop.

  • ||

    Adjusted for inflation a lot of outsourced products are cheaper - clothing for instance. Electronics are blatantly and obviously much cheaper than they used to be. You can get a TV, Microwave, or DVD player for < $50.
    Notably these tend to be products products in east asia, that used to be manufactured in the US.

  • ||

    See, I thought those were great examples, too. They were the first ones that came to my mind.

    However, I can't say with certainty that these things are not cheaper primarily because of technology and automation, as opposed to trade, as DJF says. Of course, one retort to this line of argument is to say that technology and automation kill ghigh-paying jobs all the time, yet this is not so horrible a thing as to require tariffs and quotas on goods produced in modern factories to protect traditional crafts.

    Why are so many people fixed on potential job displacement from trade, then, that they would consider tariffs and quotas on it and not labor-saving technology?

  • MWG||

    Not hard to
    "Where are these massive price drops at?"

    Not hard if you open your eyes. Think computers and cell phones.

    The other side of the coin is the question of what you get for every dollar you spend. Home prices of historically risen over the last 50 yrs, but do you really want to go back to a time without A/C and central heating, dishwashers and microwaves, etc....?

    (http://reason.tv/video/show/living-large)

    I'm shocked that people in the US seem to think there has been no net benefit to the average standard of living over the last 10-15 years (Without even mentioning net benefits over the last 20-30.)

  • ||

    It's not a $12 net loss to the economy. Income gets transferred from the outsourced employee to the employing firm and the new employee, with the firm keeping more (assuming it made a good decision) as profits.

    Profits count for something, after all--even in national income statistics. I wouldn't expect factories to get built in the first place without them.

  • ||

    Do you think media coverage in the U.S. is biased? We are looking for people interested in politics to take our Institutional Research Board approved study.

    Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com

    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s......lKxA_3d_3d

  • ||

    isnt there a problem with the econ mobility comparison? that post ww2 countries were in bad shape, and that the u.s. came out stronger? so wouldnt that make it much harder for the us to show as much economic mobility as countries that were devastated in ww2? only canada wasnt a wreck when the baby boomers parents were the primary workforce.

  • M o n k e e||

    On the "spaghetti bowl" thing,

    I've always thought it makes sense to merge free trade zones

    ie merge NAFTA with the European economic community (the trade agreement that exists between the EU plus Sweden and Norway)

  • ||

    But who negotiates for NAFTA? Or the EU/EFTA, for that matter? It still will boil down politically to the individual member states and the interests within them who have final say over how NAFTA and the EU/EFTA work.

    Maybe the EU central government will be able to negotiate with effect after the EU Constitution takes force, though.

  • M o n k e e||

    doh Switzerland and norway

  • Chad||

    You guys really amaze me. 99.9%+ of the stuff there is true, you moron.

  • ||

    If you could've kept your mouth shut and just discussed your points, you would have done fine. Now you've typecast yourself as an airheaded lefty.

    "It's easy to be self-righteous when you're right." Really? You have to be joking. My daughter reasons more soundly than that, and she's three.

    People like you proudly push your orthodoxy of relative truth; you claim it as your finest badge of openmindedness and enlightenment---so why would anyone listen to anything you say when you declare yourself "right"? I'll say one thing for the political left: I'm glad you're opn their side.

  • Kroneborge||

    Free trade is fine, as long as we are trading.

    Us buying stuff, and them making it is NOT trade. For it to be a trade, there needs to be an exchange that is "relativly" close in value.

  • ||

    Hey, if we can pawn off pieces of paper and government bonds--all of increasingly dubious worth--on foreigners in exchange for actual stuff without the foreigners complaining of fraud, I don't see why you'd want to stop such a good thing.

    The trade deficit is us losing money and getting stuff. You can't eat money, and they can't do anything with that money but buy stuff that is voluntarily offered to them! The Chinese can't buy your house out from under you (except for Kelo-style economic-development purposes through eminent domain).

  • Kroneborge||

    Yes, except for the fact that we now can't make anything anymore. And our depedent on the kindess of stragners to loan us money.

    And that's not to mention the global problems due to inbalance in flow of funds.

  • ||

    What do we need to make anything for? With trade deficits, we've got all their stuff. Besides, stuff is a lot more useful for building factories than currency.

    And, if they loan us the money back, it's only so we can get more of their stuff at a markup for interest.

    Global imbalances are only a problem in countries that have active exchange rate policies. In countries where prices and exchange rates are free to adjust, balance of payment problems fix themselves. Sure, we may not like the new prices and exchange rates, but that's our incentive to change our consumption patterns!

    If we still have a trade deficit, it's because foreigners are more than happy to hold a depreciating store of value while we consume for rates of interest at least as cheap as available domestically. As long as the US does not have a fixed exchange rate or fixed prices, it is foreigners who are at the risk of future devaluation of their currency/debt holdings through the declining value of the dollar, not Americans.

    A trade deficit means Americans are shoveling dollars out the door as fast as they can, which seems the perfectly reasonable thing to do should you fear a balance-of-payments crisis where the dollar suddenly becomes worthless.

    ...unless you have a crisis in mind where the dollar suddenly becomes atrociously expensive, which is the exact opposite of what I expect from a country with nothing to be bought!

  • ||

    Yes, except for the fact that we now can't make anything anymore.

    Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, the United States as of 2007 had never had greater manufacturing output...

    But U.S. manufacturing is not in decline; it is thriving. By historic standards and relative to other countries' manufacturing sectors, U.S. manufacturing is firing on all cylinders. In 2006, the sector achieved record output, record sales, record profits, record profit rates and record return on investment. American manufacturing performance has never been stronger....

    Meanwhile, U.S. factories remain the world's most prolific, accounting for more than 20 percent of the world's added manufacturing value. By comparison, Chinese plants account for about 8 percent. And manufacturing is thriving in large measure because of international trade. Manufacturing exports and imports hit records in 2006.
  • ||

    Yes, except for the fact that we now can't make anything anymore.

    Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, as of 2007 manufacturing output of the United States had never been greater...

    But U.S. manufacturing is not in decline; it is thriving. By historic standards and relative to other countries' manufacturing sectors, U.S. manufacturing is firing on all cylinders. In 2006, the sector achieved record output, record sales, record profits, record profit rates and record return on investment. American manufacturing performance has never been stronger...

    Meanwhile, U.S. factories remain the world's most prolific, accounting for more than 20 percent of the world's added manufacturing value. By comparison, Chinese plants account for about 8 percent. And manufacturing is thriving in large measure because of international trade. Manufacturing exports and imports hit records in 2006.
  • Kroneborge||

    Oh, I see we are hitting record levels, but wait, isn't the trade deficit still getting larger?

    So which is it, are we making more crap, or actually just buying more crap from the Chinese. And if it's the first, then how the hell did they get the 2 trillion + in dollar reserves.

    Here's a fun game, go down to Walmart and look at the back of the labels. See how much stuff is made in the USA, and how much isn't.

  • ||

    As an absolute difference, the trade deficit is increasing, but as a ratio, the trade deficit is decreasing...

    Put differently, the real value of America’s exports to China has grown by more (323 percent) than has the real value of America’s imports from that country (220 percent).

    Here's a fun game, go down to Walmart and look at the back of the labels. See how much stuff is made in the USA, and how much isn't.

    I assure you, the margins on the stuff you find at WalMart are much, much lower than the margins that US manufacturers are going for.

    Why do you think it is even worth an American company's -- or an American worker's -- time to make the stuff that you find at WalMart?

  • ||

    So which is it, are we making more crap, or actually just buying more crap from the Chinese.

    Incidentally, you must have missed the following from the article I cited...

    Also, U.S. producers are America's largest importers. In 2006, 55 percent of all U.S. goods imports were industrial products and components, the kinds of purchases made not by consumers, but by producers.

    That statistic supports the strong correlation between manufactured imports and U.S. manufacturing output, which has been observed for decades. Imports and output rise and fall in tandem. Thus, policymakers who seek to restrain imports are effectively advocating a manufacturing recession. If their mercantilist world-view prevails and imports decline, reports of idled factory equipment will not be far behind.
  • Kevin Legal Advice||

    I found it was interesting,, great fun!

    Kevin Legal Advice

  • ||

    and of course chad, were someone to show you an article that made claims counter to your beliefs, you would take as gospel because its "99.9%" true.

    gimme a break, you are just an angry internet troll. go outside and take some deep breaths

  • Chad||

    We were speaking of Wikipedia, which has very few errors. I have never personally seen one, and the few I have heard of were pretty trivial and quickly fixed.

  • ||

    The argument for free trade based on the example of wage differences between men and women being eliminated doesn't satisfy me -- of course something will go away if it adds cost to production. I'm still concerned about social injustices that result in *cheaper* production (e.g. unsafe working conditions, processes with more pollution, lack of child labor laws). What economic pressure will force those away?

  • ||

    The economic pressures that (a) workers don't like unsafe working conditions, (b) societies don't like excess pollution, and (c) parents would rather send their kids to school instead of work are quite adequate to the task.

    Just as they were adequate to the task in the now-developed world when industrialization finally pulled people out of their bare subsistence livelihoods to the point of having enough wealth that they could worry about such things.

  • ||

    Good points, and well put. Thanks!

  • Christian Louboutin||

    Supposed to attack these head-on and you will find a deep sense of gratification thatwill fuel your happiness.

  • Christian louboutin||

    good

  • Christian louboutin||

    good

  • christian louboutin||

    When you look at a trade agreement like NAFTA, it’s about that thick (holds his hands about…

  • Nike Dunk SB Shoes||

    fine

  • Nike air max||

    yes

  • air max||

    great

  • air max||

    great

  • Giving Life Books||

    American manufacturing performance has never been stronger...

    Giving Life Books

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on.

  • Fact Center||

    There is NOTHING that needs to be done about Magic Gym - it is like asking what can we do about the problem with evolving species. or the crash of galaxies.

  • Kevin Legal Advice||

    The trade deficit is us losing money and getting stuff. You can't eat money, and they can't do anything with that money but buy stuff that is voluntarily offered to them! The of the darkness can't buy your house out from under you (except for Bio Consultor economic-development purposes through eminent domain).

  • blancpain replica watches||

    which limited the actions of Congress and by extension has to be incorporated, the Second Amendment stated that RKBA was not to be infringed, and lacked detail as to by whom, and therefore applied to all government. By its very language it was already applicable to the states!

  • rheap ghd f outlet||

    The history of conflict between the NRA and Gura dates back to Heller, when the gun rights organization, fearing a loss (or, in some interpretations, fearing a victory where it could not claim credit), attempted to stymie or take over the case for years before finally jumping on board as allies in the closing stretch. Gura is openly peeved that his strategy is being questioned and his time encroached on against his will.

  • 50 Inch Flat Screen Tv||

    Another excellent post, thank you, this is why I continue visiting here!

  • nfl jerseys||

    hdfd

  • ||

    Nonalcoholic beer is available in our hotel (a five-star, though it appears to have been graded on a curve), but only to placate (or taunt) the few Western visitors who pass through. The pious Muslims of Libya are not unlike vegetarians, surrounding themselves with pointless facsimiles of the forbidden, from beef bacon to bottles of booze with all the booze removed.
    ugg shoes

  • Meciuri Online||

    Two brilliant young women, Sandra Black and Elizabeth Brainerd, did their dissertation at Harvard on this hypothesis. They found that in two decades in internationally traded industries in the United States, the gender wage gap narrowed faster than in non-traded industries. Trade had thus been good for an important social objective, not a drag on it. Bilet Pariuri Sportive

  • Sheepskin Boots Sale||

    you can grab the active participation of metal rouge Alpine Sheepskin Ugg Boots Classic. If not, you can aces Ugg Boots Online Store ? boots tenuous. we are in a suitable range to ensure that while the colors can be met in

  • Sheepskin Boots Sale||

    There is access to an abundance of classes, while in the United States Ugg Sheepskin Boots . outside about every man or woman can only aces the ideal start according to their favor. No access to the dim accurately struck the active color. in fact if Ugg Boots On Sale that admiration

  • Sheepskin Boots Sale||

    These Sheepskin Boots Sale boots are made, while in the skin of sheep, which are actually the album in the winter of Australia. constantly speaks, is capable of anything, a generous agreement added compared with the world.Women Uggs Access to the precise height for keeping warm.

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • amit chauhan||

    very nice one it is..

  • amit chauhan||

    very nice post this is....
    Grove Street dental care

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement