Larry Summers: His Genius Can't Be Measured In Dollars

The best part about news coverage of Larry Summers is seeing all the new ways people find to avoid saying that the current director of the President Obama's National Economic Council is an arrogant fool.

In this Boston Globe piece about Summers' mismanagement of Harvard University's finances during his scandal-plagued stint as that school's president, we learn that Summers was "a man unafflicted, former colleagues say, with self-doubt in matters of finance."

In the event, Summers' direct connection to the Great Spirit led him to disregard repeated warnings by Harvard endowment managers Jack Meyer and Mohamed El-Erian, a strategy that ended up costing the university billions of dollars -- including a direct half-billion-dollar hit for credit default swaps Summers bought:

Widely considered one of the most brilliant economists of his generation, Summers pushed to invest 100 percent of Harvard's cash with the endowment and had to be argued down to 80 percent, financial executives say. The cash account grew to $5.1 billion during his tenure, more than the entire endowment of all but a dozen or so colleges and universities.

As a result, the widely anticipated bust in the credit markets lost actual operating funds -- not only endowment funds -- for the McGill University of the South.

Under ordinary circumstances anybody who contributed to the destruction of Harvard would be hailed as a national hero, but Summers has gone on to make the whole country poorer.

I don't understand the Washington cant that says Summers, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other manifest failures can't be fired. Ronald Reagan, father of the debtorship society, fired six department heads in his first term, and made a point of first humiliating and then firing his deficit-hawk OMB director David Stockman. George W. Bush fired Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on his way to winning re-election. If Obama is ever to get serious about his march to socialism, he'd better remember the advice of history's greatest redistributionist: No man, no problem.

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.

  • Rich||

    I don't understand the Washington cant that says Summers, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other manifest failures can't be fired.

    If their policies don't show success by, say, 2016 they'll probably get fired.

  • ||

    "If their policies don't show success by, say, 2016 they'll probably get fired."

    Ha, good one. Of course it assumes that their policies aren't showing success, but I believe they are showing success. It just depends on the definition of success. If massive transfer of wealth is socializing of losses is the goal, their policies are meeting with terrific success.

  • ||

    Defense Secy. Gates' policies haven't shown much success, but he survived the regime change. Maybe Summers will too!

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Actually, I think the SecDef's policies have been largely successful.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Well, at least way moreso than his predecessor's.

  • Warty||

    Shouldn't the word be redistributor?

  • Old Mexican||

    In this Boston Globe piece about Summers' mismanagement of Harvard University's finances during his scandal-plagued stint as that school's president, we learn that Summers was "a man unafflicted, former colleagues say, with self-doubt in matters of finance."

    Which is another way of saying that the guy was a self-deluded fool.

  • ||

    I get the impression that this was a snarky upper-class way to say just that -- much as similar people said Bush Jr. was similarly unafflicted about virtually everything.

  • ||

    Tim,

    The McGill of the South?

  • ||

    I mean, come on, everyone knows that McGill is the Yale of Canada.

  • Old Mexican||

    Widely considered one of the most brilliant economists of his generation,

    ... by his mommy and his wife who love him very much just the way he is...

  • Old Mexican||

    I mean, really - considered as the most brilliant economist of his generation by who? The people that agreed with him? That's always easy.

    Politicians whose assess he kissed? mean, who considered the guy a great economist? The pantheon, for me, is limited to really great economists that are way above this guy's league (the scum-sucking league, that is), like Mises, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Rothbard, Ricardo, Smith... even Friedman and Fisher.

  • ||

    Krugman probably defends this scumbag.

  • zoltan||

    In Defense of Larry Summers by Paul Krugman

    From his majesty's "Conscience of a Liberal" blog.

  • Rimfax||

    Are you two gonna take this act on the road?

  • ¢||

    Genetic differences in aptitude may be a factor.

  • hmm||

    God I can't believe I'm going to say this.

    In Summers defense some of the strategies set forth by him had horizons that were not adhered to. A portion of the giant losses at Harvard were due to this and not directly related to him. The school would be in a really shit spot and his negotiation for debt opened a huge door for colleges like Columbia to get some pretty nice rates on debt, they are thanking him.

    That said, the guy is a shitball, shitty economist, arrogant fucktard, who bankrupt Harvard (not the worst thing really).

  • ||

    Realistically, the man knows more about economics in his little finger than everyone who's posted so far in this thread combined. Doesn't change the nature of his mistakes, but Jesus, the arrogance of vulgar Austrians and similar types is just breathtaking.

  • ||

    I have no doubt he knows a lot about economics. It's just that most of the stuff he knows is wrong.

  • Old Mexican||

    Realistically, the man knows more about economics in his little finger than everyone who's posted so far in this thread combined.

    What an astounding assertion. Care to prove it?

  • Tman||

  • ||

    Realistically, the man knows more about economics in his little finger than everyone who's posted so far in this thread combined.

    How would you know? I mean, for all you know, Warty might be in line for the John Bates Clark Medal. It's really hard to make a compelling argument to relative authority when you're talking to a bunch of anonymous people.

  • ||

    I acknowledge the truth in that, and I admit that my first post was hyperbolic. (In all likelihood Summers's pinky doesn't know anything at all about economics.)

    What I object to is how these threads all turn into the same thing. "He holds beliefs different to my own (GODDAMN STATIST!); ergo, he is ignorant, a shitty economist, etc." If a man reads Keynes and thinks he might be on to something, get ready for the 100 post hate. What a bunch of rubbish. People read one Hayek or Mises book (or worse, listen to Peter Schiff) and think that they "get" economics; consequently, everyone who disagrees is either a fool or a knave. It's frankly pathetic.

  • Tman||

    People read one Hayek or Mises book (or worse, listen to Peter Schiff) and think that they "get" economics; consequently, everyone who disagrees is either a fool or a knave. It's frankly pathetic.

    -so says noted expert on Economics, Emperor Norton.

    You realize that you sound like what you hate, right?

  • ||

    You took the words right out from under my keystrokes.

    Miss Emperor, one thing I think that probably really bothers you is that so many of us who read Hayek and Mises called this problem years before it ever blew its snotty wad all over our collective faces. What's more, many of us saw it coming with enough clarity to position ourselves accordingly. As of this minute in the enduring collapse, I am up, and by a handsome measure. Moreover, I told many many people what was coming years ago (I'm talking when gold was 320 USD/oz) and received nothing but polite head-petting or our outright labels of kookery. So yeah, I think I "get it", while the words and works of Larry Summers and those like him have come to reek for what they are: Shit on the road sign of history.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    Nobody is saying that since he holds views different than others, he's a shitty economist. What is being said is that he's a self-deluded fool that almost bankrupted Harvard, despite being considered the greatest economist since Irving Fisher [another arrogant dolt.]

  • ||

    Up above you describe Summers as a "scum-sucking" economist. It sure sounds like you're calling him a shitty economist. Since you didn't provide any basis for your assessment, I think it's fair to assume that it's based on ideological grounds. If it's non-ideological, please provide your reasoning. (Is his methodology sloppy? Is his research unoriginal?) Otherwise, I'd say I've pretty well demonstrated my point.

  • ||

    Emperor Norton,

    Would you care to cite one major piece of economic theory that is credited to Larry Summers? Honestly, I've kept up with the field for some time and honestly don't know of any major theories ascribed to him.

    This doesn't make him a shitty economist. But, it also means he's hardly deserving of being credited as "one of the most brilliant economists of his generation".

  • Tman||

    Also, what's wrong with Peter Schiff? The guy called the recession quite intuitively TWO YEARS before it happened, and has been helping his clients make money despite a recession.

    Is there something wrong with listening to him?

  • ||

    There's plenty of evidence of Summers being both fool and knave besides the books he's read.

  • Real ID||

    But, as usual, you're too busy to share any of it.

  • ||

    Right on.

  • zoltan||

    Losing Harvard billions isn't enough.

  • ||

    That was very foolish, but it doesn't necessarily make him a fool. It's a pretty well established fact that just because a guy is brilliant doesn't mean he's capable with money. It's a lesson that many have learned the hard way.

  • ||

    just because a guy is brilliant doesn't mean he's capable with money.

    which of course made Mr Summers the perfect candidate for Treasury Secretary

  • Tman||

    It's a pretty well established fact that just because a guy is brilliant doesn't mean he's capable with money

    Good thing he's not one of the guys that's telling Obama what to do with our money, right? Cause then we'd be really screwed huh!

    wait, what's his job again?

  • ||

    Please share what, if any, evidence could convince you that Larry Summers is a fool. If pissing away the money of everyone who's ever trusted him with it, and carrying water for (and quite possibly coming up with) Obama's disastrous economic policies, isn't enough, what is?

  • Invisible Finger||

    And yet handling money is his fucking job!

  • anon||

    Let's not forget this guy was also one of the brains behind LTCM. If you want to know how to invest, look at what Summers is doing... and then do the exact opposite.

  • ||

    which of course made Mr Summers the perfect candidate for Treasury Secretary

    Uh, whether he was a candidate or not (I haven't heard that he was), the guy was never nominated to be Treasury Secretary, sooooo...

    Let's not forget this guy was also one of the brains behind LTCM.

    Source? He was at the World Bank and Treasury all through the 90s, I hadn't heard that he was in any way associated with the firm. I could very well be wrong but Wikipedia/Google don't provide any immediate support for your claim.

  • ||

    "Uh, whether he was a candidate or not (I haven't heard that he was), the guy was never nominated to be Treasury Secretary, sooooo... "

    Except that he was Treasury Secretary in 1999/2000, and pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagal as well as was instrumental in the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000, which GAVE the big houses the ability to trade Credit Default Swaps "over the counter", that is, unregulated.

  • ||

    I think, Emperor Norton, that for the sake of your empire finances, you should shut thy uninformed trap, lest you deprive your fiat intellectual currency of the faith required to float it.

  • ||

    Look, when it comes to trade theory, I wouldn't question a thing Paul Krugman says. When it comes to politics, I'll feel quite at ease questioning anything he says. In the case of Larry Summers, I don't know who is claiming that he really knows something extraordinary in economics, let alone anything else.

  • ||

    The funny thing is I don't much care about the guy either. Felix Salmon has been on his case for months and I'm pretty well convinced that the man made massive errors vis-a-vis Harvard's endowment.

    So Tim Cavanaugh finds this story and uses it as a springboard to describe him as an "arrogant fool" and a "manifest failure" who is Bad For America. Strong words, but that's TC's style. OK. Frankly, the man has a lot of snide comments coming to him.

    But the comments are basically off the rails. Summers is described as a "shitty" or "scum-sucking" economist. And it's part of a trend: any time Krugman or some other center-left economist gets mentioned, one is assured of comments decrying him or her as an idiot, a hack, a sellout, or some combination thereof. There's never any real economic discussion; conversation is reduced to spewing ad hominem attacks against people who, at the end of the day, are not radical lefties, but well-respected economists whose economic analysis has left them preferring policies different than those preferred by most of the crowd here. I honestly, genuinely find this sad.

  • Tman||

    You're crying about comments on a
    blog being too uncivilized? Seriously? That's hilarious.

  • ||

    No, for being fucking retarded. I'm sad that the average IQ has fallen by about 20 points since Obama was inaugurated. All the great old posters of 2008 and before have moved on, and one does not wonder why. Somehow the crew at Marginal Revolution manages to run a libertarian-oriented economics blog without the comments being overrun by gibbering idiots.

  • Tman||

    Somehow the crew at Marginal Revolution manages to run a libertarian-oriented economics blog without the comments being overrun by gibbering idiots.

    so off you go and take your weakass arguments back to Marginal Revolution. Don't sit here and whine about it like a little baby.

  • ||

    All the great old posters of 2008 and before have moved on,

    Are you saying you miss joe? Fuck that guy. We need him around here like we need a second asshole. Which is to say, not at all.

  • hmm||

    Best of luck the door is that way. To come here and proclaim there are too many "gibbering idiots" as you post repeatedly makes me wonder who the gibbering idiot is.

    Enjoy your academic highbrow society, snarf a crumpet and pound a triple half calf latte for me homey.

  • ||

    All the great old posters of 2008 and before have moved on, and one does not wonder why

    Oh please list the "great posters of 2008". If you list joe I'll be so entertained.

  • hmm||

    More than a few of his colleagues on both sides of the economic aisle think he's a tard. Even if I knew nothing of economics I could easily for man opinion based on others observations. He's an academic at heart. He has no place in government or the market. Kind of like Krugman commenting on politics.

  • ||

    And it's part of a trend: any time Krugman or some other center-left economist gets mentioned, one is assured of comments decrying him or her as an idiot, a hack, a sellout, or some combination thereof.

    And every time a corporal in the German Army in World War I gets mentioned, there are comments accusing him of being a genocidal maniac! It's not fair!

    In other words, this is a political blog, not an economics blog. The only lefty economists who get play here are going to be the ones in the public eye, which basically limits it to Krugman and Summers. Those two have plenty of evidence for being, respectively, a hack and a fool, besides simply being liberal. No, I'm not going to list the evidence; the post this comment is attached to is evidence of Summers' foolishness, and a couple of posts down there's evidence of Krugman's hackery.

  • Josh S||

    A shitty economist is one who, based on his theory, makes policy recommendations that invariably blow up in utter disaster and leave a trail of financial ruin in their wake. You can have a very capable brain, have absorbed a wealth of literature, and be published in a variety of journals, and still be a shitty economist if you can't do the ONE job that an economist needs to do well.

    It's sort of like how I could memorize every Haynes manual and know all kinds of theory on how cars work, but if every car I try to fix explodes ten minutes later, I'm a shitty mechanic.

  • ed||

    It's really hard to make a compelling argument to relative authority when you're talking to a bunch of anonymous people.

    Careful now. You'll destroy the grand illusion.

  • ||

    I do not doubt that he is an expert about the economics related to his little finger. It's the other economics that cause me to give him the middle finger.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I know very little about economics. What I do know is that every single time I've heard Summers speak, I've gotten the distinct impression of a man who's greatest skill is telling his listeners what he thinks they want to hear.

  • ||

    And let's be honest - economics at its most fundamental is not some deeply arcane science. It is not a science at all. It is what Feynman called a "cargo cult" science with the form of science and its trappings and that is all. There are certain basic principles which will always hold true - sort of like the laws of physics. When the system becomes very complex as our's is you can contrive all sorts of intricate theories and you may be half right half the time, but in reality it's pure horseshit. If you ignore certain basic principles or presume - as the neo-cons did with respect to their NWO agenda that they could force the world to conform to their vision of it - that you can successfully and centrally manipulate a vastly complex system - a system that would naturally be self correcting without interference, then you are a fool and suffer from extreme hubris.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Norton,

    Since the article gives a nice example of how intelligent folks call someone a fool, is your comment the way intelligent folks Godwin (in a high brow double speak sort of way) a thread?

    the arrogance of vulgar Austrians and similar types is just breathtaking

    After all the only arrogant, vulgar Austrian I know is ...

  • Tman||

    I find it amazing that within GW Bush's first year in office he was dealt with a massive economic collapse of the market along with Enron and other investor fraud, followed by the worst attack on American shores in sixty years, followed by an enormous recession, and yet somehow the economy turned around.

    Yes, he helped light it on fire again by letting the democratic congress have its way with him, but what amazes me is how each passing day under the Obama administration makes GW look like a freaking genius who aptly played his hands and managed several large potentially disastrous catastrophes quite capably.

    Meanwhile it appears that Obama and his HAHVUD educated cast appear to be incapable of fogging a goddamn mirror without directions and a team of Czars.

  • ||

    "[F]ollowed by an enormous recession..."

    Objectively, the 2001 recession was not "enormous" in any sense of the word.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, it was pretty bad. What saved Dubya's ass was 9/11 and Alan Greenspan's asset bubble.

    Unfortunately, the people did not vote for another Harding or another Coolidge, instead voting for the American equivalent of Evo Morales.

  • 2999||

    How did 9/11 improve the economy!?!?

  • Old Mexican||

    Read that I wrote that 9/11 saved Dubya's ass, not the economy. I mean, his ass is not THAT big...

  • Tman||

    How do you mean "saved his ass"?

  • Old Mexican||

    Garnered for him enough patriotic support for a reelection. Otherwise he would have been out. 9/11 was his Reichtag Fire.

  • Old Mexican||

    That's Reichstag Fire.

  • Tman||

    9/11 was his Reichtag Fire.

    That's a tad hyperbolic, wouldn't you say?

    It's not like he imposed a freaking dictatorship. He barely won re-election against another former military man who had vast experience in Congress (although was a complete arrogant jerk). I think calling 9/11 his reichstag fire is a bit extreme. I don't necessarily disagree with you that 9/11 brought about patriotic enthusiasm, but I think people ended up voting for him again because he seemed to do the right things after 9/11, not because people were rabidly attending beer halls to scream about murdering jews.

    A little context would be advised.

  • ||

    Well, it broke a lot of windows in the Twin Towers ...

  • Tman||

    The stock market dive on 09/17/2001 was the third worst in history.

    http://www.mdleasing.com/djia-losses.htm

  • ||

    Thus demonstrating (as if we needed any more confirmation on this post thread today) that Emperor Norton is master of an empire that exists only in her head.

  • ||

    I seem to recall the Bush administration being the ones pushing TARP and the original stimulus package.

    And unless the Democratic Congress has finally solved the mystery of time travel, it's hard to see how they forced W to sign campaign finance reform, Sarbox, and NCLB into law, as well as pushing hard for the Medicare prescription drug funding, all of which occurred before 2006.

  • Tman||

    If all we had done was the original TARP, and not the other laundry list of bailout ridiculousness we've been watching, we might be better off now.

    I agree that the items you mentioned-campaign finance reform, Sarbox, and NCLB- were awful, disastrous policies that didn't fix anything.

    But these are peanuts next to what has happened since. None of those listed above have affected the economy in the way that the current administration policies have, and GW never dreamed of taking over the auto industry for instance.

    I agree that GW should've used his Veto power much more strongly, but he disappointed fiscal conservatives much more in the years after 2006 than in the years prior. I'm not here to defend him, but christ does Obama make it easy.

  • ||

    GW never dreamed of taking over the auto industry for instance.

    What on earth are you talking about? The plans for bailing out Chrysler and GM were initiated by the Bush administration. This is one of the reasons screaming about "Obama is a socialist" is so beside the point. The entire elite is socialist when it suits them, and it suits any sitting President who wants to get reelected to bail out a giant industry like the auto industry. Sure it's bad economics long term, but it makes short term political sense. Pretty much any President not named Ron Paul would have done more or less what Obama did, sorry to say.

  • Tman||

    GW proposed a bailout of the auto industry, but his terms were much more restrictive as to the availability of the funds themselves. I agree with you that Bush disappointed anyone who was hoping he'd maintain any type of conservative principle in regards to government bailouts, but my point is that what he proposed and what he did were light years smaller and less intrusive than what Obama and the Dems have done and continue to do. And my point still stands-Bush did not wish to "run" GM in any sense of the word, Obama has zero concern about nationalizing any industry for the sake of "spreading the wealth".

    I agree with you that politicians will do whatever they think they need to do to get re-elected but Bush wasn't up for re-election, and the difference between his government intrusion and Obama's is vast.

    I'm not saying what Bush did was right, I'm saying what he did was far less damaging to our Economy than what Obama has done.

  • ||

    Only because he left office a couple of months after the financial crackup occurred. Bush would have done everything Obama has done up to this point if he was still in office.

    And that's leaving out the fact that Bush's actions paved the way for Obama's.

  • Tman||

    Bush would have done everything Obama has done up to this point if he was still in office.

    CFC? The 1st time home buyers tax credit? Health Care Reform? Cap and Trade? KSM getting court in NYC?

    Sorry Tulpa, Obama has spent the last year trying to be the anti-Bush, you're statement makes zero sense.

  • 2999||

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach, end up controlling our economy.

  • ||

    And those who can't control our economy end up sitting in a corner masturbating with Rice Krispies stuck to their chests.

  • ||

    Those who can't control the economy, get to try anyway.

  • Ratko||

    Wake up Lawrence, the clean-up people need to vacuum under his chair.

  • Larry Summers||

    ** zzz ** snort ** smack **

    Wow, I was dreaming I won the Nobel Prize in Economics ...

  • hmm||

    The economics of global warming.

  • Rimfax||

    If Summers runs against Carly Fiorina in '16, we can nickname the election "The Biggest Loser".

  • louboutin shoes||

    Thanks for your sharing things! They’re gorgeous! We’re getting ready to launch our new online Christian Louboutin for smaller busted women, so I can definately appreciate all the hard work you’ve put into expanding your business! I know it’s quite a fete!!! Congratulations! Looking forward to seeing your shoes at more events and websites!

    Heat can’t distract from pure fabulosity… Love those shoes.When do they go on sale again? and please tell me they will be in size 11… The big foot girls also love choosing christian louboutin too! Because they are so fit you----girls,they will be your best choice!

  • ||

    The guy is advising an administration which implemented Cash For Clunkers. I don't care how much economics you know or have studied, you could literally sit around and try to be stupid and not come up with a worse idea than destroying working capital and productive assets.

    He is a crap economist.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    All the great old posters of 2008 and before have moved on, and one does not wonder why.

    Source? Link?

    Seriously, if you want to elevate the discourse, go for it. I understand to a certain degree where you're coming from, but ask yourself this: to what extent is it even possible to write an article an academics for the 'general audience', and to what extent does your assessment reflect on the 'general audience', the field of economics and the didactic or exploratory power of short form articles respectively?

    To what extent do you expect the discourse to be elevated above the understanding or aptitude for economics of the hypothetical 'John Q. Public, libertarian edition'?

    Thanks.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I'll also add that it's possible to make profound observations in this sort of format, then Krugman should do better, because I seldom (if ever) observe any sort of nuance or instructive quality to his articles. Instead, there seems to be a deference to the conventional wisdom of the adherents of modern leftist (Keynesian?) economics.

  • ||

    Emperor Norton is the guy who wrote glowingly about Karl Marx as an "interesting thinker" who took a long time to be refuted. That's not too difficult when you make vague and unfalsifiable predictions as Marx did; and with that context, it's funny to see him criticize Austrians for being too averse to experimentation.

  • ||

    Let's take a moment to define what 'economics'is.It is only somewhat involved with money, but it is totally about what people do with money. It is the only hard hard social science.

  • ||

    "Larry Summers: His Genius Can't Be Measured In Dollars"

    Ah. An economist who's accomplishments can't be measured in economic success. Next, you'll be telling me of a physician whose success can't be measured in medicine.

    *Sheesh*

  • ||

    As we see at the CRU, at some point the brain power of PhDs begins to spend all its time defending previous positions - right or wrong.

  • ||

    Looks like Timmy is still bitter about his Harvard rejection letter.

  • Adam||

    "McGill University of the South"

    I love it! McGill sells T-Shirts (or someone in Montreal does, anyway) that say "Harvard" in big letters, with a photo from that campus. And in smaller letters at the bottom, "America's McGill"

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tman,

    It's not like he [Bush 2] imposed a freaking dictatorship.

    Not a freaking one, just a light one (TSA, The unPatriot Act, the suspension of Habeas Corpus)

  • Tman||

    I agree, they were affronts to liberty, blahblahblah. But you can't draw a straight line between the Patriot Act and Jew ovens. Seriously dude. "Reichstag fire" it was not.

  • Old Mexican||

    Tman,

    Don't jump from A to Z - I said it was his Reichstag fire as a metaphor, not that Bush is a holocaust enthusiast.

  • Tman||

    I understand what you were trying to say, but Bush didn't "use" 9/11 in the way the Hitler used the Reichstag fire. Bush may have been helped by the patriotic response to 9/11 in getting re-elected, but Hitler literally used the fire as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government, thus allowing them to round up citizens en masse.

    I think it's a bit of a stretch to use that as a metaphor.

  • ||

    Larry Summers - Often Wrong, But Never In Doubt.

  • Christian louboutin||

    good

  • zoe||

    Wholesale sports outdoors,wholesale NFL jersey,wholesale NHL jersey,cheap NBA jersey,cheap MLB jersey,2010FIFAWorldCupSouthAfrica jersey,all of them are authentic quality and competitive price.click here to have a look:
    w w w brand-area c o m
    http://www.brand-area.com/cate.....tdoor.html

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • Michael J.||

    This segment is full of misinformation. Both David Stockman and Paul O'Neil RESIGNED from office; they were not fired by their CINs. They both resigned due to differences with the party's policies (Stockman increase in spending and O'Neil the war). Neither of their presidents fired them. Thanks for misinforming all the brainless puppets on this site.

  • xiena||

    I would like to know if you ever want to change your site layout? Well-written, I love what youve have to say. But maybe you can approach a little bit of content, so that people can better connect with it

  • han||

    I have to say this is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement