Superstars

Alex Tabbarok tries to explain inequality in terms of globalization- and technology-driven superstar effects, citing JK Rowling's billion dollar earnings as an example. He notes that a Homer or a Shakespeare could only sell their wares to relatively tiny audiences -- maybe 50 at a time in Homer's case or 3,000 for Shakespeare:

Tolkien's words were leveraged further. Tolkien could sell to hundreds of thousands even millions of buyers in a year - more than have ever seen a Shakespeare play in 400 years - by selling books. And books were cheaper to produce than actors which meant that Tolkien could earn a greater share of the revenues than did Shakespeare (Shakespeare incidentally also owned shares in the Globe.)

Rowling has the leverage of the book but also the movie, the video game, and the toy. And globalization, both economic and cultural, means that Rowling's words, images, and products are translated, transmitted and transported everywhere - this is the real magic of Ha-li Bo-te.

To me, there's no question that this kind of thing is going on. International superstars across fields now have a global customer base that allows the very most popoular -- most popular writers, musicians, baskteball players, hedge fund managers, lawyers, oncologists, etc. -- to earn windfalls far beyond the dreams of mortals. And insofar as this is a large part of the inequality story, it does tend to undercut highly moralized objections to the right being so darn rich. Rowling isn't doing anything wrong to get so rich. But on the other hand, insofar as this story is right, it also seems to me that the primary pragmatic worries one might have about pro-equality measures likewise tend to melt away. If the very best in a range of fields are just bound to reap enormous windfall earnings under current technological conditions then it seems unlikely that tax measures aimed at limiting the size of those windfalls would significantly deter anyone from doing their work. One doubts Rowling set about down this path because she thought it stood any reasonable chance of making her a billionaire.

Comments

Yes, it's true. But that same effect also allows superstars to do more good (when they choose to). Here's a great story about Bulls forward Luol Deng which mentions his efforts in Darfur, for example: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/mariotti/353744,CST-SPT-jay23.article

This type of thing would be impossible without the globalization of celebrity.

Posted by: IP Guy on April 23, 2007 08:41 AM

How do lawyers reap windfall profits in this model? Just bigger cases? I really want to know!

Posted by: minderbender on April 23, 2007 08:51 AM

Good point. Then there's that other effect: given that people genetically underestimate long odds, lots of people will flock to those big-international-winner occupations, hoping to make the big score, and failing at it, when they could have done something more useful in a non-winner-take-all field.

Posted by: Jim M on April 23, 2007 09:03 AM

Wow. It's your man Nozick's Wilt Chamberlin story all over again. Does anyone at all feel like making the moral case for inequality?

Posted by: Brian on April 23, 2007 09:07 AM

JK Rowling didn't do anything immoral to earn her billion, and I'm glad she has it. But the other side of this coin is that Shakespeare didn't do anything immoral to *not* receive his billion. So while the moral case against inequality might be somewhat softened, the moral case for progressive taxation actually seems strengthened: if the wealth of great authors is a function of the society they find themselves in, then Rowling "owes" more to society than Shakespeare did.

Posted by: Consumatopia on April 23, 2007 09:09 AM

Lawyers and oncologists aren't great examples. Globalization does some international patients to top oncologists, but their work is typically done in person, and relatively few foreigners have the money to fly in to Memorial Sloan Kettering or M.D. Anderson for months of treatment. If anything, globalization is putting downward pressure on medical revenues as third world countries with first-rate physicians (e.g., India) are drawing in First Worlders for treatment (medical tourism).

With respect to lawyers, globalization hasn't changed the reality that different countries have different legal systems and regulatory requirements. A great British lawyer can't walk into New York and start practicing law. One could, I presume, hire him as a consultant, but how much value would he be able to add? The only way I can think of globalization enhancing attorneys' profits might be if American trial lawyers are able to expand some of their work overseas, for example, by suing a multinational utility company for overcharging each customer by one penny per month -- the kind of cases they do here, where if you're in the class you get 50 cents and the lawyers get an 8-figure fee. Of course, to do that they'd need to work with local attorneys in each country and those countries' laws would need to be amenable to frivolous lawsuits. Then they'd need to be able to make the case to a panel of judges in most countries, rather than, say, a jury in Mississippi.

Posted by: Fred on April 23, 2007 09:09 AM

Consumatopia:

JK Rowling has provided entertainment to millions and employment to thousands (of film and publishing workers, etc.) as a result of her work. Why should she pay a higher percentage of her income in taxes than you? Even if she paid the same rate, she'd pay millions of times what you pay. Isn't that enough? You say she "owes" society; does she, who has contributed greatly to society, owe more than you? It seems more like society owes her.

I don't think I'll ever understand the fetish of progressively more confiscatory taxation.

Posted by: Fred on April 23, 2007 09:14 AM

Fred, the question isn't how much she should pay, but how much she should keep. And there's no question that she should keep many orders of magnitude more than a worthless nobody like me gets. Everyone agrees to that. But why does she get to keep so much more than Shakespeare did? Because she was born into a different society than Shakespeare was born in. Thus, the additional wealth she makes is in some sense thanks to society.

There are two causes of wealth here. You have to have great talent like Shakespeare and Rowling, and you have to be born in to a wealth-conducive environment like Rowling and Consumatopia. Only those with both attributes make a billion bucks. Yes, the talent deserves it's fair share of credit. But so does the environment.

Posted by: Consumatopia on April 23, 2007 09:25 AM

I dunno- I think Rowling's books, whatever their literary merits, were a one in a million success story and appealed to a whole bunch of people who wouldn't have brought children's books or possibly books at all. I don't think she say, squeezed other writers out of the market because of her success, or moved the publishing industry so that it was only interested in producing Harry Potter books (the relevant comparison here is George Lucas and Star Wars.) Some adults felt less embarrassed to pick up stuff labeled as "Children's fiction" afterwords, like the Lemony Snicket books, or Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials." However, it doesn't seem to have pushed away other fiction - Philip Roth and Ian McEwan, to pull two names out of the sorting hat wrote best-selling novels during the Harry Potter boom.

Here's a different angle. Rowling was on welfare when she wrote the first book. And after the success of Harry Potter, she's poured a huge amount of of money into the both the British economy and to the British tax coffers. Given that she probably wouldn't have been able to write the books if she hadn't had the financial support of state benefits, how much does her success alone pay for the British social support system?

Posted by: Davey on April 23, 2007 09:27 AM

Tyler seems to forget his economics training with surprising frequency: the globalization processes responsible for billionaire superstars has little to do with technology - its fundamentally about intellectual property. If Rowling (and her publisher) could not rely on an internationally enforceable system of intellectual property rights, her income would be a good deal lower. Rowling's wealth is a product of protectionist policies, not free trade or technology.

A system of support for creative artists that does not depend on current forms of intellectual property protection (such as that Dean Baker has proposed) would still allow Rowling to live an extraordinarily comfortable life, but would sharply limit the windfall gains to her and her publisher. A system of real free trade in creative products would not increase inequality to anything like the degree we see with our system today.

By the way Fred, Rowling is a socialist. She thinks she should be taxed at a much higher rate than people with lower incomes.

Posted by: Rich C on April 23, 2007 09:33 AM

To jump on the intellectual property train, maybe the relevant comparison to Rowlingisn't Shakespeare or Homer, but Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster, the creators of Superman. They created work in a created That's earned billions for a number of companies, most recently Warner Brothers, but Siegel and Schuster didn't share in the windfall, and had to sue and apply public pressure to get even a pittance out of the copyright owners.

Posted by: Davey on April 23, 2007 09:46 AM

"By the way Fred, Rowling is a socialist. She thinks she should be taxed at a much higher rate than people with lower incomes."

No one's stopping Rowling from paying whatever she wants to whomever she wants; I'm just saying she shouldn't be forced to pay a far-higher percentage of her taxes than less-productive, less-successful folks. In any case, I would be really surprised if Rowling wasn't trying to minimize her taxes in practice. Do you think she is filing out the British equivalent of the 1040 EZ? I doubt it.

Posted by: Fred on April 23, 2007 09:47 AM

Money has a diminishing marginal utility. If you can't see the injustice inherent in assessing the same tax rate to a billionaire on one hand and a person who makes just enough gross income to survive on the other hand, I don't know how anyone will be able to help you understand.

Posted by: JP on April 23, 2007 09:52 AM

Oops that ended up a word jumble- let's try again:

Extending Rich's point about intellectual property, maybe the relevant comparison to Rowling isn't Shakespeare or Homer but Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster, the creators of Superman. They created work that's earned billions in the global market for a number of companies, most recently Warner Brothers, but Siegel and Schuster didn't share in the windfall, and had to sue and apply public pressure to get even a pittance out of companies that were benefitting greatly from their work.

On the other hand, if Shakespeare had the ability to enforce current intellectual property laws on his works, and keep them eternally for his descendants the way the Disney company does, how many productions would there be of his plays every year? How much control would they have over reinterpretations of his work or more avant-garde productions? Would Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead be possible?

Posted by: Davey on April 23, 2007 09:55 AM

> Rowling isn't doing anything wrong to
> get so rich.

I have no problem with Rowling getting rich (or Larry Ellison for that matter). I have no problem with Rowling leaving $20 million or so to each of her children. It is the multi-generational, self-perpetuating $200 million+ fortunes, and the creation of an entire political-financial system designed to cater to those fortunes and their trustees, that is destroying our civil society.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on April 23, 2007 09:56 AM

Well, Fred, Rowling is saying that she should be forced to pay a far-higher percentage of her taxes than less-productive, less-successful folks. That's pretty much what being a socialist means. And there's nothing contradictory about her believing that those rules should exist and her obeying those rules in as advantageous a way as possible. That's the dialectic we here on Earth like to call "civilization."

Posted by: Bob on April 23, 2007 10:01 AM

Fred, Rowling's tax returns aren't public, so we could speculate all day on what shelters she does and doesn't use. She does continue to reside in England, rather than declare citizenship in a country with a lower tax burden, like the Rolling Stones did.

And as I pointed out upthread, she is a beneficiary of the welfare state. Writing a book takes a huge time commitment, and had she been forced to seek work, she probably wouldn't have written the book in the first place. Do you think the architects of welfare reform in America would approve of a single mother who spent her days in coffee shops rather than seeking honest labor?

Posted by: Davey on April 23, 2007 10:08 AM

Where did the Stones move to? I've never heard this story.

Posted by: JP on April 23, 2007 10:12 AM

I recall keynes in the general theory advocating that artists and the like should be taxed the bejesus out of since they love what they do and would continue to do it anyway. The practical problem with this of course is that tax codes make no distinction between those whose efforts would remain uninfluenced by a higher tax burden and those whose efforts would be affected.

Even in the case of someone like rowling it is impossible to know how such a burden would influence her output. Id agree that she'd still write if her tax burden was higher than it is currently but i'm not so sure upon seeing that she could retain a sizeable amount more in a different country for instance that she wouldnt relocate.

Posted by: pimp hand strikes! on April 23, 2007 10:17 AM

This is a bad argument. When MY writes, "it seems unlikely that tax measures aimed at limiting the size of those windfalls would significantly deter anyone from doing their work." He does not have any evidence to back up that claim, except for the anecdotal case of J.K. Rowling.

I don't think that there is a very good instrumental argument for having progressive taxation (although there is a good moral argument for progressive taxation). MY says that it will not affect how much people will work, but all the evidence shows the opposite, that all taxes will have an impact on productivity.

If we're to advocate higher taxes, we should do so on moral grounds. A more honest approach would be to say that, yes, there will be a loss of productivity, but, with proper spending, we will gain other things that we value (e.g., low inequality, equality of opportunity, universal health care, etc.). To say that increasing tax cuts will not "deter anyone from doing their work," even superstars, is dishonest. It will, but the benefits will outweigh the losses in productivity.

Posted by: golddog on April 23, 2007 10:17 AM

Honestly, when you get to the level of superstar artists like Rowling, all you have is anecdotal evidence- there isn't enough data to do a meaningful survey. So far as I know, no one has put forward the notion that J.D. Salinger hasn't published anything in 50 years is because the government would tax him too heavily. Ditto Harper Lee. There's a fair bit of speculation as to why Truman Capote published little of value (and practically nothing at all) after In Cold Blood. If there's a libertarian analysis of it, I'd love to see it. My personal suspicion is that Capote probably would have benefited from having 100% of his income taxed for a while (not that I'm advocating this as a general economic policy).

On the other hand, would Pynchon produce more regular work if he couldn't depend on his residuals from Gravity's Rainbow, or just crappier work more regularly?

Posted by: Davey on April 23, 2007 10:38 AM

Reminds me of the half-serious remark that British writers, who received grants through the government Arts Council, were not nearly as good as Eastern Bloc writers, who were often banned or imprisoned. The solution: dissolve the Arts Council and use the budget to fund a small but efficient secret police force, which would be devoted to persecuting Harold Pinter and his peers.

This proposal is appealling for all sorts of reasons.

Posted by: ajay on April 23, 2007 10:45 AM

I'm just saying she shouldn't be forced to pay a far-higher percentage of her taxes than less-productive, less-successful folks.

And dollars to doughnuts, you would have been telling her to stop spending your money and start scrubbing floors or waiting tables instead of working on that dumb book.

Shows how much you know.

i'm not so sure upon seeing that she could retain a sizeable amount more in a different country for instance that she wouldnt relocate.

And yet she chooses to live in Scotland, a country with a more redistributive fiscal policy than the English (as dictated by the Scots in Westminster).

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on April 23, 2007 10:48 AM

> Where did the Stones move to? I've never
> heard this story.

Back in the 1960s most of the big English music and movie stars changed their citizenship to lower-tax nations, the top rate in England at the time being something like 95%. That is why Sean Connery can't actually run for President of Scotland when they finally declare independence.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on April 23, 2007 11:20 AM

If one see's the phrase 'winner takes all' markets, this is exactly what they are talking about. The desirablility of Rowling books is affected by the fact that 'everyone I know has read them' and this is part of what makes the books desireable. Ditto for Microsoft Windows. This is called 'networking effects'.

This effect mostly comes from copyright laws. If one were to rewrite copyright laws so instead of them being 'time dependent' and basically running forever as they do now and encompassing an infinite number of copies, they were a right to a certain number of copies within a fixed time period, that would get the job that presumably needs to be done far better than using the blunderbuss of doing it through the tax system.

It's like 'getting rid of Big Pharma's profits'. If you think that Big Pharma makes too much money, getting rid of patents, a legally created monopoly, or shortening the life of them is a far better way than creating some big purchasing bureaucracy.

What to do about people who'd rather watch a pro basketball game on TV rather than go down to the local high school's gym is a bit more difficult to deal with though.

Posted by: j mct on April 23, 2007 11:26 AM

Regardless of whether Rowling benefited from the welfare state, she and everyone else, especially the rich, benefit from the state and society in general. Even if we had a minarchist state, the larger size of the economy and the guarantees of law and property enable people to get rich in ways that they couldn't get rich in prior eras. We shouldn't see a zero-sum game between government and the private sector--even if the government is bigger, people still have more room to maneuver because the economy is so much larger.

Posted by: Consumatopia on April 23, 2007 11:29 AM

Consumatopia - I don't disagree that Rowling owes something to society. But society also owes something to Rowling. In my opinion, those two debts simply cancel out, except when society does most of the heavy lifting.

For example, individuals shouldn't receive great riches by "taking" something produced via government money and then creating a monopolistic market for it. It happens, and it is wrong, but it isn't that common.

Back to the case at point, this issue isn't really about Rowling. She probably would have written the book whether or not she thought it would be a best-seller. However, I suspect that her publisher might have been reluctant to publish a book if they were worried about the profits being taxed at too-high a level. In that situation, the publisher might not have been willing to take the risk to publish her books in the first place.

Oh, and just because you believe that someone receives less marginal utility from dollar #2 doesn't give you the moral right to take it away from them. Flat Tax after the first $40k, for the win!

Posted by: jb on April 23, 2007 11:54 AM

AWWRRRGHHH! I hate that fucking word "leverage." It has a specific meaning in finance (investment made with borrowed funds), but that's not how anyone uses it, and it's certainly not how it's being used here. Tabarrok is using it to cover ideas like "larger scale," "technology," and "weeabbblurgh" simultaneously. Throwing it into the middle of a sentence that way makes it impossible to understand what he's arguing. It's meaningless garbage-talk.

Posted by: Antid Oto on April 23, 2007 12:52 PM

"Consumatopia - I don't disagree that Rowling owes something to society. But society also owes something to Rowling. In my opinion, those two debts simply cancel out, except when society does most of the heavy lifting."

Ah, jb stumbles into a trap. This is were it gets really easy to make the progressive case. So you think Rowling has contributed more to society than society contributed to her? Well aside from the fact that Rowling owes her entire wealth to the well fare state in England... Where would Rowling be without society? Dead in a cave somewhere? I think she's older than 40, so probably. And where would society be without her? Kids would read slightly less entertaining books. But its even easier than that. Because Rowling would have written her books if it would have made her just a millionaire instead of a billionaire. So we lose nothing if we propose an alternative society where we tax the rich at a higher rate in this example.

"Oh, and just because you believe that someone receives less marginal utility from dollar #2 doesn't give you the moral right to take it away from them. Flat Tax after the first $40k, for the win!"

It depends on what you think the basis of morality is. I'm not taking money from anyone. I'm taxing them for the use of society. And your argument contradicts itself within a sentence. You've proposed a progessive tax code, just one with two categories.

The more you examine the issue, the more you realize its not actually possible to evaluate these things on the basis of, well how would things be if they were different? And decide who owes accordingly. What is the alternative? There is no magical baseline. That is why Rawls proposes that we structure the society to have the structure that we think it ought to have. And to institute whatever economic policy required to attain it. Genius, I know.

Posted by: mpowell on April 23, 2007 12:53 PM

Cannot really say I comprehensively understand Rawls, not having read him, but I hear Rawls is all about making a case for redistribution, not for society needing money for providing exclusively 'public' goods. In that case it's society after the fact taking back some of the money it's members all gave to Rowling out of their own free wills as it were and redistributing it to back to themselves. Methinks Rawls does not apply.

I guess I'm not a genius.

Posted by: j mct on April 23, 2007 02:01 PM

The fact that some people are getting very rich isn't the primary problem with inequality. The big problem is twofold: 1) what isn't happening to everyone else: despite increases in productivity, wages have stagnated for most workers, with accompanying increases in costs leading to a declining standard of living and an increased risk of financial ruin. 2) The social safety net, which needs to be strengthened in an era of increased risk and stagnating wages, has instead been shredded. Meanwhile, the tax rate on the very rich has declined, exacerbating both the degree of inequality and the shredding of the safety net. The obvious solutions are to 1) raise taxes on the rich, in order to raise money to improve the safety net, and 2) strengthen unions, so workers have more clout to demand their fair share of productivity increases. Of course these 2 steps are precisely what the modern Republican party is designed to prevent.

Posted by: beckya57 on April 23, 2007 02:19 PM

I don't disagree that Rowling owes something to society. But society also owes something to Rowling. In my opinion, those two debts simply cancel out, except when society does most of the heavy lifting.

mpowell's comments are pretty good. I especially like the comparison to dying in a cave. If we were to offer Rowling a choice between Robinson Crusoe like existence on a desert isle or living in a modern economy with progressive taxation that would allow her to keep most but not all of the profits of her exchanges, I can't imagine her refusing such an offer.

Moreover, other than through progressive taxation it isn't clear how Rowling repays her debt to society. Yes, some people like her books and pay her accordingly. But there's still people who *don't* like her books who still pay taxes for the police and legal systems that allow such an exchange to take place. (Not to mention the literacy that expands her customer base.)

For example, individuals shouldn't receive great riches by "taking" something produced via government money and then creating a monopolistic market for it.

Oh, and just because you believe that someone receives less marginal utility from dollar #2 doesn't give you the moral right to take it away from them.

Well, if you're a utilitarian it does. If you're a Rawlsian you don't even need that--you just need to show that redistribution improves things for the worst off. Ultimately, property is just a social creation--a society agreeing to give someone exclusive access to a resource--and that implies that society has a great deal of discretion in the terms under which that property is held. Most human beings have a vague sense that the rules of the economy should be written to suit some sort of compromise between utility, equality, autonomy and merit. Diminishing marginal returns are relevant to the kind of compromise we would want between those things.

Posted by: Consumatopia on April 23, 2007 03:16 PM

Not being overly ideological allows a person to see the obvious. I'm with Matt.

Seriously, does anyone think JKR wouldn't have written H.P. books 4-7 is she's wasn't making millions? Honest economists acknowledge folks are not only motivated by cash.

Anybody making over $10 million/year isn't working for the money anymore. They're already making as much as they could spend. Actors make indie movies, players take salary cuts to play on a team with a shot at a championship, entrepreneur CEOs sell their companies to Warren Buffet at a discount so they can keep control of their firm, etc. Cash incentives obviously matter -- take note of how poorly teachers are paid in many areas.

Posted by: chris on April 23, 2007 03:42 PM

Back in the 1960s most of the big English music and movie stars changed their citizenship to lower-tax nations

Not actually true. They've changed their residence, but the small print of residence for tax purposes is handled differently in the UK than in the US, where citizenship entails filing with the IRS no matter if you've never set foot in the country. So while Ozzy Osbourne maintains his pad outside London, his accountant essentlally sets the number of days he spends in the UK. (Another reason why world tours are useful for rock stars: they can be crafted to maximise the benefits of residency and non-residency for tax purposes.)

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on April 23, 2007 09:54 PM

The real problem is rent seeking by CEOs and their ilk who have risen up the ladder by playing bureaucratic politics and who have little real knowledge about how to run their companies except to seek further rents. A recent example is the CEO of Sallie Mae, who has engineered a merger with two other banks competing in the student loan market. He gets 120 million dollars and the customers, facing monopoly, will see higher interest rates and more difficult access to colleges. Forgive me, I don't see the contribution to society (and given the fate of most mergers, the shareholders). I see this type of character as very different from the J.K. Rowlings, and even the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The Treasury could take 90% of that take and if discourages such activity, so much the better.

Posted by: Rick Kane on April 24, 2007 12:26 PM

The comments on the 'Harry Potter' phenomenom I see are divided between those who see this degree of inequality as a problem, and those who don't.

I do see this growing inequality as a problem, but not by any means the only problem.

So, First, I'll adress the inequality problem. This problem can probably be overcome by tweaking, rather than doing away with copyright laws. Recall that copyright was expressly designed "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" not only as a means to enrich the creators. Let us remember, too, that copyright is a special case exception to the general rule of freedom of speech, and that therefore in any freedom based perspective, copyright must be seen as a necessary evil, a compromise, limiting freedom of speech but providing incentive. The facts of the Harry Potter example suggest that copyright law, as it presently exists, is doing too good a job of enriching creators, and should therefore be changed. There are many ways to change it, for example limits on copyright term time. Another idea would be to limit the amount of copyright income that could be obtained, from a given copyright, although how this could be administered make it seem problematic.

From my perspective, the other bad things about the 'Harry Potter' example that many commentators seem to ignore include the shallowness and poverty of the writing and the widespread distribution of such a poorly written work. These problems are connected clearly to the first problem. In fact, nearly all policy changes that would address the first problem will also address the second.

Posted by: enigma_foundry on April 27, 2007 08:50 PM

Thanks..

Posted by: sevgi on January 31, 2008 02:12 PM

thanks ;)

Posted by: firefox indir on March 31, 2008 04:11 AM

thank you !

Posted by: firefox indir on March 31, 2008 01:10 PM

thank you

Posted by: html kodları on April 6, 2008 04:00 AM

thank you

Posted by: firefox indir on April 6, 2008 06:02 AM

thank you

Posted by: maswey on April 9, 2008 10:38 AM

matthewyglesias.com

Posted by: cep program, symbian program on May 5, 2008 02:37 AM

You will get access to our members only forum where I will show you how to make the most out of your video sites, how get your site listed in Google in about 24 hours, and how to use Web 2.0 techniques to build traffic to your sites.

Posted by: Estetik on November 28, 2008 06:06 PM

enkss youu

Posted by: videolar on December 3, 2008 09:33 PM

Thanks

Posted by: kelebek on January 6, 2009 08:53 AM

Thanks

Posted by: sohbet on January 22, 2009 07:26 PM

Thanks

Posted by: cet on February 1, 2009 04:46 AM

ThanX

Posted by: sohbet on February 18, 2009 09:14 AM

Thanks you ßy_SuSquN

Posted by: Sohbet on April 8, 2009 11:51 AM

Thanks you ßy_SuSquN

Posted by: Sohbet on April 8, 2009 11:52 AM

thanks.
boya
söve
dış cephe
mantolama
dış cephe kaplama
boya
izolasyon
e-ticaret
ısı yalıtım
söve
boya
dış cephe söveleri
söve fiyatları
söve imalatı
söve kaplama
söve nedir
söve sistemleri
söve firmaları
pencere sövesi
dış cephe süsleme
hazır söve
söve
siding fiyatları
siding
amerikan siding
kartonpiyer söve
cephe söveleri
söve harcı
dekoratif söve
boya dekorasyon
plastik boya
ısı yalıtım
dış cephe mantolama
mantolama sistemleri
plastik boya
dış cephe boyaları
antibakteriyel boya
astar boya
dış cephe macunu
saten boya
dış cephe boyaları
ahşap koruyucu
sanatsal malzemeler
boya fiyatları
dış cephe giydirme
cephe sistemleri
mantolama
dış cephe
dış cephe kaplamaları
izolasyon malzemeleri
dış cephe
dış cephe fiyatları
söve mantolama
pencere sövesi
siding
söve fiyatları
söve resimleri
söve nedir
mantolama
söve firmaları
söve kaplama
söve uygulamaları
strafor söve
prekast söve
söve imalatı
dış cephe söveleri
söve sistemleri
hazır söve
dekoratif söve
hazır söve
mantolama
dış cephe mantolama
dış cephe süsleme
söve tasarımı
söve dekorasyon
siding
söve çeşitleri
poliüretan söve
kartonpiyer söve
cephe söveleri
türkiye söve boya
söve resimleri
cephe giydirme
söve mantolama
strafor söve
söve çeşitleri
prekast söve
poliüretan söve
ısı yalıtım fiyatları
dış cephe ısı yalıtım
ısı yalıtım sistemleri
ısı yalıtım malzemeleri
boya malzemeleri
duvar boyası
yağlı boya
dış cephe boya fiyatları
fosforlu boya
ev dekorasyonu
dekorasyon
Теплоизолязия
Наличник
Краска
heat insulation
jamb
paint

Posted by: dış cephe on April 8, 2009 03:45 PM

thank you

Posted by: neon on April 29, 2009 07:48 AM

thank you

Posted by: neon tabela on April 29, 2009 07:49 AM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: coders on April 30, 2009 03:42 PM

online sikiş videoları online sıcak videolar organ alma ormanda sikiş videolar ormanda sikiş videosu oyun sikiş oyunlar sikiş pamela anderson sıcak paris hilton sıcak vid parmakla bekaret parmakla kızlık bozma penis sikiş pindik popüler sıcak videolar pornografija pornu sikiş videoları pozisyon alma priama profesyonel sikiş punci pussy anlamı pussy indir pussy ingilizce pussy sözlük pussy türkçe pussy şarkı pınar altuğ sıcak vide rasgele sıcak videolar rastgele sıcak videola resimleri alma resimleri bozma ronaldinho videoları rus am sikme rus bakire rus bozma rus erotizmi rus sikiş videoları rüyada bekaret bozulma rüyada bekaretin bozul sadece sikiş sarışın sıcak videolar seksas seksi am sikme seksi bakire seksi hamam seksi sikiş videoları seksi sozluk seksi ve sıcak videola seksi videolar seli bakire sert am sikiş sert am sikişi sert am sikme sert sikiş videoları sert sikiş videosu ses sikiş sesl bakire sesli sikiş sesli sozluk sesli turkey sesli türkce sesli çeviri sessiz bakire severina sex and the city 2008 sex and the city türkç sex and the city türkç sex and the city türkç sex and the city türkç sex and the city türkç sex and the city türkç sex videları sexishop sexshikayeleri sexsikızlar sibel can sıcak videol sibel kekili göt sibel kekili sikiş vid sibel kekili videoları sibel sikiş sibelkekilli videoları sikiş am sikiş sikiş am sikişi sikiş amator sikiş film videoları sikiş filmi videoları sikiş filmi videosu sikiş filmleri videola sikiş filmleri videosu sikiş hikayeleri video sikiş me videoları sikiş pornosu videolar sikiş resimleri videol sikiş sikiş videoları sikiş sokuş am sikiş türk sikiş sikiş videları sikiş videolar com sikiş videoları com sikiş videoları izleme sikiş videoları izlet sikiş videosu com sikiş videosu izlet sikişi videolar sikle am sikme sikme am sikme sikme amı sikme beni sikme göt sikme sikme hikaye sikme hikayeleri sikme resimleri sikme resmi sinema sikiş sk slike sokma sikme son sikiş videoları son sıcak videolar sonra sikiş sulu am sikişi sulu am sikme szex szexi süper am sikişi süper bakire sıcak adult videolar sıcak am sikişi sıcak am sikme sıcak am videoları sıcak erotic videolar sıcak film sıcak filmler sıcak görüntüler sıcak göt sikme sıcak hatun videoları sıcak japon videoları sıcak kategoriler sıcak kazalar sıcak komedi sıcak komik sıcak masaj videolar sıcak parti videoları sıcak reklamlar sıcak seksi videolar sıcak sevişme videolar sıcak sitesi sıcak temas videoları sıcak tv videoları sıcak videolar 2 sıcak videolar 69 sıcak videolar am sıcak videolar cenneti sıcak videolar com tr sıcak videolar downloa sıcak videolar indir sıcak videolar izle co sıcak videolar izleme sıcak videolar izlemek sıcak videolar izlet sıcak videolar net sıcak videolar org sıcak videolar seyret sıcak videolar sitesi sıcak videolar turk sıcak videoları com sıcak videosu izle sıcak şaka sıcak şakalar sım sıcak videolar tam sikiş videoları tampon bekaret tampon bekareti tarih tarkan filmleri tarkan seksi tarkan sesli tasarım tatlises filmleri taze am sikiş taze am sikişi taze am sikme taze am sikme videolar taze sikiş taze sıcak videolar taşucundan sikiş video tek sikiş telefon programları temelkuran bekaret tes temiz am sikişi tento transeksüel sikiş vide tube sıcak videolar turk amator turk arkadaş turk filmleri turk hatun turk hikayeler turk hikayeleri turk hikayesi turk kadınlar turk pono turk poro turk prono turk sek turk sesli turk sikişi turk videoları turkce adult turkce erotic turkce sek turkey arkadaş turkey sikiş turkish am turkish amator turkish bakire turkish chat turkish film turkish filmler turkish free turkish gamze özçelik turkish gizli turkish gizli kamera turkish gülben ergen turkish hatun turkish hikaye turkish manken turkish pono turkish porna turkish pornolar turkish pornosu turkish poro turkish prono turkish resimleri turkish sek turkish sesli turkish sibel kekili turkish türk turkish video turkish videolar turkish videoları turkish yerli turkish ünlü turkish ünlüler turkishporno turkishporno com turkishporno de turkiye arkadaş turkiye kadın turkiye sesli twistys sıcak videolar több tüm sikiş türbanlı sikiş videola türbanlı türk sikiş türk adult sikiş türk alma türk am sikiş türk am sikişi türk am sikme türk ametör sikiş türk amotör sikiş türk bakire bozma türk bakire sikiş türk bekaret bozma türk ce sikiş türk erotizmi türk filim türk filimleri türk filimlerinde siki türk gerdek sikiş türk gizli kamera siki türk gizli sikiş video türk gizli çekim sikiş türk grup sikiş türk görüntüleri türk göt sikme türk hatun canlı sikiş türk hatun sikiş türk hatunları sikiş türk hayvan türk karıları sikiş türk kızların sikiş türk kızların sikiş vi türk kızlarının sikiş türk kızlarının sikiş türk mature sikiş türk orospular sikiş türk orospuları sikiş türk orospuların sikiş türk orospularının sik türk porna sikiş türk pornoları türk sert sikiş türk sibel kekili türk sikiş com türk sikiş filim türk sikiş filimi türk sikiş filimleri türk sikiş filimleri i türk sikiş filmi izle türk sikiş filmler türk sikiş filmleri iz türk sikiş fimleri türk sikiş flim türk sikiş flimleri türk sikiş forum türk sikiş görüntüleri türk sikiş hikaye türk sikiş hikayeleri türk sikiş indir türk sikiş izleme türk sikiş izlemek türk sikiş izlet türk sikiş net türk sikiş pornası türk sikiş pornolari türk sikiş pornosu türk sikiş pornosu izl türk sikiş resimleri türk sikiş sahneleri türk sikiş seyret türk sikiş siteleri türk sikiş sitesi türk sikiş sokuş türk sikiş tube türk sikiş tv türk sikiş ve türk sikiş videolar türk sikiş videoları i türk sikiş videosu izl türk sikiş vidio türk sikiş vidioları türk sikiş vido türk sikiş vidoları türk sikiş vidosu türk sikiş vidyo türk sikiş vidyoları türk sikiş vidyosu türk sikişi izle türk sikişi izlemek türk sikişi izlet türk sikişi seyret türk sikişi videoları türk sikişi videosu türk sinemasında sikiş türk sıcak videolar türk türbanlı sikiş vi türk türbanlı sikiş vi türk videları türk videolar türk yapımı sikiş türk ünlü sikiş türk ünlü sikiş videol türk ünlüler sikiş türk ünlülerin sikiş türk ünlülerin sikiş v türk ünlülerinin sikiş türkce chat türkce konuşmalı sikiş türkce mp3 türkce sesli sikiş türkce sikiş com türkce sikiş filimleri türkce sikiş filmi türkce sikiş filmleri türkce sikiş video türkce sikiş videosu türkce sikişi türkce sözlü sikiş türkiye alma türkseks türkçe am sikişi türkçe am sikme türkçe arkadaş türkçe bakire türkçe fıkralar türkçe grup türkçe göt türkçe hikayesi türkçe programı türkçe sikiş videolar türkçesex com türkçesex hikayeleri türkçesex izle türkçesex net türkçesex video türkçesex videoları tüysüz am sikiş tüysüz am sikişi uzun am sikme uzun sikiş videoları uzun sikiş videosu uzun süreli sıcak vide uzun sıcak videolar vanile ve am sikme videoları ve göt sikme videoları vicevi videa video bedava video ilginç video indir video izle video sıcak videolar videolar görüntüler videolar sitesi videolar sıcak videola videolar tv videoları siteleri vidivodo sıcak videola web tasarım wives altyazı wives indir wives türkçe www am sikiş www am sikiş com www am sikişi www am sikişi com www am sikme www am sikme com www amsikiş www bakire www bakire bozma www bakire com www bakire com tr www bakire net www bekaret www bekaret com www bekaret org www en sıcak videolar www en sıcak videolar www göt sikme www kızlık www kızlık com www sikiş videoları www sikiş videoları co www sikiş videosu www sikiş videosu com www sıcak videolar com www turkishporno www türk sikiş www türk sikiş com www türkçesex x bakire x bakire com xnxx xnxx sıcak videolar xxi xxl indir xxl türkçe xxl şarkı yaglı göt sikme yalama am yalama sikiş yalama sikme yalamak sikiş yanlış yarak am sikiş yarak am sikme yarakla am sikiş yarakla am sikişi yarakla am sikme yarrak am sikiş yarrak göt yarrakla am sikme yatakta am sikme yavri net sıcak videol yavri sıcak videolar yaş am sikme yaşam yaşlı göt yeliz yeşilmen sıcak v yeni alma yeni sıcak videolar yerli adult yerli am sikişi yerli am sikme yerli bakire yerli erotic yerli sikiş videoları yerli türk sikiş yerli türk sikişi yeşilcam erotizmi yeşilçamdan sıcak vide you tube sıcak videola youtube am sikiş youtube am sikişi youtube am sikme youtube bakire youtube en sıcak video youtube kızlık youtube sikiş videolar youtube türk sikiş yu yırtılması zadarmo zar zarları zdarma

Posted by: Kadın Sağlık on June 1, 2009 12:39 PM

thanks

Posted by: idealsohbet on June 5, 2009 07:33 PM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif