Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. Andre Gide

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Taken Out Behind the Woodshed

Been out of commission for a while. (Had Lasik surgery on Monday -- I can actually see now -- which will no doubt please those who accuse me of blindness). And I have just now read the replies to my previous two posts. Not very pretty. I'll have a few things to say about this. Before I begin though, I would like to take a moment to thank all my supporters out there:'ve both been great!

When I originally contemplated the idea of Macromania, I thought it might be a cheap and interesting way to learn a few things. By and large, it has turned out to be a successful experiment (for me personally, at least).

But not everything in the experiment has turned out well. My more thoughtful postings were met with thoughtful replies, followed by fruitful discussion. My more childish personal attacks on people I did not even know were met by counterattacks of a similar nature by people who do not even know me. I am now reminded of a useful Bible lesson: As you sow so shall you reap.

There is nothing wrong, I think, with the harsh criticism of an idea. Having a stupid idea does not make one stupid. But it is another thing altogether when one criticizes a person. And here I confess to having gone too far. There are probably times and places where personal attacks might be justified, but I don't want Macromania to be a venue for that sort of activity. Nothing good comes of it.

So I would like to clear the air. Both Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong deserve far more respect that what I afforded them. (Let me also toss Ron Paul in there, who has at times found himself in my crosshairs). My ego is not so large as to expect that they would welcome an apology from me. But I would like to apologize nevertheless, for the record, if for nothing else.

And while I'm clearing the air, I would like to reply to Mark Thoma's post here. Mark takes some justified jabs at me. But he also misrepresents me along a few dimensions. Again, for the record:

[1] I am neither for nor against fiscal stimulus in the form of government purchases to combat a peacetime economic crisis (I have repeatedly said that I am an agnostic whose beliefs on the matter vary over time as I am exposed to more evidence). I have, in fact, made arguments elsewhere in favor of fiscal policy as a redistributive mechanism (but sadly, in my view, redistribution is never mentioned in this debate; it's all about the effect of G on Y).

[2] What I am against is the practice (perhaps it is unintended or simply a product of my imagination) of seducing the public into thinking that our "science is settled" on any given question. Greg Mankiw's more cautious approach as exhibited here teaches us how to persuade without being dogmatic.

[3] I have never, as far as I can remember, disputed the logic of fiscal stimulus in a NK model with zero nominal interest rates. But the NK model is not the only game in town. There are competing frameworks (for example, the so-called New Monetarist framework) that are no less plausible and may deliver very different answers to the same policy question. We need to keep an open mind and avoid making bold assertions on the basis of a single model.

OK, now let's go do some economics.


  1. Seems to me what you really need to do first is to go to your archives and edit them with the strikeout tag in a highly promiscuous way.

    Just saying...

    Brad DeLong

  2. David,

    Very big of you to post this. Not at all common to see a mea culpa these days.

  3. Very gracious post. What bothered me about the original was not the harshness of the language but the idea that some people are simply not qualified to speak on certain issues. I believe that we need (and should welcome) voices from outside our narrow areas of specialization.

  4. I hope you continue to write posts, especially ones that make macro accessible to laypeople. I follow Mark Thoma, Brad DeLong, and Paul Krugman regularly and was very interested to hear your critique.

  5. Having taken an undergrad macro class with Prof. Andolfatto, I was a bit surprised by some of the nastier comments left by others. From my experience, he has always been generous with his time and seems genuinely interested in helping those who are truly trying to learn Economics.

    It should be noted that he posted some of the nasty course evaluations he received from students on his office door at SFU! So maybe he's got thick skin or a truly wicked sense of irony.

  6. I agree with the above commentators.

    I'm surprise Brad, who certainly isn't shy about being rude about people he disagrees with, isn't satisfied with this.

  7. Indian stock market recommendation is one of the fastest growing markets. Major stock exchanges like NSE and BSE are also growing in terms of volume, traded contracts and turnover on regular basis.

    Now the question is how to select best stock pic of the day for intraday trade and positional trade? In this regard sharetipsinfo comes into the play.

    At Sharetipsinfo we assure you high accuracy and our tips are based on technical analysis.

    Once you comfortable and gains confidence than no one can stop day traders and investors from earning profit from the stock market.

    Have confidence and trade without emotions and see how things changes for you in short while.

    For any query feel free to contact us


  8. If I may: you are far too kind.
    I will put it this way: many economists-bloggers that we can broadly define (Neo?)Keynesian have views that I personally see as misleading and incorrect, but I think you can have a fair discussion with them and eventually a gain from this discussion (among them, Mark Thoma for sure).

    However, this is absolutely not true with Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong. They don't discuss, they wrestle. They label any economists that do not agree with them as idiot or in denial or crazy. Their arguments with Cochrane are a good example of this strategy.

    Seriously, you have two options: either you don't enter in argument with them, or you wrestle too. Once you decide to wrestle, I don't think anybody can blame you if you get rough, and if they blame you... well, if they can't stand the heat, let them out of the kitchen. It's a tough world out there, fellas.

    I really hope you keep wrestling. We need more wrestlers in these sad days for the dismal science, otherwise the PK-BDL views will pass as the Thruth.

  9. Apologizing to Delong and Krugman is a fools errand.

  10. I always thought of Delong and Krugman as front-line apologists for US colonial policy.

    Would love sedate both of them, and then ask them for their personal "willingness to kill" assessments for various Mid-East colonial objectives.

  11. I do agree that we should attack ideas and not people.

    But I saw nothing wrong with your earlier posts.

    We're not talking about useless trivial things here. We're talking about $800 billion dollars and life-long deficits we leave our children.

    Further, we're talking about what we should expect from our government. This is what matters. Does anyone think that more government spending has made Greece or Venezuela better off in terms of unemployment or output? So why exactly does it make the US better off right now?

    These are big powerful issues that deserve serious debate. I'm not comfortable with the sharp turn that this country has taken with respect to its spending and bearacracy -- starting with Bush 2 (expansion of Medicare, and creation of intelligence chief) and continuing with Obama (cash for clunkers, stimulus package, etc) -- and I'm willing to yell if that's what it takes to get noticed.

    Morris Davis
    PS Congrats on Lasik, it's a life changer.

  12. I for one am astonished. A strident, sarcastic internet personality, responding to criticism, checking their snark, and moderating their position? I can count the times I've seen this one one hand. Big of you to resist the myriad diminishing incentives of internet discourse. (I'll admit here that while disagreeing, I thought much of your snark was hilarious.)

    I'm agnostic about your agnosticism about government purchases to etc. You're a professor and I'm not, but my impression has always been: (1) that Neo-Keynesian stuff is pretty clearly superior; the rest is buoyed unjustly by a combination of (2) understandable geekish glee plus strong incentives to put technical detail over empirical power (I thought RBC models were really cool until I read about how hard it is to get them to match the data... and how hard it is to get the states of the agents therein to match the experiences of real people in real recessions) and (3) a startlingly regressive political agenda, which taints, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously, the discourse in a number of influential venues. As you know these are very subtle issues, and it doesn't take much to capsize the debate.

    Of course by contrast, I have the mother of all startlingly progressive political agendas. And I haven't even your expertise to stand on. But perhaps you'll find it helpful to hear from someone outside your bubble, if inside a different one.

    Greg Mankiw's approach strikes me as a great one, heavily to be preferred in the context of candid discussions of economic issues, in an evenhanded environment. You've made the first move in reestablishing evenhandedness, so I feel it behooves me to respond in kind. (Though apparently many of my comrades in arms disagree.) Still three points: (1) I don't agree exactly with Greg; I could nitpick much of his tax section, and it seems he isn't considering liquidity traps, which are key to the position he's trying to question. (2) I worry that he's giving aid and comfort to the enemy. On the strength of his Questions he's clearly the kind of guy you can sit down and have a conversation with, but since the profession includes a number of people who aren't, I have to wonder about people who keep trying to reach across the aisle. (3) Most of the important discourse doesn't take the form of "candid discussions of economic issues, in an evenhanded environment."

    Most of it is an attempt to shape policy. Policy is itself shaped by a political environment that as we all know has an only rudimentary understanding of actual economics, and has a very sticky conventional wisdom. The sorts of things that challenge that conventional wisdom effectively bear little resemblance to the sorts of things that work well in candid discussions among professionals. And perhaps regrettably, the people that are good at saying the sorts of things that shape policy are almost always bad at candid discussions among professionals, and vice versa, when there are obstacles to be overcome.

  13. Finally, I think the risk of public stridency is less that the public will be seduced to the impression of certainty, and more that the public will conclude that it's all bunk. (Pretend you know nothing, and read Krugman vs. Cochrane. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that their economics is little more than scaffolding for their politics. Certainly this is the conclusion I most often encounter among my liberal peers.)

    Though I consider this a great tragedy, I'm personally willing to sacrifice econ's public reputation to ensure that the boilerplate of movement conservatism doesn't go unchallenged. Sorry. As a progressive who values justice over geekiness, my dominant strategy is "be Paul Krugman." I'm bucking all my incentives right now, by being candid, though I myself am so insignificant that I can afford to indulge myself in this fashion. My impression is that most people on the other side have an analogous dominant strategy. Can we change the game?

    (Over 4096 characters? Whoops. Time I worked on my brevity. Hope it's nevertheless worth reading.)

  14. I agree with Morris here that we should yell to have any chance against the current NK wave but then again, namecalling does not help to be listened to and a more constructive approach is needed.

  15. 如果成為一支火柴,也要點亮一個短暫的宇宙;如果是一隻烏鴉,也要叫疼閉塞的耳膜。..................................................

  16. Good post.

    I've read Krugman for ten years and he's still my favourite writer. When he takes someone down it can be brutal, but his victims can always respond with a better argument, if they have one (often they don't - they just get angry instead).

    As for being an agnostic on fiscal stimulus, I think its not a great position. From my point of view common sense, a solid body of theory, and a solid body of empirical research indicate that fiscal stimulus most likely has positive effects on Y. So to have prominent economists come out and assert otherwise based on something like the treasury view is frustrating (especially when there are millions of unemployed). And all too often these guys don't have open minds themselves - they are dead sure Keynesian economics is simplistic and wrong and they've said so for years. Maybe they should thank Krugman for giving them a kick in the pants...

  17. Patrick:

    I am agnostic partly because fiscal stimulus means different things to different people (temporary vs persistent, consumption vs investment, spending vs tax cuts, during peacetime or war, during financial crisis or not, developed vs underdeveloped economies, and so on and so on).

    Even when one is willing to grant that G may have increased Y (rather than the other way around), there remains the question if such a policy is in any sense Pareto improving (or is it simply redistributive). Is employing out of work construction workers the right thing to do, or should they be allowed to relocate to other occupations? I simply do not know enough to take a firm stand one way or the other on this matter.

    On the other hand, you appear more convinced. This is fine, of course. I am genuinely curious to know, however, precisely what sort of evidence you find so compelling? Are there time series plots or cross country observations that make the case glaringly obvious? Or are you relying on the results of econometric studies (and do not cite recent studies, as I imagine you've held your view for quite some time)? I am really curious to know.

  18. David

    I was referring to spending, during peacetime, when stuck at the zero bound (so crowding out isn't an issue).

    I don't see why spending has to be Pareto optimal, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

    If its a choice between employing out of work construction workers or having them move to other professions that were currently in demand I would go for movement, but I think the current choice is between employing them and having them join the ranks of the long term unemployed, with all of the social and personal problems that entails.

    I had the recent Eichengreen-O’Rourke study in mind - but I admit there isn't a great volume of solid empirical evidence for believing in spending stimulus because there aren't that many examples of being up against the zero bound.

    Finally, I would just like to ask (like you, out of genuine curiosity) which of the arguments against spending stimulus you find most compelling (if not entirely convincing). And if you were forced by circumstance to set aside your agnosticism (such as if you were somehow catapulted into power), what would you do in the current situation?

  19. Patrick:

    Well, one thing I think we have to ask is with respect to what sort of shock got us to the lower bound to begin with. The nature of the shock may have some implications for the appropriate policy response (Krugman models the shock as a negative taste shock, which I find implausible).

    On Pareto, I think its easy to construct models where G stimulates Y (a basic neoclassical model does this). We may even be convinced that this happens in reality, at least some of the time. But neither of these two things necessarily implies that it is socially desirable to increase G.

    Note: I was a construction worker (in Vancouver) when the recession of 1981 compelled me to find a new profession! But your point is well taken, nevertheless.

    To answer your last question, let me refer you to an earlier post of mine:

    Would be interested to hear your comments.

  20. David,

    With regard to your Japan post, I think you raise some good points that I don't have the answers to. However, I think Posen makes a good case that Japan's structural deficit remained limited in the 1990's, except for 1995 (which was, after all, followed by a better 1996).

    I'm not sure that looking at high level numbers from the Penn tables tells us much about the government's structural deficit and true fiscal stance, but I admit I would like to see an explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the data you present on government purchases and Posen's data on structural deficits (any takers?).

    On the question of the social desirability of increasing G, I think the pareto improving condition is a bit too academic. I think the most important thing is getting the unemployment rate down.

    I would hold this position even if getting unemployment down now resulted in a hit to growth later, the effects of which were more broadly distributed across society. However, I don't believe increasing government debt will slow down future growth and I haven't seen any convincing studies that would sway that opinion. Could you be more specific as to why increasing G might not be socially desirable, assuming it increases Y?

  21. Patrick:

    OK, I think that we are getting somewhere now. In your third paragraph, you say that the most important thing is to get unemployment down. Ultimately then, you are prepared to argue in favor of stimulus because of its desirable redistributive effects. I have repeatedly said on these pages that if this is the way you want to argue, then fine. Just don't tell me that increasing G is going to increase my Y as well.

    By the way, how can you be so sure that getting the unemployment rate down is the right thing to do? I can write down models where the proper thing to do is to provide the unemployed with consumption insurance and let the unemployment rate go UP (effectively subsidizing their job search investments, making sure that they make a good job match).

    As for your last question, let's think about a wasteful war (Vietnam? Iraq?). Increase G in a war typically leads to an increase in Y; but I would hardly want to claim that this is socially desirable. Would you?

  22. David

    Right - I'm not a regular reader so you'll have to forgive my ignorance of your other posts.

    With regard to writing unemployment insurance to subsidise the job search and your earlier example of a construction worker moving to another industry, your assumption seems to be that, rather than an overall lack of aggregate demand across industries, there is only a lack of demand in certain industries. But at present the US has, what?, 15 million unemployed? And if we use Okun's law (rule of thumb) and historical US experience then the economy needs to grow at around 3 percent just to maintain unemployment where it currently is (due to population growth, productivity improvements etc.). So really, the US needs 4 or 5 percent growth to make a good dent in unemployment. To argue that unemployment can be reduced just be shifting workers between sectors of an economy that is growing at 3 percent overall doesn't seem plausible to me. But, as always, I am willing to hear specific arguments.

    As for you last paragraph, you admit that increasing G does lead to an increase in Y in the case of war - why is this type of G spending special? And when I spoke about examples of increasing G not being socially desirable, I was assuming you weren't going to use examples like "say the government increases the budget for killing people"!!

  23. Patrick:

    Naturally, I should not expect you or anyone else to know everything I've written!

    You have to understand that to me, the phrase "an overall lack of demand" makes little sense conceptually. I ask myself, what does this *mean*? I might, as Krugman and others do, think of this as an economy-wide exogenous increase in the propensity to save, at least temporarily. But really...does this sound plausible? There must be other, deeper causes, at work. And the appropriate policy response likely depends on what these deep factors are.

    Having said this, you might want to look at this earlier post (ignore the annoying tone and focus on the substance):

    As for G on Y, a "legitimate" war is special because this is what society wants. Society is willing to accept the crowding out that goes with war. This is what happened during WW2: G went way up, Y went up, private spending tanked (consumption modestly, but investment greatly). This is what neoclassical theory predicts. It also shows that such a response is socially efficient.

    Now, just repeat the exercise above, except assume that G increases exogenously (not in response to the will of the people). You don't have to assume that the government will kill people with G. Just assume that it is allocated to various special interests and that some of it is wasted in the process. You still get an increase in G causing an increase in Y (with crowding out). But the effect is reduce "social welfare."

    On a separate, but related issue, there is the question of how NIPA records G. Because there are no market prices for many objects in G, NIPA records value according to cost. So, if the government hires a worker, this automatically increases G, even if the worker produces nothing of value. (This does not occur in the private sector, because the increase in wages is offset by a corresponding decrease in profit).

    Alright then. Going back to the beginning, you suggested that my agnoticism on this complicated issue was not a good idea. I remain as confused as ever. Has this discussion sharpened or modified your own views in any manner? I think you have to agree that there is a lot we simply do not know.

  24. David

    Starting with your last para first, I am enjoying finding out more about your position and, yes, it may even be sharpening my understanding too.

    But I would like to say that just because someone takes an essentially Keynesian point of view, that doesn't mean they haven't studied the other side. In my case, I have a masters in economics and have written down plenty of dynamic macro models - so it certainly isn't news to me that the partial derivate of Y with respect to various parameters (including G) can be small or negative under various assumptions. This is why I am somewhat dissatisfied with answers which simply point out that models/circumstances exist where G doesn't have a great positive impact on Y. What I would like to hear are arguments as to why we should believe those models are valid under current conditions!!

    Anyway, onto substance. With respect to the link you provided, I don't think the fact that capacity is growing in some industries during a general decline in AD is inconsistent with the AD thesis. I am currently at a conference where some big fish in the energy industry have been pointing out that the US became the largest producer of gas in the last two years. Why? Because domestically produced shale gas has displaced imports of LNG. So while US domestic consumption of gas has fallen, US domestic production has risen. Examples like this show that the relationship between demand and supply can be tricky, especially in a world where production can be shifted.

    In regard to your reasoning on war spending, as I understand it you are basically saying that a popular war doesn't lead to crowding out whereas other forms of government spending do lead to crowding out. I think that is a very tricky argument to make but, more important right now, there is the zero bound argument with which you are already familiar:

    Can you be specific in what you object to in Krugman's argument? Or is he just using a framework that you can't work within, not even to reject it?

  25. Hi Patrick:

    Clarification on war spending: I did not make it clear. Both a popular and unpopular war will lead to crowding out (in general). And both will (according to neoclassical theory) lead to an increase in Y. But general welfare is higher only in the popular war. (I make this clearer in "Fiscal Multipliers in War and in Peace.")

    What I object to Krugman's "argument" is that he expresses it incoherently. To appreciate his incoherence, one has to dig deep to discover the hidden assumptions that support his assertions. Some people (Christiano, Eggerstson, etc.) have done a better job at explaining the logic (and making clear the important underlying assumptions). I will have much to say on Krugman later on, but for now, I would be curious to know what your thoughts are on this piece:

    These guys are working with a NK model of the type Krugman professes to know and love. And yet, their implications for the desirability for fiscal stimulus are very different. It is these types of results that Krugman simply does not appreciate. He has made up his mind, and everything he knows can be expressed in a simple diagram.

  26. David

    I think this piece is exactly the sort of thing that Krugman has been asking for - a model based approach to the fiscal stimulus debate. A few quotes from his blog:

    "Ever since I got into this fight, I’ve been trying to explain that there isn’t any model there. Eugene Fama, at least, and perhaps Cochrane too, began this debate from a position of complete ignorance — not understanding at all the logic of Keynesian models (even for the purposes of debunking), and imagining that the savings-investment identity necessarily implies 100-percent crowding out. There was no deeper logic.

    Matters are different when we’re talking about, say, John Taylor’s anti-stimulus arguments; there is a model there, so we have to discuss the assumptions of that model and whether they look plausible. (I say no, but at least we’re having a real discussion)."

    As for the paper itself, I confess that I just don't have time right now to do it justice and really understand it. But having skimmed it I am a bit sceptical about the idea that government spending leads people to think that things are worse than they thought. As we all know, the stimulus bill took a while to pass, and there was no shortage of horrendous news about the economy in the period leading up to the bill's adoption, so my initial position is that I just can't believe the bill added any new information about the economic situation, either positive or negative. Anyway, I hope to read the paper in more detail.

    Finally, in regard to Krugman's use of, well, undergrad IS/LM diagrams, I disagree with you that they are simple. I think that someone who really understands these diagrams, who appreciates that the level of savings is not fixed but endogenous, who understands how the supply and demand for loanable funds and for money interact, has a relatively sophisticated understanding of the economy. Its an understanding that, as Krugman and Delong pointed out, Fama apparently did not have. In addition, Krugman is writing a popular blog that is meant for the layman - he can't go writing down dynamic general equilibrium models in that forum.

  27. Patrick:

    Your defense of the K-man is admirable. I remain skeptical of the man's scientific integrity; he is a political creature. (Nothing wrong with this--it's just that if you're the latter, don't try to pass yourself off as the former).

    I am rather sceptical of that paper too. But I do like the following point they make: whether fiscal stimulus is desirable or not depends on the type of shock hitting the economy. This is something that PK and others appear to have difficulty getting through their head. They do not think of the shocks seriously (just exogenous preference shifters).

    Patrick: you're language has slipped in your last paragraph. No one thinks of savings as "fixed" (what are you thinking?). Keynes, chapter 14, criticizes classical theory for taking Y as exogenous in the saving function (assuming that it was R that cleared the market). Keynes was wrong on this too (any RBC model, for example, endogenizes Y). I'll write a post about this.

    You are right though that the microfoundations underlying IS-LM are not trivial. But this is my point, they are complicated and their details frequently matter when ariving at a conclusion. Simple diagrams hide these details and allow a pontificator (?) to spew BS. Also, while PK writes a blog, he also posts "wonkish" papers. His wonkish papers are never fully worked out. So what's the excuse there?

    I am going to make a sequence of posts that I think you'll find interesting. Well, at least, I would like to have your feedback when they appear. At some point, I have to stop criticising and offer an alternative. I'm looking forward to this.

  28. David

    With regard to my comment on savings as fixed, yes, my language was a little loose. I was referring to the idea expressed by some fairly prominent people that if the gov borrows a dollar then that necessarily means there is one less dollar available to the private sector (which, of course, can be true under conditions of complete crowding out, but is not true in general).

    I look forward to reading your posts.

  29. Dear Visitor,
    Market is showing some good move. Nifty traders are now confused if they should go short in Nifty from current level of 5400 or should go further long. NSE and BSE are the two major stock exchanges of Indian stock market. Keeping in mind that many investors and traders are very much confused with the current market move, we have stared posting " title="technical research reports"> technical research reports These reports are highly accurate and are available for free.

    Stock market investment if done with proper research and updated knowledge than it can give very lucrative results. There are four basic golden rules of stock market which are to be followed. (

    Nifty is on its peak now and is turning volatile. Investors are suggested to book long delivery positions soon. As after some more upmove we can see profit booking in the market soon. Investors are suggested to grab quality stocks at lower level again.

  30. I agree with Morris here that we should yell to have any chance against the current NK wave but then again, namecalling does not help to be listened to and a more constructive approach is

  31. Hi everyone

    Indian stock market is very volatile. Due to recent Correction many investors and intraday players suffered a lot. However , as we did previous also we are here to give you
    good news that Sensex is expected to show a upward rally of 1000 points.

    We suggest you to keep your Positions intact . This is just the beginning, Long way to go
    for Sensex and Nifty.

    Distance Education Courses
    Regular Courses
    Professional Courses
    Engineering( BE) / (B.Tech)
    Engineering (Diploma)
    Medical (MBBS)/(BDS)
    Study Abroad
    Marine & Shipping Courses
    Aviation Courses
    Call us 9830088088, 9804236100, 9883086212

  33. India need higher education, to boosteconomic growth and social development. We provide counseling for admission in professional courses in India and abroad.

  34. Many real estate developers have decired the move terming in a bad and illtimed one and are wary if the sector will witness a downward trend in the coming days.

  35. Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. Ill definitely return.

    share tips

  36. You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the issue and found most individuals will go along with with your website.

    Thanks & Regards,
    Stock Market Tips

  37. very nice thanks for sharing

    hey friend see snow on google
    Type “Let It Snow” on @Google If you click and drag you can wipe the snow away. It is great.

  38. You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.

  39. Thanks so much for this! I haven't been this moved by a blog for a long time! You’ve got it, whatever that means in blogging. Anyway, You are definitely someone that has something to say that people need to hear. Keep up the good work. Keep on inspiring the people!

    stock tips,nifty tips,commodity tips

  40. thanks for this post. I especially think #1 is a great tip., This post makes a great point about focusing your efforts.

    stock tips,equity tips | Currency Trading Tips,Forex Tips,Forex Pairs

  41. It's glad to see good information being convey. Its a very nice written, and I really like this blog. Thank you for sharing this info.

    Regards: Share Market Tips

  42. The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lot of great information which can be helpful in some or the other way. Keep updating the blog, looking forward for more contents...Great job, keep it up..

  43. I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained I'm sure you had fun writing this article.

  44. Useful information shared. I am very happy to read this article. Thanks for giving us nice info. Fantastic walk-through. I appreciate this post.

  45. This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free.

  46. thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

  47. Art is not life, nor a reproduction of life, but a representation carried out within the specific terms, conversion and limitations of the particular art used. Hence absolute truth, with reference to objective fact, is not to be found in the business. The most realistic art is considerable removed from reality. Art does not give real things or imitations of real things. The thing that art gives is strained first through the artist’s selections and judgments, and then through the specific techniques with he used to present them. If you are to enjoy an art, you must first accept its terms.

    1. Great blog. All posts have something to learn. Your work is very good and i appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts

  48. This is the first time i am reading your post and admire that you posted article which gives users lot of information regarding particular topic thnaks for this share.
    Most of the people celebrate their silver and golden jubilee marriage anniversary for successfully completion of so many years with our life partner happily and enjoyably..

  49. Hi, I am a Indian Stock market tips provider and I like to read article or blogs, mainly I read all blogs, it is my habit to collect information where ever I can, it will never waste ,today I caught your nice blog and it is written nicely with good content.....I appreciate it....

    Bullion tips
    MCX tips

  50. this is the first time i am reading your post... i must say you have explained it very well... thanks for sharing with us.
    Share Tips

  51. Thanks to you! Finally I got some stuff in your blog post related. I was searching for some material related to matter included in post. Very useful and very informative. Thanks once again and do share some more posts if you have!
    Intraday Stock Tips