|
 |
September 21, 2003 UNIONS AND CEOs....Jake Rosenfeld read this New York Times article on unions and wasn't impressed. Me neither:
Jake has his own take on this, pointing out that Wal-Mart, for example, which faces no international competition at all, stubbornly refuses to treat its workers as anything other than pack mules anyway. But I have a different question. Apparently "some industrial experts" have suggested that "unions are still not giving up enough to make their employers truly competitive in a global market." So my question is: can the Times find "some executive compensation experts" to tell us that "top executives are still far too highly paid to make their companies truly competitive in a global market"? Because while the real pay of unionized workers has indeed increased over the past 20 years, it hasn't increased much. Executive pay, on the other hand, has skyrocketed, increasing as much as 10x despite the fact that companies are not generally any better run today than they were in 1980, when CEOs earned about 40x the average wage compared to today's 500x. So if staying competitive in a global market is so critical — and who can argue with that? — how about if CEOs start limiting their pay increases to the rate of inflation? How can we possibly expect American business to compete in a global market when our executive class continues to make outlandish demands that make them far more expensive to employ than their counterparts in Germany and Japan? It's a mystery. Posted by Kevin Drum at September 21, 2003 10:49 AM | TrackBackComments
You're starting to sound Marxist, Boy. You violated the rule that you can never say anything positive about unions. Posted by: Barney Gumble at September 21, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINKThe difference, I think, is that corporations treat labor as a commodity, but executives as unique and essential assets. The alternative they see is not paying the same (or equivalent) executives less money, but losing critical talent at the top. Whether this is truly the case, and replacing Mr. or Ms. "I'm a Superstar Now Pay Me" with Mr. "I'll Get the Job Done for a Generous but Reasonable Salary" really would cost companies more money than they'd save, is a good question. Posted by: matt pfeffer at September 21, 2003 11:14 AM | PERMALINKI very much doubt that CEOs of today are wildly superior to CEOs of the 60s. The auction mentality is probably the cause of part of the increase in CEO pay, but the incestuous nature of compensation committees is another. The fact is, these guys just aren't worth what they're paid. What's happened is that corporate profits have increased significantly in the past 20 years, and executives have simply decided to use much of that increased profit to pay each other more. What *should* happen is that a bit more of those profits should be used on the average workers, and a *lot* more of it should either be used for corporate expansion or else returned to the shareholders. Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 21, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINKThe San Jose Mercury News had a great analysis a while back of some Silicon Valley companies and CEO compensation. The most richly rewarded CEO's were almost entirely at the worst performing companies. The whole phenomenon of "pay for failure" should be enough to disprove the idea that CEO salaries reflect a competitive market for talent. Also why does the business press think of labor organization as somehow unnatural and market distorting, but at the same time is willing to build into its structure shareholder organization? Posted by: Ranjit at September 21, 2003 11:30 AM | PERMALINKA nice posting, Kevin, and on an important topic. Two observations: (1) The business of executive pay -- already discussed to death in the comments to another posting a few days ago -- remains utterly infuriating and completely unsolvable. We can yak about it all we want, but the reality is that NOTHING seems to be slowing the gravy train for top executives. I tend to think that there will be no slowing, much less reversal, of this trend so long as the GOP controls Wasington. For the GOP will never consider reinstating high marginal tax rates which (notwithstanding the sputtering of the trolls) really is a demonstrated way to discourage such untoward executive compensation. At the same time, the GOP will never seriously consider legislating increased stockholder rights and control of corporations (indeed, it has in recent years done just the opposite), nor will it seriously consider truly tough rules banning conflicts-of-interest and manadating serious due diligence requirements on corporate Boards. If increased marginal tax rates aren't your cup of tea, these other methods are the ONLY ones I can think of that could serious put the brakes to escalating executive compensation rates. But the GOP appears pretty much opposed to them all, a position ever-so-consistent with the wishes of the nation's corporate executives. Should the Democrats ever return to power ... well, speaking as a frequently-disgusted Democrat, I wouldn't hold my breath for any of these changes anyhow. But there is at least a measureably greater chance of their passage under the D's. (2) You note the quote from the NY Times that some "experts" say "unions are still not giving up enough to make their employers truly competitive in a global market." I am soooo sick of this "global market" hooey! God, I fear I'm going to start sounding like a Green now, but the reality is that we will NEVER be able to compete against countries that have sky-high unemployment and treat their workers only slightly better than slaves ... countries that spend nothing on worker health and safety ... and either have minimal corporate anti-pollution laws, or never enforce them. We CAN'T compete against them, ever, except by emulating them (while waiting the 40 to 200 years it'll take for them to catch up with us in all these respects). If you're a corporate executive here trying to manufacture ANYTHING in the U.S., you must always be absolutely aware of what your competitors are doing. And what they are doing is clearly evident: they long ago figured out that they could cut costs dramatically by pushing most of their production offshore. (All it takes, really, is just ONE competitor in any industry). Try walking down any aisle in K-Mart, Target, Costco, or WalMart. I did this in a Costco the other day, actually. Just count the number of items made in the U.S. versus imports. Then look where most of the imports come from (these days it's China, by about 10 to 1). It is simply unnerving. One frequently wants to ask, "Do we make ANYTHING in this country anymore?" Too many economists (gad, I think even our beloved Paul Krugman falls into this category. No?) have cheerfully argued that we're becoming an "information" economy, an "intellectual services" system. Yeah, right. I'm a seasonal tax preparer. Took me a long time to learn to do this work. Guess what? Some of the big CPA firms are now subcontracting personal tax return prep to companies operating in Africa, India and elsewhere. The CPA firm uploads the data during the day, then drones making 45-cents an hour crank out the returns overnight. Just terrific. I can still compete against this, because tax returns are VERY personal for people. And the CPA firms tend to mark things up so much that I'm left plenty of room down in the H&R Block territory where I work. But in this same vein, I have friends in the Silicon Valley -- highly-trained computer programmers -- who've been unemployed for two years. The San Jose Mercury News Sunday employment insert I saw a month ago was a mere 6 or so pages ... mostly filled with ads for health care workers (nurses, yes, but also LOTS of low-paid CNAs and the like). There were essentially NO ads for high-tech workers. Everybody says, "Well, it's cyclical, it'll come back." But my friends are all pretty nervous right now, knowing as they do that India is cranking out programmers -- GREAT programmers -- like bottle caps ... and they can, ALL of them, as easily work from Bangladore as from Scotts Valley. And that, of course, is precisely what's happening: companies are beginning to hire their software needs from subcontractors in India, or opening their own offices there. It was a nice theory, that we could surrender most of our physical manufacturing to other countries and shift to a "service" industry of some sort. But the reality is that many intellectual services can be done remotely as easily (or more easily) as manufacturing. They can't export Walmart jobs, that's true, or most medical and legal functions ... but for a million other tasks, they can and they are. My own sense is that corporate America, at some fundamental level, loves this. I mean, these are the same guys who -- most of them -- would love to re-incorporate in the Caymen Islands if they could, right? It's not like they actually give a fig about the United States. What do the corporate types hate more than anything? Taxes. Unions. Environmental laws. Not necessarily in that order. What better way to give unions and environmentalists and OSHA and all the rest the middle finger than by opening factories where none of that sort of thing is operative? Yeah, I know, I really DO sound like a Green right now. Believe me, I'm not. But it behooves us, I think, to consider these things. Especially when -- on top of our GOP-implemented federal deficit and relentless unemployment figures -- few seem to be noticing just how big our trade deficit continues to be. (And, yes, I am aware that trade figures are debatable because they tend to miss a lot of things that -- if taken into account -- would show us in better shape. I'm no expert on all of that, but my sense is that even accounting for such things, we're still running pretty deeply in the red on it). I suppose this second point is somewhat off topic, but it really does point back to the issue you were discussing: the role of unions in the nation, and what they can realistically "concede" in order to keep us "globally competitive." In the end, I'm not sure that they could EVER concede enough to do that, not in a wide-open anarcho-capitalist world market. Posted by: Marsman at September 21, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINKI agree with you that executive compensation is often obscene, but at companies where this is so, payrolls are so large as to make the executive compensation a trivial portion of the overall profits, particularly as ordinary wages and salary have to be paid out of cash earnings, whereas executive compensation, which is largely stock based, is paid for by the shareholders via dilution of their earnings and therefore has no net effect on the health of the company, although it may have some trivial effect on the health of the shareholder's wallets. Posted by: Jane Galt at September 21, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINKAnd folks, be sure to buy yer liberal New York Times. Posted by: John Isbell at September 21, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINKI'm actually curious; what's the ratio of Citigroup's executive pay to total labor costs? I'm looking at filings, but I can't find a breakdown of expenses. Posted by: Jason McCullough at September 21, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINKAh, here we go. Citigroup had salaries and benefits of 11 million for the last quarter; quadrupling puts total annual Citigroup labor costs at 44 million. Compared to the friggin' *167 million* the CEO got a while back. Posted by: Jason McCullough at September 21, 2003 01:02 PM | PERMALINKJane: I'm not so sure that executive compensation is so trivial these days. Unfortunately, data on this seems impossible to find, but I have a sense that the compensation of, say, the top 5% of most F5000 companies is actually a pretty significant part of payroll and a *very* significant part of earnings. And the stock based compensation makes the whole things worse. Companies pretend that stock options don't cost anything and give them away like water, but the fact is that they cost a lot. People are finally catching onto that. Like you (I suspect), I would have a lot less problem with this if executive pay were genuinely tied to performance. But it's not. Execs are paid in cash, perks, retirement bennies, and stock options that are almost guaranteed to be lucrative unless they literally run the company into the ground. When was the last time any of us heard of a compensation plan that was genuinely tied to performance vs. comparable industry members? (This is by far my biggest gripe. Executive compensation has skyrocketed mainly because the economy has done well. But most execs have nothing to do with this, and are basically getting a free ride. Pay them on how their company does *compared to others in their industry* and you'd suddenly have a lot fewer rich execs. And let's get rid of options completely and go to straight grants of qualified shares. Easier to value, better as long term incentives, and fundamentally fairer.) Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 21, 2003 01:40 PM | PERMALINKThis is strictly anecdotal, but.... My old company had about 200 employees, so the top 5% would be 10 people (one of whom was me). Total comp for this group was about $2 million, I'd guess, for a company with revenues of $20 million and earnings of about $1.5 million. And we were actually a pretty low paid group by industry standards. I know this doesn't necessarily scale to F5000 size, but it's suggestive. I'd sure like to see some statistics on top executive pay at these companies and how it compares to total payroll and total earnings. Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 21, 2003 01:47 PM | PERMALINKExecutives' salaries aren't set in isolation, though. If a CEO got an Alex Rodriguez- or Richard Grasso-type deal, then you could pin it on the compensation committee. But such a broad trend can only be blamed on a widespread perception of the market for top executives -- consensus is, they're worth it. (I agree that there's a general willingness on such committees to over pay, for various reasons -- but the only reason they can get away with it is they can say, "We need this guy, we can't afford to let him get away," and people will believe it.) I do also suspect they're overpriced, in both the sense that current execs would do the same jobs even if they were only offered less-ridiculous wages, and that others could do approximately the same quality job for those wages if the current execs wouldn't. But at the moment, established executive talent can command high prices, because executives can find someone willing to pay them those prices. The question is how do we get there from here; it's not clear that current executive compensation packages, extravagant as they are, have great enough relative impact on those (large) corporations to really propel a counter-trend. Maybe corporations should unionize, and negotiate collectively.... Posted by: matt pfeffer at September 21, 2003 01:50 PM | PERMALINKThis thing became a problem when congress limited corporate deductions for top-level corporate salaries to $1 million per person (I'm simplifying) unless it was tied to some sort of performance benchmark in response to the last "ceo's are paid too much" brouhaha. The response was awarding options as they are ostensibly tied to "corporate performance" and also, instead of draining cash immediately, are harder to track the expense of (and see the GAAP rules saying you don't have to charge option expenses when they're awarded, though this may change). So, instead of paying executives in cash, most of which would not be deductible and so costs more than the actual $ amounts, they give executives options, which cost 0 according to GAAP and also can give rise to capital gains, taxed at a lower rate. Posted by: Ugh at September 21, 2003 01:53 PM | PERMALINK
But the American managerial elite are *far* more skilled than their German and Japanese counterparts in the critical areas of book-cooking, pension-fund raiding, tax jiggerypokery and the like. This is incredibly important stuff. If it were not for these gyrations, we would be forced back to strict GAAP accounting, which would be a catastrophe. Joe and Jane 401(k) would wake up one morning to the sudden realization that most of their household wealth is invested in companies at about forty times trailing earnings -- companies which are at the end of the day mostly pretty mediocre and slow-growing operations, with shares unlikely to ever be worth what Joe&Jane paid. It would apres-moi-le-deluge at that point. No, we need to continue to pay for performance (in financial hucksterism). National morale is dependent upon it! Posted by: marquer at September 21, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINKNow I can't disagree that corporate compensation may be too large but the objections and complaints about this are often totally fallacious and even entierly unrelated to the issue at hand. First let us consider the point made by a poster above and one which I have head many times in the media. The worst performing companies are paying the highest amount for their CEOs. Now while CEO salaries may be a large portion of total revenue for some companies (though in reference to the article I very much doubt it is a large percent of labour at the kind of companies with large strong unions, i.e. car companies etc...) I highly doubt that it is enough that the high CEO compensation is driving these companies down. Neither do I think (though it is possible) that for some reason more money attracts worse CEOs (it is possible that it gets people who have style over substance but I doubt this). In any case no one has any evidence for either of these claims. In fact the above correlation cannot even support the simple statement which is trying to be made, 'Higher salaried CEOs don't perform better.' Quite likely such companies, *because* they were doing bad decided to higher more expensive CEOs. Similarly perhaps we are merely seeing some phenomenon where companies not run by majority owners (who may not care about CEO comp) do worse. Any other of a dozen potential behind the scences correlation could explain this result. People who are smart enough to know that correlation often has nothing to do with causation shouldn't get tricked into believing it in the CEO situation. Secondly, the objection heard ad-nausem is that CEOs of today aren't blah times as good as CEOs of blah years ago. So what? Does this have *anything* to do with compensation? Since the market for CEOs of F5000 companies is so small quite possibly the market hadn't reached equilibrium back then, or the size and complexity of the companies significantly increased (thus making a smaller difference between CEOs more important). Even if basketball players hadn't improved at all since the 60s (and I douobt they have improved as much as their saleries (including endorsements) have they still would have seen skyrocketing salaries as it became apparent to the club owners and marketing people what a huge draw a good player could be. In short the relationship between CEOs of today and the 60s seems to be entierly meaingless. Furthermore it seems to me that it is the relative change in corporate earnings that an extra 50million dollars for the CEO will bring which is relevant to their compensation not absolute ability. In other words the price for CEOs should be affected more by their marginal improvement per dollar than their absolute performances. This brings me to another oft repeated remark that, though apparently absent from this discussion, is nevertheless implicit in most of these claims. The claim that somehow the amount that CEOs are getting paid is a failure of the capitalistic system, or that a true free market would not pay them this much. As for this let me just point out that a CEO managing a corporation the size of GM probably makes deciscions daily which affect the revenue of the company by hundreds of millions of dollars. Thus if raising a CEOs pay even a large amount increases his ability at making correct judgements even minorly it may very well be worth it to the company. Moreover, unlike the issue of paying the workers where a large labour industry makes it very clear what effect pay cuts etc.. may have it would be incredibly risky for a company board to try and not pay the CEO so much. Suppose you were a shareholder in a F5000 company and your company decided to jump into uncharted waters and only pay their CEO the same salary that was average in the 60s (plus inflation). Even if you are 90% certain that you a right and this won't affect the quality of the CEO that 10% represents such a huge risk most individuals wouldn't want to take it with their stock. Even if it is shown that CEOs salary doesn't really correlate well with performance this demonstrates a lack of discernment amoung corporate boards not some absolute fact that somehow CEO talent isn't 'worth' that much money. This brings us to another point always behind these discussions. Whether or not the CEO is 'worth' Y amount of dollars. Once again this is entierly irrelevant to the disscusion at hand. No one has ever claimed that the market produces some salary representitive of a person's worth in some absolute sense. In many respects a star basketball player is worth much less than a welder, after all the basketball player adds nothing too the productivity of the nation. Ohh and while I agree that a more progressive tax system is needed (largely because the very rich play this game for recognition for wealth which could be given despite high taxes) this is hardly related to CEO compensation. In fact many of the most wealthy individuals have gained their wealth through outright ownership which would be unchanged by any policy of CEO compansation. Finally, though there are many other things to say on this issue, why do people object to economically raising third world workers. Quite frankly providing a third world laborer with a 45 cent an hour job so that his family can eat seems far more humane than making sure a union member in the US can afford a color TV or a large house. While sometimes unions do good to defend the wages of the workers in contrast to the profits of the owning class far too often they function merely to selfishly keep wealth in the US at the cost of third world nations. If we really believed that people from other parts of the world are just as morally deserving as we are we would be in FAVOR of exporting jobs to their countries. Posted by: Quale at September 21, 2003 03:18 PM | PERMALINKThe Free(er) Market used to have a way to reduce excessive pay for
lazy execs. As Caligua (in I Claudius) says "set a dog, to catch a
dog". As movies like Wall Street & Pretty Woman remind you. Where are the raiders? Gone thanks to Congressional regs in support of Poison Pills etc., to save those poor, overpaid, low-performing executive VICTIMS of the raiders. Support takeovers!
If unions were willing to risk some bargaining for this, consulting the owners more directly, they would prolly get owner/ fund support for such internal rules. The union/worker connection with the owners should NOT be restricted to the management censored and endorsed path. Posted by: Tom Grey at September 21, 2003 03:19 PM | PERMALINKQuale, The reason out of control executive pay is important is that it is a sign of crony capitalism, not good management. CEO pay at many companies stays the same or even increases despite poor performance, and in order to do this compensation packages that were supposedly tied to performance get changed and performance targets are ignored by boards as they raise their friends salaries. Asking whether CEO compensation is big enough to drive a company to failure makes me think you haven't yet heard about the accounting scandals at Enron, Worldcom, Halliburton, Tyco, etc. It's not the pay that drove these companies under, it was the things the CEO's did to justify their pay. Posted by: Ranjit at September 21, 2003 04:06 PM | PERMALINKI know so little about the suit-think end of all this, thanks everybody for so much enlightening commentary. In Paul Krugman's essay on the dying middle class about 6 months ago, he elegized a certain civic responsiblity/shame mechanism that was part of the corporate exec mentality in the post-ww2 era up to the last few decades. I think the exec-superstar-smash-n-grab that's supplanted it will have to give way in its turn, but maybe not without another great depression. Sometimes that's all that can stop unrestrained ego, and the ego-worship that enables it. Posted by: Sharkbabe at September 21, 2003 05:04 PM | PERMALINKFor those interested in the causes (if not the effects) of skyrocketing executive compensation, see Rakesh Khurana's important book, Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs. Actually, having done some research on this topic for a paper (now stalled...), I came across a variety of interesting analyses out there - happy to share the citations if anyone is interested in learning more about what the "experts" are saying. Posted by: Jake Rosenfeld at September 21, 2003 07:11 PM | PERMALINKJason McCullough: Those numbers are in thousands, so it's actually $10 billion. A figure of $10 million, assuming an average salary of ~$33K, would imply that Citigroup has no more than 300 employees. (Lower down, it states that the number of Full Time Equivalents is 261,726. So I was a little low on the average salary guess.) Math! It's not just for breakfast. And yes, $167 million is still an insane amount to pay a CEO. Posted by: Alexandre Muniz at September 21, 2003 09:34 PM | PERMALINKTom Your analysis is so 1985. Takeovers aren't a problem for today's execs, because they get a $20 million payout to grease the deal. That's why the 1990s was a period of unprecedented M&A, but had very few hostile deals -- you didn't need to fight, all you had to do was bribe the CEO. And even in the few hostile deals, the CEO still got a multimillion walking away present becuase his board, not the bidder, gave it to him. Posted by: pj at September 21, 2003 09:40 PM | PERMALINK"And folks, be sure to buy yer liberal New York Times". Precisely, John Isbell! One does expect anti-union screeds from the NYT these days. Helga Posted by: Helga Fremlin at September 21, 2003 11:12 PM | PERMALINK"Jason McCullough: Those numbers are in thousands, so it's actually $10 billion." How embarassing. Thanks. Posted by: Jason McCullough at September 22, 2003 01:11 AM | PERMALINKQuale-- nor that i had the most best grammar... Posted by: kokblok at September 23, 2003 10:30 AM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:52 AM | PERMALINKdirty latina maids pics dirty latina maids pictures dirty latina maids sample videos dirty latina maids trailer dirty latina maids trailers dirty latina maids video clip dirty latina maids videos exploitedmom exploited mom exploitedmoms exploited moms exploited moms gallery exploited moms movie clips exploited moms movies exploited moms movie sample exploited moms mpegs exploitedmoms pics exploited moms pics exploitedmoms pictures exploited moms pictures exploited moms trailers exploited moms video clips exploited moms video gallery metart met art met art gallery Posted by: street blowjobs at June 30, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINK
You may find it interesting to visit some helpful info in the field of http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-555.com/ texas hold em http://www.worldwide-holdem.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em http://www.bestdeals-winner.com/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdem777.net/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.texasholdemsite.net/ texas hold em http://www.playandwin777.com/ texas hold em http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack http://www.bestgames-winner.com/ blackjack http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-winner.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjacksite.net/ blackjack http://www.playandwinit777.net/ blackjack http://www.tramadol-4u.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.tramadolsite.net/ tramadol http://www.gethelp24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.worldwide-online-pharmacy.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ online pharmacy http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacy2004.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy ... Thanks!!! Posted by: texas hold em at August 2, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINK5435 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 01:10 AM | PERMALINK8872 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com 5845 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 2971 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 01:28 PM | PERMALINK3763 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 06:38 PM | PERMALINK4033 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 13, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINK4778 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 08:40 PM | PERMALINK7849 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 7426 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 09:54 PM | PERMALINK4270 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 6453 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 24, 2004 06:02 AM | PERMALINK2153 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 06:07 AM | PERMALINK3861 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 09:41 PM | PERMALINK1268 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 07:04 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
