Cooperation vs. Coercion

The conversation spurred on by Ken Ballweg, countering Vaclav Klaus contention that environmentalism always turns to state coercion, leads me to a cool article in the Wall Street Journal about the nature of cooperation and freeloading. It turns out that freeloaders–who can range from people jumping the subway turnstiles to large corporations dumping their toxic waste in our rivers–actually can be shamed into decent behavior. But only in non-authoritarian societies.

In the most sweeping global study yet of cooperation, a team of experimental economists tested university students in 15 countries to see how people contribute to joint ventures and what happens to them when they don’t. The European research team discovered startling differences in how groups around the world react when punishment is handed out for antisocial behavior.

Among students in the U.S., Switzerland, China and the U.K., those identified as freeloaders most often took their punishment as a spur to contribute more generously. But in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece and Russia, the freeloaders more often struck back, retaliating against those who punished them, even against those who had given most to everyone’s benefit. It was akin to rapping the knuckles of the helping hand.

In trying to understand the very big differences in the results from the different countries, the researches came to this conclusion.

Such a readiness to retaliate, researchers said, reflected relatively lower levels of trust, civic cooperation and the rule of law as measured by social scientists in the World Values Survey, which periodically assesses basic values and beliefs in more than 80 societies. In countries with democratic market economies, peer pressure goaded people to cooperate. Among authoritarian societies or those dominated more by ties of kinship, freeloaders instead lashed out at those who censured them, the researchers found.

It seems to me that the paranoia of people like Klaus, who experienced totalitarian regimes, may lead them to believe that cooperation around issues of climate change are not possible without state coercion. But this research shows that in most democratic societies, shaming of “freeloaders” like big polluters or drivers of Hummers, actually works.

This entry was posted in Economics, Energy Policy, Innovation, Science, Technology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Cooperation vs. Coercion

  1. Hugo says:

    “Peace by compulsion. That seems better than the other kind.” That was Twain’s wry comment on the first multinational [naval] disarmament talks.

    The shaming approach worked well for Mao in 1976. You can dispense with the brass knuckles when you’ve achieved total ideological control. Ideology’s a wondrous thing.

    Because no one could shame Mao’s murderous successors, the next Democeatic POTUS will sign onto a global environmental regime with toothy consequences for scofflaw nations such as China. And to play at that big table, the U.S. will be expected to ante up commitments so deep as to require nothing less than the restructuring of the American economy.

    Ah, the power! The festival of lawmaking and bully-pulpiteering! A liberal’s dream! No, it’s not about the pot farmers of Ferndale. It’s about the empowerment of the powerful and the insatiably power-hungry. It’s about the sort of person who, even before the dust had settled on Ground Zero, already was conjuring a federalized TSA and counting the fresh union cards and campaign foot soldiers.

    And when these things happen, then you’ll find out that conservatism is still alive and well, in the form of The Hulk.

  2. Hugo says:

    Excuse me. I’d meant to type “1967”, not “1976”.

    The iPhone remains innocent as ever.

  3. Jon Taplin says:

    Hugo- It’s late on Friday and your dystopian imagination is getting the better of you. We’re going to have to “restructure the American Economy” anyway. We cannot use 25% of the world’s oil with 4% of the world’s population for much longer.

    Let’s just figure out a way to do it without the Orwellian side effects. To get you out of your sour mood, check this out.

  4. Morgan Warstler says:

    1. Shame and other forms of private coercion are tremendous. Bring on more of them!!! It is proof we don’t need laws and regulation.

    2. Jon, you mis-understand Klaus. He isn’t saying “environmentalism always turns to state coercion,” he is saying the TRUE MOTIVE of liberals pushing environmentalism is growth of the state.

    This is why I challenge you to name ways to reduce fossil fuels by cutting taxes and increasing private investment, because it proves out what the most important thing is to you – it proves your true goals. If you REALLY wanted to get everyone to buy fuel efficient cars, you’d simply remove the sales tax on them. If you REALLY wanted to increase tech, you’d count investments in them as tax credits.

    Those are instantly acceptable ideas to your staunchest opposition, why not snap them up if you care so much?

  5. Hugo says:

    That did the trick, Jon. Thank you. How amazing, the two masters in duet! It makes me so happy!

    I miss the cape. Luciano brought his scarf, and James should’ve brought his cape of sorrow.

    What a trip. I’d sign onto Kyoto if it’d bring back those two.

    Did you know that the head of the Canadian Labour Party is such a Green goofball that he named his dog Kyoto? Strange but true.

    Good God!

  6. Ken Ballweg says:

    You’re right Morgan, I shamelessly want an increase in the size of government back to what it was on a per-capita basis before the Republican party turned anti-taxation into a electioneering slogan, and gutted the treasury for their own purposes. As in, we’re against taxes except when they directly help our bottom line and we don’t care if we actually give value, we only care that we get (I think that’s a Halburton mission statement)

    But accompanying that bigger government I also want a constitutional amendment that says campaign contributions are not protected free speech when they look and smell like bribes. I would be happy if it would take the form of making it criminal for any legislator to sponsor or vote for any legislation that is to the advantage of a direct or indirect campaign contributor over a certain level. (In the real world it’s called conflict of interest which has to be disclosed, and you have to abstain from voting if it is a conflict.)

    I’m damn fine with giving tax breaks for energy efficiency development. The sooner the better as long as there are clear requirement for a product that works within a reasonable time line, or anything else that would keep it from turning into a variation on Big Agra and the Farm Bill.

    I’m so fine with, and (full disclosure) took two tax break son a high milage cars. I’m fine with paying more taxes and vote for them every chance I get.

    Trouble is, just about everything I’m advocating will only happen after the next great depression which will happen when $(MIN) (a term I just made up, which I understand is the fashion these days) which is the minimum amount a person can survive on and still spend enough to keep the shopping malls open. As you know, because I’ve just told you so (another fashionable trend for “winning” arguments these days) when $(MIN) is exceeded for a significant minority because there are too many dollars taken out of circulation by Paris Hilton, then the whole thing falls down and goes boom.

    Beware the $(MIN). It is the anti-$(MAX) causing it to implode and requires endless public projects and new New Deals to restore the $(MEDIAN) if exceeded.

  7. Rick Turner says:

    Morgan, you are doing an incredible job of turning me and a number of others here off from your brand of libertarianism. You may want to reconsider how you are presenting your message in this and all other threads because you seem to be doing your cause a huge disservice. I used to lean toward the libertarian side of things, but you have made me see clearly just how mean-spirited the whole philosophy really is.

    Are all Libertarians really such assholes?

  8. Pete Wolf says:

    Hello again, it’s been a while but I’ve been distracted by the world outside the internet. Nice to see things seem to have taken a slightly leftward shift here (Morgan as ever excluded). Bravo Ken.

    Morgan – You’ve gotten back to a point you’ve been at before, and I’m afraid I’ve got to take you up on it again. You keep challenging us to take up market based solutions to prove how we’re committed to the environmentalist cause over and above any commitment to “big government” or the like. Most of us already support the kind of measures you put forward. It’s simply that we don’t think they are SUFFICIENT to deal with the problem, given what we understand about the problem itself. Advocating more than what you’re willing to accept because you declare small government by FIAT doesn’t mean we’re declaring big government by fiat in the same way, rather that we’re arguing that its necessary. You keep misinterpreting the structure of the argument so you can characterise us as dedicated to the principle of big government above all, and it’s just wrong.

    Jon – This discussion with Morgan does lead into a certain counter point to your optimism. Although it might be the case that this kind of shaming functions on individuals in democratic societies, I think assuming that it automatically extends to corporations is very problematic. Otherwise very ethical people in their private lives can make seemingly very unethical business decisions because they can separate out ‘business’ and ‘personal’ as different contexts for practical reasoning.

    Corporations are far more liable than individuals to see shaming not as a reason to change their core values and modes of action, but to manage their public image more tightly.

    In the face of this, what is needed is not market-based solutions (precisely because they are distorted by such PR and Marketing: for an example see the energy company E-on in the UK), but real sanctions that effectively guarantee the minimum necessary change (leaving open the option to those perhaps more ethical companies of doing more, for publicity of other purposes).

  9. Morgan Warstler says:

    “You’re right Morgan, I shamelessly want an increase in the size of government back to what it was on a per-capita basis before the Republican party turned anti-taxation into a electioneering slogan, and gutted the treasury for their own purposes.”

    But is it BIGGER now! So what are you actually suggesting? Do you want to return to a time when tax rates are higher, but tax receipts are lower???

    BTW, $MAX is an actual thing. It is knowable in real dollars.

    Rick, I’m not selling you on anything. I’m telling you where I think your grandiose vision runs smack into the wall of reality.

    Pete, I’m NOT advocating smaller government. WTF?? I’m saying we are very close to $MAX which is as big as the government can get.

    And since there isn’t much room to work with there than market based solutions are all we got left to fix this.

    This is NOT a libertarian argument. This is the final argument – there’s not much more we can take from the “wealthy” before we will get LESS in to spend. Certainly if Clinton could squeezed more out he would have.

    So sure you can raise Tax A, but only after you cut Tax B. And sure you can spend on Plan A, but only after you cut on Plan B. The damn Republicans spent all the friggin money. The bastards.

    You are all about A – but you are one note ponies on B.

  10. Rick Turner says:

    “To a hammer, every problem is a nail.” Morgan, try thinking outside your particular little box for a minute. Realize that a totally free market would come to be dominated by greed hogs who would stop at nothing to manipulate “the system” to their own advantage. The dark side of human nature makes for a great argument against unfettered capitalism. The guns will always win…

  11. Morgan Warstler says:

    MY GOD.

    I’m not advocating here a totally free market. How do you read “I’m NOT advocating smaller government,” and think I’m arguing inside a libertarian box? Rick, seriously, just because you you want to paint me as some radical anarchist, doesn’t make it so – I’m saying we can’t grow government much more without shrinking the economy.

    I repeat, I’m not saying we should reduce government, I’m saying it can’t grow much more. So, all of these big ideas, for say better education, require you to make big ole government cuts in normal liberal plans like social security, medicare, etc. Reality means we can’t take 20% more of the wealthy guys money and spend it on the environment – saying it does not make it so.

    Serious discussion is all about achieving new results with basically the same amount of tax receipts. We need real fossil fuel fixes in the next 2 years. In the next 3 years. And god damn it, the best way to do that is:

    1. With War Garden posters.
    2. Making energy efficient cars and air conditioners and solar panels not only tax free, but maybe offering tax credits when people buy them.
    3. Making investments in the same thing as paying taxes.

    Now if you want to have tax increases to offset those losses fine, but if you think a new president is going to come in and find new tax dollars, to have a fucking government program doling out money to universities doing research is going to get us off foreign oil you are frigging nuts.

  12. Jon Taplin says:

    Morgan- I really sick of you pushing this $MAX bullshit as if it were fact. As you well know it is just a renaming of the totally discredited “Laffer Curve” thesis pushed onto Reagan by Jude Wanninski. According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, “the “Laffer Curve” idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981.”

    No real economist takes your crap seriously and you just waste our time continuing to spew it on these pages. You are in fact as John Hurt says becoming a major prick. If that is your intention, you are succeeding. You could easily peddle your crackpot theories over at Instapundit or Pajamas media and be declared a genius. Are you just a masochist or do you truly want to come over to the progressive side and be involved in the politics of a post neoconservative nation?

  13. Pete Wolf says:

    Morgan – I’ll have to agree with Jon in that I don’t see this $MAX business you put forward as being particularly convincing.

    However, if you aren’t insisting on smaller government, and even if we hypothetically allow your ban on larger government spending, what prevents us from prioritizing government so as to provide funding for environmental solutions that are more substantial than your proposed market solutions? (e.g. partially nationalised and subsidized public transport infrastructure)

    If we’re prioritizing environmental (and energy scarcity) issues, why must we only engage in tax breaks and the like, rather than direct spending on positive projects?

    The other big question, when we’re specifically looking at the US budget, is why can’t we just cut the most obvious bit of overspend and reallocate it, i.e. the military budget? We all know your predilection for maintaining a very high military budget so as to enforce “energy security”, but it seems that given the vast quantity of money this requires (for questionable results) you’d be much better off putting much of that money to more direct positive uses.

  14. Rick Turner says:

    I do not believe that a truly interconnected society can rely on market solutions for everything, and we are in a community, state, national, and international interconnected society. Living this way…which we really cannot avoid unless we’re to live like a bunch of Ted Kozinskis, requires a a balance of cooperation and yes, sometimes coercion…laws that demand cooperation. It also requires that a lot of the infrastructure of our society be fairly managed for the better good. We have government run infrastructures like the road and highway system that work quite well. We have police forces that could work better. We have fire departments that put their very lives on the line for us, and that’s an interesting one…200 years ago we had private fire brigades who would watch your house burn down if you didn’t have their plaque on your front wall. We have a health care system that is “free market” and works like shit. We also have a power distribution system that is vulnerable to gaming by the likes of Enron…now there were a bunch of wonderful free market guys, right?

    I would favor a system of nationalizing the power grid and/or turning it over to local control with the proviso that local and individual generation of power be encouraged. Power providers would be paid per KWH at a rate that was sufficient to allow a decent profit, but all would be paid the same as once that power enters the grid, it’s worth no more nor less than any other KWH of electricity. Then let market forces work to benefit the most efficient of power producers; the less it costs per KWH the more profit will be gained.

    As a part of that, remove the cap on liability for nuclear power. That is an artificial subsidy for the nuke biz right there. Let the insurance companies decide if it’s worth insuring nuke plants. That might also encourage the development of some of the new apparently melt down proof nuclear technology, though storage of spent fuel still is incredibly worrisome.

    Then, in the spirit of “running the meters backward”, actually pay homeowners who produce more alternative energy than they consume. Here in California, the best an individual can to is to pay nothing, but if you produce more electricity than you use, you don’t get a check from PG&E. That’s certainly not a free market…a one way monopoly.

    A part of this philosophy is to look carefully at any services or infrastructure that results in a private monopoly, and the highway system and the power grid certainly meet that definition.

    Beyond that I think we also need to examine this whole idea that “competition is good for the consumer”. When companies have to spend inordinate sums on marketing and advertising for what are essential or mandated services (health or automobile insurance, for instance), how do we consumers benefit from all that money not spent on the service or product itself? I, for instance, would rather not be paying for Blue Cross or Farmer’s Insurance ads, yet I am with every premium check I send in. How is that efficient? I guess the libertarian viewpoint is that I could simply go without health and auto insurance…

  15. Morgan Warstler says:

    And the worm turns!

    See there, 40% of the top end earners isn’t enough for you is it Jon?

    You are after MORE – which makes you a liar. You want to pretend that given power its all going to just be Obama’s 39% top end income tax – but you have your sights set on much deeper theft.

    Let’s get down to brass tacks:

    When you raise income taxes to 40% on anyone making 200K+ and increase the capital gains tax (which is just dumb, but you want to do it anyway), and you magically stop the war in Iraq (cost savings $10B a month) – you are STILL just starting to pay down the debt – no new policies.

    So Jon, get off your dinner chair and fix me a sandwich, cause this fois gras is actually turkey shit.

    I prefer some REAL SOULFUL answers:

    Q: Do you actually think the above tax revenues and policy changes is enough?

    Q: If it isn’t enough, what do you do? REALLY, in truth, what do you do?

    Pete, I keep saying this, while I support the war, it has NOTHING to do with this argument. If you cut the war off, and if you cut the military budget, note that herein on these pages Jon has admitted we have serious military rebuilding to do for future style conflicts (need less jets, more counter-insurgency squads), but even if we pretend we’re going to cut the military say 20% – it MEANS BUPKIS towards serious change.

    Look, we been here before – for me this is a duplicate of 1992. No money left to spend.

    So, I can stand in the streets with you wimps and scream that we need change, but when it comes to actually doing the hard work, wherein it is mostly based on changing the current government model – which means mostly horrific ugly infighting amongst liberals for a bigger piece of the same damn sized pie – I’m the only one left, and your bored and the topic is too hard.

    When there isn’t enough, what do you do? That’s the $64K question, and if you don’t have the answer, why play the game.

    Note: Jon, Mundell is a serious Nobel prize winning economist – Reaganomics, the Euro, and China’s new economy – kicks the shit out of your flimsy boy. I promise you, Goolsbee calls him, “Sir.”

  16. Jon Taplin says:

    Rick-I think these ideas are quite good. My friend Dave Freeman ran the LA Dept of Water and Power, which is a municipally owned utility. When Enron was gaming the system in California, the DWP never had to raise its rates, because it ran its own plants. It had never bought into the “deregulation” racket.

    On your last point, the easiest solution is to allow companies to only deduct a percentage of their marketing expenditures for tax purposes (instead of the 100% in the current tax law). We already made that change for the deductability of business entertainment (remember the three martini lunch?) and we could easily do for marketing, except that the networks would raise bloody hell.

  17. Jon Taplin says:

    Morgan-Your whole theory is based upon the notion that a person earning $10 million a year will stop working if he is taxed at 41%. This is nonsense.

    To begin with, I have already gone through the budget exercise you keep asking for. You just ignore it.

    Second- The taxes I am advocating are VAT or sales taxes. I want a tax on gasoline or at least on imported oil. I think a nationwide VAT tax which would lower consumption and increase savings–collected and spent at the state level–would help us rebuild the broken schools, infrastructure and fund some of the commons based systems Rick is talking about.

  18. Rick Turner says:

    I’d love to have 5.9 million after taxes, and I’d work hard for another million to get another $590 K…

  19. Morgan Warstler says:

    Ok Jon, you are officially up to 41%!

    Do I hear 42%? Come on, you can do it man, say 43%!

    You were sooooooo sure it was only 39%, say it with me brother, “tax and spend liberal.”

    And of course, I want a consumption tax – a flat tax. So no go there. So, now you are both refusing to lock yourself into a top rate, or answer that Nobel prize winning oneupsmanship, huh?

  20. Rick Turner says:

    Nit picking, Morgan…tireless you are at that. Too bad it’s not the real issue, or you’d have solved all of our problems by now…

  21. Morgan Warstler says:


    Thats exactly what I’m doing here in the kitten’s den – at this very moment.

    Solving all your problems starts with getting your side locked into a tax rate – Jon was ADAMANT it was 39%, which leads to a very certain response – which I have delivered.

    Jon doesn’t like how that argument has been going, so he today, finally cracked and decided he wasn’t quite so adamant (let’s hope Obama has more gumption), higher taxes will solve!

    So we’re back at square one, he’s north of 41% and once I lock him down again, I’ll begin to beat on him again until he squelches 45%! OR you and he and the gang will start to focus on cutting social programs and stop daydreaming that foreign governments will believe more in our socialist backed bonds, than our own people do.

    c’mon that was kinda funny he said that, huh?

  22. Pete Wolf says:

    Morgan – As a small point, I don’t think Jon has committed himself to 41% of that matter. He is however arguing against your insistence that taxes couldn’t in principle be raised to 41%, and I think he’s put forward a pretty good case. Try to stop putting words in other peoples mouths.

    On the other point, it is indeed true that the US is in an absolute mountain of debt, and that it does need to start paying it back. However, this does not mean that absolutely all resources that can be devoted to such repayment needs to be allocated to that (at minimum you need to not punish your economy, giving you diminishing returns on those repayments as percentage of tax revenue). Nor does it mean that you could not get away with repaying at a slower rate than you’re capable of (despite the decreasing faith in the US economy it still has a lot going for it, which could be bolstered by a significant, but not necessarily all-out plan for repayment).

    This amounts to the fact that as long as you significantly increase tax revenue (particularly through repeal of the bush tax cuts, with the potential option of increased taxes on super-high earners, and increased capital gains taxes), and you significantly cut the budget (20% of military budget is nothing to sniff at, but you could quite feasibly go a lot further in my humble opinion, especially if you’re moving from a high-technology military to something better at handling ‘insurgency style’ conflicts; lets not forget the AG subsidies we all agree on slashing), you still have room for new positive programs as long as you are fiscally responsible, and project the image of a country both managing its economy and sensibly paying off its debts.

    This is even further justified if the positive programs you’re budgeting for are precisely designed to either stimulate the economy (e.g. public infrastructure projects, small business loans, etc.) or buffer the economy against increasingly problematic externalities (e.g. improved public transport, alt-energy, etc. to shore up against increasing oil costs). These kinds of projects are designed precisely to keep the economy from entering into the aforementioned diminishing returns on tax revenues.

  23. Rick Turner says:

    Morgan, once again I’d like to suggest that you either open up your mind to other possibilities…and probabilities…or seriously reconsider how you put forth your arguments. Your effectiveness here is moving deep into the negative numbers territory as you show us just how petty, pigheaded, self-serving, and greedy those of your political stripe actually are. You hide mean-spirited beliefs behind a false flag of freedom and individual rights.

  24. Rick Turner says:

    The maximum…or any income tax rate wouldn’t be such a bad deal if we, the American public, were getting out money’s worth out of our taxes. We’re not. Our money is being wasted on trying to maintain our biggest bully on the block status. It’s being wasted on corporate bailouts that wouldn’t have been needed if there was proper oversight and regulation. It’s being wasted on subsidizing agribiz (or is that “aggro”) giants whose oil guzzling habits are really going to slap us all up-side the head this year. It’s being wasted trying to hold us in this gasaholic lifestyle that loves NASCAR and Hummers and won’t insist on better CAFE mileage standards. Our money goes for bridges to nowhere in Alaska where we also subsidize cutting down old growth Sitka spruce trees for which “we” get less money than the cost of felling them in order to preserve jobs for loggers.

    I think if our tax monies were spent well, we’d all see such an improvement in the quality of our lives here that we wouldn’t mind paying as much as we are. Sure, the burden could be better shifted around, but there’s plenty of money to turn our country into a new energy, new economy paradise. There’s just too much greed, shortsightedness, and stupidity at the top, and the top is where the rules are made.

    Good leaders lead the way; they pull their followers forward. They don’t push from behind because you can’t see the road for the dust…

    Investing in America’s infrastructure and people (by way of education and health care) is the way to go, and it’s not private industry that’s going to do that. How are we to convince the world to embrace our concepts of freedom when we’re so second or third rate in so many categories in the world? Where do we lead? Industrial wages? Not there… Health care? Not there… Infant mortality and life expectancy? Nope… Literacy? Not even there anymore… Expanding middle class? No. But I’ll tell you, we sure have a lot more homeless people than we did 30 years ago…

    How did we get here? Bad government from both Dems and Repubs. I’ll make no excuses for Clinton nor Carter, but Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushwhackers have dragged our sorry asses pretty far down the wrong path, and their conservative and neocon buddies have tried to make it even worse.

  25. Morgan Warstler says:


    Since I’m comfortable seeing 40% taken from the $200K+ crowd, what’s so funny is that you want to keep calling me “greedy” – pig headed I understand, but “greedy” is friggin silly.

    I certainly agree that the money needs to be better spent. But this is what it is, this is what it becomes.

    “Bad government” since 1968? And you think I’m the pig headed one?

    Why must we once again all pretend there is some new hope? Why note actually recognize that “we are the change we have been waiting for,” and that change only happens when you on your side, deal with what government really is, and start telling your own supporters there is no more for them.

    40% isn’t the problem. Not having a specific $MAX that can be spent is the problem.

    There really should be a giant social network where every citizen is confronted with a well laid out graphical representation of $MAX and the ability to see how their own congressman and senator has voted to spend it, and to try and spend it themselves.

    The problem with the system is that proponents on both sides refuse to work within a limited universe of dollars to spend. Maybe there’d have been no war if there was a known limit on how much could be spent. But that same system would likely not of granted prescription coverage, tenur wouldn’t exist, and people wouldn’t be retiring until they are 75.

  26. Rick Turner says:

    Morgan, I’m fine with gradually ratcheting up the retirement age, but you can’t go from 65 to 75 overnight. I’m fine with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, though there should probably be some super-majority override proviso in case of extreme emergencies…you could even put it at 75%. There should also be a giant social network explaining clearly where our money goes, AND there should be a safety net through which those truly unfortunate may not fall. And I’d add to that social network things like single payer healthcare as most of the rest of the civilized world has AND public ownership of the power grid as I outlined in another post. Then regulate the hell out of financial institutions. Don’t allow the wild west gambling that we now see. Don’t bail out gamblers. Throw the bums in jail. Decriminalize all victimless crimes to make room for the bums. Reinstitute the CCC and get the homeless off the streets and into doing something useful like chopping brush in fire prone areas of the country. Support the arts. Get the military the hell out of most foreign nations. Reinstitute habeas corpus. Reduce the military budget by 50% and increase the foreign aid budget by 1,000%. Turn some navy ships into floating disaster relief centers that can go to places like New Orleans, Burma, China, Bangladesh or wherever in the world something has happened where folks need our help. Give the alternative energy folks the same kind of help that nuke and oil and coal have gotten over the past many decades. Do all that with our money, and watch the world want to be like us…

  27. These products are specifically designed to keep tthe skin
    hydrted and preveent dry, health xchange cracked,
    irritated skin.

Leave a Reply