Thursday, January 21, 2010

Tiger Shortage? Not if Markets Are Allowed to Work

"The Telegraph reports that there are now fewer than 50 wild tigers left in China. The selling of tiger parts has been banned for many decades, yet tiger numbers continue to fall. The policy fails yet many persist in defending it.

There is a market solution: the commercial farming of tigers."


~JP Floru on the Adam Smith blog

38 Comments:

At 1/21/2010 9:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, no one has an incentive to protect while many have incentive to use = tiger shortage.

I wonder how you harvest tigers at a tiger farm? by hand or mechanised?

 
At 1/21/2010 9:36 AM, Anonymous morganovich said...

this is a bit more complex than his analysis.

it depends upon several factors:

first, tigers must be "farmable" on a cost effective basis. i find it difficult to believe that you can raise and feed a tiger cub to adulthood profitably at anything like prevailing prices.

second, if the former is not true, poaching will not stop. you can farm all you want. if it's still cheaper to hunt the wild ones, they'll get hunted.

tigers don't work like oil where it gets harder and harder to get the last one like it does the last gallon. there is also a population dynamic in effect (i learned about this studying fisheries which behave differently than other natural resources).

if you reduce a population too far, mating pairs cannot find one another. push a population past a certain point, and it just collapses even if you leave it alone. in a population as small as this, inbreeding becomes a big issue as well. i have no idea if 50 tigers is even a genetically viable population as is.

 
At 1/21/2010 9:37 AM, Anonymous morganovich said...

ps - the best thing that has happened to tigers is viagra...

 
At 1/21/2010 10:18 AM, Anonymous Frank said...

Leave it Carpe Diem to imagine "free market" for Tigers.

The problem is enforcement of the laws against killing tigers in the wild.

It's a shame such a beautiful and regal animal may not exist in the wild, in the near future.

 
At 1/21/2010 10:20 AM, Blogger Webutante said...

The success of tiger farming can be seen by reading Mark's link to Mr. Floru's post. It is heartening to think when it comes to saving Chinese tiger species, there's more than one way....er.....to skin a cat.

 
At 1/21/2010 10:35 AM, Anonymous Inguestu said...

@morganovich

The situation is ALWAYS more complicated than presented here. This ought to be called "Everything I Know About Economics I Learned in Kindergarten."

Jarred Diamond in his epic Guns, Germs, and Steel talks about the relatively few animals which have been domesticated. Only a few other species are farmed.

We can see from over-fishing that there is a Tragedy of the Commons at play which leads to overconsumption, a MARKET FAILURE.

The knee-jerk, obsessive fascination with markets never prompts certain people to consider HOW you farm a giant predator cat. One should wonder how these uber-libertarians think we can stop illegal poaching of tigers when we can't stop illegal growing and use of drugs.

Most of the demand for tiger parts is superstition based. You're fighting against a ghost. Enforcement isn't working because penalties are not SURE and severe enough. The government doesn't have enough resources into stopping it, is subject to bribes to look the other way, and it isn't cost effective.

So markets are certainly worth a try as a last gasp, but as the price of tiger goes up to ration them, the incentive for poaching remains. Demand outpaces the ability of tiger to breed naturally. It's doubtful we could even artificially inseminate and get enough supply. Tiger litters in captivity average 2.8 cubs and gestation is 100 days. Does anyone think that would satisfy demand?

And like the problem of new bridges attracting more congestion, having a greater supply of tigers might even incease demand.

Yes, this is a LOT more complicated than parroting "free markets."

 
At 1/21/2010 10:41 AM, Anonymous morganovich said...

webutante-

i think you are misinterpreting the floru piece.

those "private tigers" are not being raised for parts. they don't get sold for medicine. they are are pets or on preserves.

yes, that may preserve the species, but it does nothing to help the wild ones apart from maintaining a suitable genetic pool for possible reintroduction in the future.

 
At 1/21/2010 10:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The situation is ALWAYS more complicated than presented here. This ought to be called "Everything I Know About Economics I Learned in Kindergarten."

I'm curious to know Inguestu's credentials in economics.

 
At 1/21/2010 11:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jarred Diamond in his epic Guns, Germs, and Steel talks about the relatively few animals which have been domesticated.

Jarred Diamond is a left-wing multiculturalist who set out to cram every square peg into a round whole of his own creating. Almost every animal on the planet can be farmed, from alligators and bison to catfish and parrots.

We can see from over-fishing that there is a Tragedy of the Commons at play which leads to overconsumption, a MARKET FAILURE.

Overconsumption, in this case, has nothing to do with a free market, the problem is private vs. public property. When the state of Alaska auctioned off commercial licenses to fish specific areas, the over-fishing stopped. In fact, leaseholders co-operated to start private fish hatcheries to ensure adequate fish populations. A private property triumph.

 
At 1/21/2010 11:10 AM, Blogger Chuck said...

It has been alleged but not proved that Adam Smith wrote extensively about Tiger farming in his economic treatise. His publisher being a crass capitalist became worried about the sale of the book and redacted so much of the Tiger farming theory as to render it useless and un-publishable. An analysis of the original letters from the publisher to Adam Smith (interpolated due to mold, water stain and tobacco juice) points to the publisher’s concern that “Economists” would supervise the tiger farming activity under a grant from the Queen whose interest was in fashion. The publisher suspected that the “economists” would not detect aberrant behavior in the sexual habits of both male and female tigers in a confined environment. Early data would only be considered anecdotal and under advice of an attorney “if the data don’t fit you must omit”. Compounding this scenario was the fact that calculus would be needed to prove the theory and the reigning king declared Calculus as “voodoo mathematics” The original notes on the tiger study also indicate a high degree of incest among the tiger population. Some comments from various intellectual scholars suggested Tigers were becoming morons and this would be against popular religious beliefs violating the principle of integration of church and state.

 
At 1/21/2010 11:11 AM, Anonymous morganovich said...

anon 1104-

Overconsumption, in this case, has nothing to do with a free market, the problem is private vs. public property. When the state of Alaska auctioned off commercial licenses to fish specific areas, the over-fishing stopped. In fact, leaseholders co-operated to start private fish hatcheries to ensure adequate fish populations. A private property triumph.

that is well said and precisely correct. nobody ever washes a rented car or changes its oil. they have no incentive to do so because they don't own it. but sell it to them and they take care of it. fisheries depletion has been almost entirely a property rights issue.

 
At 1/21/2010 11:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't domesticate Tigers? Think again.

 
At 1/21/2010 11:33 AM, Anonymous morganovich said...

that's not domesticated. that's "taught to tolerate people".

a domesticated animal is one you would trust alone in the house with your children.

i don't think those tigers pass that test.

notice how carefully the visitors are brought over to them and how they are always supervised by guides?

sigfreid and roy thought they had domesticated tigers too...

 
At 1/21/2010 11:36 AM, Anonymous Inguestu said...

@Anonymous

I haopen to have the same economic credentials as the esteemed blogger and author of the article. But what difference does that make? Refuting an argument based on the "credentials" of the person making it is called an "ad hominem."

My credentials should have been obvious from my references to "the tragedy of the commons", "market failure" and other economic concepts.

As for Jarred Diamond's politics, that also is an ad hominem. His observations and research into animal domestication and husbandry are, without question, both correct and relevant to this question irrespective of whether he is generally a left-wing loon whose overall conclusions, implications, and facts must be carefully vetted.

No, NOT every animal can be farmed successfully. I gave you relevant data on tiger litters and gestation periods. I ask you again whether you think present demand can be met at that rate under a free market and whether demand might increase when people begin to "learn" about the wonderful benefits from these farmed tigers.

If the state is granting licenses to farm specific fishing areas, that is a CENTRALIZED, NON-free market rationing scheme. Are you in the habit of undermining your own theses?

The problem IS overconsumption, not property rights. If demand outpaces the weak regenerative capacity then tiger prices skyrocket leading us straight back to poaching, but this time they will be stealing privately owned instead of publicly owned or nobody owned tigers.

If tiger could be protected and still be "wild" tigers, it would have been done. What is the objective here? To supply tiger bone soup? To keep a species from going extinct? Or to keep a species alive AND wild in it's natural habitat. I'm expressing no value judgments over any of these objectives. What are YOUR objectives?

It doesn't matter - the free market FAILS on all three objectives. Private property is sacrosanct only insofar as it can be enforced. I doubt we'll see 10,000,000 Chinese cops patrolling the jungles.

 
At 1/21/2010 12:07 PM, Anonymous John said...

Floru's post over on the Adam Smith blog is quite interesting. Unfortunately, it looks like a few of the commenters on this post haven't read Floru's post yet.

If tiger farming isn't feasible and profitable, it wouldn't exist (for long). However, if the government continues to prevent the legal market of tiger products, no one will try it and poaching will inevitably continue. You really can't police millions of acres of jungle, and the cost to try to do so would be ridiculous.

 
At 1/21/2010 12:36 PM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It LIke It Is Man" Cole said...

I love the price signal, and free markets, but in some cases, such as pollution or protection of habitat, entirely free markets do not work.

Taxing pollution makes sense.

One might wish to allow limited tiger hunting, and sell the rights, to save habitat.

 
At 1/21/2010 1:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My credentials should have been obvious from my references to "the tragedy of the commons", "market failure" and other economic concepts.

A sophomore economics student can throw around those terms with the best of them. I only ask for your credentials since you questioned those of the blog host (i.e.This ought to be called "Everything I Know About Economics I Learned in Kindergarten."). Whenever one preferences one's argument with that sort of derogatory statement, I tend to question the professionalism of the one presenting the argument. Thus, I asked your credentials. Which I suppose is a bit thick on my part, because you can certainly have any credentials you say you have in this type of forum.

Signed,
Brad Pitt

 
At 1/21/2010 1:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for one look forward to the day when all of our planet's natural habitats are paved over to support the infinite population our great technology of the future will allow!
Our farmed tigers and other interesting species will roam the Disney-like environments we create for our entertainment. The remaining extinct species will be fondly remembered in our collective histories...

 
At 1/21/2010 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for Jarred Diamond's politics, that also is an ad hominem. His observations and research into animal domestication and husbandry are, without question, both correct and relevant ...

That Diamond is a left-wing loon is both "correct and relevant" to this discussion, as his pre-drawn conclusions seek to support and reinforce his socio-political views. There have been many, well argued, takedowns of his work.

No, NOT every animal can be farmed successfully. I gave you relevant data on tiger litters and gestation periods. I ask you again whether you think present demand can be met ...

Well, let's see, cows can have one calf a year and we're up to our ass in cows. So, yes, we can farm tigers.

First, you claim that, " ... demand for tiger parts is superstition based." Then you worry that, "... demand might increase when people begin to "learn" about the wonderful benefits from these farmed tigers". Are you in the habit of undermining your own theses?

If the state is granting licenses to farm specific fishing areas, that is a CENTRALIZED, NON-free market rationing scheme. Are you in the habit of undermining your own theses?

Wow, what happened to those credentials? The state auctioned of transferable rights - licenses - to fish in specific areas. These rights became the property of the purchaser, who could sell them to a third party without state approval. In effect, they became the private property of the holder. The holder of these rights has every incentive to preserve and improve the value of the rights, much as a homeowner has incentive to maintain and improve his property. The state simply divested itself of an economic asset putting into the private domain.

The problem IS overconsumption, not property rights. If demand outpaces the weak regenerative capacity then tiger prices skyrocket ...

This is pure speculation on your part, but I would argue that if demand in China increases than other countries - like Thailand and India - with tiger populations will have an incentive to farm them as well and exploit that demand.

It doesn't matter - the free market FAILS on all three objectives. Private property is sacrosanct only insofar as it can be enforced.

Private property is self-enforcing. Don't believe me? Try walking into my house uninvited.

 
At 1/21/2010 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whenever one preferences one's argument...
Sorry...should be "Whenever one prefaces..."

 
At 1/21/2010 2:05 PM, Blogger OA said...

Inguestu said...
@morganovich

The situation is ALWAYS more complicated than presented here. This ought to be called "Everything I Know About Economics I Learned in Kindergarten."


For some reason the last few days have had an abnormal amount of people disparaging this blog is this same way. One in the United Van Lines post, this one, and one in the LA Shipping. Some other softer ones.

I find it absolutely pointless. Unless I'm mistaken, no one is making million dollar decisions based on posts on this blog. And even with in depth analysis, economics is always more complicated than any analysis can present.

I find the posters on this blog to be much more interesting than the regular media. I also find out something new almost every day from things others post or link to.

Frankly, as shallow as the analysis and discussion here, I wish there were people in Congress and the White House who were coming here every day to read it. There's a whole lot more sense on here than I hear from them.

 
At 1/21/2010 3:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The free market has worked in Africa with elephant herds. (Where it has been allowed to work.) In some areas Villages "own the herd." As a result the herds have increased and poaching has declined.

 
At 1/21/2010 4:04 PM, Anonymous morganovich said...

i don't think that gestation is the key issue with tiger farming. i suspect that the key issue is how much (and what) a tiger eats.

cows are easy to feed. tigers, not so much.

if my quick internet search is correct, then tigers seem to eat about 20 pounds of meat a day.

that's 7300 pounds a year. figure a couple years to get to reasonably full growth?

maybe 14,000 pounds of meat. that seems like a lot. add in medical, habitat, etc and i'll bet you owning a tiger is phenomenally expensive, likely more so that could be economically justified.

you think anyone would insure a tiger farm?

 
At 1/21/2010 4:31 PM, Blogger Chuck said...

Do not confuse COW's and TIGER's. If you try to milk a tiger the confusion will end quickly without favorable results.
During deer hunting season my friends in Western MD paint "COW" on the side of their cows for the "hunters" (morons with guns)

 
At 1/21/2010 7:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

cows are easy to feed. tigers, not so much.

Hmmm, the answer seems to be obvious, doesn't it? Tigers eat ...

 
At 1/21/2010 7:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

During deer hunting season my friends in Western MD paint "COW" on the side of their cows for the "hunters" ...

Tell him thanks for that, the O makes for great target practice.

 
At 1/21/2010 9:34 PM, Blogger juandos said...

This is silly...

If all the people who whine about the loss of the tiger in the wild got off their collective ass, put some money together, bought a few hundred thousand acres and put in some cats and prey animals then maybe something might be salvaged regarding the tiger...

It really depends on whether these tiger lovers are all talk and no walk or are the real deal...

 
At 1/21/2010 10:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd have to say the PGA is suffering from a "Tiger shortage" right now. Maybe he'll be back for the Masters.

 
At 1/21/2010 10:34 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> I wonder how you harvest tigers at a tiger farm? by hand or mechanized?

Ideally, you lure them into cages using libtards as bait.

This helps solve one of the key problems with civilization, protecting the weak and stupid and preventing natural selection from taking place:
Too much tiger food,
Not enough tigers.

 
At 1/21/2010 10:49 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> i have no idea if 50 tigers is even a genetically viable population as is.

Since this is another "species" scam like the Florida Panther*, I'm not all that worried about the fact that there is a variant of 50 which is endangered. The overall population of tigers is the key issue, and that's what is significant.

Your problem, of course, is that you're arguing that you can't do with tigers what has been successfully done with elephants. They are carnivores, unlike the elephants, and they are solitary animals, unlike many other cats, so this may be true, but you have no more basis to claim that than I have to claim otherwise.

But I'm willing to bet you haven't grasped that nor even thought of it, so, at this point, I've got more basis for my presumptions than you do.

> if you reduce a population too far, mating pairs cannot find one another.

In the wild, this holds, it doesn't hold for farms, for obvious reasons. It's easy to put mating pairs in the presence of each other.

 
At 1/21/2010 10:54 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> The problem is enforcement of the laws against killing tigers in the wild.

And amazingly, this claim can also be made about elephant herds. Yet in those places where elephants are owned, their populations are on the rise, while, where the places where they are merely "protected" by government, they are on the decline.

Funny that.

Sorry, didn't mean to spoil your presumtive fantasy about the futility of free trade as a mechanism with eeeeeeevil, nasty, verifiable facts.

Push the button, Frank.

 
At 1/21/2010 11:32 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> And like the problem of new bridges attracting more congestion, having a greater supply of tigers might even increase demand.

Which doesn't mean JACK as long as the increase in tigers isn't overwhelmed by the increase in poaching.

And, as the history of elephants shows, the free market manages to do quite well in dealing with poachers.

The nature of it is obvious once you actually examine the facts (disgusting idea, isn't it? Actually having to think through a problem, rather than "feeeeeeling" your way to the answer?)

"Government protectors" have no vested interest in the result. For most, it's just a job. And it doesn't matter one way or another if the animals survive or not. And hey, there's these poachers offering big bribes to look the other way!!!

"Private owners", on the other hand, HAVE a vested interest in the survival of their charges. They actually increase their wealth by increasing the number of charges they have! And they have an actual, personal interest in finding poachers and stopping them! AMAZING!!

---

Appealing to a person's own self-interest!! As a mechanism to encourage concerted action towards a goal!!

WOW!!
WHAT A CONCEPT!?!?!

At which point, the obvious question is, "Do ya get the friggin' picture?"

And your libtard answer is, of course, "Hell no!!"

Because there is no C or L associated with "You"...

> yes, that may preserve the species, but it does nothing to help the wild ones apart from maintaining a suitable genetic pool for possible reintroduction in the future.

The difference here is that you actually think there is somehow the slightest, vaguest significance between a tiger on a private preserve and one "in the wild". Kept as a pet? Sure, there IS a difference there, to some extent. But on a preserve? WTF difference do you really, actually imagine there is? By all means, enlighten us, so that we may watch the broken cuckoo parts as they function.

> It really depends on whether these tiger lovers are all talk and no walk or are the real deal...

No, juandos, you don't get the picture. They don't want to do it with their money. They only get satisfied if they get to do with OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY. That way
a) They get the self-image that THEY did something important
and
b) They made sure that OTHER PEOPLE did what they OUGHT to do with their money.

You see, libtardism isn't about doing good.

It's about feeling good.

And if you can't force someone else to Be Good, then what good are you to the world?

Capisce?


> Jarred Diamond is a left-wing multiculturalist who set out to cram every square peg into a round whole of his own creating

Not quite. He did manage to get his head waaaaaay up his....

Both of those were round...

 
At 1/21/2010 11:56 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> like the Florida Panther*

Ah, yes, forgot about this.

The Florida Panther is a scam, like a lot of the rest of what is classed as "green action items".

You see, the Florida Panther is not a species. It's a variation.

A species is, by definition, two different animals which cannot mate and produce viable offspring.

Hence a horse and a donkey, while related, are different species -- they can actually mate and have offspring -- a mule -- but a mule (this being where the usage comes from) is a sterile offspring. That is, excepting very rare instances, it won't have any offspring. The DNA is sufficiently incompatible that, while you do get a living, breathing organism, it cannot mate, either with a horse, a donkey, or another mule, and bring forth progeny.

This is the standard biological definition of "species".

But, of course, libtards and greens don't care about what words mean -- they invent, twist, alter, and modify words to fit the needs of the moment:
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."


They've contorted and mis-used "species" in place of variation, because that suits their purposes. Saying that "species are disappearing" is soooo much worse sounding than "there are fewer varieties of this animal than there were previously".

And this applies specifically to the "uber threatened" Florida Panther, which has been an "endangered species" for more than thirty years.

There's one problem, and that is that the Florida Panther isn't a species.

I know this because some years ago on the news they revealed that one of the "plans" put forth to "save" the "species" was to mate it with the Georgia Panther.

Yeah: The Georgia Panther.

If the Florida Panther were actually a different species from the Georgia Panther, then such an idea would be futile. There would be no point, because the result would be, at best, a sterile mule.

But the Georgia Panther is the SAME species as the Florida Panther. But when you're counting "Florida Panthers" for the purpose of identifying the population remaining for protection reasons, if you counted Georgia Panthers, Carolina Panthers, Tennessee Panthers, Kentucky Panthers, Mississippi Panthers, Alabama Panthers, and Louisiana Panthers -- which are probably all the same species, the count might not sound quiiiiiiite so dire as if you tell people that the "Florida Panther" is threatened and "endangered".

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that a wide sample of DNA in any animal population isn't important.

But that's no justification for lying about it.

But Greens don't care about facts or truth. They are intellectually bankrupt, and anything that follows their aims is A-OK with them. You can't trust ANYTHING they say. They will look you in the face and lie like the worthless sonsabitches they are.

'Nuff said.

 
At 1/22/2010 12:05 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> I for one look forward to the day when all of our planet's natural habitats are paved over to support the infinite population our great technology of the future will allow!

Aaaaaand of course now we get the Mathusian BS, utterly and completely failing to grasp that humanity is self-limiting as a species in a manner which animals are not.

The fact that the world population is currently on track to max out at about 8.5 billion and then go into a slow, steady decline?

Naww!! Can't be!!

Doesn't fit the image of humans as no different from animals!

Doesn't fit the idea that THIS MUST BE STOPPED, with FORCE!!

Clearly, it cannot be!!

And once more, we see that there is no C or L to go with libtard Ewes.

 
At 1/22/2010 4:00 AM, Anonymous Inguestu said...

@Brad Pitt:

I "preface", not "preference" my comments with a summary judgment of the ludicrous and shallow conclusions presented based on, oh, about ten years of economic education and another eight years of research and teaching.

If any sophomore in economics knows about public goods, tragedy of the commons, market failures, latent demand, cost-benefit analysis, and principal-agent problems, then why does a tenured professor of Economics fail to recognize and discuss them when they obviously confound the issue at hand? Why must someone who raises these objections be questioned about his "credentials?" Why don't you question the competence of those who fail to do proper analysis?

BTW, Brad, your acting sucks.

As for disparaging comments, what's wrong with a little "free marketplace of ideas"? You expect everyone to eat the corn out of his crap and ask for seconds?

Yes, I think people in Congress could learn a ton here, but those who need it most would not choose to. For the rest of us thinking people, we need CORRECT arguments, not merely persuasive ones or slick, novel ideas without much thought behind them. That's what THEY do. This is supposed to be SCIENCE, not pop journalism.

Morganovich's comment about tiger feed is smart thinking! You only get that sort of thinking by being CRITICAL. I already said free markets are worth a try, but a little sophomore level economic understanding doesn't present much hope.

Again I ask, "What is the OBJECTIVE of free market tiger management?"

To keep the supply of tiger bones going for stupid Chinese people?

To keep tigers from becoming extinct? (just to say we have tigers)

To keep tigers in existence and living as tigers do in their natural habitats?

Or some other objective?

The answer to that question is CRUCIAL to both formulating a solution and evaluating it's results.

 
At 1/22/2010 7:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I "preface", not "preference" my comments..."

Yea...I caught my own error and corrected a few posts later. You probably did not read it since you were in such a hurry to vent your repressed anger in a response posting. I get it. All that pent-up aggression. It must have been tough getting beaten up every day for your lunch money and it is kind of liberating to offer smug, and derogatory responses. Self righteousness probably feels pretty good to you right now. It's all you have, might as well cling to it.

My acting may suck, but it's a living. Plus, my wife is really, really hot.

Brad Pitt

 
At 1/22/2010 11:34 AM, Anonymous Inguestu said...

Yeah Brad, I saw your retraction of dumbness. Too bad you can't unhit the Publish button. You might want to spend a little more time THINKING first. Your hasty post demonstrates your repressed anger. Now you can add "projection" to your list of psychological flaws.

That quality you mistake for "smugness"... It's called "being right and knowing I'm right." You might want to give that a try sometime. The trouble for you is that it requires years of education to acquire.

Oh, and your real wife is no more Angelina Jolie than you are Brad Pitt. Keep dreaming.

 
At 1/22/2010 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, and your real wife is no more Angelina Jolie than you are Brad Pitt. Keep dreaming."

Touche'. You got me genius. I reckin you seen right through my facade. I'm not really Brad Pitt. I was just havin' lil fun wit ya. I'm just a poor working stiff who had to pay his own way through school,with the help of his GI Bill, and got his MBA from a no-name University (Go Blue!). I may not be as educated as you (I'm sure you have all the credentials you claim to have), but I don't reckin' I have to be vetriner... a veterinair...an animal doctor to recognize horse s__t when I see it. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home