Huh?!!? I taught econ. at Harvard for 2 years as a grad student and I guarantee at least 70% of my first-year students would have gotten that question right after one semester (and the other 30% never paid attention in class).

I really find this hard to believe. Professional embarrassment is an understatement. I sure hope there was something seriously *wrong* with the way the study was conducted (I haven’t yet clicked through the link)…

That was my answer, but it seemed so easy that I was really nervous about it. Can I have a PHD for that?

My reaction, too. $10 seems so obviously right that I can’t quite imagine what the logic would be behind arriving at any of the other answers. The only thing potentially tricky about the problem, I suppose, is that the free Eric Clapton ticket is a distractor and has nothing whatsoever to do with the answer. Would the the economists have gotten the aswer right if the question had been simply, “Tickets to a Bob Dylan concert are $40. On any given day, you’d be willing to spend $50 to see Dylan. What’s the opportunity cost of staying home to watch TV?”

I had never heard about opportunity cost.. I went to read the first paragraphs of the definition on wikipedia… and then chose the correct answer! PhD for me too! 😉

Many of them probably didn’t read the question carefully.

I was one of the subjects of this study at the 2005 AEA meetings. I was on the job market and had gone to the 4th floor of the hotel to check on where my interviews were going to be. As you might imagine, I was incredibly stressed out and distracted. I was then approached by somebody who wanted me to fill out this form. I can’t remember what I answered (hopefully, the right answer!), but I do remember thinking (a) this seems like a trick question, so the obvious answer is probably not the right answer, and (b) this is the last thing I want to be doing right now.

From the NYT article you also learn the shocking figure that if you are a student you were over twice as likely to get the correct answer (although still less likely than guessing randomly) if you had never taken an economics class.

One other note, I got the question right, but I wonder if I would have had Alex not empahsized ‘this is not a trick’. I can imagine being confronted with a similiarly straightforward Physics question at an APS conference and overthinking it because I couldn’t understand why anyone would bother with such a simple question. But, none the less, this is a question with only one right answer and I’m stunned that so many experts got it wrong. I’d have guessed it should be 80%+.

I don’t understand why your WTP for Clapton tix wouldn’t be included.

The opportunity cost for seeing Dylan should be your WTP for Dylan minus the price of the ticket minus the net benefit from seeing Clapton.

Regardless, after just seeing Dylan, my opportunity cost of seeing him over Clapton would be high. The guy didn’t pick up a guitar once!

Alex’s outrage is silly. You can’t use a single tricky question to judge the whole state of economics in the USA.

It may be reassuring to hear an anecdote that implies that most highly-educated economists are idiots, but you’re being very sloppy if you let one anecdote overthrow your entire perspective on the way things are.

Right,

The difficulty in the question is to pay attention to the bit ” UP TO 50 $ “, which actually says that your NET utility from the Dylan concert would be zero after paying 50.

From there on, it’s an easy deduction.

Does it matter if I prefer Clapton, or if I really can’t stand his music?

Joshg,

Thank you that was a very clarifying example.

For my kids the opportunity cost of the chocolate ice cream is
still the whole value of the vanilla because they are getting both for free.

This would mean that children whine more about missing vanilla when it is free as opposed to when they have to pay for it.
The opportunity costs are greater when both chocolate and vanilla are free.

Still I have never heard of opportunity costs being given a monetary value and I think the stricter definition limits the usefulness in conversation.

An economist and a banker were crossing the street on the way to lunch. The banker said “look, there’s a $20 bill on the pavement”. The economist said “that can’t be a $20 bill; if it were really a $20 bill, someone would already have picked it up. You can’t expect to find $20 bills on the pavement in big cities.” The banker stopped, looked at the economist then stooped over and picked up the $20 bill; they went on to lunch.

AMBIGUOUS: This is not a straightforward question. Because Clapton is a reasonable substitute for Dylan (as an equivalent source of entertainment at a given time), the question could be interpreted as: Given a choice of equally entertaining diversions worth $50 to you on a given evening costing either $0 or $40, what is the opportunity cost of forgoing the $40 entertainment for the $0 entertainment? In that case, the answer would be zero (there was no sacrifice of net benefit). To make the question unambiguous, the forgone opportunity should not be a viable substitute for the opportunity taking its place. For example, if someone across town from the Clapton concert was handing out $10 coupons for a FUTURE Dylan concert, the opportunity cost would not be ambigous.

Mark,

$10 is the benefit that you receive by seeing Dylan. There are no other benefits from seeing Dylan.

Tom,

The opportunity cost of a choice (go to see Clapton) is the value of the alternative that you give up (go to see Dylan) if you WERE to make that choice (go to see Clapton). The value of the Clapton concert is irrelevant in calculating the value of what you would give up if you decided to go.

Eric says: “The value of the Clapton concert is irrelevant in calculating the value of what you would give up if you decided to go.”

Yes, I think the problem many are having is that the Clapton choice has no explicit monetary value (in fact, it’s explicitly said to have no monetary resale value), while the Dylan choice is given both explicit $ value and $ cost. When applying the concept in real life (e.g., considering among two or more alternative capital investments) all choices are assigned (if imperfectly) some monetary value, even the “do nothing” alternative. Yet here going to see Clapton is the equivalent of a “do nothing” decision, yet is assigned no value (other than saying that Dylan is “next best”).

If “Clapton” was replaced by some obviously dissimilar good of unstated value (staying home watching Law & Order reruns, reading economics blogs, etc.), or the question was very simply stated as “What is your opportunity cost of not seeing Dylan if he is worth $50 to you and a ticket costs $40”, there would probably be more correct answers.

My instant reaction to the question was the correct answer, but it only took me two milliseconds to start over-thinking/doubting based on re-reading the question. Namely: (1) no statement of the $ value to me of the Clapton ticket (and the words “next best” suggest to me that Dylan is of lesser, not equivalent, value than Clapton); and (2) it does not say Dylan is absolutely, in any circumstances, “worth $50” to me, it says I would pay “up to” $50 suggesting that my Dylan-philia exists on some sliding scale, maybe depending on what else is going on that night.

So it may not be a “trick,” but it is certainly insufficiently disambiguated!

Many of them probably didn’t read the question carefully.

That makes it more embarrassing.

Yet Another Tom:

If you go to see Clapton, you can’t also go and see Dylan at the same time. So the cost of seeing Clapton is the foregone opportunity to see Dylan. Your net enjoyment from seeing Dylan, according to the problem, is $10 — the $50 worth of enjoyment you’ll get minus the $40 it’d cost you. That’s what you’re giving up to see Clapton.

Lockjaw:

If you value Clapton at $60, you’d certainly be acting optimally by going to see him, as you would enjoy a net benefit of $50. The term “opportunity profit” isn’t used to describe this benefit, but you have the right idea.

Don

I am a GMU educated Ph.D. economist, and
I got the answer wrong. I picked $50, though
I didn’t spend more than a few seconds in getting it
wrong.

The definition of opportunity cost is the most
important alternative sacrificed. I did know that.

I suspect that most economists would have picked
that definition over alternatives like “money spent
on resources needed to produce a product,” or “the
labor time needed to produce the product” or
“the market price.”

Now, one might wonder if economists really know
what “opportunity cost” means if they
can’t apply it.

But the problem here wasn’t a simple application.
A simple application would be something like–smith
has a dollar. He can buy a coke, a candy bar, or
keep the dollar. While the coke is his first
choice, the candy bar is is second choice.
Keeping the dollar is his least important priority.

What is the opportunity cost of the coke (the utility
from, that is subjective evaluation of, consuming
the candy bar.

The concert scenario involves one option of enjoying
Clapton and something one might buy for $40, say,
a fancy dinner vs. the alternative of enjoying Dylan.

The opportunity cost of Clapton and the dinner is enjoying
Dylan. That is the utitity from (subjective evaluation of)
seeing Dylan.

The opportunity cost of Dylan is Clapton and a nice dinner–
the utility from or subjective evaluation of–both of those
things together.

But the question is what is the opportunity cost of Clapton
alone.

So, we have to figure that we can move the fancy dinner over to
the opportunity cost side. That is, the opportunity cost of
Clapton is the utility from Dylan minus the utility from
the steak dinner. This works with cardinal utility. Not a
common view among economists these days. In the
example, “utility” was replaced by willingness to pay.

So, the opportunity cost of enjoying Clapton and the
dinner is what you would be willing to pay for
Dylan ($50)

The opportunity cost of Dylan is what you would
be willing to pay for Clapton and the dinner together.

The oppotunity cost of Clapton alone is what one
would be willing to pay for Dylan less what
one would be willing to pay for the dinner.

Not obviously correct, but it might be the best
answer. (That is, if we all agreed to define
opportunity cost in terms of the amount of money
people would be willing to pay for the most important
alternative sacrificed.)

Of course, the “problem” is that we didn’t know
about the steak dinner or what one would be
willing to pay for it. We just had the price
of the Dylan ticket.

And so, we have the “right” answer being the
consumer surplus from the next best purchase.
Perhaps the best answer, but not obviously
correct. It mixes the logic of choice with
consumer surplus calculated from market prices.

One final note–the two constraint nature of the
question–money and time–made it complicated too.
Usually, economists deal with consumption situations
where you can consume any combination of goods.
Clapton one night, then Dylan the next, I suppose.

In conclusion, we cannot assume that the economists
didn’t know what opportunity cost meant.

They just aren’t very good at applying the situation
to an ambiguous situation and agreeing with a “best”
approach.

So, what IS a good definition?

And please state it in mathematical terms, as much as possible. It can’t be that hard.

BTW, I am not an economist, just a physicist, but my 14-year old son was reading a college textbook on economics and this “opportunity cost” is astonishingly badly explained. It seems like the textbook in general is trying to avoid math (*) much as possible, which only makes matters worse in my view.

Thanks in advance!

(*) save for the many 2-d graphs

Smuggler — good point, you are right.

But in this case the opportunity cost is $0
because your alternative is doing something that
costs you nothing.

Your alternative to spending $0 on the free
concert is not spending $40 on something else.

I agree with spencer and the others who are trying to separate the consumer surplus of $10 in going to see Dylan, from the idea of opportunity costs. If we’re going to use consumer surplus to calculate opportunity cost, then we need to know the surplus from going to see Clapton. And the question doesn’t produce that crucial piece of information.

If we in fact go to see Clapton that would seem to reveal our preference (that we value it at SOMETHING). Further, going to see Clapton would seem to indicate that we value it at at least $10.

The first serious discussion of opportunity cost I read was from James Buchanan’s “Cost and Choice.” I always thought it was he who introduced the notion and the term, although he also uses the term “choice-influencing cost.” His explanation was so simple and lucid, I never had to read any other text. Actually it is that term “choice” and how Buchanan tied it to the term “cost” that got me thinking seriously about the parallels in the thinking of an engineer vs. marketer (or rather the difference). My major is not economics and I don’t think I ever attended any economics class. Be that as it may, my understanding resonates with that of “prestopundit” as far as the immeasurability of opportunity cost goes.

Raj (Talkativeman)

…the ‘original’ Clapton/Dylan problem was edited & condensed by those conducting the referenced survey (…see the actual PDF survey document URL at the beginning here).

So there may well have been a lost-in-translation/wording issue causing some confusion here.

Here are excerpts from that actual survey document:

“..The opportunity cost question we presented to respondents was adapted from page 4 of Robert Frank and Ben Bernanke’s textbook, Introduction to Microeconomics (2001), and was presented exactly as follows to ASSA survey respondents… We simplified the question by paring the text and rendering the format multiple-choice rather than open-ended. We also made the question more precise by writing that there are no other costs involved other than those stated in the question…”

{note: They don’t state the ‘original’ Frank & Bernanke question text in full}

Here’s how the survey guys explained their $10 answer:

“… to state why $10 is the opportunity cost of seeing Eric Clapton. When you go to the Clapton concert, you forgo the $50 of benefits you would have received from going to the Dylan concert. You also forgo the $40 of costs that you would have incurred by going to the Dylan concert. An avoided benefit is a cost, and an avoided cost is a benefit. Thus, the opportunity cost of seeing Clapton, the value you forgo by not going to the Dylan concert, is $10 – i.e., the net benefit forgone…”

————

So any ‘avoided benefit’ is a cost ??

I must be accumulating huge ‘costs’ by not clipping/using all those store coupons I see in newspapers/magazines ??

Let’s also note that “to cost” is an irregular verb in English, and “c-o-s-t” is the spelling of both the present and past tense of “to cost”. Some economists may have interpreted this ambiguous homograph in different ways.

To avoid confusion, consider alternative clarifying phrasings of the question using the past perfect vs. the future tenses.

If the ticket “had cost” $40, this $40 cost is sunk — and the true opportunity cost of Clapton is $50. If the Dylan ticket “will cost” $40, these costs are not sunk, and the true opportunity cost is $10. My hypothesis (which y’all are welcome to test) is that this revised version of the question would trick many, many fewer people.

I made a separate comment focusing on the sunkenness yesterday, but this morning is the first time I noticed the semantic ambiguity!

P.S. I is a native English speaker. I note, mildly, that the AEA is not composed 100% of native-English speakers, and this “cost” vs “cost” formulation would be a puzzler to many of us, whether native English-speakers or not.

In negotiation, a similar idea to that of opportunity cost is advocated, known as ‘BATNA’, the Best Alternative to No Agreement’ (I have slightly amended the original formulation from Roger Fisher and Bill Urry, of Harvard in their book: ‘Getting to Yes’, 1982).

The advice is given as a criterion of judgement in deciding whether to accept or reject the other party’s offer. If your best alternative to rejecting the offer is ‘better’ than what is offered – if, for instance, you have a better offer available from somebody else, say – then you should reject the offer, unambiguously. Your BATNA gives you the ‘strength’ to say ‘no’ (or, more politely, ‘no thank you’, or even more politely, ‘thanks, but no thanks’).

Now, germane to this discussion, how do you know that the offer from across the table is better or worse than your best alternative? Well, one way is to compare them. If the offer from across the table is worth $40 and your best alternative was worth $50, then you would be advised to reject the $40 offer and take the $50 offer you could get elsewhere. Why? Because $50 is bigger than $40 by the amount of $10.

Whether you think of this as an opportunity cost of $50 or of $10 makes no difference to the decision. Leaving it at $50 means you have not completed (maybe not needed to complete: the important point is $50>$40) the reasoning for why you should choose $50 over $40, mainly because the point might be considered too obvious to complete the arithmetic.

For the advocates of $10 to show that answering $50 is wrong, they would have to show that in such a comparison a mistake could be made; for the advocates of $50 to show that $10 is wrong they would have to show that the comparison of $50 with $40 is a different comparison from saying $10.

Methinks this is one of those economists’ quibbles of no real significance or at least no great importance.

I think some people are misunderstanding the problem. The idea is that you can attend the Dylan concert, but for $10 cheaper than you would otherwise be willing to pay, ie for $40 instead of what you normally it – $50. Thus, by going to the Clapton concert you give up the $10 bargain on the Dylan tickets now, because its value terminates on the same day. Future Dylan tickets might cost $50.

It is interesting to note that an Austrian Economist would correctly have answered $0. Because the primary choice is all that counts. Opportunity cost is a meaningless illusion as people select their best course of action. Besides, any value one attributes to a Dylan concert may change after seeing Clapton. Dylan may even charge less in the future.

I bet Milton Friedman said $0 (glad not to pay amusement tax), Lester Thurow said $10 (lamenting he didn’t pay the $50 so he could pay more tax).

Pozycjonowanie stron

Pozycjonowanie www

Pozycjonowanie reklama

Pozycjonowanie oferta

Pozycjonowanie stron internetowych

Pozycjonowanie reklama stron

Pozycjonowanie strony

cool blog!

health articels
health articels
health articels
health articels
Medicine Man
Naturopathic Solutions
Health Benefits
of Drinking Green Tea
Gastric Bypass
Good Health And Wellness For Life
Diary of woman lifestyle

环保 电路图 防火墙 防火墙 北京婚庆公司 四川旅游 四川旅行社 成都旅行社 九寨沟旅游 九寨沟 化工泵 螺杆泵 油泵 磁力泵 离心泵 自吸泵 电脑维修培训 主板维修培训 デトックス 自己破産 海外旅行保険 医療保険 結婚式 結婚相談所 結婚　人間関係 恋愛相談 ローン カードローン 自動車ローン toefl toeic オーディション タレントオーディション 声優オーディション 競馬 専門学校 歯科矯正 ピアノ ホテル予約 格安航空券 注文住宅 关节炎 疯狂英语 疯狂英语 疯狂英语 防静电地板 翻译公司翻译公司 发表论文 短信群发 床上用品 ,所说的google排名包括google优化排名和google左侧排名两种的方式. 处女膜修复 测厚仪 测厚仪 餐饮管理软件 不孕症的治疗 不孕症 不孕不育专科 不孕不育医院 不孕不育 不育症 波珠链 北京礼品公司 北京礼品公司 北京礼品 cro CE认证 CE 自動車保険 中古 車 障害者　雇用 予備校 有機野菜 消費者金融 外為　証拠金　取引 外為　証拠金　取引 外国 為替 証拠金 取引 外国 為替 証拠金 取引 生命保険 美容外科 就職活動 結婚 比較 ロリポップ モバイト ホットペッパー　美容院 ホスティングサービス ハローワーク バックアップ テレマーケティング ダイエット食品 ダイエット キャッシング おまとめローン うつ病 アウトバウンド pms FXシステムトレード fx
Digital video recorder Diesel Fuel Injection Pump Test Bench Equipment cocktail dress cheapest gold wow cheap wow gold cheap world of warcraft gold cheap wedding dress cheap lineage 2 adena cheap ffxi gil cheap ff11 gil cheap eq2 plat cheap eq2 gold car floor mats Canned peaches Canned fruit Canned fruit camping gear and equipment buy wow gold buy world of warcraft gold buy ffxi gil buy ff11 gil buy eq2 gold bridesmaid dress beach wedding dress arcade machine air force
google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名 google左侧排名google排名 google排名 google排名 google排名 google优化 google优化 google优化

Selling game currency foe wow swg eq2 eve ffxi .etc
And game cd key&game card

xxx-MOVIES

薬剤師の求人・募集・転職・就職・仕事探しをお手伝い。薬剤師の求人・募集・転職・就職・仕事の情報満載！調剤薬局・病院など、あなたにぴったりの職場を見つけよう！医療機関との強いコネクションにより、最新かつ優良な薬剤師 求人の情報が豊富です。あなたにぴったりの仕事を見つけるため、経験豊富なカウンセラーが、勤務条件やキャリアプランを一緒に考え、あなたの気持ちになって転職のお手伝いを致します。

fx
FX
FX　 人気　
FX　 ランキング　
FX　 比較　
くりっく３６５　
FX 参考書
fx初心者
fx初心者 必勝 法
fx 比較
くりっく365
fx
FX
fx初心者 必勝 法
fx初心者
くりっく 365
FX 参考書
fx 比較
FX 参考書
カードローン
カードローン 比較
銀行系カードローン
カードローン　 申込
信販系 カードローン
キャッシングカードローン
カードローン　 低金利
人気　 カードローン
カードローン
カードローン　 比較
銀行系カードローン
カードローン　 申込
信販系カードローン
キャッシングカードローン
カードローン　 低金利
人気　 カードローン
クレジットカード
クレジットカード　 比較
クレジットカード　 申込
年会費無料クレジットカード
さくらカード
クレジットカード
クレジットカード　 比較
クレジットカード　 申込
年会費無料クレジットカード
さくらカード
キャッシング
キャッシング　 比較
キャッシング ローン
即日キャッシング
キャッシング　 審査
キャッシング　 申込
無利息キャッシング
ネットキャッシング
カードキャッシング
低金利キャッシング
キャッシング
キャッシング　 比較
キャッシングローン
即日キャッシング
キャッシング　 審査
キャッシング　 申込
無利息キャッシング
ネットキャッシング
カードキャッシング
低金利キャッシング
消費者金融
消費者金融　 比較
消費者金融　 審査甘い
消費者金融 金利
消費者金融 情報
消費者金融
消費者金融 比較
消費者金融　 審査　甘い
消費者金融　 金利
消費者金融 情報
フラット35
フラット35 金利
フラット３５
フラット３５　 金利
住宅ローン
フラット35
ローン
住宅ローン　 金利
住宅ローン
フラット35
ローン
住宅ローン 金利
ホームページ作成
携帯電話 ホームページ作成
ホームページ制作
北京オリンピック
北京オリンピック
システム開発
プログラミング
機械加工
板金加工
フォーランドオンライン

liqingchao 07年7月12日

google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司

上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
货架
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
集团电话
集团电话
四环素牙
口腔常识
口腔常识

口腔医生
口腔医生
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
监控系统
监控系统
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机
牙周炎
牙周炎

摆闸
痤疮
痤疮
色斑
色斑
黄褐斑
黄褐斑
青春痘
青春痘
口腔医生
口腔医生
口腔
口腔
口腔医院
口腔医院
口腔科
口腔科
三星集团电话机
呼叫中心
电话交换机
交换机
呼叫中心
测厚仪
测温仪
停车场
道闸

cheap Silkroad gold
cheap Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad gold
Silkroad Online gold
Silkroad Online gold
sro gold
sro gold
Archlord gold
Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
cheap Archlord gold
Archlord Online gold
Archlord Online gold
buy cheap Archlord gold
buy cheap Archlord gold
Dofus kamas
Dofus kamas
cheap Dofus kamas
cheap Dofus kamas
Dofus gold
Dofus gold
Dofus money
Dofus money
Rappelz Rupees
Rappelz Rupees
Rappelz gold
Rappelz gold
cheap Rappelz Rupees
cheap Rappelz Rupees

houyuping 07年7月18日

google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
world of warcraft gold
world of warcraft gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling

wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
Ddo plat
Ddo plat
FFXI Gil
FFXI Gil
GW Gold
GW Gold
GW Power Leveling
GW Power Leveling
RS Gold
RS Gold
RS Power Leveling
RS Power Leveling
Lotro Gold
Lotro Gold
Lotro Power leveling
Lotro Power leveling
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
监控

货架
货架
货架
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
翻译公司
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
google排名
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
光盘制作

光盘印刷
光盘印刷
搬家公司
激光打标机
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
集团电话
集团电话
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
china tour
china tour
青春痘
青春痘
摆闸
痤疮
痤疮
色斑
色斑
黄褐斑
黄褐斑
青春痘
青春痘
三星集团电话机
呼叫中心
电话交换机
交换机
呼叫中心
测厚仪
测温仪
停车场
道闸

â‘  FX â‘¡ FX â‘¢ http://www.fx-good.com/ FX

④ [url=http://www.fx-good.com/]FX[/url] ⑤ FX｣ｻ｣ｻ

EVE ISK
EQ2 Gold
FFXI Gil
Guild Wars Gold
Lineage 2 Adena
Runescape Money
wow power leveling
wow gold
cheap wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow power leveling
EVE ISK
EQ2 Gold
EQ2 plat
everquest 2 gold
FFXI Gil
Guild Wars Gold
Lineage 2 Adena
Maple Story Mesos
Runescape Money
Runescape Gold
runescape items
SilkRoad Gold
wow gold
warcraft gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
warcraft gold
LOTRO Gold
wow power leveling
cheap wow gold
wow gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
EQ2 Gold
ffxi gil
guild wars gold
eve isk
runescape gold
runescape money
runescape items
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
lineage 2 adena
ffxi gil
guild wars gold
eve isk
教育
培训
成功学
培训通
成功
安东尼罗宾
教育培训
成功网
教育
runescape money
runescape gold
video game accessories
game chips
ps2 memory card
psp a c adapter
psp ac adapter
wii accessories

数控机床

数控机床。。
数控改造。。
数控机床。。
数控机床改造。。

数控机床仿真软件

数控机床改造。。
数控机床。。
数控机床。。
数控机床。。

数控车床

数控车床。。
数控车床。。
华中数控车床。。
大连数控车床。。

无锡数控车床

山东数控车床。。
南京数控车床。。
数控车床。。
数控车床。。

广州数控车床

数控车床。。
广州数控车床。。
华中数控车床。。
数控车床。。

数控车床

北京数控车床。。
数控车床简介。。
教学车床。。
教学数控车床。。

数控铣床

南通数控铣床。。
数控铣床。。
数控铣床。。
数控铣床。。

教学数控铣床

教学铣床。。
数控机床实训设备。。
加工中心。。
加工中心。。

加工中心

加工中心。。
微型加工中心。。
数控加工中心。。
加工中心。。

加工中心

加工中心。。
加工中心。。
上海加工中心。。

加工中心

Victoria’s Secret
Victorias Secret New Victoria’s Secret Fashion show Victorias secret pink Victorias secret model Victorias Secret Credit Card Victorias Secret Angel Card Victorias secret coupon code Victorias secret lingerie Victorias secret fashion show 2005 Victorias secret fashion show 2006 Victorias Secret bra Victorias secret catalog victorias secret pantie victorias secret online coupon Victorias secret girl TATTOOS
CELTIC TATTOO TRIBAL TATTOOS DRAGON TATTOOS ANGEL TATTOOS CHINESE TATTOOS STAR TATTOOS CROSS TATTOOS HENNA TATTOOS BUTTERFLY TATTOOS TRIBAL BUTTERFLY TATTOOS HEART TATTOOS FAIRY TATTOOS LOWER BACK TATTOOS TRIBAL ART TATTOOS TRIBAL TATTOO DESIGN SKULL TATTOOS
TATTOO KIT Victoria Silvstedt
Monica Bellucci Monica Bellucci Pic Anna Nicole Smith Paris Hilton Britney Spears Kylie Minogue Lindsay Lohan Lindsay Lohan Poster Lindsay Lohan Weight Victoria Silvstedt Jennifer Aniston Angelina Jolie Carmen Electra Jennifer Lopez Pamela Anderson Scarlett Johansson Stacy Keibler Stacy Keibler Pic Stacy Keibler Hot WWE Stacy Keibler Kate Beckinsale Kate Beckinsale Pic Elizabeth Hurley

http://www.nike588.com

県営団地

キャッシング
キャッシング

FX システムトレード　
円形脱毛症　

転職情報サイト
二重まぶた　

wsru please visit odaback.1d cialis <a href=http://odaback.1d>cialis</a> mw993

His essay is so good that I will continue to read his new article.