The Emperor’s New Econometric Model

Once upon a time some men decided to play a con trick on the Emperor. So they told the emperor that in exchange for only a mildly exorbitant fee they would produce the greatest econometric model in the world (after all you can’t spell econometric without con or tric). The Emperor agreed but instead of creating an econometric model, the consters merely covered pages and pages with random letters and obscure symbols. Eventually the conmen decided to present their model to one of the Emperor’s advisors. They told him that it was an econometric model of such complexity that only the wise could understand it, to the uneducated it looked like random symbols. The advisor who knew little economics, pretended to read it before agreeing with the conmen about its sophistication.

Next the conmen went to the Emperor’s economist. He was a busy man and didn’t have time to pour over the tiny details so he read the abstract and didn’t see anything amiss. To be honest he didn’t quite understand it, but he wasn’t going to admit this and risk damaging his career out of ignorance. And so the model got passed to all of the main economists and advisors of the Emperor. Not a single one could understand it, but all presumed this was due to their own lack of mathematical knowledge. After all, didn’t the men say that only those who didn’t understand maths would be confused and only the wise could read it? And hadn’t everyone signed off on it and agreed on how great a theory it was? There was no point in standing out from the crowd and revealing your lack of understanding, better still to stay quiet and go along with it.

So the conmen reaped a huge reward in terms of gold, silver and academic tenure. Even the Emperor was impressed and complemented the men on their fantastic model (not that the Emperor read or understood it, but if none of his advisors complained then there mustn’t be any problems). So the Emperor strolled through the streets of the Empire covered only with the mathematical beauty of his econometric model. None of the ordinary people understood what was going on, but if very serious looking people from very serious sounding institutions agreed, then it must be good. A few people pretended they understood the model and praised its complexity while the rest felt stupid and remained silent.

It was not until a boy, an economics college student to be exact, shouted out, “The model doesn’t make any sense, it’s only a load of gibberish and random symbols!” All the Emperor’s advisors tuttered at this outburst. “He’s clearly not smart enough to understand. Should have paid more attention in class. Sure the model isn’t perfect but it is a useful approximation.” And so the very serious people in their very serious suits scoffed at those who doubted the Emperor’s new model.


The Emperor’s New Clothes is a nice fairytale that has a lot of relevance for the way economics operates. You see economists place a heavy emphasis on econometrics. You can hardly publish a paper in the leading journals with including several pages of difficult maths and Greek symbols. It is no longer good enough to simply explain economic issues; you must also mathemathise it too. And if you don’t like the use of maths? Well that’s probably because you are not smart enough to understand it. However, the obsession with precise formulations has led economists in the wrong direction and meant most were blind-sided by the financial crisis.

The fundamental problem with econometrics is that it tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. In order to build a mathematical model you must be dealing with events that are predictable and consistent, that you can easily compile data on. If on the other had people are not rational then it becomes far harder to mathemathise their actions. If the economy was composed solely of computers, then econometrics would be fantastically accurate. Unfortunately, it is composed of humans in all our irrational and illogical glory. The only way you can build econometric models is by creating gross simplifications that bare only a slight resemblance to the real world. Secondly, the fall of the Soviet Union showed how incredibly difficult it is to measure all the aspects of the economy. Many economists concluded that it was impossible to do.

The strange thing is that many economists actually agree that the use of mathematical models is flawed. However they say that such simplification is necessary because at least it provides answers. A common saying is that “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. Econometrics is preferred because it allows economists give precise answers rather than make rough guesses. For example if the government wants to raise the tax on petrol, rather than saying this will reduce demand, econometrics allows economists to give an exact measurement of how much demand will fall.

However, the problem with using unrealistic foundations is that while it may give you an exact answer, the answer may be wrong. As the saying (attributed to Keynes) goes “it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.” So econometrics may produce impressive jargon and realms of statistics about how markets are efficient and a financial crash is impossible, but that is little good when reality contradicts maths. Econometric models are only as good as their assumptions and the data they use. So while it makes things easier to assume the market is efficient and to only use the data from the last decade this meant economic models were blissfully unaware of the idea that the financial crisis could occur. Econometric models presume that all events can estimate, predicated and given an accurate probability function. If only the word was so. In reality most of the future is unknowable and attempts to predict it are almost always inaccurate. Uncertainty has dominated much of the financial and housing markets over the last number of years as people have no idea what the future state of the market will be or are unwilling to act upon it.

The simple fact about human life is that there are many aspects that cannot be shoved into an equation. Issues such as trust, co-operation, uncertainty, tradition and a host of social norms and heuristics guide how we interact with other. However, as these cannot be mathemathise they are treated as if they do not exist. This reminds me of the story of a man who was walking through a park when he came across a second man searching on the ground underneath a street light. The second man explained he was looking for his keys, so the first man decided to help him. After several minutes searching without luck, the first man asks if he is sure he lost his keys here. The second man replies “No, I lost my keys in the bushes, but the light is much better here”.

I have a great love for economics but its obsession with mathematics is its greatest flaw. Most people are driven away from economics because they cannot understand the gibberish they must learn. I don’t think any of us have ever come across a situation where a Cobb-Douglas function or a lagrangian would come in handy. As a result it is only the people who like and/or are good at maths that stick with it, become economists and write economic courses. If you read an economics journal it is almost mandatory to plough through pages of unintelligible gibberish that might as well be Japanese. I have a theory that some of the authors don’t even understand it and pulling a prank to see how gullible the rest of us are.

Econometrics fails on its own term of being precise and scientific. For example, I know of no economic debate that has been solved by use of econometrics. Even some of the main issues in econometrics in which hundreds of articles have been written over the years, we are no closer to a consensus. For example, what is the benefit of education or is discrimination present in the labour market? Econometricians cannot find an acceptable answer. Every time a study is performed, it is criticised for missing variables, having unrealistic foundations or using questionable data. No sooner is one study complete than another is done which gets different results. Thus econometrics fails on its own level of providing scientific results. It is incredibly difficult to replicate the results of an econometrics result and all are heavily dependent on the assumptions made.

It seems unlikely we will ever know the returns of education. Any given study can easily be dismissed due to its flaws. Perhaps they use poor data (an unfortunate feature of economics education is that it teaches students how to interpret data but not how to gather it). Or they treat all levels of education the same as though a year of primary school is the same as a year of college. Or that all colleges were the same or all courses or all teachers. Either way econometrics fails at its task of being a precise science, because no matter how mathematically impressive the methodology may be, it conclusions are no convincing than an argument from words alone.

Likewise econometricians have been struggling for years to find out whether or not racism is present in the economy. It is clear that black workers get paid less than white workers in America but is this due to racism? Econometricians try to measure this by adding controls, the only problem is that if you add enough controls you remove all differences and end up comparing two identical models and finding no difference. Furthermore econometrics is based on the assumption that the variables are independent. But racism takes more than one form. So when econometricians find that the difference in wages can be explained by geographic or educational or even occupational, they may conclude that racism isn’t present. But what if racism affects these issues and black people suffer from poorer education, live in ghettos and are excluded from certain issues? We could end up looking at a restaurant where all the well paid chefs are white and all the badly paid servers are black and conclude that no racism is present.

I’m not suggesting that we burn our computer models or econometrics is useless. Rather I see myself as a mathematical sceptic. Maths should only be used as a last resort when it has something to contribute to the debate and helps explain the issue. Too often mathematical jargon is used smugly to add to the illusion of intelligence and to swat off criticism. Too often it is used to obfuscate rather than illuminate and muddle rather than clarify. In a way it resembles abstract art, few can understand or explain it and they look condescendingly on the rest of us while we fail to distinguish the difference between it and random, meaningless scribbling. We need to admit that the Emperor has no clothes and bring economics away from the siren call of mathematical elegance and back towards the rough but rewarding seas of reality. We should focus on the problems that matter not the ones that are easiest to deal with.

39 thoughts on “The Emperor’s New Econometric Model”

  1. I presume you have read the book “Econned” which makes much the same point. And why is it that theories that make egregiously wrong predictions still find favor (financial crises are impossible)? Are economists used to that? In science, the proponents of a theory who find a major flaw are rarely listened to until they find a fix for it. But if fix after fix is applied and flaws keep popping up then theories are abandoned. Should this not happen in economics? It doesn’t seem to.

  2. Excellent post! Like you, I am always worry if someone presents a mathematical formula. The first thing I try to do, is to look whether the author is able to explain how (s)he has come to that formula or is able to explain what is actually means. Too often such information is either absent or obscured in the text.

    1. Exactly, a lot of the time its meaningless jumble that doesn’t serve any purpose. I think economists feel they must include pages of mathematical jargon or else it isn’t “serious” economics.

  3. Ans yet weren’t both of the recent Pulitzer prize winners in Economics both econometricians? What’s your view on this choice Robert?

    Were the Pulitzer judges guilty of being like those in your story above about being impressed with something they really don’t understand? A few economists I respect like Krugman and Bill Black seem to think they were.

    1. Well there were 3 winners, one of which, Hansen, got his award for econometric work. As a result no one seems to quite understand it and the focus is on the other two, Fama and Shiller.

      Shiller definitely deserves the award for his work including warning of the housing crash. It is a complete disgrace that Fama got it as his work on the Efficient Market Hypothesis convinced many people that markets couldn’t crash. Its odd that both of them won as a lot of Shiller’s work is devoted to debunking Fama.

  4. Here’s a recent example of what you wrote about whose conclusions are model specific rather than tied to any semblance of reality.
    Look at the appendix (section 8) and see how the references are, in effect, self referential in the sense that only new Classical and so-called “New Keynesian” (i.e new Classical + frictions) have anything of value to add in terms of theoretical rigour.

  5. This article is seriously, seriously misinformed. I don’t have the time and energy to point out all of the misrepresentations, but you do ask “what is the benefit of education?”

    This is one of the more studied questions in empirical microeconomics, and we have very good answers. All you need to do is put “returns to education” into google scholar. Maybe add “survey article” if you like. As an example, the abstract of this survey article ( states:
    “evidence, based on estimates from a variety of datasets and specifications, is that there is an unambiguously positive effect on the earnings of an individual from participation in education. Moreover, the size of the effect seems large relative to the returns on other investments.”

    1. Usually when someone says they don’t have the time to say why they disagree, its because they can’t think of any good reasons. There is certainly a large literature on returns to education, which is why I choose it. However, there is no consensus with many economists arguing that education might just be signalling. As the abstract even says “the issue is surrounded with difficulties”.

      1. No, it really does take too much time to argue with someone with such polarized views. Your reply betrays further misconceptions.

        Whether the returns to education are caused by signalling or an actual improvement in human capital is orthogonal to the problem of estimating what the returns are — you are using a red herring. There *is*, however, a consensus amongst economists that the returns to education are large and significant.

        And yes, “the issue is surrounded with difficulties.” But just because something is difficult doesn’t mean that we can’t overcome those difficulties. What it does mean is that it is difficult, and can take a long time to understand and properly deal with the difficulties. Clearly you have not even attempted to take the time to understand the returns to education literature, or econometrics in general.

        1. Perhaps I was slightly too strong saying that they are orthogonal, but you can certainly measure the returns to education without worrying about their cause, in the same way you can measure the size of a boulder without worrying about why it is there.

          At its most basic, econometrics is simply a measuring stick.

          1. But the whole point of measuring education returns is to make policy advice. So the government will ask an economist if it is worthwhile to build a new university or increase the education budget. The economist will have to measure returns but more importantly understand what caused them to see if the policy will be successful. Economists do not undertake econometric models for the fun of it, but to learn from them, which is why understanding why is just as important, if not more so, than simply measuring what happened.

            1. “But the whole point of measuring education returns is to make policy advice.”
              Well, that very much depends on who you are asking. Just because you say so doesn’t make it true. If the goal of the econometrician is to help high school leavers to decide whether to attend college or not, then the causes of the returns to education are much less important.

              As an aside, there are a non-trivial number of economists who do undertake econometric studies for the fun of it.

              From reading your other responses on this thread, it seems like you are unable to distinguish between the econometric model and the interpretation of the econometric model. Your arguments are ridiculous when applied to the econometric models themselves, but it seems like you disagree with the *interpretations* of the econometric models.

              It is possible to have reasonable disagreements over interpretation of data and econometric models (although your disagreements are far from reasonable). Before you can have these disagreements you must first understand the models. But the fact that well informed people can have reasonable disagreements over the interpretation of a model does not mean that we should not be conducting the modelling exercises.

  6. Good article on mystification of the financial world, I presume Mr Nielsen, having had a university training in economics, it is surprising he is not working for guiding the government on economic policy for the enlightenment of all? conversely if economics is no more than the modern mans totem pole, and no on can make sense of this discipline, as a basic understandable science, it appears to many as little more than what this article began with, as a Chinese puzzle.
    That being so insider trading is the article we await.

  7. “Issues such as trust, co-operation, uncertainty, tradition and a host of social norms and heuristics guide how we interact with other. ”

    Are you implying these issues cannot be modeled? Well they can be and have been extensively. Biologists do extensive modeling in this area as well. For a recent economics paper see Acemoglu et al “Cycles of Distrust”.

    Akerlof and kranton have also modeled identity, if you are interested in that topic.

    Mathematics is the language of nature so I find it perfectly natural that a serious subject like economics will use mathematics extensively. As far as lagrangians and production functions not being important, I recommend you check out operations researchers and production economics/engineering. Both are very important in organizations.

    1. You can’t assert that mathematics is the language of nature and then put forth X to be perfectly suitable for being expressed in mathematics because it is a part of nature. EVERYTHING is part of nature.

      The claim by Nielsen is not that models cannot be made concerning economic principles, but that it’s pointless to do so if 1. No consensus is ever reached 2. reality differs with the predictions of these models 3. Even if correct predictions are being made with models, they still have to be put to some practical use. Given point 1. and the reality of being unable to change the way we do business just by pointing to the results of a study, makes it a futile exercise.

      That was the point, more or less.

      I’m not saying I agree with Nielsen, I don’t have any background in economics, but it would seem you were attacking a straw man.

  8. I wish my students were willing to speak out and ask the kinds of questions you ask. There’s no way of saying this without sounding patronising, but it would enable me to correct some of the errors that are made – both in this blog and by my students.

    The following statement has so many holes in it, I’m not sure what this “econometrics” is you refer to:

    “The fundamental problem with econometrics is that it tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. In order to build a mathematical model you must be dealing with events that are predictable and consistent, that you can easily compile data on.”

    Firstly, econometrics is statistical, not mathematical – any mathematician would tell you that.

    But I’ll grant you, suggesting that y_i = alpha + beta*x_i + error_i is a mathematical construct. So bypassing that one…

    Does y_i = alpha + beta*x_i + error_i require events that are predictable and consistent? No, it doesn’t. That’s what the variance (standard errors) is/are there for, and that’s what testing for the significance of beta is there for. If it’s not predictable (a) we now know that and (b) we move on to something more productive with our time. If it is predictable, we then have to work out whether it’s spurious or not.

    But you also seem very confused about what data are. Data are the numbers we run our models on, and whether or not the underlying economic concept is predictable/vacuous/whatever we then work out by looking at the data. Data are made (noted down, put into spreadsheets) regardless of whether they are predictable.

    Carrying on (and yes, I know this appeals very much to the narrative you believe operates out there in the world that all the clever ones tell everyone else they’re just misunderstood. But I presume you don’t want a world where we all just stop bothering to try and explain things to others?)… you write the following:

    “Likewise econometricians have been struggling for years to find out whether or not racism is present in the economy. It is clear that black workers get paid less than white workers in America but is this due to racism? Econometricians try to measure this by adding controls, the only problem is that if you add enough controls you remove all differences and end up comparing two identical models and finding no difference.”

    I’m not totally sure why you find this a problem that we try and control for other explanatory factors when trying to explain something? Would it be better if we left them out and said “black workers get paid less by X but we don’t know whether they have less experience, fewer qualifications, etc”. It’s surely better if we get the right number for the discrimination by controlling for all other factors that help explaining pay?!

    However, I’ll stop here. You need to clarify what your target is: mathematical economics, or econometrics, because the two are very different indeed. I sense by your final paragraph you dislike mathematical economics, yet the quotes I’ve given suggest that your rant is somehow targeted at econometrics too – but hopefully I’ve given you enough to suggest that you might be mistaken in your attacks.

    1. You may be trying not to sound patronising or condescending but you don’t help your case by calling my post a “rant”.

      I’m not sure why you get caught up in semantics over whether econometrics is maths or statistics, as though there is a huge difference. Statistics uses maths. Likewise I’m not sure why you are giving me a definition of data, I know what it is, how it is used and I’m not sure what I did to give the impression I didn’t.

      My point about the racial pay gap was that if you include controls such as geography or education or experience, you may incorrectly assume that racism is not present. After all there may be racism present in the education system, in hiring and where people live etc. An econometric model would look at a restaurant where all the well paid chefs were white and all the poorly paid kitchen hands were black and conclude that no racism was present, rather the pay gap was due to occupational differences. But what if the owner had a racist view that only whites were good enough to be chefs?

  9. The level of ignorance on this blog is frightening. You literally have no idea about anything your talking. Nothing. I don’t really have the time to go through all your mistakes, so I’m just going to make a quick point. Everything econ related is flawed. You’re so ignorant it’s not even funny. You clearly don’t understand any econometrics and also do not appreciate the importance of quantifying (or at least attempting to) variables and relationships for economic. What is your solution then? Journal after journal filled with 5,000 word essays on 3 day working weeks? Please close this blog, it is a disgrace to the field of economics. The only thing you understand is my spending is your income, which you obviously read on Krugman’s blog. There are serious developments being made in applied microeconomics and a range of other fields – you only talk about cliché business cycle macro here, with flawed interpretations – you shouldn’t be talking authoritatively about DSGEs when you have never derived one or don’t understand them. You read cliché books and then vomit you’re opinions on here. Please make original contributions and pull some data to illustrate a point.

    1. Hahaha this comment is brilliant 🙂 I think its my favourite out of all the comments on the blog. Such anger, such sweeping demands, not only that I’m wrong but that I should also shut my blog down. Classic!

      I could point out that I’ve never mentioned DSGE on this blog so I don’t know why you think I’m talking authoritatively. I never written a 5,000 word post (2,000 is my limit) and I’ve only discussed a three day working week once. But never mind, your comment is priceless.

      1. What is ‘classic’ is your failure to engage with the substantial criticism this post has received. MK’s post is easy to attack because the underlying point has been obscured by evident frustration at your (poor) treatment of the topic. James Reade above has submitted an extremely lucid criticism of your op which you have yet to engage with. That tells the readers all they need to know really. I concur with MK re ignorance of the topic.

        1. Unfortunately I’ve been incredibly busy the last few weeks studying econometrics and so I haven’t had time to fully respond to every comment. However, I cannot see the “substantial criticism” I am apparantly failing to engage with. The comments have so far been little more than “you’re wrong and I’m not going to bother to tell you why”. Even those ones got a response. Reade’s was the one comment I hadn’t the time to get to last night, which I have replied to now.

          Might I conclude that you agree with MK that I should lessen my criticism of DSGE (which I have never mentioned) and not write constantly write 5,000 word posts (a size I have never reached) on three day working weeks (an issue I only discussed once)? Should I shut down my ignorant blog which merely consists of Krugman cliches I have vomited here?

          I eagerly await your response.

          1. I will ignore the second half of your reply as it pertains naught to my original post.

            You say that ‘The comments have so far been little more than “you’re wrong and I’m not going to bother to tell you why’. The only comment I am interested in is that of Mr Reade and your response to it is lacking. Indeed you completely fail to participate in the debate (your dialogue with Anonymouse is actually another example where you wholly fail to engage with criticism). He admonished your op for failing to accurately characterise your intended target: which apparently is econometrics. You have neither clarified your target (mathematical economics or econometrics, which is it?) nor engaged with his criticisms. There does not seem to be much point trying to debate you on the matter for 1) you have too strong a prior to even consider their points and 2) you are wholly ignorant of what exactly is the nature of the statistical inference in the social sciences. Your OP simply amounts to nothing more than a rant and Mr Reade deserves credit for picking through your incoherent ramblings; distilling your own thoughts for you and providing a point by point criticism of where you are mistaken or confused in your criticisms of econometrics. For example, he tries to correct your sloppy thinking regarding mathematical modelling of deterministic v stochastic systems (the latter of which are relevant to econometrics). You simply fail to even acknowledge the first real point of his reply! Your reply to this consists of barely a few badly-thought out lines that do not begin to deal with the substance of his reply. “I’m not sure why you get caught up in semantics over whether econometrics is maths or statistics, as though there is a huge difference. ” Are you for real with this statement? Laughable. There is a vast difference between the type of logical mathematical structure of proofs in microeconomics (mathematical economics) and the mathematics of statistical inference in empirical work (which is econometrics btw).

            I wish you luck with your exam: I doubt your hubris alone will get you through that one.

    2. Do you realize how elitist this sounds? Are you trying to carve out a nice little well paid bureaucratic niche for yourself? Perhaps you have already succeeded. Stop using the acronyms. Stop trying to clothe yourself as an expert by using obscure references that are only understood by those in your personal academic realm.

      Mathematics is a language that can be used to make concepts clearer and easier to understand… but if the way you use it doesn’t allow you to make real and accurate predictions about how the world really works, then it is useless. DSGE — Dynamic (variables that move) Stochastic (from events that arise from random processes) General Equilibrium (and “might” settle into a lower ‘Energy’ state).

      What is the equilibrium at play here? How do you define an ‘Energy’ state in economics?

      All that most people care about is the ratio between the money they earn and the sum of their expenses. If that ratio is greater than one (ie, they are earning more than they spend on day-to-day expenses [Income/Expenses ~= G = dI/dE]), they will be happier (you could define this as lower probability to revolt [a metric that most governments *should* care about]). Where are the statistics on metrics like this?

      How do you measure “racism”, eh? Do you define it financially? Here’s an example of a model:

      R (“Racism”, units — “G for race X”)
      A (“Average G (“for all races”)”)

      R – A = 0 (This would mean that there is no financial advantage/disadvantage to being race X)

      R – A > 1 (This would mean that there is a financial advantage to being race X)

      R – A < 1 (This would mean that there is a financial disadvantage to being race X)

      Great, my "cute" model; but it's worthless if I can't apply data to it. It's also too damn simple to give any worthwhile information about "why" the racism is occurring.

      Here's the real issue: expert abuse. The public screams that there are problems, the Politicians call on the "experts" to fix the problems. The experts wave their hands in the air and say, "Ookle de boople DSGE, the stochastic equilibrium state of this marginalized Hopfield network will produce convex, parametric boundary conditions on the securities graph network. Blah blah blah derivatives blah blah bonds." But really the experts are providing a red herring, waving the rotten and stinking fish in front of the public's nose; who by and large, cannot understand a damn thing that is being said. The lawmakers then bribe said experts with more funding for their research. The public is confused, but satisfied that the expert is being honest in their arcane analysis of the economy.

      These shenanigans must stop.

      1. Dear Robert

        When you are writing, please stop writing posts passing off the ideas of others as your own, and please stop writing posts on economics in general, in particular Minsky’s instability hypothesis, the Austrian school Steve Keen and econometrics in general, not only because it is not fair to pass off others ideas as your own, it is even worse to write them out incorrectly. I am a dilettante when it comes to economics, but even so, I can see you have a poor comprehension of these topics. Enjoy your life.

        Yours sincerely

        Fellow UCD Pumpkin

        1. What are you talking about? When did I ever claim any person’s’s ideas as my own. Whenever I discussed The Financial Instability Hypothesis I always said it was Minskys and not my idea. Your other comments are spam can you please explain yourself or I will delete them.

          1. Dear Robert

            Amazing why Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis is called…Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis. Essentially your blog is made up of posts, poorly explaining many economics topics, without citations, for the sole reason of posters patting you on the back for content, telling you how smart you are, that has nothing to do with you, and you feel warm and gooey inside as a result. Did you fail econometrics? I appreciate there are problems with the field, but there are so many errors in this article it comes off as bitter and narcissistic.

            There is nothing wrong with being a pumpkin. Enjoy your life.
            Yours sincerely

            Fellow UCD Pumpkin

            1. Are you alright? Your comments are a bit strange. I’m sure the pumpkin reference makes sense to you, but its a bit strange. I know that Minsky came up with the idea of the Financial Instability Hypothesis. Can you link me to where I didn’t acknowledge him or claimed it as my own? I haven’t mentioned it in that many posts so I don’t know why you’re commenting here because I didn’t even mention it in this post.

  10. Man, I hope your teachers don’t see this…especially the one for econometrics.It is a good piece of comedy for anyone who knows something about the topic… Writing about something you do not know about it is just not a good idea. Anyway, good luck in the exams, Morgan still around? you must be having a blast…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s