Sep 23 2010

The magical recession proof bunny

Chocolate Sales: A Sweet Spot in the Recession – TIME

Living in Switzerland, I find an article featuring a local business from the town my school is in irresistible, particularly when it appear in TIME magazine. Lindt chocolate, the company featured in this article, manufactures its delicate treats right down the hill from the ZIS campus, which means that when the wind is just right, you can just catch the scent of fresh, creamy chocolate wafting up the hillside while walking to campus.

Lindt, as well as its global competitors in the chocolate business, is enjoying surge in demand even while countless other industries are forced to cut back production, lay off workers, and close their factory doors. From TIME:

While the credit crisis has slowed down sales of everything from cars to organic groceries, people seem happy to keep shelling out for chocolate. Last year, as the global recession was gaining ground, Swiss chocolate makers bucked the trend with record sales — nearly 185,000 tons, an increase of 2% over 2007, sold domestically and in 140 export markets…

“Switzerland’s image sells well abroad, and nothing says ‘Switzerland’ more than chocolate,” says Stephane Garelli, director of the World Competitiveness Center at the Institute of Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, predicting that this comfort food will continue to sweeten the sour economy for months to come…

“Now that people don’t have a new television or a new car,” he noted, “they eat a bit more chocolate.”

“Chocolate is one of the more recession-resilient food sectors,” says Dean Best, executive director of Just-Food, a U.K.-based news and information website for the global food industry. “With consumers eating out less and eating at home more, there is evidence that they are still allowing themselves the occasional indulgence — and chocolate is a relatively inexpensive indulgence.”

But the question of why there is no meltdown in the chocolate business may be more a matter of psychology than economics. “There is well-documented evidence going back to Freud, showing that in times of anxiety and uncertainty, when people need a boost, they turn to chocolate,” says Garelli of the IMD. “That’s why when the economy is bad, chocolate is still selling well.”

Which goes to show that chocolate is more than a candy treat — it’s real food for the soul.

So does this mean chocolate is an inferior good, or one for which demand increases as incomes fall? I doubt many Swiss chocolate producers would consider their product inferior, but perhaps it does fit the definition.

On the other hand, perhaps the reason demand for chocolate increases during a recession has more to do with the substitution effect than the income effect. As people eat out less, they consume fewer expensive deserts at restaurants and instead fill their shopping baskets with more affordable dessert options for the home. I can say from experience that this is the case for myself.

Living in Switzerland, I find myself rarely going out to eat at restaurants, an activity reserved for special occasions in this country where a steak can set you back 75 dollars. Instead, I eat at home almost every night, and nothing is more appealing to me, especially during hard economic times, than a bar of delicious chocolate after a home cooked meal. Demand for chocolate may rise during recessions simply because the demand for one of its substitutes (restaurant desserts) falls.

Discussion questions:

  1. Do you think chocolate is an inferior good or a normal good? What’s the difference? What types of goods do YOU consome more of when you find yourself faced with a tighter budget?
  2. Does economics have a good explanation for the above situation? The article mentions Freud, a pioneer in  the field of psychology; do humans’ economic behavior always appear rational?
  3. If chocolate were an inferior good, what would happen to chocolate sales when the global economy finally turns around and incomes start increasing? What do you think will happen to chocolate sales when the economy starts imrpoving? Explain.

About the author:  Jason Welker teaches International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement Economics at Zurich International School in Switzerland. In addition to publishing various online resources for economics students and teachers, Jason developed the online version of the Economics course for the IB and is has authored two Economics textbooks: Pearson Baccalaureate’s Economics for the IB Diploma and REA’s AP Macroeconomics Crash Course. Jason is a native of the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and is a passionate adventurer, who considers himself a skier / mountain biker who teaches Economics in his free time. He and his wife keep a ski chalet in the mountains of Northern Idaho, which now that they live in the Swiss Alps gets far too little use. Read more posts by this author

31 responses so far

31 Responses to “The magical recession proof bunny”

  1. Amiton 25 Sep 2009 at 5:55 am

    I believe Lindt has covered its bases and made their chocolate recession proof by having both normal and inferior goods. What i mean by this is that lindt has a wide range of chocolates varying in qualities and price at the top being the famous sprungli. Once recession hit people did not stop buying chocolate rather switched from the normal good-sprungli to the inferior good-other lindt products.

    As usual economics has a solution for everything including Freud's psychological inquiries. Cheap chocolate is an inferior good which explains why in times of hardship whether it be economic or not they will turn to the cheap yet delicious product.

    If chocolate were an inferior good the sales would go down once the global economy turns and income start increasing. I do believe when the economy starts improving sales may go down a bit however nothing serious. I am sure the chocolate companies will simply have an increase int heir luxury chocolate brands.

  2. Thomason 25 Sep 2009 at 4:04 pm

    1.I dont think that chocolate is and inferior good rather it is a good that makes some people feel better about themselves when they eat it. So while people are worried about thier money chocolate could be an escape from that.

    2.I dont think that there is a good explanation for this since the rational behaviour would be to stop buying chocolate all together it is an irration human behavior that is much the same as smoking.

    3.Chocolate sales while they might slightly increase during economic ressesion are not as bound to the economy as other products that is why we would see less of a change in thier sales.

  3. Johnon 25 Sep 2009 at 4:53 pm

    1.Do you think chocolate is an inferior good or a normal good? What’s the difference? What types of goods do YOU consome more of when you find yourself faced with a tighter budget?

    This question, like that of the bicycle is also difficult to anwser. Chocolate is in a way both an inferior and a normal good. As people make more money they will buy more chocolate, but also as people lose money they will save their money for items such as a chocolate bar instead of going out and having an expensive dinner. If I had to choose between inferior or normal though I would probably say that chocolate is a normal good, because people who are really tight on money will not be buying chocolate or other related foods rather they will save for more important items. People who are earning more money will have plenty of money to spend on items such as chocolate and would be willing to purchase more of it.

  4. Hannaon 27 Sep 2009 at 12:34 am

    An inferior good is a product for which the demand decreases when the income rises and the consumer chooses to buy a more expensive product as a substitute for the inferior good. A normal good is the most typical good, for which the demand increases when the income increases. I think chocolate can be considered inferior and normal, depending on the brand of chocolate. Different brands can vary quite a lot in price, so cheap brands of chocolate are inferior because as people’s income increase, they buy more expensive chocolate instead of the cheap brands. However, chocolate is also a normal product because when the income increases, the demand for the expensive brands of chocolate increase. Every time I go to Zurich with friends, we always base what we are going to have for lunch on how much money we have at the time. If our budget is tight, then we go to McDonald’s and get a burger for 2.50 CHF, whereas if we have enough money, we usually go to a proper restaurant where a meal is at least 20 CHF.

    Yes, economists have a good explanation for the above situation. It makes sense that the demand for chocolate is still high even though there is a recession, because many people turn to chocolate when they need comfort. Also, since some brands of chocolate are so cheap anyway, it would not be very economical to cut down on chocolate just because you are faced with a tighter budget, because whether you spend a few francs on chocolate or not will not really make a difference to your budget, but it will boost your utility.

    If chocolate were an inferior good, then the demand for chocolate would decrease when the global economy turns around. I think that there is a possibility that this may be the case, because if people’s incomes increase, then they will go out for dinner more often and spend money on an expensive dessert, rather than buying cheap chocolate. However, the change in demand for chocolate will not be drastic, because people will always want chocolate to some degree.

  5. Noraon 27 Sep 2009 at 7:02 pm

    I think that chocolate, being a universally-recognized treat, can act as both an inferior and a normal good. It tends to be a normal good when real incomes are relatively high because as incomes rise, the demand for chocolate rises. This is because as people have more money to spend, more chocolate will be bought to, for example, give as a present. On the other hand, as the article states, chocolate can serve as a relatively cheap comfort in bad times. In this sense, chocolate can be seen as an inferior good, for which the demand rises, when incomes fall. When I am faced with a tighter budget I tend to buy, for example, chocolate chip cookies from Migros, instead of purchasing them at Starbucks. For me, that makes the ones from Migros an inferior good, because when I have more money, I rather buy the chocolate chunk cookies from Starbucks.

    The above situation in which chocolate is a normal and an inferior good according to different economic situations, can be explained by looking at human behavior. Chocolate as a normal good: In bad economic times, a person who is invited for dinner at his friend’s house might write nice card, while when incomes are high they might buy a box of Lindt chocolates (as income rises, demand rises). Chocolate as an inferior good: Chocolate actually contains serotonins, a substance causing people to produce the hormone endorphin, making people feel happier. In times when budgets are tight, this presumed knowledge makes people purchase more chocolate, with the hope of feeling happier. (as incomes fall, demand rises).

    I mentioned before that when the economy starts improving, chocolate will turn from an inferior good to a normal good and more of it will be purchased, although not because it is a cheap source of comfort, but because it is appreciated everywhere and at all times.

  6. Christopheron 27 Sep 2009 at 9:30 pm

    I believe that chocolate can act as both the normal and the inferior good because it has the characteristics of both. Chocolate can become an inferior good when people’s income fall and they are forced to eat at home instead of eating a nice meal in a restaurant. However it can also become a normal good when people’s income rise and kids get more of an allowance, with which they will buy chocolate or couples want to have a nice romantic dinner involving chocolate as a treat.

    I think that yes, economists do have an answer or an explanation for the above situation but this does not necessarily mean that the human behavior in buying the products will appear rational. If the markets are in a period of recession then chocolate will be an inferior good that people go to too forget their problems but if markets are doing well chocolate will do the opposite and people will buy it as a treat. This is also what makes it into such a good product because in both of the scenarios there is a possibility that people will still be willing to buy certain quantities of the products. It all depends on whether the sellers like lindt do their job properly and make sure that people will want to buy chocolate in their current time period.

    I believe that chocolate sales will either stay the same or reduce but not by a lot. This is due to the fact that people are already buying their product much more than any other product during the recession so when incomes start to raise then people will turn to chocolate being an inferior good to a normal good. This turn will make people buy chocolate as a gift instead of a “feel good” snack for themselves at home. This will also mean that sales will decrease slightly due to those who will go to more exquisite desserts such as rare delicacies not found often.

  7. Sarah Ebleon 27 Sep 2009 at 10:23 pm

    1.Do you think chocolate is an inferior good or a normal good? What’s the difference? What types of goods do YOU consume more of when you find yourself faced with a tighter budget?

    An inferior good is a good for which as a consumer’s income rises, the demand for it decreases and the other way round: as a consumer’s income decreases, the demand for the product increases. It has an inverse relationship between demand and income. Whereas a normal good has a direct relationship between demand and income which means..

    I wouldn’t say that chocolate is an inferior good because as the income increases, the demand for chocolate doesn’t decrease. Everyone loves chocolate. It happens in case of recession that the demand rises because the people’s income is smaller. But because of their low income, they abdicate a new car and dinners in a restaurant, but not chocolate. They can afford more chocolate now because they abdicate the expensive car and food in a restaurant and therefore have more money left.

    If I would find myself faced with a tighter budget, I would buy goods of less quality and sales.

    2.Does economics have a good explanation for the above situation? The article mentions Freud, a pioneer in the field of psychology; does human’s economic behavior always appear rational?

    Economics is a social science, meaning that it studies people in society and how they interact with each other. Therefore, economists try to explain people’s behavior, such as psychologists, although in slightly different ways. Freud, a psychologist, explains the situation as following: People will abdicate dinners at a restaurant and the good deserts, and would therefore buy more candy for home. Chocolate is one of the more expensive ones and therefore represent some luxury for the people that already have to abdicate a lot and save a lot of money. This is a pretty logical explanation, but still there are cases where you can’t always explain people’s economic behavior and it doesn’t always seem to be rational.

    3.If chocolate were an inferior good, what would happen to chocolate sales when the global economy finally turns around and incomes start increasing? What do you think will happen to chocolate sales when the economy starts improving? Explain.

    Inferior goods are goods for which as a consumer’s income rises, the demand for it decreases. So if the income should start to increase again, the demand for chocolate would decrease and therefore the sales would decrease. Furthermore, it would mean that the chocolate market would be doing poorer and poorer.

  8. kvoskuilon 28 Sep 2009 at 4:55 am

    An inferior good is a good for which the demand decreases when the income increases, a consumer might choose to buy a higher quality good as a substitution for the lower quality good. A normal good is a good for which the demand increases when the income increases. I think chocolate can be considered an inferior good. If for example, a consumer’s income increases the demand for the non-named cheap chocolate will decrease and the branded chocolate demand will increase; because consumers are able to buy the higher quality chocolate. It can both be an inferior and normal good depending on the income of a consumer. When I and my friends go out, we have to choose between the cheap beer and the more expensive branded beer. If we have a lot of money we will go for the more expensive beer because it is usually of high quality.

    Yes, I do believe the economist has a good explanation because chocolate was a “soul food”. Chocolate had psychological factors to it because it would boost your comfort. Since chocolate is relatively cheap to other dessert products you can buy in a supermarket it doesn’t make such a big difference if one buys chocolate or not, one thing is sure, if you buy chocolate your utility will be boosted.

    If chocolate were an inferior good, then the demand for chocolate would decrease. The income of consumers would rise and thus more people would buy more expensive desserts instead of chocolate bars. The decrease in demand would not be huge. The demand for chocolate will always be present because it can be consumed almost at every point during the day and it has a large utility.

  9. axelon 28 Sep 2009 at 7:08 am

    Chocolate is an inferior good in this case because of the economic recession. Normally though it woudl be a normal good since the more income the better quality chocolate you could buy. I personally almost never eat at a restaurant and therefore do not believe it is a substitute good. I would buy the cheaper kinds of food when i am low in money. for example, instead of buying a meal at McDonald's I woudl buy a burger alone, or a cheeseburger.

    Economics does not have a very good explanation because chocolate is a very special good. economics do use the word utility to apply peoples happiness but, for chocolate since it is cheap and makes people happy form eating it, it will allays be consumed even if everyone loses their money(so they feel better they eat it) or if they get money( they have more money, they can buy more) therefore chocolate is the perfect business. and humans always appear rational, only few make the mistake of buying Coop chocolate instead of Migros.

  10. Yaelon 29 Sep 2009 at 3:45 am

    An inferior good is one that consumers demand less of when their income increases. On the other hand, a normal good is one that consumers choose to demand more of as their income increases. In this case, chocolate can be seen as either an inferior good or a normal good; this depends on each person's income and the specific circumstances in which the consumers are in. For example, if someone is willing to spend more on chocolate that someone else is, to that person cholocate is a normal good. Yet in reference to this case, chocolate can also be seen as an inferior good because of the economic recession; people would perhaps classify other food as more of a necessity and may find chocolate less appealing because of its higher price. While chocolate is known to ameliorate our moods and make us "happier", I can still see how this specific situation shows chocolate in a differnet light.

  11. Silvia Dieteron 04 Oct 2009 at 7:21 pm

    1. The difference between a normal good and an inferior good is: as income rises, the demand for a "normal good" will also rise. However, the demand of an inferior good will fall as soon as income rises and the consumer starts to buy higher substitutes in place of an inferior good. I think that chocolate can be a normal good as well as an inferior good.

    However, I believe that chocolate is rather an inferior good than a normal good. When the income of an consumer increases the demand for cheap chocolate, such as M-Budget, decreases. Whereas the demand for high quality chocolate (such as Lindt or Spruengli) will increase.

    When I have a tight budget I would rather buy cheap and no-name goods than expensive brands.

    2. Yes, I think that economics have a good explanation for the situation above. Chocolate is mainly a psychological factor. For example, many people buy chocolate in bad economic times because it helps to maximize their utility. People rather buy chocolate compared to other desserts because it is cheaper. And as I said before it boosts their comfort and utility.

    3. If chocolate would be an inferior good, the demand for it would decrease as the consumers income would increase. Therefore the chocolate sales would decrease. The chocolate market will always be present because almost everybody loves chocolate however the market might get poorer.

  12. Cassion 13 Apr 2010 at 12:37 pm

    I believe that humans economic behavior is not always rational, but undermost circumstances, yes. If the price level of chocolate decreases and the incomes of buyers remain the same, the demand for chocolate increases and therefore more will be bought. With thing such as chocolate it is simple and easily accesible and therefore the behaviors easier to predict and more rational. Reading that an inferior good is one that consumers demand less of when their income increases, when the economy starts improving the demand for chocolate would then decrease in this situation.

  13. Graham N.on 25 Sep 2010 at 6:00 am

    1. I think that chocolate is a normal rather than inferior good. The difference is that the demand for normal goods increase as income increases while it decreases for inferior goods. I may be an irrational consumer, but I actually tend to still buy normal goods, just less frequently.

    2. Economics has two different possible explanations, either that chocolate consumption is normal, and is just affected by substitution, or it is inferior, and is affected by the incomes of the consumers. These are reasonably good explanations, but the same affect is not occurring with all other products with similar characteristics (normal and inferior tendencies). The desire of humans for feelings of comfort and happiness lead them to make irrational economic decisions, one of which is the purchase of chocolate over other snack or comfort foods.

    3. If chocolate sales were an inferior good, then sales would decrease as the global economy turns around. I personally feel that the market will continue to expand. As incomes increase in developing economies, more consumers will be able to indulge in chocolate, and this will more than make up for the rich consumers in wealthy countries who switch to eating out rather than eating chocolate at home.

  14. Alain Meyeron 27 Sep 2010 at 12:47 am

    1. Chocolate isn't an inferior good, and that seems to be clear to me. The difference between the two is that, as income rises, less of an inferior good is consumed and more of a normal good is consumed. Generally, chocolate is associated with other frivolities that are only consumed when you have the cash to blow. I find myself purchasing normal goods as rarely as possible and consuming mostly inferior goods regardless of economic standing.

    2. Economics has a rather good handle on the situation. It states chocolate is either inferior, or substituting other goods. However, I still believe that it's more a matter of the tastes of consumers changing. Chocolate is known to improve one's mood, and so in the event of people being depressed because of an economic depression, chocolate makes us happier. It isn't inferior, as chocolate consumption is the same no matter your economic standing.

    3. If chocolate were inferior, the sales would go down as incomes rise because people would purchase normal goods in place of it. If the economy starts to improve, chocolate consumption might decrease more because people no longer need comfort foods. I see it more as a shift in consumer tastes, as the trend towards needing artificial pickups isn't as required anymore.

  15. Samantha Raineron 27 Sep 2010 at 3:42 am

    1. Chocolate is a normal good. The difference between a normal and inferior good is that as the demand for a normal good increases the income also increases and for inferior goods it is the opposite – it decreases. If I was faced with a tighter budget I would be inclined to buy products that are in the sales bins, but it also depends on the product. If it were vegetables or fruits, I would not go for the cheaper variety, I would rather have good quality fruits and vegetables instead of fruits and vegetables that aren't of a great quality.

    2. Economics has a good explaination for the situation because it is either inferior or a substitution good. I do not think that humans' economic behavior will always appear to be rational because there are many different factors that lead to the decisions that we make as humans. As research shows chocolate makes us happier, and in an economic depression we will tend to consume more chocolate if it makes us feel better. This may not seem rational when we should be saving money for other more "important" goods.

    3. If chocolate were an inferior good the sales of chocolate would decrease as incomes increased because people would purschase normal goods instead. When the economy starts to improve I think the sales of chocolate might stay the same, because if there is no need for chocolate to make people feel happy then they wont need to buy chocolate anymore. And the sales of chocolate might stay the same as it did during the economic depression.

  16. Sam Baronon 27 Sep 2010 at 3:55 am

    Do you think chocolate is an inferior good or a normal good? What’s the difference? What types of goods do YOU consume more of when you find yourself faced with a tighter budget?

    Chocolate isn't an inferior good as its demand doesn't increase when incomes rise, nor is it a normal good because while its demand increases as income increases, its demand also increases when income decreases which is not a characteristic of normal goods. When I find myself faced with a tighter budget I dont tend to switch to lower quality beer or lower priced food, rather I use goods that are available to me for 'free' like eating at home or borrowing an Xbox game rather than buying it.

    Does economics have a good explanation for the above situation? The article mentions Freud, a pioneer in the field of psychology; do humans’ economic behavior always appear rational?

    If you ask an economist to explain the situation he/she will probably start by talking about steady demand because goods that are able to continue in demand growth in all economic climates are "recession proof" I think that Freud is right to think about the emotional side of a human being when determining why they made a certain decision to buy luxury goods in a recession.

    If chocolate were an inferior good, what would happen to chocolate sales when the global economy finally turns around and incomes start increasing? What do you think will happen to chocolate sales when the economy starts improving? Explain.

    If chocolate were an inferior good then sales would go down when incomes increase, I think that chocolate will still continue its demand growth as it is the kind of good that will never go 'out of fashion' so to speak

  17. Pilar Mulleron 27 Sep 2010 at 5:29 am

    1. Although chocolate is a very delicate and delicious desert, I would consider chocolate to be more or less of an inferior good. You can get chocolate everywhere and there are so many brands of chocolate in an monopolistically competitive market, which means that you can get also very cheap chocolate (not necessarily Swiss chocolate, which might be a bit more expensive). The difference between an inferior good and a normal good is that as the income of a consumer rises he/she will consume less of inferior goods but more of normal goods. When I find myself having a low budget, I will also go and buy more inferior goods.

    2. I do not think that the humans' behavior is always rational but I think that the determinants of demand like of expectations of future incomes or of substitution goods can have a good explanation for this demand shift. If a consumer knows that his/her income will fall in the future because of an economic recession, he/she will be likely to turn to inferior goods in order to be capable of saving more money. This will then surely lead also to less dinners at restaurants because it is just too expensive, and so the consumer will buy e.g chocolate, which thus is a substitute good for dinners at fancy restaurants. The economic standing of a consumer can also influence greatly the tastes and preferences he/she has.

    3. If chocolate really were to be an inferior good, then as incomes would rise the quantity demanded of chocolate would decrease. Thus if the economy would start to improve, the chocolate sales would drop. However, I do not think that chocolate sales will ever drop by a significant amount. There's still nothing like a chocolate cake or just a simple chocolate bar. Maybe chocolate cannot even be determined just as an inferior good or just as a normal good.

  18. […] The magical recession proof bunny […]

  19. […] The magical recession proof bunny […]

  20. Raylene Deiron 13 Mar 2012 at 5:52 am

    Undeniably believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

  21. Javier Eicheleon 16 Mar 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Wonderful goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too fantastic. I really like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it smart. I can’t wait to read much more from you. This is really a great website.

  22. Stephen Mcquaidon 19 Mar 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.

  23. Kirk Teeterson 20 Mar 2012 at 10:59 pm

    I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it’s rare to see a great blog like this one nowadays..

  24. Carrol Friedeon 22 Mar 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the web the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people think about worries that they just do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

  25. website designon 23 Mar 2012 at 2:56 am

    It is in point of fact a great and useful piece of info. I am glad that you simply shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.

  26. Brice Brombachon 05 Apr 2012 at 9:08 pm

    hey there and thank you for your info – I’ve definitely picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this web site, since I experienced to reload the site many times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and can damage your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my email and can look out for much more of your respective exciting content. Ensure that you update this again very soon..

  27. Nitin Pillaion 26 Jul 2014 at 7:34 am

    Its all about chocolate…and a bit more chocolate. @Amit, I agree Lindt has made their chocolate recession proof.

  28. Nitin Pillaion 26 Jul 2014 at 7:36 am

    I think similar thing can be said about Cadbury too, as they have chocolates for both normal and inferior goods. They even have the "most expensive chocolate" brand by themselves.
    My recent post: hMost Expensive Chocolates For The Chocoholics

  29. baedonwebz.comon 26 Mar 2015 at 8:34 am

    baedonwebz.com

    The magical recession proof bunny | Economics in Plain English

  30. snacks for kidson 24 Aug 2015 at 11:44 am

    snacks for kids

    The magical recession proof bunny | Economics in Plain English

  31. nfl scoreson 27 Feb 2016 at 7:43 am

    nfl scores

    The magical recession proof bunny | Economics in Plain English