Slashdot Mirror
Halliburton Moving HQ To Dubai
theodp writes "Much-maligned defense contractor Halliburton is moving its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai's friendly tax laws will add to Halliburton's bottom line. Last year the company earned $2.3B in profits. Sen. Patrick Leahy called the company's move 'corporate greed at its worst.' Halliburton, once headed by VP Dick Cheney, has been awarded contracts valued at an estimated $25.7B for its work in Iraq."
Does anybody know whether Vice President Cheney has purchased a home in Dubai yet? Between this and the Dubai Ports World deal, the GWB administration seems to be trying to set up a cushy job there for someone.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I wish the reporting would be more accurate. They stated VERY clearly that they are remaining incorporated in the US and will still be paying US taxes and be subject to US law.
Ninety percent of their business is in the Middle East and Asia. The move just makes business sense. The only ill effect will be a few hundred jobs in Houston lost; not a good thing for those people but all part of business.
You conservative appologists - Clinton - impeachment for lying about getting blown by an intern. Bushes criminal cronies looking for an extradition free home after fu**ing the whole country.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
You forgot arguments. Please, try again.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Maybe we should consider rethinking their contracts as we did the Dubai port management deals. Companies that are based outside the US are clearly not as favorable in terms of our security - at least in the eyes of congress.
Hey, anything that helps them avoid having to pay American wages for American employees is good, right?
Unfortunately, from a business perspective, yes.
And the reason why Slashdot is reporting on this is?...
It's one thing to cover major political stories here, but this is silly.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
In the interest of national security, no company based outside the US should be given any US defense contracts. Period. I bet the Democrats could get that passed as a law.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
When we read histories of wars we often read about the actions and affiliations of governments and armies. Very rarely do we read histories of wars which contain detailed breakdowns of the actions and affiliations of business and banks during the same period.
Create debt, maintain debt, keep people in debt, work those people until they die of debt.
99% of everything else, from suicide bombers to international embargoes, is just PR (running interference, Kansas City Shuffle, sh*tter tennies) to keep the citizens from realizing how deep into debt their political representatives are selling them.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Maybe I just hang out too much with the anti-war crowd but the only explanation that really makes sense to me for why Bush decided to invade Iraq is that Bush had friends in the oil industry that wanted access to Iraq's oil.
Every other explanation for why Bush decided to invaded is inconsistent with other considerations.
Obviously, the Bush administration has given a lot of justifications for invading Iraq. None of the justifications make sense when I actually think about them in detail. Some people claim that Bush is just really stupid but I have a hard time believing that that's the case. After all, Bush was smart enough to get himself elected to USA president twice.
In the end, I have to conclude that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was really about Bush helping out his friends in the oil industry. What puzzles me is that so many people just accept Bush's other justifications - even congress. Do members of congress know Bush is lying but they don't think it's politically expedient to call Bush on it. What about the news media? Do they know Bush is lying but they figure it makes a better story to pretend he's not? What about the general public? Don't they recognize the inconsistencies?
And don't even get me started on the general public's support for massive deficit spending...
Try plane flights from Houston to Hong Kong, Dubai, Beijing, etc. The CEO wants to be closer to the action so he's moving the HQ. I'm sure the decision was a bit more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.
This is such a non-story.
It does make sense to minimize the time zone difference involved.
For instance, if there has to be an urgent phone call between a CEO of an oil services company, and the head of a sovereign nation that retains both de facto and de jure control over resources that are increasingly difficult to find across the world, and somebody is going to be inconvenienced by the time -- I don't think it's going to be the emir who's getting woken up at 3AM to talk business unless it's really, really an emergency.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Am I the only one wondering how in the world this got posted on Slashdot? This just seems like bait for a flame war. Granted, there's plenty of debate to be had on the issue--but this is Slashdot, how? Would it have made the headline if it were Nabisco?
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
They should be forced to pay for Americans if they want to avail themselves of the services provided by this country, and the term "pay for Americans" has a lot of different aspects to it, not all of which have to do with direct employment by such organizations.
Halliburton has a lot inc common with many other major U.S. corporations, who also see nothing wrong with pissing all over their domestic workforce. All that, while simultaneously demanding more and more for less and less from said workforce, demanding to pay less and less in corporate taxes, buying more and more from overseas (e.g. China), manufacturing less and less here, and generally selling out their own people. Don't expect much sympathy for the likes of Halliburton around here.
And so far as you're concerned, it's nice that you have multiple advanced degrees and all, but explain to me how that has anything to do with the kind of employment being lost to the United States today: manufacturing jobs, mostly, because of all the production that's been sent to China.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The US tax base paid for the bombs that blew the hell out of the middle east, now they're paying billions of dollars to a big company to fix the middle east, and people are complaining that the taxes on the profits being made by the big company are going to the middle east instead of remaining in the US.
Words fail me.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
There was a time when US companies and corporate leaders felt that it was worthwhile to care about the communities in which they exist. For some reason, there was a shift (was it in the 80s or before that?) that simply deleted that perception from the list of business interests and practices. It's a damned shame, but how can we bring it back?
Why is it greed for a company to move its headquarters to a place that will take less money from them in taxes? If the company can still do everything it needs to do for its shareholders in the new location, it would irresponsible for it NOT to make the move. The company's purpose is to maximize value for its shareholders, not passively sit around and hope to send more money to the U.S. government.
I know that a lot of people have accused Halliburton of wrongdoing on other issues, but this issue is completely unrelated to those charges. The previous charges seem to be a bit vague at times, and I don't have any opinion about them one way or the other, because I don't know the facts. But on the issue of saving money on taxes by moving an office, the company is completely justified in making the move. I would recommend any company do the same thing under similar circumstances.
David
"This just seems like bait for a flame war"
Exactly. Post something you know will create controversy and watch your readership go up. No doubt many others saw Haliberton on their RSS feed and clicked the link just like I did to see what they where up to. This is a good story for the bottom line of OSTG. It's no different than how the nightly news operates. Comparatively, by comment numbers, this article has done much better than many of the other front page stories... Which is what really matters at the end of the day for the business folks at OSTG. If slashdotters hated Nabisco we would likely see stories about them too. Nabisco does not create controversy within the nerd population nor does it entice prolonged discussion, flame wars and the sort however.
Simple, by putting your money where your mouth is. Support your local businesses. Support businesses which treat their employees well. Try to buy American made whenever you can. I dunno if I'll get in trouble for a plug but I have heard a lot of good things and read many articles about Costco being responsible corporation by offering its employees fair wages, benefits, etc. I try to shop there whenever I can and avoid Wal Mart whenever possible.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
What time was that? Did the East India Companies really care about the communities they worked in? What about the early companies in the industrial revolution?
When pray tell were companies really all that caring about people and not money?
I dunno, did Nabisco's management use its high-ranking government cronies to rake in billions of dollars in criminally-constructed no-bid contracts?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I don't have a problem with technology replacing some jobs. What I do have a problem with is one country exporting jobs to another because the home country believes that some rights (organizing, living wage, etc) are inherent while the other country does not.
What's the difference between being a patriot of the private state of Halliburton and being a patriot of the United States of America? Numbers? A greater degree of moral certitude?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The mere fact that Chenney's name is mentioned at all when he hasn't worked for them for since before the 2000 election cycle is proof positive of the poltical bias in of the press (and, clearly, slashdot).
Here's a guy that donates the six million he earned in stock options from Haliburton to charity because he felt it was the right thing to do to distance himself from a company with huge government contracts, and he gets slammed for being able to take a $6 million tax deduction. It also proves that most people in the country simply don't even understand what a tax deduction is.
So I think what we have here is that Scooter is found guilty on charged of obstruction of justice (obstruction of what justice no one can answer, since no crime was commited that needed investigation), and too many people are sad that it wasn't Chenney that got nailed. So now they take a company that he hasn't worked for in eight years and try to tie his name to their current actions.
Partisanship at it's finest.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Mod parent up. Unless consumers speak with their dollars, corporations have no incentive to change. It's America's growing apathy towards wrongdoing that allows this behavior to continue.
When companies were owned by individuals, not stockholders.
Look at Ford as an example. Got sued (and lost) by stockholders for paying his workers too much. He then bought out all the stockholders and could pay his workers well with the idea that they would then have enough money to buy a Ford as well as having a decent life.
Also it is still like that with small non publicly owned companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I rather doubt we can, in our lifetimes anyway. Countries that are just now entering the level of prosperity that we enjoyed in the second half of the 20th century are quite willing to give tax breaks, look the other way on pollution controls, and in general "care about" companies that open up in otherwise impoverished parts of their countries. Here on the other hand, we have developed a cultural bias against all large companies, while at the same time not doing much to favor small companies either.
If you are a Boeing, you may make the best airplanes, but you have a heavily government subsidized Airbus to go up against. In this particular case of course, Airbus, having nothing to lose but European tax payers money went way out on a limb with some bad technology and now Boeing is seeing the benefit. But several years ago Boeing outlook wasn't so certain, and several years from now (if Airbus gets their act together) that might be the case again. Very rarely though does our government step in to prop up a company that might be in trouble (Chrysler being a counter example), instead letting the chips fall where they may (as with Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
On the other hand, if a company is healthy, there is a public outcry to keep them out of town (Walmart), tax them more, or confiscate their revenues for some worthy cause (as Hillary wants to to do to the other US oil companies). It seems to be often forgotten that these "big greedy companies" are where many of our retirement programs are invested. Yes, Enron was evil (at the top), yes they did bad things, and yes a lot of individuals were hurt when their stock value went to zero. But was the average Enron employee a part of this? Would forcing them all to archive their e-mail for a billion years have prevented it? Doubtful.
Do small companies get treated better? Maybe some do, but the ones I know are being run on a shoestring and nobody working there is getting rich. A dozen man construction company for example is subject to endless regulations, and because they handle millions of dollars in materials, even though the employees may be making a low hourly wage, they are not treated like a "small business". Doctors and Dentists in America used to be thought of as small businesses too, and that's the way they operated. But our legal system has changed all that. Now even the smallest country doctor needs a staff to keep track of paperwork, billing though various government agencies, and of course responding to litigation issues.
Our media has focused on the fact that many large companies are being run by executives that are millionaires, and who continue to make millions every year, often after poor performance. But this isn't true of the vast majority of businesses and we've lost sight of the fact that the REAL value of the company (almost any company) is is the hundreds (or thousands) of employees making a living wage, as well as stockholders (pensioners) just like you and me. Socialist countries (I include most of Europe) have awakened to the need to keep these companies happy, just as we (Americans) have started to find every reason imaginable to make such companies feel unwelcome.
I don't think for a minute that most big companies "care" about their employees, other than on a competitive level, where they have to offer just enough incentives to keep them from jumping ship. But the average American voter certainly doesn't care for corporate America either, and as you can see here from the other comments, we'll also blame them for not sticking around to take another beating. Do you think the average government worker in Washington "cares" about the average American citizen either? Yet we give them more and more authority over us to protect us from those institutions that are free to go somewhere else if the going gets too tough here.
To bring things back we have to once again realize that with the exception of a few e
I'm going to be the last one to defend Haliburton, but exactly where do "American wages for American employees" fit in here? If 90% of their business is in the Middle East, doesn't it make sense to hire local employees?
On a larger scale, what's with the idea that a company owes Americans jobs just because they're American? What happened to land of the free and all that jazz?
The fucking populists are overrunning this country, and I don't like it one bit...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
So you're saying that companies should be forced to remain in countries where the workers have these 'rights' and shouldn't be allowed to expand and open up well paying jobs in countries where the workers have yet to gain the same 'rights?'
You think that the countries where the workers have these 'rights' should close their borders and the other countries will magically endow their citizens with said 'rights' through some mysterious process?
Or are you just saying 'I got mine, screw those other people' but doing it in a clever way?
Common now: what the hell are you talking about. You are saying that people should only buy US OIL? Haliburton isn't an international business because it is seeking slave labour in sweat-shops, it is international because that's where the oil is.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Productivity soared and employee turnover plunged, and the cost per vehicle plummeted. Ford cut prices again and again and invented the system of franchised dealers who were loyal to his brand name. Wall Street had disagreed with Ford's generous labor practices when he began paying workers enough to buy the products they made. Seems like a smart move to me and if they had kept similar attitudes the unions would not have moved in which seems to be a problem now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
What's the point? No matter how family-run it looks, it all came from Sysco, most of it pre-prepared.
You have to go Asian to avoid the factory food.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Haliburton sells to "consumers"?
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Companies benefit from operating in America. Countries are free to set whatever conditions they want to on corporations. Although currently, getting a corporate charter is merely a matter of filling out the right paperwork, when corporations were invented, the charter was granted conditionally, for a particular type of commerce, in a particular area and could be revoked for any reason. You should really look at the history of corporations, why they were invented and why everyone was worried about them from the get-go.
Forming a corporation should be a privilege, not a right. If you don't want the strings that come along with it, form another kind of company like a partnership or sole-proprietorship.
American companies owe America. We may disagree on what, exactly they owe, but if you don't think that they owe us, you are just ignorant. Do you understand how much of your tax dollars go to subsidize the operations of American corporations? Doing business in a country is a privilege, that is just a fact of doing business. You may wish it otherwise, but we, the people, have the right to regulate corporations.
What happened to land of the free and all that jazz?
Corporations have all but demolished the concept of a free citizenry. You are a consumer, a second class citizen. Your interests are secondary to theirs in the eyes of your elected officials. As for All That Jazz, I hear it was released on DVD.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'll tell what I see:
I see Clinton being grilled before a grand jury because a case was brought AGAINST HIM on sexual harrasment (ok, it was White Water which subsequently led to sexual harrasment), and then he clearly committed perjury in an attempt to avoid being found guilty, and basically got a slap on the wrist, despite the fact that republicans are in charge of the legislative branch.
I see Sandy Berger commmitting what is ostensibly treason and getting a slap on the wrist because he's "just sloppy," despite the fact that the republicans are in charge of both the executive and legislative branches.
I see Scooter Libby being questioned in a case where he hasn't been accused of a crime, has no reason to cover anything up since he hasn't been charged with anything and knows he isn't guilty, and giving a couple of wrong dates or times because he couldn't remember, all questions asked during a case that never had any merit (and this was known by the prosecuter on day one), and this is the guy that gets jail time, despite the fact that the investigation happened with a republican legislative and executive brance, and the verdict being reached with a republican in the white house.
Was he guilty? Yes! He should have just said "I don't remember" and given the best answer he could within what he could remember.
BUT, are you seriously going to tell me this guy deserves jail time when the others didn't?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
That isn't very democratic is it? People with more money than me wield more influence, hence an oligarchy. Capitalism isn't a democratic process, but we have to rely on government laws to protect consumers. This is where libertarians get it all wrong. An absolutely unfettered market is rife with abuse. Government should have limited enumerated powers to pass laws that effect the citizenry but open ended ability to regulate corporations in order to protect the citizens first. This is the exact opposite of how things work now. The government grants more and more rights to the 'personage' of a corporation (tax breaks, access to citizen's data, consumer abuse) while at the same time removing our rights as citizens (privacy, habeas corpus...)
Isn't it fascinating that the vast majority of rightwing bullshit talking points are coming from "Anonymous Cowards"? Maybe we should re-assign that to be "fascist thugs" after Mussolini's little unofficial minions, eh? Halliburton is positioning itself for the incoming civil and criminal actions... they are spinning off all defense "support" contracts into a separate company (collecting all potential loss items into one bag) after already taking the profits. Two headquarters is, as a previous poster stated, inherently absurd unless you're expecting HQ#1 to be zerg'd. The US will be damned lucky if it gets a fraction of the completely missing billions of dollars back after all this is done. What we have here are a few corporations (or actually a very small group of people of whom the Bushes and Cheneys are part) who have manipulated themselves into power, looted the US budget/treasury, damaged the governments ability to conduct oversight, and are now scampering out the door. Worse, they have fooled enough of the social and fiscal conservatives into following them for long enough to pull this scam. At this point, anyone supporting these hooligans are either embarrassed and defensive, have a financial stake in it, ... or roadway gravel stupid.
(signed, former republican -- these people make Nixon look saintly)
This will be another installment of "Who the hell modded up this crap?" How am I supposed to not feed trolls if they are modded up so high? There are impressionable minds out there that could be permanently damaged by hearing enough people claim this subjective crap amounts to a decent argument. Won't some mods think of the children?
So where were we....
Your argument is specious and consists of meaningless statements that have no bearing on the issue. In other words, your claims lack integrity.
Lied about what? Libby was NOT the leaker, and Fitzgerald knew that when he interviewed him 3 different times. I'd challenge you to remember, under oath, the exact date and content of a handful of conversations you had several years ago. Apparently if you get some dates mixed up, it's only criminal if you are a Republican.
Oh stop the pity party. The CIA requested the DOJ investigate the possibility that classified info had been leaked and that this may have constituted a crime. Fitz was appointed by the Bush Justice Dept. under Abu Gonzales to head this investigation. Libby specifically lied to the Grand Jury about his conversations, Tim Russert busted him on the stand. There was an indictment from a Grand Jury and a conviction on 4 of 5 counts, including perjury. This isn't about forgetting some dates, this is about purposefully concealing information regarding a crime. Had Libby cooperated, he would not have been charged with anything, just like Karl Rove wasn't. They put poor black Democrats in ass raping prison all the time for covering up misdemeanors, excuse me if I'm not crying over some over-privileged asshole who was complicit in outing the head of the US spy network in a country we were, and still are, at war with. He got his fair trial, his choice of defense and will get his appeals, that's all us civilized folks are obliged to provide, morally or legally. You know we also get to scorn him after he gets pardoned too.
And remember, the Jury wasn't presented with all of the facts.
This is usually where you Bush supporting dead-enders get into trouble, I'm going to enjoy this.
They were not presented with the covert status of Ms. Plame.
This was dealt with during hearings, Judge Walton decided it wasn't pertinent to the case at hand and kept both sides from bringing this up. He didn't want Fitz to prejudice the jury against Libby and he knew there was no purpose for this information to the defense other than to create a greymail smokescreen, which Libby's lawyers have been known to use before (Iran-Contra anyone). Are you suggesting that Judge Walton just has it out for Republicans? Is he in it with Fritz? Is the entire Federal judiciary in it with the underlings of the Republican managed DOJ? Are they all out to "get" Bush? I'm sure Fox will have the entire story up tonight.
They were not presented the identity of who actually "leaked" her role at the CIA.
This assertion is false, it was in the freaking testimony. Dick Armitage took the stand and was deposed in the grand jury. Libby didn't know that Armitage was the one who told Novak. Rove told Cooper and cooperated, while Libby told Miller and lied. Rove, no charges, Libby charges. Is this starting to make any sense to you yet? Fitz, like a good prosecutor, didn't tell the suspects what he knew to gauge the verisimilitude of their statements. Rove was smart enough to cooperate, Libby thought he should cover his actions up.
They were not presented with the lies her husband told to the press, and they were not presented the motivations behind the actual leaker.
Again, how is this pertinent to Libby's actions that obstructed a DOJ investigation? Regardless of the verisimilitude of Joe Wilson's statements, another argument I'll kick your ass in at another time, Libby still doesn't get to obstruct investigations by the DOJ. Or do you agree with Nixon's statement to John Dean, "Remember, you're doing the right thing." Your assertions are completely out of t
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
You are clearly confused. Gonzales wasn't with the Justice Department at that time - he was part of the White House general council. And the only reason Fitzgerald was appointed was because Chuck Schumer whined about it. This was 100% about politics, not justice.
Read the Constitution. It's Congress' job to make sure that the executive branch is following the law. Small 'j' justice is inherently political, especially wrt Congressional oversight of the Executive. We elect people through a political process to perform this function. If you can't account for the normal politicization and distill the objective information that remains, that's your problem, not a flaw with the system. Your assertion has no information content. The people directly responsible for Fitz's appointment to this case were Republican loyalist Bush appointees. That Gonzales wasn't head of DOJ at the time is irrelevant to your point that this was a miscarriage of justice. How does the fact that Mr. "tits are more important than terrorism" Ashcroft was in charge negate the falsification of your assertion that Fitz's appointment and subsequent prosecution somehow lacked integrity? You have yet to actually defend your statement. Unless the point of fact in error changes the meaning of the assertion, you're just dealing with distractions.
Riiiiight. And the FBI agent that interviewed Russert reported that Russert "could not completely rule out the possibility that he had such an exchange" with Libby and that "he speaks to many people on a daily basis and it is difficult to reconstruct some specific conversations, particularly one which occurred several months ago". Apparently Tim's memory of the conversation somehow improved in the couple of years it took for him to get on the stand and testify. Don't worry -- no reasonable doubt here.
Not enough for the jury. What's your point? Several witnesses "clarified their statements" between initial interviews and their testimony. Karl Rove appeared 5 times before the GJ. These people acted very carelessly with state secrets and the CIA was harmed. Fitz was charged with discovering what crimes were committed and to prosecute those responsible. A Grand Jury indicted Libby on 5 counts, a jury convicted him on 4. He was given the best counsel possible, you cannot specifically point to any reasonable excuse for his actions. If he was so forgetful and undisciplined, how did he manage to be the chief of staff for the VP? A VP, reputed to be the most powerful VP in history, has an idiot for his COS?
Riiight. Fitzgerald knew from the first day he started investigating who leaked the name, and he also knew that no law had been broken because he didn't charge the leaker. How was "justice" obstructed when the prosecutor knew there was no "justice" to obstruct from the first day of his investigation? Oh yeah, special prosecutors know that they can't run a 3 year investigation and not charge anybody. That would be such a waste!
Fitz knew Armitage had leaked it to Novak. He did not know who had told everyone else or when. Remember Miller went to jail over this for 90 days. Cooper folded quickly. The law specifically states that the person must know that the identity is covert. Armitage didn't know this and Armitage was forthcoming and cooperative with the investigation. Justice was obstructed because Rove and Libby were not forthcoming and did not reasonably cooperate without pressure from the state. Again, you seem to be ignoring the basic processes of our legal system. Your concept of justice has no place in a society that lives under the rule of law, you have no right to hide or otherwise mischaractorize information from a legal investigation, you may only plead the 5th. The waste was generated by the hostility of those being investigated. This sort of insubordination would be cause for termination at any company, why is Rove still working at the WH? You're claims that no crime could have been committed is false on it's face and willfully ignores the basic tenets of US l
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me