We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Bush II ran against Gore and one of the things he pitched was an ethical presidency and a values presidency. That "you guys are just as bad as us" crap don't fly with me. Republicans and conservatives run on moral issues and "family values." Liberals didn't set you guys up, you set yourselves up. Because as much as you like to talk the talk, you sure as hell don't walk the walk.
There's no arguing with this guy. You take a situation where someone put making money ahead of ethical behavior and he won't call it greed. There's a Russian saying - it's like arguing with an oak tree.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
That's pretty universal to me. I think all peoples in all countries could do very well living by these principles, I can't wait until they come back to the US. As a patriotic American I would like to see everyone live free. (And not in the fucked up way we "liberated" Iraq.)
You have no concept of greed. You do not understand it at the dictionary level, much less on a moral plane. I don't know if you're a religous person, but if you are this makes your stance even more bizarre. If you are not a religous person, then you are certainly amoral. I wish you luck going through life "ethically challenged." No matter what I say you will just insist I have not answered your question, or responded to your position. No matter how much insist the world is round, you will claim its it's flat. I am reminded of something a wise man once said:
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded."
Doesn't the UAE higher cheap foreign laborers, like Pakistanis or other South Asians, like the Kuwaitis and the Saudis do? In those countries the workers are highly paid relative to their wages in Pakistan or elsewhere, but not in any way well paid by local standards.
It is illegal for Halliburton to deal directly with Iran from the United States. While the UAE may find Iran odious, I'm not aware of a similar restriction. Is there anything in the UAE that would prevent Halliburton from dealing with Iran directly?
>> You haven't even pretended to answer the real question, which is WHY it would be greed for Haliburton to move its headquarters.
After receiving more than generous treatment by the American government in obtaining contracts for its subsidiaries, Halliburton decides it can evade taxes (and possibly pesky laws that prohibit it form directly dealing with Iran) by moving to the UAE. Okay, they take billions of dollars in profits from favorable government treatment (possibly even criminally favorable) and then go so far as to move overseas to keep the government's "dirty hands" off their money. They've taken all they can take from America - so now they're throwing their lot in with the UAE. Let me break out the crayon so you can keep up.
You may, in fact, be sufficiently deluded, or like most people simply filter out information you don't buy, but their behavior is greedy! If you can't see that's greedy then I can't help you. People have an internal moral compass and generally they know when they're doing the wrong thing. I've been either independant or owned my own business for half my working career. I've always known when something wasn't right. I may have made a buck or two less by doing the right thing as opposed to the most porfitable thing, but it was the right thing to do and I know I'm a better person for it.
If we take your train of stupidity to its natural conclusion, we come to the notion that lying, cheating, and stealing are good because they're great ways to make money. Why return the money in a wallet you find when you can keep it? Why not steal information from competitors, so you can underbid them? Unless you understand what greed is, you have an underdeveloped sense of morallity. Unfortunately, too many people in this country take the view that morality is second to making money. So, like you, they collective moral conscience is underdeveloped.
Interesting question, but bordering on silly. I'm not so cynical as to say the smarmiest members of the American society represent the values at the core of the American experience. As are a number of American patriots, I am aghast at the behavior of this administration. They have subverted the rule of law, betrayed the trust of the American people, and have shown a disdain for principles of civil rights and liberties. All countries have an ability to do great good at their best, but I believe that the basic ideas embodied in the American consitution are truly great ideals. I guess that's the difference. The private state of Haliburton, which the current government has represented well, is about simple greed.
No, just like a steam engine is useless when it's cold, you need greed in an economy. (Unless you bought a steam engine with two settings - one is explode and the other is off). However, you have to keep it in perspective. I'm sick and tired of people saying the only thing a corporation needs to care about is its share holders. Homey don't drink that Kool-Aide. You have to do what's right as well. That makes you a good person instead of a greedy pig.
That's the definition of greed - DUH!. It's putting filthy lucre above other concerns. A greedy person takes all they can get. Greed is like the heat in the steam engine that drives capitalism (a more gentle name is the "invisible hand"). However, if you run a steam engine too hot, your run the risk of explosion. In this case the explosion is that people forget about doing the right thing, and instead just focus on doing the thing that makes the most money.
Funny you should bring this up. The UAE is in the process of building a multi-multi-billion dollar office, retail, entertainment development right on the water's edge. Only problem is it's not much higher than sea-level. From what I understand the sea levels don't have to rise much before they'll need hip-waders to walk into the buildings.
I'm sorry, but the planet you're from, what is it called? The US labor unions have been almost eviscerated in the last 20 years this link your tax dollars paid for. Actually, it's more likely the janitor cleaning an office building is not unionized in the US. Dubai has no real unions. Most unions outside of Western Europe and the US are actually powerless. In many countries even things like health and safety regulations are a weakly enforced or even non-existant.
Haliburton has been dealing with Iran for years through a Cayman? subsidiary, that basically funnels mail back to the US. I don't think Dubai has any objections to building pipelines (I think that's the big Halliburton project in Iran) or even nuclear reactors in Iran. I think it's stunning that Cheney (Dick) is so hawkish on a country which will be dealing with a company in which he owns a fair amount of stock, that will make him quite a bit of money.
Interesting point. If their corporate e-mail goes through their headquarters, and their headquarters is in Dubai, then I would love to know what data retention standards they need to follow. It's a lot easier to commit fraud if you can burn the trail as you go, that's what Sarbanes Oxley is trying to stop in this country.
As another poster pointed out - they will spin off a US subsidiary to handle US contracts. So, in a sense, they are still a US company, even though they are a bunch of unpatriotic, soulless bastards.
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.
I've enjoyed this as well. I love reading a well thought out post. It's funny, I'm going the other direction. I double majored in Econ and Poli Sci, passed my CPA exam back in 95, after all that work decided couldn't stand accounting, and then got an MS in computer science. Funny that.
When I took my CPA exam, LLC/LLP laws were fairly new. I don't think Virginia, my state, had an LLC law until after I "went into cmputers." In fact, I'm organized as an LLC right now b/c of substantially reduced paper-work (no more fake meetings with myself), and about to set up a new LLC to form a partnership with another guy I work with. When you incorporate, at least in VA, you are a regular corporation. Your tax treatment (S vs. C) is a basically between you and the IRS (I used to have a corp (now defunct) and it's been a while since I had to do any paper-work for it, so I'm a little rusty). These innovative means of organizing a business and limiting your liability (in an age where spilt coffee makes you a millionaire) are a great boone to small businesses. Passing through the profit and loss to individuals in an S-corp just recognizes the fact that they're mostly small businesses owned by one or a few people.
Normally, when I think of corporate taxation, I think of large businesses (the 20,000 give or take) publicly traded companies. I see your point about the lower EPS caused by a change in tax law. It's also true that no one likes paying taxes, however, they are necessary. At the crux of the matter is the collection of revenue and the expenses bourne by the government. They have to match at some level. It's fine to say the government should save money by providing fewer services, but what goes out of the government should be in line with what comes in. There is also a general agreement that the US could collect taxes more "efficiently," although no one has yet convinced me that their system of flat tax or consumption tax is much better than the progressive income tax. The question is, if we raise taxes on businesses (either by cutting deductions or raising rates), is it on net more harm than good?
And this is where we disagree. You believe that the increased taxes would cause more harm than good because of the disruptions caused in the business community. If I get your basic gist, you believe the drive to raise their EPS numbers back in line with the 10-15% growth they might want, would actually cause greater unemployment, and might lead to recession, and possibly spark inflation. While I don't share your assesment, I do think you make a good argument. I wish you the best of luck on your MBA, God bless and take care.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know. Horrible American values like:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Bush II ran against Gore and one of the things he pitched was an ethical presidency and a values presidency. That "you guys are just as bad as us" crap don't fly with me. Republicans and conservatives run on moral issues and "family values." Liberals didn't set you guys up, you set yourselves up. Because as much as you like to talk the talk, you sure as hell don't walk the walk.
They make dogfood! ;)
There's no arguing with this guy. You take a situation where someone put making money ahead of ethical behavior and he won't call it greed. There's a Russian saying - it's like arguing with an oak tree.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
That's pretty universal to me. I think all peoples in all countries could do very well living by these principles, I can't wait until they come back to the US. As a patriotic American I would like to see everyone live free. (And not in the fucked up way we "liberated" Iraq.)
You have no concept of greed. You do not understand it at the dictionary level, much less on a moral plane. I don't know if you're a religous person, but if you are this makes your stance even more bizarre. If you are not a religous person, then you are certainly amoral. I wish you luck going through life "ethically challenged." No matter what I say you will just insist I have not answered your question, or responded to your position. No matter how much insist the world is round, you will claim its it's flat. I am reminded of something a wise man once said:
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded."
Doesn't the UAE higher cheap foreign laborers, like Pakistanis or other South Asians, like the Kuwaitis and the Saudis do? In those countries the workers are highly paid relative to their wages in Pakistan or elsewhere, but not in any way well paid by local standards.
It is illegal for Halliburton to deal directly with Iran from the United States. While the UAE may find Iran odious, I'm not aware of a similar restriction. Is there anything in the UAE that would prevent Halliburton from dealing with Iran directly?
>> You haven't even pretended to answer the real question, which is WHY it would be greed for Haliburton to move its headquarters.
After receiving more than generous treatment by the American government in obtaining contracts for its subsidiaries, Halliburton decides it can evade taxes (and possibly pesky laws that prohibit it form directly dealing with Iran) by moving to the UAE. Okay, they take billions of dollars in profits from favorable government treatment (possibly even criminally favorable) and then go so far as to move overseas to keep the government's "dirty hands" off their money. They've taken all they can take from America - so now they're throwing their lot in with the UAE. Let me break out the crayon so you can keep up.
You may, in fact, be sufficiently deluded, or like most people simply filter out information you don't buy, but their behavior is greedy! If you can't see that's greedy then I can't help you. People have an internal moral compass and generally they know when they're doing the wrong thing. I've been either independant or owned my own business for half my working career. I've always known when something wasn't right. I may have made a buck or two less by doing the right thing as opposed to the most porfitable thing, but it was the right thing to do and I know I'm a better person for it.
If we take your train of stupidity to its natural conclusion, we come to the notion that lying, cheating, and stealing are good because they're great ways to make money. Why return the money in a wallet you find when you can keep it? Why not steal information from competitors, so you can underbid them? Unless you understand what greed is, you have an underdeveloped sense of morallity. Unfortunately, too many people in this country take the view that morality is second to making money. So, like you, they collective moral conscience is underdeveloped.
Interesting question, but bordering on silly. I'm not so cynical as to say the smarmiest members of the American society represent the values at the core of the American experience. As are a number of American patriots, I am aghast at the behavior of this administration. They have subverted the rule of law, betrayed the trust of the American people, and have shown a disdain for principles of civil rights and liberties. All countries have an ability to do great good at their best, but I believe that the basic ideas embodied in the American consitution are truly great ideals. I guess that's the difference. The private state of Haliburton, which the current government has represented well, is about simple greed.
Fireworks?.... Anyone....?
No, just like a steam engine is useless when it's cold, you need greed in an economy. (Unless you bought a steam engine with two settings - one is explode and the other is off). However, you have to keep it in perspective. I'm sick and tired of people saying the only thing a corporation needs to care about is its share holders. Homey don't drink that Kool-Aide. You have to do what's right as well. That makes you a good person instead of a greedy pig.
Haliburon CEO (in reference to Cheney) "I'm said my connection to multi-billion dollar, poorly monintored, no-bid contracts is leaving Washington."
That's the definition of greed - DUH!. It's putting filthy lucre above other concerns. A greedy person takes all they can get. Greed is like the heat in the steam engine that drives capitalism (a more gentle name is the "invisible hand"). However, if you run a steam engine too hot, your run the risk of explosion. In this case the explosion is that people forget about doing the right thing, and instead just focus on doing the thing that makes the most money.
Funny you should bring this up. The UAE is in the process of building a multi-multi-billion dollar office, retail, entertainment development right on the water's edge. Only problem is it's not much higher than sea-level. From what I understand the sea levels don't have to rise much before they'll need hip-waders to walk into the buildings.
I'm sorry, but the planet you're from, what is it called? The US labor unions have been almost eviscerated in the last 20 years this link your tax dollars paid for. Actually, it's more likely the janitor cleaning an office building is not unionized in the US. Dubai has no real unions. Most unions outside of Western Europe and the US are actually powerless. In many countries even things like health and safety regulations are a weakly enforced or even non-existant.
Interesting, so do some fundamentalist and evangelical churches in the US.
Haliburton has been dealing with Iran for years through a Cayman? subsidiary, that basically funnels mail back to the US. I don't think Dubai has any objections to building pipelines (I think that's the big Halliburton project in Iran) or even nuclear reactors in Iran. I think it's stunning that Cheney (Dick) is so hawkish on a country which will be dealing with a company in which he owns a fair amount of stock, that will make him quite a bit of money.
Interesting point. If their corporate e-mail goes through their headquarters, and their headquarters is in Dubai, then I would love to know what data retention standards they need to follow. It's a lot easier to commit fraud if you can burn the trail as you go, that's what Sarbanes Oxley is trying to stop in this country.
I'm ululating in the street with joy as my wife dances in her burka.
All I know is I saw Kenny alive, then a bunch of Haliburton guys walked into the room, now Kenny's dead.
As another poster pointed out - they will spin off a US subsidiary to handle US contracts. So, in a sense, they are still a US company, even though they are a bunch of unpatriotic, soulless bastards.
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.
link to UPI and msnbc It looks like their moving their CEO and their headquarters overseas.
This is from a company who's been dealing with Iran on a pipeline with a very thinly veiled subsidiary in the caribbean. Really, truth is more complicated and stranger than fiction.
I've enjoyed this as well. I love reading a well thought out post. It's funny, I'm going the other direction. I double majored in Econ and Poli Sci, passed my CPA exam back in 95, after all that work decided couldn't stand accounting, and then got an MS in computer science. Funny that.
When I took my CPA exam, LLC/LLP laws were fairly new. I don't think Virginia, my state, had an LLC law until after I "went into cmputers." In fact, I'm organized as an LLC right now b/c of substantially reduced paper-work (no more fake meetings with myself), and about to set up a new LLC to form a partnership with another guy I work with. When you incorporate, at least in VA, you are a regular corporation. Your tax treatment (S vs. C) is a basically between you and the IRS (I used to have a corp (now defunct) and it's been a while since I had to do any paper-work for it, so I'm a little rusty). These innovative means of organizing a business and limiting your liability (in an age where spilt coffee makes you a millionaire) are a great boone to small businesses. Passing through the profit and loss to individuals in an S-corp just recognizes the fact that they're mostly small businesses owned by one or a few people.
Normally, when I think of corporate taxation, I think of large businesses (the 20,000 give or take) publicly traded companies. I see your point about the lower EPS caused by a change in tax law. It's also true that no one likes paying taxes, however, they are necessary. At the crux of the matter is the collection of revenue and the expenses bourne by the government. They have to match at some level. It's fine to say the government should save money by providing fewer services, but what goes out of the government should be in line with what comes in. There is also a general agreement that the US could collect taxes more "efficiently," although no one has yet convinced me that their system of flat tax or consumption tax is much better than the progressive income tax. The question is, if we raise taxes on businesses (either by cutting deductions or raising rates), is it on net more harm than good?
And this is where we disagree. You believe that the increased taxes would cause more harm than good because of the disruptions caused in the business community. If I get your basic gist, you believe the drive to raise their EPS numbers back in line with the 10-15% growth they might want, would actually cause greater unemployment, and might lead to recession, and possibly spark inflation. While I don't share your assesment, I do think you make a good argument. I wish you the best of luck on your MBA, God bless and take care.