Halliburton Hot Air
igor@af
10-06-2004, 12:55 PM
YogsVR4
10-06-2004, 01:22 PM
They are like any other dominate player in their industry. They'll be targets for and the scape goats weather its warrented or not. Microsoft, automakers, drug companies - they all get a stigmatism just by being the size they are. Add in the fact that Cheney used to be a part owner of Haliburton and it becomes a bigger deal.
The fact remains that Haliburton is one of only a few companies in the world that can do the job. They recieved their contracts the same way under the Clinton administration as they are now. Good or bad, they were being treated the same. The accouting offices are doing audits on their billing practices which is something they should do to every company regardless of who works or used to work for them.
As for companies getting preferential treatment. It happens. Maybe it shouldn't but it does all the time. Companies of all sizes do business with others based on who they know, past relationsships and unfortunately racial profiling (this is especially true for small businesses). The government should avoid the pitfalls when awarding contracts, but going with 'lowests bid' isn't the best way to get work done and every other aspect after 'can they do the job' is subjective. How fast, how well, experience, quality of staff and a host of others is in the eye of the beholder.
It would be unfair to any company to be excluded because of a government position held by any former employee. Should Heinz not provide ketchup to the US military if Kerry wins? Should Standard Oil not provide gas to US government vehicles because Rockefeller became a Senator? The list goes on, but I say ‘of course not’.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The fact remains that Haliburton is one of only a few companies in the world that can do the job. They recieved their contracts the same way under the Clinton administration as they are now. Good or bad, they were being treated the same. The accouting offices are doing audits on their billing practices which is something they should do to every company regardless of who works or used to work for them.
As for companies getting preferential treatment. It happens. Maybe it shouldn't but it does all the time. Companies of all sizes do business with others based on who they know, past relationsships and unfortunately racial profiling (this is especially true for small businesses). The government should avoid the pitfalls when awarding contracts, but going with 'lowests bid' isn't the best way to get work done and every other aspect after 'can they do the job' is subjective. How fast, how well, experience, quality of staff and a host of others is in the eye of the beholder.
It would be unfair to any company to be excluded because of a government position held by any former employee. Should Heinz not provide ketchup to the US military if Kerry wins? Should Standard Oil not provide gas to US government vehicles because Rockefeller became a Senator? The list goes on, but I say ‘of course not’.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
igor@af
10-06-2004, 01:27 PM
After reading the "Halliburton Hot Air" article (found at http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200410060944.asp), I was stunned at what I felt was lack of analysis.
The author's argument is simple: because the stock of Halliburton is not up, Cheney could not have played a part in anything concerning the current controversy surrounding Halliburton.
This reasoning is very flawed.
There are many reasons that force the stock value of a corporation to go down. For Halliburton, its recent history of being investigated by the government for suspicious acts related to Iraq, such as overcharging, is a good enough reason for its investors to begin casting doubts.
And also, just because Halliburton is being investigated and its stock is down, you will be naive to conclude that Halliburton is not seeing a considerable profit.
According to Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post, "Brown and Root's revenue from Operation Iraqi Freedom is already rivaling its earnings from its contracts in the Balkans, and is a major factor in increasing the value of Halliburton shares by 50 percent over the past year, according to industry analysts." (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-01.htm)
The author's argument is simple: because the stock of Halliburton is not up, Cheney could not have played a part in anything concerning the current controversy surrounding Halliburton.
This reasoning is very flawed.
There are many reasons that force the stock value of a corporation to go down. For Halliburton, its recent history of being investigated by the government for suspicious acts related to Iraq, such as overcharging, is a good enough reason for its investors to begin casting doubts.
And also, just because Halliburton is being investigated and its stock is down, you will be naive to conclude that Halliburton is not seeing a considerable profit.
According to Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post, "Brown and Root's revenue from Operation Iraqi Freedom is already rivaling its earnings from its contracts in the Balkans, and is a major factor in increasing the value of Halliburton shares by 50 percent over the past year, according to industry analysts." (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-01.htm)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025