It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Halliburton does it again. Charges 28M to ship 82,ooo$ worth of oil

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
If Halliburton can get away with charging $28,000,000 for $82,000 worth of oil, then they will...actually they are required.

The purpose of a corporation is simple, to make the most amount of money for the people that actually own the company. In this case, the thousands of shareholders that own stock in Halliburton.

It's actually illegal by mandates of corporate law to do any activity that doesn't contribute to a corporation earning money. When a corporation tells you that it is 'socially conscious', don’t buy in to it. Social consciousness is just another form of 'making money' in disguise.




posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

If Halliburton can get away with charging $28,000,000 for $82,000 worth of oil, then they will...actually they are required.


Apparently you don't read very well. They have to transport that oil on short notice.


The purpose of a corporation is simple, to make the most amount of money for the people that actually own the company. In this case, the thousands of shareholders that own stock in Halliburton.


The idea of a corporation is for everyone to make money. They are not evil. You can demonize them all you want. It's just ridiculous.

It does nothing for a corporation to completely screw over the employee, because the employee is also ultimately the customer. Those that do pay for it in the end, like Enron.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
its pointless to argue anyway, even if they totally shut down haliburton (which they wont) another contractor will pop up and continue right where the last one quit.

And even if by some miracle someone goest to jail, another person will replace him and continue with business as usual.

Now that hurts, so you know its true



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Apparently you don't read very well. They have to transport that oil on short notice.

I read the article very well and I do think it's absurd when a company charges you a $27,000,000+ shipping and handling fee.


The purpose of a corporation is simple, to make the most amount of money for the people that actually own the company. In this case, the thousands of shareholders that own stock in Halliburton.



Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The idea of a corporation is for everyone to make money.

Actually, the sole purpose of a corporation is for the owners (share holders) to make money. Any action that is non-beneficial to this purpose is deemed illegal.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They are not evil. You can demonize them all you want. It's just ridiculous.

When have I demonized them? I'm just stating the purpose of The Corporation.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It does nothing for a corporation to completely screw over the employee, because the employee is also ultimately the customer. Those that do pay for it in the end, like Enron.

Actually Enron like companies are a common practice in The Corporation. Matter of fact, it is encouraged. Enron lobbied to bend, narrow, and repel laws that limited them to make the their money. They were successful. Ultimately, Enrons downfall came in 2000 when they monopolized and took clear advantage of the California power outages that plaque the west coast in the summer.

[edit on 3/20/2005 by Simulacra]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

its pointless to argue anyway, even if they totally shut down haliburton (which they wont) another contractor will pop up and continue right where the last one quit.


That is what happens when the private sector mixes with the government.


I read the article very well and I do think it's absurd when a company charges you a $27,000,000 shipping and handling fee.


This isn't a DVD or book from an online store. It involves delivering a huge shipment half way across the world, into the middle of a war. You have high fuel costs. This probably requires heavy cargo planes. It requires a large number of people. It has to be done on short notice.


Actually, the sole purpose of a corporation is for the owners (share holders) to make money. Any action that is non-beneficial to this purpose is deemed illegal.


You, apparently, have never taken an economic class, or really taken a look at the past century of history. The principals started by Ford are largely the same principals modern corporations are run on.


Actually Enron like companies are a common practice in The Corporation. Matter of fact, it is encouraged. Enron lobbied to bend, narrow, and repel laws that limited them to make the their money. They were successful. Ultimately, Enrons downfall came in 2000 when they monopolized and took clear advantage of the California power outages that plaque the west coast in the summer.


It's nice to see you've decided to say, "The Corporation." I guess it makes it far easier to make a corporation out to be some big evil monster, sort of like The Matrix or something...

You clearly have no knowledge of economics. You have no proof to back up anything you say.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You have no proof to back up anything you say.


The rise of The Corporation first emerged in the late sixteenth century. Unlike parternship forms of buisness in which a small number of men bonded together personal funding and mutual trust to set up a buisness they ran as well owned, The Corporation separated ownership from management. This unique design was believe by many to be a recipe for corruption and scandal.

The first corporation actually was spawned out of greed, lies and corruption. In 1710, the Spanish colonies in South America manifested the 'South Sea Company' which was supposed to carry on the exclusive trade of slaves and various British exports. The directors of the South Sea Company promised ptoential investors of the company vast profits, mountains of gold and silver if they would buy into their company. Investors flocked at the oppurtunity to buy into a large company, the companys stock went up sixfold in one year. However, share holders quickly sold their stock realizing that the company was worthless and imaginary. Fortunes were lost, lives were ruined, hell...even the company's 'director' was shot by an angry share holder. This was a notorious breach of trust. Thus, the first corporation was born and murdered.

Anyway, to skip ahead we have the Bubble Act which prevented the formation of Corporations shortly after the South Sea debacle. However, it was repealed in 1825 and the number of legal coroporations grew. We have the fad of limited liability that clung onto potential shareholders. Let's skip ahead to around 1890 when The Corporation underwent revolutionary change.

From 1890, in order to attract large corporations to their land, places like New Jersey and Delaware repealed unpopular restrictions from their corporate law which included:

- Repealing rules the required buisnesses to incorporate only for narrowly defined purposes, to exist only for limited durations, and to operate only in particular locations

- Substantially loosened controls on mergers and acquistions

- Abolished the rule that one company could not own stock in another

Pretty soon, other states, not wanting to lose out in competition for incoporation business, followed these same amendments of corporate rules. This enabled the levithan like conglomoration of large buisness. Between 1898 and 1904; 1,800 corporations were consolidated into 157.

Thus Capitalism was born.

Corporate responsiblity is nonsense. The WTO has implemented mandates to make it illegal for a corporation to make it illegal for directors and managers of corporations to undergo any action that does not financially benefit the owners of the corporation, the Shareholders. As far as Mr. Henry Ford, he learned his lesson in 1916.

Ford honestly believed that his motor company could be more than just a profit machine. He paid his workers more than the going rate and the time and even gave yearly discounts on Model T cars to all his dedicated workers. John and Horace Dodge helped Ford establish his company with hefty donations in 1906. Needless to say they were major stockholders. Back then, the Dodge brothers owned a machine shop in Chicago and told Henry Ford that they would exclusively make parts for Ford and turned down the more established Oldsmobile company. However, by 1916, the Dodge brothers knew they could turn around a larger profit than just being part suppliers. The Dodge brothers quit supplying to Ford and started plans for their own car company. This is the kicker, they wanted to finance the venture with the quarterly dividends from their Ford shares but Henry Ford decided to cancel Dodges dividends and give the money to customers in the form of price reductions on Model Ts. The Dodge brothers were furious and took Mr. Ford to court.

Their argument was based on the fact that Profits belong to shareholders and Ford had no right to give their money away to customers, however 'good' his intentions were. The judge agreed and awared the divends to the Dodge brothers.

The infamous Dodge vs. Ford case is a prime example that:

'Managers and Directors have a legal duty to put shareholders' interests above all others and no legal authority to server any other interests'. Or what is known as 'The best interests of the corporation' principle.


I hope you will readjust your statements Disturbed Deliverer

[edit on 3/20/2005 by Simulacra]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I have nothing to readjust, since I never said anything contradictory to what you posted. You're taking those rules, and misrepresenting them. Those things are to prevent corruption. Of course a corporation isn't supposed to do things that lower profits.

The way you're trying to apply it all is illogical. If what you said was true, then corporations wouldn't give their employees any benefits. They would pay them minimum wage.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
then corporations wouldn't give their employees any benefits. They would pay them minimum wage.


Corporations only give their employees enough benefits to maximize their productivity. It's carefully calculated on a Cost-Benefit analysis. Same scale in which companies decide whether it would be financially beneficial to the company to recall every vehicle because of a fatal defect or do nothing and deal with the possible court cost of a fatality on each vehicle.

Edit: Disturbed Deliverer, I suggest you read 'The Corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power' by Joel Bakan. It can answer many of your questions.

[edit on 3/20/2005 by Simulacra]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Corporations only give their employees enough benefits to maximize their productivity. It's carefully calculated on a Cost-Benefit analysis. Same scale in which companies decide whether it would be financially beneficial to the company to recall every vehicle because of a fatal defect or do nothing and deal with the possible court cost of a fatality on each vehicle.


So, they give benefits on a completely abitrary scale? I highly doubt that is how a corporation is going to make a decision. It certainly isn't comparable to recalling a product, something that is pure statistics and facts.

You clearly don't understand capitalism or economics. What does a corporation get by cutting their employees pay? Well, a temporary increase in profit. What happens in time? The employees don't have enough money to consume. That means the money the heads have loses its value. The same happens if they don't reinvest.


Edit: Disturbed Deliverer, I suggest you read 'The Corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power' by Joel Bakan. It can answer many of your questions.


I have no questions. I certainly wouldn't read a book that is obviously looked to paint a negative picture of a corporation even if I did.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You clearly don't understand capitalism or economics. What does a corporation get by cutting their employees pay?

Well, a temporary increase in profit. What happens in time?



Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I have no questions.


*Sigh*
Deny Ignorance.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Arguing with people like you makes my head hurt. The pure lack of logic is astounding some times. I was not asking you, or anyone else questions...



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonofSpy
There is a German company called Bechtel that can do all of it. they are about 3/4 the size of Halliburton but are just as capable. Itd be pretty hard to pull stuff like that with Bechtel with the eyes of the world watching them after the Halliburton rape. Theyed work far cheaper and more efficient. The Germans would have saved the day.


Um.....I've worked for Bechtel numerous times in the past, and they are an American company. Bechtel is the largest privately owned company in the world, and when compared to Halliburton as far as government corruption goes, they make Halliburton look like a choir boy. Steve Bechtel Sr. got in on the ground floor in building the infrastructure of the U.S., and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Bechtel family is one of the most powerful and influential in all the world. You might want to do a better job of doing your homework. You can start with this:




In Bed with Bush – The Bechtel Story

Shade of dark brown eh? A little research into the history of the Bechtel Corp reveals almost a 'classroom example' of how the links between big business and government work, and what works for Bechtel can be applied to the 100 or so, major corporations that control America and dictate not only its foreign policy but also its domestic one...

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Peace


[edit on 21-3-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Arguing with people like you makes my head hurt. The pure lack of logic is astounding some times. I was not asking you, or anyone else questions...


Then why are you on this board if you have absolutely no desire to learn from others? Are you here you promote your loose leaf corporate ideology? And what about my argument shows a 'pure lack of logic'?



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


You clearly don't understand capitalism or economics. What does a corporation get by cutting their employees pay? Well, a temporary increase in profit. What happens in time? The employees don't have enough money to consume. That means the money the heads have loses its value. The same happens if they don't reinvest.


Hate to tell ya, that's exactly what my dad's plant did. They closed down thier plant. Then they ended up reopening them 2 years later, under a different name of course, and the starting pay was 3 dollars less. They ended up gettng taken to court and lost the lawsuite. They ended up having to cover costs of schooling and 2 years unemployment for any employees that wanted to go back to school. However, since most of them had 30 years in they just took a short pension and their year of unemployment.

Also look at how walmart is run.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Dear all,

What we are seeing here is a war that was "created" to make money.

So why are any of you surprised when it happens.

As distasteful as it is this will continue for sometime.

My sincere hope is that when Hilary Clinton becomes President in 2008 she brings up Bush,Cheney etc on charges and we see them hauled of to Gitmo.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
.
I wanted to read the original article but it seems to be gone, . . .

No such Article.

We're sorry, but the article you requested is not currently available on HoustonChronicle.com.


Is there any other link to the original article?
.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Slank,

I am sorry that the article you were looking for was not easily accessible.

I would perhaps suggest that you try Googling for it in your own time.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Yeah but they posted it in the first place, the job falls on them. Like I have to post links proving bible bs when I could just tell people to google it.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Look you cant blame hailburton for this mess . The armed services dont belong in the free market . Hailburton is merly taking advantage of Bushs imcomptance think about it Bush denied europen and candaian companies the right to bid on contracts.

The end result is Hailburton can charge what they want for there services because there is little compition its simple econmics.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Xpert,

So much for free market economy?

The US is becoming ever more protectionist and this is going to be its downfall economically.

Cheers

BHR



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join