Bye Hulliburton

[cannon_fodder]

With a startling move, energy and defense giant Halliburton is moving to Dubai.  Not a regional office or a division, the corporate HQ is leaving Houston and moving to Dubai.  I wonder how Congress is going to feel about giving tens of billions of dollars in defense work to an Arab company?  Clearly a move to distance itself from the United States and pimp business from national oil companies.

Halliburton left Dallas 4 years ago to move to Houston.  However, incentives given by Houston prevent it from immediately dispatching jobs in Houston.  The city, which was surprised by the announcement (as was the White House), has received assurance that the company will cut no jobs from the 4,000+ in Houston.

The CFO and COO will remain in Houston.  The CEO will be in Dubai.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4621008.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1500001.ece
-----------------

I guess we should have seen this coming, since about 40% of the United States professes their hatred for the company.  I wonder how long it will be before Phillips, Chevron, Texico, etc. start listening to people tell them how evil they are and pack up their crap and leave.

As pointed out in the Houston Chronicle, ""It would make sense," Brady said, for an oil and gas company to "go where oil and gas is. America these days essentially vilifies our own energy companies."

There is no reason any of these companies needs to have their HQ here nor why they need their accounting, R&D, geography or many staffers here at all.  Not only do Americans seem to hate any successful energy company, but they are hated in the rest of the world for being an American company.  So why stay?

And for the hippies clapping their hands about this - know that officially incorporating outside the USA means Halliburton is outside the laws of the US.  Operating from Dubai, they have no pollution guidelines nor bribery guidelines that they have to follow.  If they get a royal charter (which they probably will), they are even outside the bounds of international law.  Meaning they could make the Halliburton you have grown to despise look like evil corporation light.  Not to mention the slave labor problems that the regime they now support has been having the last few years...  what good comes from this for the United States?

[Wilbur]

As of this morning's tv interview (ABC), they will still be incorporated in Texas, thus still pay all the US taxes.  In the same interview, the reporter said the company would save hundreds of millions of dollars if the company were to incorporate outside the US, which is certainly a boom for the owners, who happen to be many of us who own mutual funds and stock,..... the shareholders.

Perhaps after a few major companies start doing the same thing, congress will see higher corporate tax ultimately means lower corporate tax collections.

[okiebybirth]

Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas.  It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation.  We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.

[Conan71]

How about giving them more work here in the United States?  As long as we refuse to expand exporation and refining on our own turf, expansion will be in foreign lands.  It will make more and more sense for companies like Haliburton and Schlumberger, who provide services to oil companies, to be closer to their primary workforce and projects.

[Porky]

imo.....good ridin's. They are solely to blame as our Commander In Chief for the BS we are in with Iraq.

[Rico]

All of the Americans will be moving to Dubai.. I guess "Wacko Jacko" will be throwing a party for them..?

"Now isn't that special..?"

[}:)]

[patric]

Could this be considered the start of a "Cut and Run" before the next administration begins sending them to prison?

[Cubs]

quote: Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas. It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation. We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.

Say no to record profits? What in the world are you thinking? It is simple supply and demand that causes these profits. Plus higher profits means more investment in capital projects which means an increase in productivity which means a growing economy. If we say no to companies who know how to operate and actually make a profit, we are damning our economy forever.
Have you ever taken a macroeconomics class??? (Probably not because liberal public schools took it out of high schools, but that is a different subject)

[Porky]

quote:Originally posted by patric

Could this be considered the start of a "Cut and Run" before the next administration begins sending them to prison?

That's a very valid point. Once GW is out of office there's going to be a whole lot of people in hot water, including himself.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

quote: Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas. It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation. We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.

Say no to record profits? What in the world are you thinking? It is simple supply and demand that causes these profits. Plus higher profits means more investment in capital projects which means an increase in productivity which means a growing economy. If we say no to companies who know how to operate and actually make a profit, we are damning our economy forever.
Have you ever taken a macroeconomics class??? (Probably not because liberal public schools took it out of high schools, but that is a different subject)

I don't see how giving business away to foreign countries increases our productivity.  It will eventually just drain money out of our economy.  I know you were probably just defending a company's right to make a profit, which is a just cause.  But the issue of Haliburton going to Dubai, that does the USA no good whatsoever.

I also don't fully agree that higher profits always mean an increase in productivity.

I believe that potential for profit drives money hungry individuals into increasing productivity.    If profits were limited, the incentive to increase ingenuity and productivity would flounder.  I see the success of captialism based on this balance of people's desire to make money forcing them to come up with innovative and efficient ways to solve problems.  But simply linking profits with productivity increase isn't always the case, since there is quite a bit of corruption going on at high levels of power.

Also, energy conservation or the creation of alternative energy would INCREASE productivity, which I am all for.  Take every other sector aside from the energy sector:  Any money THEY spend on energy is just money down the crapper.  They could be a lot more efficient, profitable, or able to spend that extra money on other innovative research if their energy costs were lower.  Basic utilities for every single other sector of business are turned into exorbitant profits for one specific sector.  Gas and electric have us by the balls for sure, but them making a profit doesnt make business as a whole more productive, it actually cuts into productivity.  They say the American economy is fueled by cheap energy.  It is becoming less and less true as prices increase, but the claim proves that the greatness of the American economy is heavily based on how LITTLE we spend on burning energy versus actually performing business transactions.  Conservation in this instance is not a hippie/liberal/left wing idea, it is a money saving productivity increasing tactic that should be hailed by all true believers in capitalism.

[cannon_fodder]

Porky:

Are you just anti Bush and anti capitalist or should I take your comments as an attempt at making a valid point?

If you are glad to see oil companies leave American shores; I would like to know why and like to have you address the issues I raised in that regard.

I would also like to know how you think President Bush will be in trouble when he leaves office.  As far as I know he has committed no crime and isnt under investigation nor impeachment.  Other presidents have publicly admitted guilt to felonies and been implicated in all sorts of illegal financial activities  as well as pardoning his personal friends before leaving office - and nothing happened to them. Hell, even Dick Nixon walked away Scott free.  I doubt a president leaving with no legal issues will have many issues.

Though, I dont think Mr. Bush's public speaking career qill be on par with Clinton's.  Just different styles (one has one, the other doesn't).

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

quote: Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas. It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation. We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.

Say no to record profits? What in the world are you thinking? It is simple supply and demand that causes these profits. Plus higher profits means more investment in capital projects which means an increase in productivity which means a growing economy. If we say no to companies who know how to operate and actually make a profit, we are damning our economy forever.
Have you ever taken a macroeconomics class??? (Probably not because liberal public schools took it out of high schools, but that is a different subject)

Are you sure we saw  a increase in productivity?  Oh yeah, Bush got a war going for them... not my idea of a good productivity gain.  And I always love to see record profits from companies who supply essentials.  How about ONG raising their price of gas they sell to us?  I'm sure they can do it and have a record setting year as well.  Too bad for the poor chump who HAS to buy their gas, it's supply and demand right?  Except, you never see a leveling out when it comes to essential commodities.  But I'm sure they didn't teach you that in junior high school.  You should try macroeconomics in college.

[Wilbur]

How about ONG raising their price of gas they sell to us? I'm sure they can do it and have a record setting year as well.

ONG is guaranteed profits by the government who grants them a monopoly.  

No body was complaining when Halibutron was losing money.  Or are you saying you want all businesses run by the government?  If so, you're living in the wrong country.

[cannon_fodder]

To be fair, Wilbur, the FERC and DOE guarantee a "chance of a reasonable return" to certain sectors.  A truly incompetent company can still lose money or have their charter revoked.

/me has read more FERC opinions than I care to.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

How about ONG raising their price of gas they sell to us? I'm sure they can do it and have a record setting year as well.

ONG is guaranteed profits by the government who grants them a monopoly.  

No body was complaining when Halibutron was losing money.  Or are you saying you want all businesses run by the government?  If so, you're living in the wrong country.

My understanding is ONG primarily makes their profit from the delivery cost of the natural gas on residential accounts.  The actual rate you pay for the gas itself is supposed to be a pass-through with minimal mark-up tied to current trading prices.