quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Wouldn't an Islamic extremist want Kerry in office due to his more lax anti-terrorism beliefs?

Errr...Kerry is as anti-terrorist as anyone. In fact he's wisely trying to make the point to america that he'll carry through with the war on terrorism more efficiently and effectively than Bush.

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

Last edited by Radagast on Oct-15-2004 at 15:16

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Whoever sent you that list is a plain liar and I won't even waste my time because after just the first few lines I knew it was written by an Islamic extremist spreading disinformation. Yes, they have access to the internet too! don't forget it.

ok you really are an idiot. Not becuzz you support Bush but you can't even see the simple point this list is saying. And to blame it on Islam? You really need something called education.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Good point. But, whether they have paper thin margins are beside the point though when you acknowledge all of their sunk costs. Its not like they can make or product whatever gives them the average industry ror. They have so much invested that they can;t do anything else. Paper thin margin is better than nothing. BTW if those margins are so bad, what is your explanation as to why they stay in the business. Must be the desert heat, I hear its great for the nasal passages.

Because it is a huge government contract. It decidedly boosts the top line. Nobody's ever been successful by turning down opportunity. But to say that a company would willingly manufacture a war, that would end up costing it's own country's taxpayers billions, solely to aggressively pursue an extremely high-risk low margin business, which would be a drag on earnings for a long time--doesn't exactly strike me as a business strategy that any competent, reasonably intelligent managment team would pursue. That's a pretty tough risk/reward scenario to justify.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Because it is a huge government contract. It decidedly boosts the top line. Nobody's ever been successful by turning down opportunity. But to say that a company would willingly manufacture a war, that would end up costing it's own country's taxpayers billions, solely to aggressively pursue an extremely high-risk low margin business, which would be a drag on earnings for a long time--doesn't exactly strike me as a business strategy that any competent, reasonably intelligent managment team would pursue. That's a pretty tough risk/reward scenario to justify.

I am not going to go as far as to say that Halliburton created the war, however you are missing a crucial peice of the puzzle when you say they only make "paper thin margins". I completely disagree that it is a "high-risk" business. Obviosly it is very risky for the people in Iraq who are actually doing the work but I contend that it is very low risk for the company. Why? Because they are guaranteed their money from the government, they tell the government how much it will cost them and then they agree on how much profit they should get and then the US rights the check. This is totally different from a normal "risky" business venture. They essentially have a guaranteed ROI.

___________________
"You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are." - Colonel Adolphus Busch

Major Johnson - February Progressive Mix

Download Other Mixes

that pretty much sums it up. bush getting blasted for doing good things, clintion praised for all the shit he did while in office.

just a load of shit.

btw, i posted this in here about 4 or 5 months ago, at least.

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by EvilDust ok you really are an idiot. Not becuzz you support Bush but you can't even see the simple point this list is saying. And to blame it on Islam? You really need something called education.

I concur. I was going to completely debunk his posts in another thread, where he claimed Dubya was the greatest President since FDR... now I wonder what the fuck the point would be? tecnolover is an idiot, that's all there is to it.

___________________
//..

Here we go, read this:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=196459

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange you missed my point which was that the company has millions in sunk costs in their line of business. they can't churn out hot-dogs if there are above average roi there. they do what they do and nothing more. it's not unique to halliburton. this happens to many businesses. they invest so much in machinery, expertise, and have very high exit costs, that it makes much more sense to continue doing what they do.

I tend to disagree. What are the sunk costs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Halliburton certainly have any operations or equipment in Iraq. They would typically be awarded a no bid contract(no need to spend any costs here), and then start spending money to move equipment across the globe and then start sinking some costs in.

quote:

in the case of halliburton, if the us went to war, they knew that they would be gauranteed the work because as policerobots explained, they were the only ones with the expertise.

This is back in conspiracy land.

quote:

so here is what the company faced: we all of this experitse and machinery to do only x. we can't do anything else with this even if roi was higher in other ventures b/c our expertise and machinery can only do x. if we can influence the gov't to go to war, we can get the work b/c no one else can do it, even if the profit margins are low (because we can't do anything else remember) we'll do it. there is no risk (financial deviations) in this venture so we'll do it.[/i]

Your economics explanations make me giggle. Again, what are the sunk costs that are driving management to make such a bold, strategically non-sensical push for glogal warfare?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange i was refering to their expertise and whatever investments they have in technology to carry out their expertise.

These are Iraq-specific pieces of equipment & expertise?

quote:

explained above. as far as i know, no one compelled them to do the work in iraq. what is your explanation as to why they entered into the contract, if the profits are so lousy?

I explained. Easy top-line growth.

actually, sunk costs play no role in decision-making. they are irreversible costs, therefore they are not considered in incremental (marginal) analysis. you might be thinking of fixed costs, which must be covered by the contribution margin (p-vc), however big or small.

well I'm sorry for the repeat post, were one of you the original writer of the thing? or did you get sent this mesage too?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilDust ok you really are an idiot. Not becuzz you support Bush but you can't even see the simple point this list is saying. And to blame it on Islam? You really need something called education.

Jeezzz! someone is riled up isn't he??? Ok, ok. You are right, I did miss the point of the post. I didn't read far enough. I suppose I have just seen so many Bush bashers in the forum that I missed what the twist was and assumed another Bush bashing thread of which there are many here. Ok! I was wrong and I'm man enough to admit that. Are you man enough to admit your mistakes?