Re: Halliburton, oil and water.

"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:y3rLe.11355$Oy2.1739@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Y'know, I've seen a lot of people foaming at the mouth
> about the cozy relationship between Halliburton and
> the Gummint lately.
>
> I don't think it's all that well understood.

It is very well understood. We have the best gummint
money can buy. I don't see what is so difficult to
understand about that. The difficult part is understanding
why how it got that way and IMHO how to FIX it
to be more democratic.

> When we look at the history of how Big Things got built -
> dams, oilfields, skyscrapers - it's always been an
> uneasy mix of private and public funding. The
> history of the Golden Gate Bridge both shows how pure
> private funding works, and just how limiting it is.

Most people, including me, see no real relevance in this.

> In "Cadillac Desert", we see how the Bureau of
> Reclamation ran its course as a pure* Government
> agency. Obviously, a more-private hybrid
> could serve both private and public needs.
>
> *there were subs, but not like now.

Again, a blank *** of paper. Many, incuding myself,
never read this and have no real desire to do so.

> There used to be a mix of diverse companies doing this.
> But as business technology has progressed, we have the
> general tendency towards consolidation, coupled with
> uncertainty due to political and resource supply.

Consolidation is made possible by the non enforcement
of anti trust laws and the indifference spawned by
impotence at the level of the common people. We
can only replace the current assholes with similar
assholes.

> When the smaller oil companies built reserves of cash to
> weather the coming storm of domestic depletion around 1970,
> they became targets for greenmailers. There became
> an "inventory tax" on oil tank stocks.
>
> Some of this was Reagan - a natural enmity existed between
> the Water People ( the Central Valley farmers ) and the
> Oil People in California. Reagan was a Water Person, who
> largely was funded by the Central growers as a reaction to
> Carter's threat to assess them for water payments.

Best Gummint money can buy.

> And a lot of this was extreme downward pressure on oil
> prices. The "generation" of management at Awl Bidness
> companies post '83 was locked in a struggle over this
> fact. This should have folded back demand, but as
> we know, this is More Complicated Than That.
>
> The upshot is that one company ends up being the
> most efficient, vertically ( and somewhat
> horizontally ) integrated solution provider.
>
> So either the consolidation trend is bogus,
> egged on by fees glommed by the actors who implement
> them, with weak results ( 90ish% of all mergers lose
> shareholder value ) or consolidation is a basically
> sound strategy.

The result is a regulated monopoly or what many see as
socialism.

> The case for consolidation is prima facie - fewer heads,
> less cost.

And the problem should be apparent: What to do to insure
that the displaced heads can provide for themselves.

> But we see a great deal of opportunity for
> Rent, then. But this is s'posed to be "managed" by
> contract rules. So, oy - it's a mess.

So the intelligent person would conclude that egalitarian
rent resdistribution is the correct answer.

> Finally, we see the election of Cheney as VP, which
> looks like a conflict of interest. Well, not *really*.

Oh yes. Really.

> Only a person with inside dope *on* a Halliburton
> can *really* know the score - one need only look as
> far back as Carter to see how damaging good intentions
> can be.

Yet another empty bag.

> At its core, this subject seems fraught with the sort
> of contradictions embraced by a St. Augustine. And we
> are reminded that these things are not *really*
> business as usual, but complex and dangerous. And that
> none of us can claim a perfect knowlege of what should
> be.

Perhaps it takes a lot more of us actually involved in the
decisions and the control. We need MORE
democracy.

> Is there equivocation on my part? Of course - I am
> trying to remain politically neutral on a subject
> where that is all but impossible. We more or less
> inherited an organically constructed "deal with
> the devil", and it's going to be difficult to
> ignore the past. It's a sort of Gordian Knot,
> and we know who cut it this time 'round.

It makes no difference whether I _know_ everything
or not. It mattes what we all know. See the signature:

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


.

Quantcast