Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Halliburton Moving HQ To Dubai

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the might-as-well dept.

Businesses 555

theodp writes "Much-maligned defense contractor Halliburton is moving its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai's friendly tax laws will add to Halliburton's bottom line. Last year the company earned $2.3B in profits. Sen. Patrick Leahy called the company's move 'corporate greed at its worst.' Halliburton, once headed by VP Dick Cheney, has been awarded contracts valued at an estimated $25.7B for its work in Iraq."

cancel ×

555 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

3.........2........1...... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18324877)

3.. 2.. 1..

Re:3.........2........1...... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324921)

... contact

HEY EVERYBODY (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325107)

im no longer going to read slashdot anymore because of boring retarded garbage like this
GOOD RIDDANCE
ps natalie portman naked and petrified
also i suck my moms cock so you heard it here first!

What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (5, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324881)

Honestly, given the companies past alleged illegal/unethical behavior, the first thing that came to my mind was.... "what is coming down the pipe that they are trying to avoid?" Specifically, by moving the corporate HQ out of the country, are they avoiding some potential legal action because of illegal or unethical corporate behavior? After all we do know about lots of no-bid contracts they were awarded, not to mention the overcharging of contracts and more. It should also be noted that Haliburton is trying to off-load KBR. But fundamentally, regardless of ones political bias, even if there is no forthcoming news of illegal activity, because this corporation has benefitted so much from contracts awarded by the US government, moving off shore to avoid paying US taxes is simply an additional insult.

P.S. Remember when Cheney refused to sell his Haliburton stock when appointed VP? He also resisted placing it into a blind trust and if I remember correctly, continues to receive compensation from Haliburton. Also, the content of Cheney's energy task force demonstrated that companies (Haliburton included) had direct input into the official federal energy plan, effectively allowing corporations to dictate US policy.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (0, Flamebait)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324927)

Well, maybe some "insurgents" will make a wrong turn at Alberquerque and hit Dubai instead.

On a side note, as a Houstonian, I'm happy to see them go. Can't stand having scum like them here.

Now if they'd only done this seven years ago and taken Enron with them...

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (5, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325013)

I wish the reporting would be more accurate. They stated VERY clearly that they are remaining incorporated in the US and will still be paying US taxes and be subject to US law.

Ninety percent of their business is in the Middle East and Asia. The move just makes business sense. The only ill effect will be a few hundred jobs in Houston lost; not a good thing for those people but all part of business.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (1, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325187)

Hey, anything that helps them avoid having to pay American wages for American employees is good, right?

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (2, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325215)

Unfortunately, from a business perspective, yes.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325259)

Why should they be forced to pay for Americans if they don't want to? When Americans start educating themselves and staying ahead in their fields, they'll have jobs. Notice how I have many degrees in technical and scientific subjects and have *too many* jobs to choose from! Wow!

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325431)

thousands, all over the world in every fantastic location I can imagine!
science rules
Also not being a lazy ignorant fool rules.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325473)

They should be forced to pay for Americans if they want to avail themselves of the services provided by this country, and the term "pay for Americans" has a lot of different aspects to it, not all of which have to do with direct employment by such organizations.

Halliburton has a lot inc common with many other major U.S. corporations, who also see nothing wrong with pissing all over their domestic workforce. All that, while simultaneously demanding more and more for less and less from said workforce, demanding to pay less and less in corporate taxes, buying more and more from overseas (e.g. China), manufacturing less and less here, and generally selling out their own people. Don't expect much sympathy for the likes of Halliburton around here.

And so far as you're concerned, it's nice that you have multiple advanced degrees and all, but explain to me how that has anything to do with the kind of employment being lost to the United States today: manufacturing jobs, mostly, because of all the production that's been sent to China.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325517)

You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

For how long? (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325261)

Sure, being closer to the action does cut down on Fedex charges etc, but is this the thin end of the wedge?

They will likely use the threat of moving off-shore as a way to get some breaks from Texas.

Re:For how long? (4, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325287)

Try plane flights from Houston to Hong Kong, Dubai, Beijing, etc. The CEO wants to be closer to the action so he's moving the HQ. I'm sure the decision was a bit more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.

This is such a non-story.

Re:For how long? (4, Insightful)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325399)

It does make sense to minimize the time zone difference involved.

For instance, if there has to be an urgent phone call between a CEO of an oil services company, and the head of a sovereign nation that retains both de facto and de jure control over resources that are increasingly difficult to find across the world, and somebody is going to be inconvenienced by the time -- I don't think it's going to be the emir who's getting woken up at 3AM to talk business unless it's really, really an emergency.

Re:For how long? (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325451)

And it should be swiftly followed by a cancellation of major US contracts. I consider supporting US jobs as a major condition for gaining lucrative US contracts. The CEO having a shorter plane ride is of no concern to me, but the loss of tens of millions of dollars to a city economy is, and I don't even live in Texas.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (4, Interesting)

Linux_ho (205887) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325337)

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the US has no extradition treaty with Dubai.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (1)

phaggood (690955) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325429)

> Ninety percent of their business is in the Middle East and Asia

.. in the form of US taxpayer-funded contracts?

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (2, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325481)

That's actually not the lion's share of their business. They are an Oil Services company, and one of only two or three in the world that can do what they do. Even with regards to their Government contracts, the vast bulk of that work is in the Middle East.

People are starting to just grasp at straws now, either out of hate for Haliburton or a dislike of corporations in general.

Besides, the UAE doesn't enforce Sharia law, so that means there are hotties running around with very little clothing on!

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (0, Redundant)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325539)

Right, and their CEO and other executive staff felt the need to move to dubai which has no extradition policy because of "business reasons".

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325043)

What are they trying to avoid?
They are trying to get rid of thier holdings of US dollars and assets. They helped fuel this unstoppable spending with the war and the massive entittlements and know the US dollar is going to tank hard code.
They are moving out of the US dollar and will move back in once a bottom is hit and they will be 10 times stronger.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325181)

I think it has something to do with 'business deals' in certain mid-east countries which is currently NO-NO'd by both US and UN policies.

Moving the HQ to Dubai says F-U to all international corporate business restrictions put in place on by the U.S. Gov.

This is a very decisive move tactically and politically, as it shows you what they care about most. BOTTOM LINE.

This is greed to the worst degree. Nothing more.

Tactically and politically (4, Insightful)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325255)

When we read histories of wars we often read about the actions and affiliations of governments and armies. Very rarely do we read histories of wars which contain detailed breakdowns of the actions and affiliations of business and banks during the same period.

Create [slashdot.org] debt, maintain [slashdot.org] debt, keep people in debt, work those people until they die of debt.

99% of everything else, from suicide bombers to international embargoes, is just PR (running interference, Kansas City Shuffle, sh*tter tennies) to keep the citizens from realizing how deep into debt their political representatives are selling them.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (1)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325483)

Haliburton has been dealing with Iran for years through a Cayman? subsidiary, that basically funnels mail back to the US. I don't think Dubai has any objections to building pipelines (I think that's the big Halliburton project in Iran) or even nuclear reactors in Iran. I think it's stunning that Cheney (Dick) is so hawkish on a country which will be dealing with a company in which he owns a fair amount of stock, that will make him quite a bit of money.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (1, Interesting)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325285)

Get your facts staight.

Cheney has NOT been paid by Halliburton since he began running for VP almost 8 yrs ago.

Politicians normally put any personal assets in blind trusts when they take office. So why don't you ask John Kerry why he didn't do that, instead of hammering Cheney for following protocol.

Corporate interests have dictated or had significant input on Government policy for decades. The hire people called LOBBYISTS to "express their views" to the House and Sentate. Or have you been under a rock the last 35 yrs?

Asking industry "experts" (NOT LOBBYISTS..they are different) for advice is actually good Government. Having worked with Government agencies for many years, I found they often think too highly of thier own knowledge and refuse to get outside help or to listen when advice is given thus making mistakes. Listening and acting on expert information would be a nice change of pace.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (5, Informative)

Wah (30840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325347)

Cheney has NOT been paid by Halliburton since he began running for VP almost 8 yrs ago.

That's not true.

Vice President and Mrs. Cheney filed their federal income tax return for 2004 today. The income tax return shows that the Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2004 of $393,518 on taxable income of $1,328,678. During the course of 2004 the Cheneys paid $290,855 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. The Cheneys paid $102,663 upon filing their tax return.

The wage and salary income reported on the tax return includes the Vice President's $203,000 government salary. In addition, the tax return reports the payment of deferred compensation from Halliburton Company in the amount of $194,852. In December 1998, the Vice President elected to defer compensation earned in calendar year 1999 for his services as chief executive officer of Halliburton. This amount was required be paid in fixed annual installments (with interest) in the five years after the Vice President's retirement from Halliburton.
[pretty good source [whitehouse.gov]

Additionally, before he became Vice President, he excercised options worth over $30,000,000.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325555)

Fox News isn't really an accurate source of information. You may want to do some research before you open your ignorant mouth.

Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (1)

boule75 (649166) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325339)

Technology has brought instant money transfers without borders. This has brought many possibilities to crooks for moving, hiding, stealing money through swift with the complicity of the banks or the very big companies.

And the laws have lagged behind: most Laws will not apply or not quickly enough to prevent this kind of thievery, a judge will take years to trace funds from one place to another (it will have left then) and there are much holes and fiscal paradises that are exploited to loot in a legal way. A recent estimation by an international group (the GAFI as far as I remeber) estimated that 20% of those huge funds were mafia money.

This system is imposed to most nations in the world, and never endorsed by their people. I am sorry to say that Britain and the US are flagships of that, or perceived as such everywhere. Now, Halliburton simply proves that most super-rich people are stateless people. The US has been somewhat protected from that phenomenon by its size and a remarkable national pride, but this pride even money may corrupt...

Well USA, you are impacting us all with your system through your power. It is only due time to amend it in many ways (the environment, the fascinatinon for money are two).

I hope you will not find that too arrogant :-)

Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US (4, Interesting)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324891)

Per Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (either as Dubai or as the United Arab Emirates).

Re:Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US (1)

MoodyLoner (76734) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325079)

And I'm sure that had no effect on Halliburton's decision to move there at all.

I'm sorry - did I put enough sarcasm on that?

Re:Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US (4, Funny)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325289)

I'm sorry - did I put enough sarcasm on that?

I'm not sure you did. My text to speech program had you sounding very monotone.

Re:Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325467)

Right, because these executives never want to come back home. Makes perfect sense. *rolls eyes*

Halliburton? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18324893)

How is this "News for Nerds"?

Re:Halliburton? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325417)

Modded "off topic"? I call BS.

Re:Halliburton? (off-topic) (0, Flamebait)

wiremind (183772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325531)

>How is this "News for Nerds"?

No shit. I really dont get why so much politics show up on here; and haliburton they arent even a tech company.

Slashdot really needs posted story moderation.

"Story Voted -1 for USA centric"
"Story Voted -1 for not News for Nerds"

This isnt news for nerds, this is news for anti-capitalist tree-huggers

Woo hoo, some company's moving their headquarters.

The only reason this is news is because alot of people think haliburton is an evil company, and everything evil companies do is for evil reasons.

Either you trust your american justice system, or you dont.
If you dont trust your justice system, then haliburton is the very least of your worries.
If you do trust your justice system, then you can trust that if they DO break the law, they will be dealt with.

either way this isnt news for nerds.

Kyle

Not only taxes (4, Interesting)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324907)

What of data retention laws? It's more difficult to audit their paper trails when their HQ is in Dubai than if it were in New York. Minimum wage laws for the average janitor are probably a little more exploitable.

Heck, with all of the crap which has been going on lately, it may even be a security move: in that the execs may actually feel safer in Dubai from the revenge of the people they've ruthlessly swindled in the US.

Re:Not only taxes (1)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325383)

Interesting point. If their corporate e-mail goes through their headquarters, and their headquarters is in Dubai, then I would love to know what data retention standards they need to follow. It's a lot easier to commit fraud if you can burn the trail as you go, that's what Sarbanes Oxley is trying to stop in this country.

Re:Not only taxes (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325509)

It's more difficult to audit their paper trails when their HQ is in Dubai than if it were in New York. Minimum wage laws for the average janitor are probably a little more exploitable.
Sure. But another reason, I suspect, is that Halliburton will be able to hire non-US citizens who can work there and not have to pay US income tax (depending on the laws of their home country); this allows them to recruit some of the best talent around. US citizens employed by Halliburton working in Dubai will still need to pay US income tax.

Plus, Dubia has very pro-business property ownership laws, and a fantastic banking system.

And last, but not least (to some, I'm sure), the availability, variety, and quality of prostitutes is... well, better than most places. I'm half kidding, but the personal freedoms and luxuries for the wealthy in Dubai are fantastic -- yet another draw for top talent.

Re:Not only taxes (0)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325551)

Janitors (and maintenance men/women in general) are typically in what's called a union. I take it you've never heard of them since you think janitors are so easily exploitable. Unions exist in order to prevent said exploitation from occurring. You see, this idea was popularised around a century ago in the US, and also in many other areas of the world at different times.

All defense contracts should be cancelled (-1, Flamebait)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324925)

All money involving Halliburton should be frozen.

Re:All defense contracts should be cancelled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325045)

And ruin the US economy? Half of the US budget probably goes through their grubby hands somehow.

Re:All defense contracts should be cancelled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325193)

And ruin the US economy?

please.. you have to be kidding me.. Haliburton is a small piss aint of the whole combined US economy. There are about 5 other companies who can easily take the role of Haliburton. As stated in previous posts, This smells of a Dick Cheyney scandal. Look at the way Cheyney is chastising congress today about their potential Iraq pullout plan. If we pull out, Haliburton loses LOTS of money, and so does he. (read the GP comment about him not letting his stock go, or in a blind trust when he became VP).. Only a year and a half left.. *shudder*

Re:All defense contracts should be cancelled (1, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325081)

All money involving Halliburton should be frozen.

You forgot arguments. Please, try again.

Arguments - Here's a few (0)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325437)

Link [google.com]

Re:All defense contracts should be cancelled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325223)

thanks for your input, whatever it was suppose to be. and thanks for being one of those dumb fags who can't RTFA. you have no idea what you commented on and you have no idea on what the truth of the matter is. your ignorance is a glaring example of what's wrong around here.
 
next time try putting your political spin in your back pocket for about 4 minutes and read the article first, shithead.

Cheney's retirement? (3, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324947)

Does anybody know whether Vice President Cheney has purchased a home in Dubai yet? Between this and the Dubai Ports World deal, the GWB administration seems to be trying to set up a cushy job there for someone.

Re:Cheney's retirement? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325085)

Do we care where Cheney retires?

As for Dubai buying up all sort of stuff. Dubai is swimming in cash from oil revenue. They knonw that the oil won't last forever. Massive investment in recreation facilities (as a tourism destination) and diversification in major international corporations with good cash flow is just plain smart business.

I'll be lifting a glass of celebratory champagne when George the worst and his pack of Nixon era cronies leave office, but even I don't think there's really all that much to get worked up over here. This is business, and it makes business sense.

Re:Cheney's retirement? (4, Funny)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325327)

Do we care where Cheney retires?
He'll be retiring to an undisclosed location.

Re:Cheney's retirement? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325447)

In other words there will be no change in his public profile once he leaves office. ;-)

Re:Cheney's retirement? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325453)

It matters because the improbably cluster of "Dubai", "Halliburton", and "Cheney" in this situation suggests that there's more going on here than just business. This isn't Joe al-Blow in Dubai with too much money buying a U.S. business (which would be "just business"). This is a U.S. business partially owned (and directed through a proxy) by the Vice President, buying property and setting up shop in a foreign country where the White House has been involved in deal-making. We know this move ain't for the nightlife, so it raises the important questions of how and why. Cheney's retiring in 2009, but he's on our payroll right now, and his Board of Directors (read "we") have a right to know whether he's working for us, or for someone else.

You can't make this crap up (4, Informative)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324949)

This is from a company who's been dealing with Iran on a pipeline [msn.com] with a very thinly veiled subsidiary in the caribbean [washingtonpost.com] . Really, truth is more complicated and stranger than fiction.

Thinly veiled subsidiary (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325205)

They're affiliated with spammers, too? It's all starting to come together...

Re:Thinly veiled subsidiary (0, Offtopic)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325225)

All I know is I saw Kenny alive, then a bunch of Haliburton guys walked into the room, now Kenny's dead.

Re:Thinly veiled subsidiary (0, Offtopic)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325355)

Those bastards! They killed Kenny!

Not a move (4, Informative)

peipas (809350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324951)

NPR says [npr.org] they aren't moving their headquarters, just opening up another one. This of course calls into question the definition of "headquarters," but there seems to be conflicting information. The linked article's alarmism is from yesterday, for what it's worth.

Re:Not a move (4, Informative)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325031)

link to UPI [upi.com] and msnbc [msn.com] It looks like their moving their CEO and their headquarters overseas.

Re:Not a move (2, Informative)

peipas (809350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325165)

There seems to be an awful lot of confusion over the move of the CEO to Dubai and Halliburton uprooting from the U.S. The NPR audio from the above-linked article describes how U.S. laws changed in 2004 placing additional conditions on a corporation changing its U.S. tax obligations, conditions Halliburton is not likely to be meeting any time soon.

if i learned anything from starcraft... (5, Funny)

hildi (868839) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325189)

its that you can build two headquarters, but thats usually when your first one is about to be overrun

Re:if i learned anything from starcraft... (1)

the-amazing-blob (917722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325315)

A starcraft analogy that works? Holy zergling rush, Batman!

Politics for nerds, lets try to stay relevant! (-1, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324985)

Um, why is this even on Slashdot? To get more page hits from the politically savvy geeks who somehow read NO other news sources?
Taco, just because your life revolves around Slashdot, doesn't mean that others' do.

Look, a correctly used apostrophe!

Re:Politics for nerds, lets try to stay relevant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325111)

No, your lets needs an apostrophe; let's.

Negative PR? Yeah... sure. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18324999)

Forgetting for a moment who they are, do you blame them? I mean, what makes anyone think that Halliburton's public image (currently considered to be somewhere between "locus of evil" and "The Fourth Reich" according to some) is going to suffer any further than it already has by moving offshore?

/P

Re:Negative PR? Yeah... sure. (1)

2020steve (999594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325305)

No.

Since their image is so dismal, I guess it's not the Halliburton way to get caught up in what the public thinks.

Not moving headquaters, not moving corporate state (4, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325005)

Now, I'm going to take a chance on this that the information on NPR today was accurate, namely:

A second local "headquarters" will be set up in Dubai, and the CEO will reside there.
The current "headquarters" will remain in Houston, TX.
The Dubai office is to get closer to the action and get some PR separation from us dirty Americans

The corporation will still be registered, and taxable, in the US. Changes to the laws make offshoring more difficult, including needing to have 10% of the Halliburton workforce located in Dubai in order to swith their corporate tax liabilities out of the US. Given the size of Halliburton, that's likely not going to happen.

Finally, the major support contracts for the US military are held by a subsidiary of Halliburton which will be spun off as an independent US corporation next month.

Now, one final disclaimer: this is all from memory based on a short bit on te radio. Feel free to fill in the blanks and correct the errors (be they in my memory or by the reporting staff at NPR).

Good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325019)

I don't expect a bunch of slashdot liberals to understand this point, but HAL needs to move where the action is - where the kabling is going to made - and that place is Dubai.

You can yammer on all you want about "ethics" and no bid contracts all you want, but the fact is this is a good business move and as a stockholder, I'm happy about it.

Did they move to avoid some prosecution? MAYBE. But if it's in the interest of protecting shareholder assets, then what would you expect them to do?

It's all about bling-bling, /.

Re:Good move (2, Insightful)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325067)

You conservative appologists - Clinton - impeachment for lying about getting blown by an intern. Bushes criminal cronies looking for an extradition free home after fu**ing the whole country.

Re:Good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325207)

good business sense? all about the bling bling?

yes, i'd call myself liberal. yes, i'd call it good business. but so is walking up and shooting an innocent person in the face and taking their wallet. good business, but bad practice!

now if this isn't the biggest slap in the fucking face to the american people, i don't know what is. listen up. if you are american, and you pay one more dollar in tax, you are complicit in the murders of millions of people. do you understand this?

if you are from any other nation, and this seems acceptable to you, you are complicit in the murders of millions of people. do you understand this?

and if you own stocks in halliburton, then you are not only complicit, but an accesory to the most heinous crimes ever committed on planet earth.

do you understand this? you are the enemy of terrorists. you are why they hate us. you are why there will be more violence. do you understand this?

the well is running dry (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325039)

time to move on and exploit another nation for billions of dollars and thousands of lives. They've done their job here, very well I might add, kudos. Looks like they'll looking at armies of other countries to do their dirty work.

Re:the well is running dry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325173)

Hmmm.. $25 billion for 250,000 lives works out about $100,000 per life... kudos indeed :)

Will they still count as a US company? (1)

ApharmdB (572578) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325049)

Because there are a lot of DoD contracts that have to go to US companies free of any partially or wholly controlling foreign interest.

Or does Halliburton just not do that kind of work?

Anyone got any information?

Re:Will they still count as a US company? (1)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325155)

As another poster pointed out - they will spin off a US subsidiary to handle US contracts. So, in a sense, they are still a US company, even though they are a bunch of unpatriotic, soulless bastards.

from their website... (1)

Library Spoff (582122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325065)

"Tap into our extraordinary people, award-winning technologies, performance profiles, sustainability leadership and community involvement. Wherever you look, Halliburton has the energy you need!"

*hmm* community involvement indeed!

You've got to be kidding (1)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325095)

When I read this I thought to myself "boy that's a good one", thinking that perhaps it was linked off to theonion or some other site, but abcnews is more or less reliable... I would however like to read the full quote, anyone?

Re:You've got to be kidding (1)

Guido von Guido (548827) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325269)

It's all over everywhere. I first saw it linked in a blog post somewhere linking to the Wall Street Journal.

sounds legitimate to me (4, Interesting)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325113)

what's more sensible than an *oil company* relocating to the *middle east*? Dubai isn't just some random village in the middle of nowhere, it's a major economic hub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai [wikipedia.org]

A lot of people have mentioned the Halliburton contracts in iraq, but Halliburton is spinning off it's military division anyway and is likely to be distanced from iraq. Aside from that, I don't think anyone at Halliburton takes the notion seriously that they will be sued when an ex-CEO is practically running the country... if they were ever afraid of that the abuses wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Also, a bunch of people have mentioned criminal charges. A lot of the problems with Halliburton, Halliburton can't really be held responsible, since the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them. If you're contract has holes in it, you're pretty fucked when it comes to trial.

Re:sounds legitimate to me (1)

theodicey (662941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325369)

the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them

Yes, but why did Bush's government negotiate crappy contracts?

Might just be typical Bush Administration heckuva job incompetence, might be a typical giveaway to Republican-supporting companies.

Or, it could be corruption of procurement officials, as in the Boeing scandal [govexec.com] .

"'I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed' in 20 years working on government contracts" -- Bunnatine Greenhouse, top Army procurement officer [washingtonpost.com]

Well now that they're a foreign company... (5, Insightful)

nixkuroi (569546) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325127)

Maybe we should consider rethinking their contracts as we did the Dubai port management deals. Companies that are based outside the US are clearly not as favorable in terms of our security - at least in the eyes of congress.

Get your facts straight (5, Informative)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325133)

Listen, I'm not a fan of Halliburton screwing over the American taxpayers. I'm also against their huge no-bid contracts.

But as Slate's "Explainer," well, explains, Halliburton "is still incorporated in Delaware and remains subject to U.S. law and taxes." The article goes on to say that Halliburton would have a hell of a time incorporating in Dubai, but moving its workforce overseas is not out of the question.

After all, 55% of the company's business comes from the Eastern hemisphere. This move makes perfect sense, given their long-term business plans.

PS: The company's defense component, KBR, is set to become its own company. Halliburton's new HQ should not affect KBR.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161652/fr/rss/ [slate.com]

dont blame em (1)

Diotallevi (688468) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325143)

sorry but BS activist lawsuits, neg press, dems planned tax increase, etc... Look ppl its a damn shame that the worlds largest capitalist nation is driving its own jobs and workforce overseas through overregulation, taxes, and non existant legal reform. So what if you hate halliburtion/cheney/bush it wont be long before your job is moved overseas. Which for a bunch of geeks should be well aware of india and their tech outsource ways.

Halliburton (1)

david999 (941503) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325145)

LBJ's widow owns a large share of Halliburton, it was one reason he married her, she was rich George Soros owns 62 million dollars of stock in the company, far more then Dick Cheney ever did. His name repeatedly comes up with Halliburton as if he were a crook yet no mention of THE biggest shareholders of the company

According to the company... (4, Interesting)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325159)

They want the HQ to be closer to the majority of the fields they operate and to the bulk of their customers, which is Asia. Their main business is "oil services", mind you. And the biggest oil fields are around the Gulf...

Not sure, why all this is /. material, though...

why do liberals hate america? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325163)

we should change america to be more like Dubai, before all the good corporations leave!

first step: hire an underclass of semi-legal labor to do all our low wage jobs... oh wait, we already got that part going

second step: base our entire economy on oil... we are getting there slowly...

third step: do away with all these liberal ideas, like labor unions, the right to riot (aka "assemble"), the right to incite violence (aka "the press", "speech"), and so forth and so on.

fourth step: reduce taxes to zero. if Jeb gets elected in 2012, we will be well on our way.

on our way to a good, conservative nation like Jefferson and Washington intended.

Re:why do liberals hate america? (3, Interesting)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325275)

I'm ululating in the street with joy as my wife dances in her burka.

Re:why do liberals hate america? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325507)

Islam forbids dancing. Ululating is, however, encouraged. Continue oh, Dhimmi.

well (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325213)

Just goes to show you, multinational companies have no allegiance to any country.

Stuff that Doesn't Matter (2, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325227)

And the reason why Slashdot is reporting on this is?...

It's one thing to cover major political stories here, but this is silly.

oh yeah? (4, Insightful)

deblau (68023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325249)

In the interest of national security, no company based outside the US should be given any US defense contracts. Period. I bet the Democrats could get that passed as a law.

News for Dems, bias that matters (0, Offtopic)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325273)

What is this, Slashdot or Daily Kos?

I realize that bashing the administration and anybody who's linked with them in any way is the "in thing" to do (thank you, Jon Stewart), but there are zillions of sites out there for posting and discussing this sort of thing. It's not tech, it's not fantasy, it's plain old generic business being posted for plain old political reasons. So why is it here?

Re:News for Dems, bias that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325561)

It's not tech, it's not fantasy, it's plain old generic business being posted for plain old political reasons. So why is it here?

I don't know about other Slashdot readers, but I'm still trying to figure out why the Bush administration invaded Iraq. I'm not interested in some vague touchy-feely patriotic explanation. I want to understand in terms of factual scientific observations of human behavior.

As far as I can tell, the only explanation that really makes sense for why Bush decided to invade is that Bush had friends in the Texas oil industry who realized that oil in Texas had dried up and who needed access to other oil fields. Bush saw that Iraq had the last major deposits of oil and that, by invading Iraq, Bush could arrange for his friends in the oil industry to have access to that oil.

The fact that Haliburton is moving to the Middle East is entirely consistent with Bush having facilitated Haliburton's access to Iraqi oil. Sometimes in science you find that each additional piece of data you collect is consistent with your hypothesis. That's a good indication that you've finally found the correct hypothesis.

Haliburton moving to the Middle East is one more piece of data that is consistent with the war-for-the-oil-industry hypothesis. I find that interesting.

Don't they see the inconsistencies? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325277)

Maybe I just hang out too much with the anti-war crowd but the only explanation that really makes sense to me for why Bush decided to invade Iraq is that Bush had friends in the oil industry that wanted access to Iraq's oil.

Every other explanation for why Bush decided to invaded is inconsistent with other considerations.

  • The whole WMD thing never really made much sense. If Iraq actually had the capability to use WMD against the USA (e.g. destroy Manhattan) then it would have been colossally stupid to invade. The way WMD could have justified invasion was if Iraq didn't have WMD but was about to have WMD in a matter of months. The thing is, if the USA did have that level of detailed intelligence then the USA should have made the specific demand that Iraq stop that specific program.
  • If the Bush administration actually believed the whole "ideological war against radical Islam" thing - that corrupt dictatorships are the root of radical Islam that radical Islam is the root of terrorism against the USA, then the USA should have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship closely tied to an extreme form of radical Islam. Saudi Arabia is where the 9/11 hijackers were from. Saudi Arabia is where Bin Laden was from.
  • If the goal was to get Bin Laden or to "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" then why didn't the Bush administration focus on the existing war in Afghanistan? For that matter, if the goal was only to choose a battle ground that resulted in few civilian casualties then why not choose Antarctica?
  • If the Bush administration was so opposed to Saddam's record of human rights violations that they thought it justified a costly and uncertain war, then why is the Bush administration itself holding people without trial and torturing them? Along those lines, if it was just about a particular country having a bad government and needing intervention then why didn't the Bush administration invade Somalia? Or, if it's about genocide then why hasn't the USA invaded Sudan?
  • At some level, I think that it would be good for Iraq to have democracy but didn't the Bush administration realize that a democratic Iraq would be dominated by the Shia who are close allies of Iran? Did the Bush administration really think it was a good idea set up a regime in Iraq that was friendly to Iran at a time when Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons?
  • It is pretty clear that at some point the world will run out of oil. If the Bush administration really cared about oil depletion it would seem to be much more effective to spend money on alternative energy research. The hundreds of billions spent on the Iraq war would have bought a lot of energy research. Even if the USA did manage to be the country that consumed the last of the oil, the oil is going to run out even for the USA and then there will be a need for alternative energy sources.

Obviously, the Bush administration has given a lot of justifications for invading Iraq. None of the justifications make sense when I actually think about them in detail. Some people claim that Bush is just really stupid but I have a hard time believing that that's the case. After all, Bush was smart enough to get himself elected to USA president twice.

In the end, I have to conclude that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was really about Bush helping out his friends in the oil industry. What puzzles me is that so many people just accept Bush's other justifications - even congress. Do members of congress know Bush is lying but they don't think it's politically expedient to call Bush on it. What about the news media? Do they know Bush is lying but they figure it makes a better story to pretend he's not? What about the general public? Don't they recognize the inconsistencies?

And don't even get me started on the general public's support for massive deficit spending...

How the fuck is this news for nerds? (-1, Offtopic)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325281)

I was interested to read this news (when it was news, a few days ago) but this is not nerd news, and slashdot must be the last place on earth to carry the story. Really poorly chosen, editors.

huh? (-1, Flamebait)

alphamugwump (918799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325297)

First, this isn't "News for Nerds". Second, what the hell is wrong with Halibuton moving its headquarters to take advantage of tax cuts? It's what I'd do, and it's probably what you'd do too. Third, what's with the vague insinuations? Damn it, if you have something nasty to say about Cheney or whatever, just say it. Don't fuck around like an Ayn Rand villain. As it is, all you whiney liberals can come up with is this:

"Ooh, Haliburton got a big contract."
"So?"
"You know, Cheney owns a lot of Haliburton stock"
"So, Cheney is a greedy cunt"
"Well, so am I"

If you don't have the guts to say what you believe, just shut up and stop spamming slashdot.

Im sad (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325325)

My connection to Halliburton is going to Iraq. No more $100/hour for fixing their Excel/Word macros

Let them leave then cancel ALL contracts! (4, Interesting)

TheRealStyro (233246) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325341)

The US government should offer the advice that this move is not a good idea. If they leave any and all remaining assets (and any profits) will be taxed 500% for 10 years and ALL contracts will be canceled as they will become a foreign corporation and cannot have contracts that may/do have implications for national security.

To make things fair, these and more rules should be applied to any US company that leaves.

On another note, what does this topic have to do with the usual technology issues on Slashdot?

Re:Let them leave then cancel ALL contracts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325545)

you stupid nigger. freaking out like that is a typical example of the problem with black youth.

Politics for Nerds. I guess. (2, Insightful)

imAck (102644) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325465)

Am I the only one wondering how in the world this got posted on Slashdot? This just seems like bait for a flame war. Granted, there's plenty of debate to be had on the issue--but this is Slashdot, how? Would it have made the headline if it were Nabisco?

What ? Hillary Clinton loaning IQ to Dubia ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18325521)

Now this is a headline ! :)

Ohh my USA...! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325523)

When one hears [US] politicians praise the American system, touting its advantages over other systems of government, you might think there is no corruption in the country. So they tell the "Third World."


Nothing could be further from the truth. To make matters worse, most politicians including the Commander in Chief appear to be incompetent!

Anti American (1)

alegrepublic (83799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325557)

That move is the best example of Anti American practices in a long time. Owners of the company should be rescinded their American citizenship. If Mr. Cheney is still a shareholder, then his losing citizenship would mean he would no longer qualify for Vice President. So, no impeachment would be necessary, because the Constitution forbids non-Americans to participate in the American political process. Actually, this would be a legal move under the current law, because moving overseas for the purpose of evading taxes constitutes legal grounds for loss of American citizenship. All that is needed is an Attorney General with
the guts to enforce the current laws.

This is hardly Nerd News. (1)

Timmy Da Programmer (1052130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18325565)

Smells like somebody's political leaning has more to do with what shows up here than what is news to "nerds". Perhaps News for Hippies would be a better slogan?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>