Free Republic

As stated above, my concerns are not with US consumption (although I believe we could all reduce consumption in smart ways (like using fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent ones, keeping homes hotter in the summer and cooler in the winter) that would put more money in our pockets and make our current consumption more sustainable.

I've made a number of these shifts in the past and have saved hundreds of dollars on energy costs. We may have oil for the near term, but if production has peaked or will peak soon, prices will increase globally, perhaps before we have time to do something about it.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, it's just that we are heavily dependant on a finite resource, and demand is increasing exponentially around the world.

I can't say about docs, but, as I referenced in an old post, my Shih Tzu spent a night at the hospital with six paid staff and a Vet, had a 16 hour IV, painkillers, x-rays and ultrasound, and it only cost $734 dollars. A few years back, I banged my head, had to go to the emergency room, was there for four hours with no IV and no overnight stay, and no ambulance, and it cost $6,000.

Where is that difference coming from?

Inefficiency of 3rd parting paying and liability. Plus, the pet market wouldn't tolerate such ridiculous costs.

You will be happy to know that my dog now has comprehensive health insurance, which costs $11.42 / month. I would happily spend the night in a stainless steel cage with a bed of blankets if I could reduce my health care costs by 90%, and I bet most people would do the same...

HERE IS THE LINK's content...

October 25, 2003
Cheney has millions in Halliburton
Another article you won't see in the mainstream press. This one from The Populist. It appears that Cheney has millions invested in Halliburton who got the lion's share of the no bid contract awarded in Iraq.

-----

On Meet the Press Sept. 14, Cheney disavowed any present connection to Halliburton: "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." The statement was subsequently reinforced by spokespersons for both Cheney and Halliburton, who pointed out that Cheney's contract protects his benefits even if the company loses money.

The disclosure form paints a somewhat more nuanced picture. The Vanguard Group holdings are easily among Cheney's largest holdings. Assets are given in ranges (from $100,000 to $1M; from $1M to $5M; etc). Cheney's statement includes two holdings in the $500,000-$1M range; two holdings in the $1M-$5M range; and three holdings in the $5M-$25M range. Thus Cheney's assets invested with Vanguard Group total $18M to $87M. Given the size of Vanguard's stake in Halliburton, it is hard to imagine a mathematical possibility that Cheney's assets are unconnected to Halliburton's fortunes.

Probable return on assets is obviously hard to quantify. Some estimate can be provided by George W. Bush's own financial disclosure statement (see www.opensecrets.org). Bush had relatively piddling assets of $68,766 invested in Vanguard in 2001, on which he declared a quite respectable capital gain of $4,735, or about 6%.

Interestingly, the previous list of top Halliburton shareholders included Texas' Wylie brothers, known as the Maverick Group. The privately owned Maverick Capital last surfaced in headlines back during campaign 2000, when the billionaire Wylies turned out to be behind a group called "Republicans for Clean Air." The group, little known before the campaign, ran a blitz of pro-Bush ads praising Bush on the environment and attacking John McCain, just before the March primaries in 2000, when McCain had been beating Bush, and was credited with damaging McCain's candidacy.

Among other holdings, Maverick also owns millions of shares of the rightwing Liberty Media Corporation and Clear Channel Communications, which sponsored a series of war-boosting rallies around the nation in spring 2003. To these influences can be attributed much of the quality of public discourse about Iraq.

-----

Now - coinsidering how the press hounded Al Gore for years over making an improper phone call, do you thnk there's any chance they would have let Gore get away with this? Of course not. And you can see how the investment in Clear Channel Communications resulted in media sponsored pro-war rallies. So - when you hear the mainstream media talk about the "liberal press" - it's because their conservative owners made them say it.


David Letterman-style, the Top Ten shareholders for Halliburton Company, Inc., are as follows: Link

#10: The Vanguard Group, with 7.6 million shares of Halliburton stock, worth about $176 million. Vanguard, also 10th largest mutual-fund shareholder in Halliburton, is a huge owner in ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. It moved onto this list recently when Dallas-based Maverick Capital, privately owned by the Wylie family, moved off. Vice President Cheney's disclosure statement (above) shows millions of his retirement money invested through Vanguard.

#9: Lord Abbett & Co., with about 8 million shares of Halliburton. Lord Abbett's trustees, who manage billions controlled by this investment firm, include Bush uncle William H. T. Bush. Lord Abbett is also one of Halliburton's top ten mutual fund holders (another 4.7 million shares).

#8: Deutsche Bank, with 8.3 million shares of Halliburton. Deutsche Bank was home to Alvin B. Krongard, now Bush's number-three man at the CIA. Krongard, whom the CIA web site lists as a longtime consultant, was a director at Alex Brown Bankers Trust, which got a multi-million management contract with FMR (see #7).

#7: FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management & Research), with 10 million shares. FMR, the world's largest mutual fund company, and Wellington (see #2, below) are by far the biggest shareholders in TB Woods Corp., where presidential cousin Craig Stapleton was a director before becoming ambassador to the Czech Republic. FMR also owns big in United Defense/Carlyle, connected to former President George H. W. Bush, and Fresh Del Monte, where presidential brother Marvin P. Bush is back on the board. Interestingly, FMR also owns about 50,000 shares of Harken Energy, George W. Bush's old stomping grounds (current value: about $20,000). Fidelity's Magellan Fund is also the second largest mutual fund holder in Halliburton.

#6: Putnam Investment Manage-ment, LLC, with more than 12.5 million shares. Putnam also owns stock in United Defense/the Carlyle Group and in Fresh Del Monte. Putnam is another top mutual fund holder in Halliburton.

#5: State Street Corporation, with 13 million shares. State Street, which reportedly controls $6 trillion in investments, recently revealed plans for a multi-million deal with (#8) Deutsche Bank, and owns $4.5B worth of Morgan Stanley (#3, below). State Street is also hugely invested in ExxonMobil, one of Saddam's biggest customers, and BP, which started life as "Iraq Petroleum." Also owns big in United Defense/Carlyle.

#4: Barclays Bank PLC, with 17.5 million shares of Halliburton. Barclays is also into United Defense and Fresh Del Monte, and has successfully hung on to 85,000 shares of Harken Energy.

#3: Morgan Stanley, with over 20 million shares. Morgan Stanley, among other connections on this list, is also a shareholder in United Defense and Fresh Del Monte, as well as in #8 Deutsche Bank.

#2: Wellington Management Co., LLP: Headquartered in Boston, Wellington calls itself one of America's oldest investment firms. It holds about 23 million shares, or more than half a billion dollars' worth, of Halliburton, and is linked with most of the rest of this list.

#1: Capital Research and Manage-ment Company, with 25 million shares, also worth over half a billion dollars. Los Angeles-based Capital Group is also a major investor in military contractors Lockheed and Raytheon, and is linked with FMR and Wellington in other large holdings.

Posted by marc at October 25, 2003 06:00 AM

Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marc.perkel.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/61

Comments
Maggie Burns leaves out one criticial detail, which funds Cheney is invested in. If you check out his disclosure statement, you'll find that they're all muni bonds and a money market. He gets no direct $ from HAL.

I've brought this up with Maggie and she agrees that Cheney has $ in Vanguard and Vanguard has $ in HAL, but she failed to show that any of Cheney's investments held a single share of HAL and unless Vanguard breaks the law, they can't give Cheney a dime from their investment in HAL.

Posted by: Chris Knight at October 31, 2003 08:39 AM

RE: VANGUARD... This is all I could find, a reply to a post on a blog last year about this subject:

Maggie Burns leaves out one criticial detail, which funds Cheney is invested in. If you check out his disclosure statement, you'll find that they're all muni bonds and a money market. He gets no direct $ from HAL. I've brought this up with Maggie and she agrees that Cheney has $ in Vanguard and Vanguard has $ in HAL, but she failed to show that any of Cheney's investments held a single share of HAL and unless Vanguard breaks the law, they can't give Cheney a dime from their investment in HAL. Posted by: Chris Knight at October 31, 2003 08:39 AM

Here is the link if you'd like ot read it:http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000067.html

Fester,

When I say "looks bad", I mean that there is the appearance of possible impropropriety to the untrained and/or uneducated eye. I know a lot of people who simply point at the chain of events (oftentimes in the wrong order) and assume that this isn't Halliburton's business or assume that 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', Dick Cheney won the bid and became fantastically rich as a result of this war. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it.

While I don't personally believe that nonsense, I do recognize that someone whose political knowledge was limited to what he or she sees in "Fahrenheit 9/11" might be inclined to think the worst of the Cheney-Halliburton 'facts', allowing them to come to a conclusion, albeit a false and logically poor one.

The purpose of the post isn't to suggest that privacy rights aren't imporant. Indeed I acknowledged the danger of allowing the government more power with the kimono comment. However, there is certainly a point at which our safety may be in conflict with our privacy, and a new line may need to be drawn to reflect this conflict and to protect our civil liberties.

FAA approved agents go through our bags at airports, going through our things with begloved hands. Clearly this is a violation of one form of privacy.

I'm not arguing whether or not the government should have a blank check to perform search and siezure, just suggesting that we may be facing an increasing conflict between privacy and safety. Do you disagree? Which is more important?