May 18, 2012, 6:31 AM
Post #12 of 12
Re: [cbviajero] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study
Can't Post | Private Reply
Haliburton is not one of those private security firms, but one of those companies that manufacture all the safety gear, all the latest technology, all the know how, all the critical maintenance parts and all of this is very, very expensive.
Especially when they had a virtual lock on governmet contracts during the Cheney administration.
We are getting far off track from the original topic, but here we go. Let's use the Halliburton claim as a route to explore reality vs. emotive approaches on Pemex, taxes, political abuses, and the rich-getting-richer.
Does leading with the heart get us closer to understanding and solving the actual problems?
e.g. How does Halliburton's $7 billion contract from that era compare to the $15 billion awarded to Fluor and DynCorp for similar work - out of the $2.5 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan Bush-Cheney forays.
I guess this issue sort of fits this thread, because we can get so energetic about the rich getting richer, that we lose track of the actual monies spent.
Are Mexico's/Pemex's (relative) $79 of tax reductions for the 90% ordinary people actually less than the $21 of tax reductions for the the wealthy 10%'ers, or have emotions skewed perceptions?
Is $7 billion over several years "a virtual lock", when compared to $15 billion in similar awards to competing firms, out of a total $2,500 billion spent by Bush-Cheney on Iraq and Afghanistan forays?
The last 5 decades trends of US politicians (and Mexican politicians?) getting further into bed with the rich & powerful are repulsive and harmful to both societies, but that is no reason to skew/mis-report the actual $$ reports.
e.g. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker.
This ratio grew to 35 times more in 1978.
It further increased to 71 times more in 1989 under Reagan et al.
Under Clinton the ratio surged in the late 1990s, hitting 300 times more by the end of the recovery in 2000.
Under Bush, the early 2000's stock market tumble reduced CEO compensation to a more modest 143 times that of an average worker in 2002.
Average CEO compensation then grew to $10,982,000 a year, 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861) .
Ironically, the ratio of excessive compensation to wealthy CEOs surged under Clinton - rising to 300X. **
I suspect none of us on Mexconnect cheer when politicians accept millions from others, and then skew the regulations and laws to further reward their contributors.
Did anyone else note that the US Govt bailed out Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, then turned around last fall: In late 2011 Jaime Dimon lobbied Congress to eliminate some regulatory controls on their favored Credit Default Swaps? Congress and the SEC quietly loosened regulations (again), and gave Dimon and Goldman Sachs what they wanted, and just 6 months later have a new $2 billion loss by a single JP Morgan Chase employee based on the changes, and the responsible exec was making a paltry $15,943,231 a year in compensation - due to Congress and the SEC caving-in to Wall Street banker requests.
(I mention no similar issues for Mexico, because I am not yet a citizen.)
Ironically, we have seen none of these wild losses on the Mexican Bolsa...
Emotional approaches sure can feel good, but views anchored in data are generally closer to reality,
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com
(This post was edited by YucaLandia on May 18, 2012, 7:04 AM)