Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Who are the major beneficiaries of the Iraq struggle

  1. Aug 27, 2005 #1
    Who are the major beneficiaries of the Iraq "struggle"

    Since France lost out on $650 billion worth of business with Iraq due to the US invasion and occupation. I would like to know who stands to benefit now?

    I will start with the easy one.

    Haliburton $10.8 billion a of 12/9/2004

    http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/5.120904A-1.pdf
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 27, 2005 #2

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think this one is easy: OBL !
     
  4. Aug 27, 2005 #3
    You're both right. The only people gaining anything are war profiteers and terrorists.
     
  5. Aug 27, 2005 #4
    The major beneficiaries? Capitalists, of course. The losers? All the rest of us. Cheers:-)
     
  6. Aug 27, 2005 #5

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That was maybe the IDEA in the beginning, but I think it turned sour, no ? Except for some US companies getting US public money, who's getting something OUT of this (predictable) disaster as "value creation" ??
     
  7. Aug 27, 2005 #6
    Don't know, vanesch. Enlighten me (I'm now drunk - have been for weeks!)
     
  8. Aug 27, 2005 #7

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I would think that whoever comes to power in Iraq stands to benefit. Depending on who those people are, the Kurds probably stand to benefit. Colin Powell might not have resigned if not for the war, so Condi Rice probably benefited. Defense contractors benefit from every war, so that isn't exactly news.

    And of course, if you believe the Army ads, the soldiers who return with valuable life experiences stand to benefit, as they can now get any job they want in the civilian sector.
     
  9. Aug 27, 2005 #8

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    It's interesting that you say that, since the contractors who have profited did so by receiving taxpayer money. A pure capitalist system wouldn't even have taxes, and it certainly wouldn't have publicly funded companies.
     
  10. Aug 27, 2005 #9
    He who will benifit the most will be he who eventually gets the oil.
     
  11. Aug 28, 2005 #10
    But loseyourname, this is one of the main points I try to make throughout most of my posts: this version of capitalism that exists is not pure (and it is difficult to see that a 'pure' capitalist system would ever be allowed to exist) - the fact is, capitalist ideology and capitalist practice are two very different things. Because in practice the economic/political system is set up to serve the interests of the already-rich and powerful, public moneys will always be used to subsidise the profits of these people. Do you see any moves towards the 'pure capitalism' you speak of?
     
  12. Aug 28, 2005 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How many companies in the US are publicly funded? I don't personally know of any nationalized companies in the US but i might be wrong. I know companies exist that are subsidized... but there usually subsidized because the companies can't exist without them (airliners for example).

    Note: Therse a huge difference between funded and employed by.
     
  13. Aug 28, 2005 #12
    I agree with the ideas you express in your first paragraph (the most important being that whoever is favoured as being an acceptable local ruling elite in Iraq will benefit). I'd add to your list that construction companies would also benefit (a great way to keep the economy turning: destroy infrastructure so that money can go into the coffers of companies that 'rebuild' it - ah, clever ol' capitalism).

    I think your second paragraph was a touch cynical? I dread to imagine the lives of the soldiers who return to the US maimed. The other night I made myself watch the DVD "Born on the Fourth of July" - it gives a good personal viewpoint of how it feels to survive such wars but then have to live the rest of one's life in a wheelchair. For those who have not yet seen the movie, I would highly recommend it given the current state of affairs and the fact that many soldiers are now returning 'damaged' in various ways.
     
  14. Aug 28, 2005 #13
    I don't know about the number of companies in the US that are publicly funded, Pengwuino. But I do know that there is much indirect funding of privately-owned companies - especially when you are looking at a company like Halliburton, whose Iraqi profits come entirely as a result of the Iraq conflict. The Iraq conflict (and thus, indirectly, Halliburton's profits) was subsidised by your taxes.
     
  15. Aug 28, 2005 #14

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Like I said, theres a huge difference between a contract and a subsidy. I honestly dont care that Halliburton is making a profit. Someone HAD to make a profit. Someone had to do the job. Hell, with most public works projects in modern world history, some company had to have made a profit in one way or another because they were either suppliers or contracted workers. The real things we are suppose to logically worry about is companies who are subsidized (that is, given money with nothing expected in return) that make large profits. I can personally only think of the airline industries because they are just naturally an unprofitable enterprise. The only reason they are subsidized is because if airline travel stopped, it'd collapse the economy.

    As you said, the real world economies are not pure capitalism and no one really wants them to be pure capitalism. As I pointed out, one reason is because some vital industries just cannot compete in a pure market economy. For example, solar power companies. They just cannot compete in the market on their own, no way, no how (yet). They have to survive off government subsidies. This allows us to benefit from solar energy where it otherwise would fall victim to a market economy.
     
  16. Aug 28, 2005 #15
    A google search result: "The Center for Public Integrity: Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest" website: http://www.public-i.org/wow/

    It has just the information we need to answer some of the questions raised in this thread. Have a look at the webpage showing all the contractors operating in Iraq: http://www.public-i.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&fil=IQ . It shows the name of the contractors, the value of the contracts, and the government agency subcontracting it. You can also click on each company's name to find out more details about the individual companies. Whew - heaps of information there...

    One example (it drew my attention because of the 5.2 billion dollar value) is Parsons Corp.
     
  17. Aug 28, 2005 #16

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ok no, you really do not understand this...

    Theres a difference between a CONTRACT and a SUBSIDY. If a government is going to do/build something, they will more then likely hire a company to do it. They give contracts out to build things. If the government wants a new court house, they hire some company like Bell Tec (Forget how its spelled). If they want a new FBI building, they hire a company. If you want to build a sewage system in Iraq, they hire a company. Someone is going to profit because someone has to do the work around there. Its very very simple.
     
  18. Aug 28, 2005 #17

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes but here the system was different you see. In a slightly simplified version, Bush wanted to give a lot of money to Halliburton. Because he couldn't apparently just decide to give it for free, he had to go and _destroy_ a country, just to be able to write out a contract to rebuild it and give it to Halliburton. It would have been cheaper for everyone if he just GAVE the money to them ; a country wouldn't have to get bombed over it, soldiers wouldn't have to be sent and die. So why couldn't he just write out a contract to Halliburton to reconstruct, I don't know, the country of Ariq on a planet of Betelgeuse. Would have been much cheaper for everybody...
     
  19. Aug 28, 2005 #18
    Oh, come now. They would have billed you for an improbability drive too and you know it.
     
  20. Aug 28, 2005 #19

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    True but that could be an important asset for future presidential elections :tongue2:
     
  21. Aug 28, 2005 #20

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well now your tredding on un-proven conspiracy theories. Halliburton has done many major contracts for the US government before and other companies recieved larger contracts in Iraq. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly de-bunked. Searched the forums, im way too pissed right now to start this crap up again (My car's starter just failed I think).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Who are the major beneficiaries of the Iraq struggle
  1. Iraq war beneficiaries (Replies: 1)

  2. Iraq WMDs (Replies: 11)

Loading...