Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (5266)	4/4/2006 4:23:48 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218633

That's how Halliburton and many U.S. corporations get around the law. The subsidiary which actually pays out the bribes must be less than 50% owned by the U.S. parent, so the ownership is restricted to merely a stock investment. If prosecuted though, this arrangement will not protect the parent corporation if the bribe was paid on their behalf. Many corporations like Chevron simply won't operate in regions where bribery is a required aspect of doing business. .

To: energyplay who wrote (5266)	4/4/2006 2:52:14 PM
From: Slagle	Respond to of 218633

Energyplay, The same Jimmy Carter consumated the Panama Canal swindle and in so doing he managed to support the fast growing offshore banking haven that his buddy, dictator Omar Torrijos, was constructing in Panama. The most corrupt place in this hemisphere at the time and not a single sentence in the written record by Saint Jimmy about the corruption there, even as he was preparing the Torrijos dictatorship with an eternal source of revenue. Carter's chief Canal negoiator, Sol Linowitz, could only serve for five months and twenty nine days, because he had so many conflicts of intrest, including being a director in Marine-Midland bank, a Rockefeller outfit that had billions invested in the Torijjos dictatorship, that there was NO WAY that Linowitz could have survived a confirmation hearing. Ditto for Ellsworth Bunker, Carter's other chief fixer on the Canal treaty. Things got so bad there a few years later that Bush 41 had to send in the Marines to take out the next dictator, Noriega. Don't you imagine that the real problem was that the Torrijos-Noriega dictatorships had become such a disgrace that there was danger of revealing what else was going on there in Panama? I am not attempting to imply that Bush was a saint either. Carter has his pet projects, but I really don't think that stamping out financial corruption here or anywhere else is high on his list. Remember Bert Lance? Years before Lance went to Washington with Carter everybody in North Georgia knew all about his banking practices. Carter did too, though he pretended otherwise. Slagle