Well said, Little Hawk. Very well said!

Yes, Teribus, "The legitimate and honorable purpose of business is to provide goods and/or services to its customers, and to provide work and a living wage for its employees," is what I said and I stand by it. Other than the entire concept, I don't see the exact nit you're trying to pick. Perhaps I should have added all sorts of qualifications to the statement, such as "profit, of course, is a necessary concomitant of carrying out the legitimate and honorable purpose of business, which is to provide goods. . . ." and so on, but it was assumed that any intelligent person would suss that out for themselves. If you're losing money, you aren't going to stay in business for long.

By the way, there are about five gas stations within a mile of where I live. Gas is pretty close to being as expensive as it has ever been, and the stations are charging around $1.85 per (U.S.) gallon (that works out to about $0.49 per liter). And that includes several mark-ups along the line. At $2.70 a gallon, somebody is making a helluva profit out of the American taxpayer by selling gasoline to the military. Considering that Halliburton is as close to a vertical monopoly as the law allows (actually, a bit more than the law allows, but let's face it, they have friends at Court), they would be making a lot more profit per gallon than Texaco, who supplies the nearest station to where I live. And, yes, I am factoring in transportation costs.

If you're not just trying to yank people's chains and you truly believe that "the sole purpose of business is profit," remind me never to do business with you.

Fantastic! This just coming over the radio as I type this!! —

Audit: Hallibuton Overcharged U.S. in Iraq. The Department of Defense has just completed a preliminary audit of Halliburton's charges to the military and are starting to ask some tough questions. They claim that there is substantial evidence that Halliburton has overcharged the military $61,000,000 so far for fuel. The Army Corps of Engineers did not want to accept Halliburton in the first place, and as a result of the Defense Department's preliminary audit, they are currently reviewing bids from other suppliers. Other services who ordinarily supply the military with fuel for under a dollar a gallon had been cut out, and are continuing to ask why the contract was awarded to Halliburton. Halliburton is also being audited regarding possible overcharges of $220,000,000 for operating food services for the military. Halliburton has a history of overcharging the military and has been penalized several times in the past. Question: Why were they awarded a no-bid contract with that kind of history?

Not my opinion. Fact. Explain that away, Teribus!

Don Firth