10 Companies Profiting Most From War: 24/7 Wall St.9MAR13

PROFITING from war is nothing to be proud of. How can anyone be proud of increasing profits by spilling blood, by taking lives? The greed of these companies is disgusting as are the government policies that subsidize, promote, encourage and direct weapons sales to conflict zones without regarding the morality of the conflict and the combatants, no consideration or analysis of the concept of "just war". It is all about the money. IT is time to impose an excess profits tax on these war profiteers, these war pigs. This from HuffPost and 24/7WallSt.....

From 24/7 Wall St.: The business of war is profitable. In 2011, the 100 largest contractors sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion. Based on a list of the top 100 arms-producing and military services companies in 2011 compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies with the most military sales worldwide in 2011.

These companies have benefited tremendously from the growth in military spending in the U.S., which by far has the largest military budget in the world. In 2000, the U.S. defense budget was approximately $312 billion. By 2011, that figure had grown to $712 billion. Arm sales grew alongside general defense spending growth. SIPRI noted that between 2002 and 2011, arms sales among the top 100 companies grew by 51%.

However, the trend has reversed recently. In 2011, the top 100 arms dealers sold 5% less compared to 2010. Susan Jackson, a defense expert at SIPRI, said in an email to24/7 Wall St. that austerity measures in Western Europe and the U.S. have delayed or slowed down the procurement of different weapons systems. Austerity concerns have exacerbated matters since 2011. The U.S. federal government budget cuts that took effect beginning this month — commonly known as sequestration — mean that military spending could contract by more than $500 billion over the coming decade unless some of the cuts are reversed.

In addition, the U.S.’s involvement in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down significantly. The last American convoy in Iraq left the country in December of 2011. Troop withdrawals from Afghanistan also began in 2011. Finally, SIPRI pointed out that sanctions on arms transfers to Libya also played a role in declining arms sales.

Many of these companies are looking overseas to try to make up for slowing sales in the U.S. and Europe. Arms producers are especially keen on areas in Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Asia, Jackson said. For instance, BAE is in the process of securing contracting agreements with Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, the chief financial officer of Northrop Grumman has recently indicated his company may sell its Global Hawk airplane to South Korea or Japan.

Based on the report, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies with the most arms sales in 2011. Arms were defined as sales to military customers, either for procurement or for export, but do not include sales of general purpose items such as oil or computer equipment to military customers. We also looked at arms sales from 2010, as well as the company’s total sales in 2010. Furthermore, we considered the company’s 2011 total sales, profits and the total number of employees at the company, all provided by SIPRI.

There are the 10 companies profiting the most from war,according to 24/7 Wall St.

Ten Companies Profiting Most from War

March 6, 2013 by Mike Sauter

Source: Thinkstock

The business of war is profitable. In 2011, the 100 largest contractors sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion. Based on a list of the top 100 arms-producing and military services companies in 2011 compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies with the most military sales worldwide in 2011.
These companies have benefited tremendously from the growth in military spending in the U.S., which by far has the largest military budget in the world. In 2000, the U.S. defense budget was approximately $312 billion. By 2011, that figure had grown to $712 billion. Arm sales grew alongside general defense spending growth. SIPRI noted that between 2002 and 2011, arms sales among the top 100 companies grew by 51%.
However, the trend has reversed recently. In 2011, the top 100 arms dealers sold 5% less compared to 2010. Susan Jackson, a defense expert at SIPRI, said in an email to 24/7 Wall St. that austerity measures in Western Europe and the U.S. have delayed or slowed down the procurement of different weapons systems. Austerity concerns have exacerbated matters since 2011. The U.S. federal government budget cuts that took effect beginning this month — commonly known as sequestration — mean that military spending could contract by more than $500 billion over the coming decade unless some of the cuts are reversed.
In addition, the U.S.’s involvement in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down significantly. The last American convoy in Iraq left the country in December of 2011. Troop withdrawals from Afghanistan also began in 2011. Finally, SIPRI pointed out that sanctions on arms transfers to Libya also played a role in declining arms sales.
Many of these companies are looking overseas to try to make up for slowing sales in the U.S. and Europe. Arms producers are especially keen on areas in Latin America, the Middle East and parts of Asia, Jackson said. For instance, BAE is in the process of securing contracting agreements with Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, the chief financial officer of Northrop Grumman has recently indicated his company may sell its Global Hawk airplane to South Korea or Japan.
Based on the report, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies with the most arms sales in 2011. Arms were defined as sales to military customers, either for procurement or for export, but do not include sales of general purpose items such as oil or computer equipment to military customers. We also looked at arms sales from 2010, as well as the company’s total sales in 2010. Furthermore, we considered the company’s 2011 total sales, profits and the total number of employees at the company, all provided by SIPRI.
There are the 10 companies profiting the most from war.
10. United Technologies (NYSE: UTX)
> Arm sales 2011: $11.6 billion
> Total sales 2011: $58.2 billion
> Total profit: $5.3 billion
> Total employment: 199,900
> Sector: Aircraft, electronics, engines
United Technologies makes a wide range of arms — notably military helicopters, including the Black Hawk helicopter for the U.S. Army and Seahawk helicopter for the U.S. Navy. The company was the most profitable of all companies on this list, making more than $5.3 billion in 2011. It was also the largest company on this list by headcount, employing nearly 200,000 people worldwide as of 2011. Arms comprised just 20% of the company’s $58.2 billion in sales in 2011. Other products made by United Technologies include elevators, escalators, air-conditioners and refrigerators. International sales comprised 60% of the company’s total revenue in 2012.
9. L-3 Communications (NYSE: LLL)
> Arm sales 2011: $12.5 billion
> Total sales 2011: $15.2 billion
> Total profit: $956 million
> Total employment: 61,000
> Sector: Electronics
Some 83% of L-3 Communications sales in 2011 came from arms sales, totaling just over $12.5 billion. This was down, however, from about $13.1 billion in arms sales in 2010. The company has four different business segments: electronic systems; aircraft modernization and maintenance; national security solutions; and command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Among many products manufactured, the company has become a major provider of unmanned aircraft systems. In 2011, the company turned a profit of $956 million and employed approximately 61,000 people.
8. Finmeccanica 
> Arm sales 2011: $14.6 billion
> Total sales 2011: $24.1 billion
> Total profit: $-3.2 billion
> Total employment: 70,470
> Sector: Aircraft, artillery, engines, electronics, military vehicles, missiles, small arms/ammunition
Italian company Finmeccanica makes a wide range of arms, including helicopters and security electronics. Of the company’s nearly $24.1 billion in sales in 2011, 60% were in arms. Finmeccanica lost $3.2 billion in 2011. The Italian company is currently fending off allegation that it paid bribes to win an approximately $750 million contract to provide 12 military helicopters to the Indian government back in 2010. The then-head of the company, Giuseppe Orsi, was arrested in February but has denied wrongdoing. Other executives, including the head of the company’s helicopter unit, have been replaced, and the company has delayed the release of recent financial results until the situation is resolved.
7. EADS 
> Arm sales 2011: $16.4 billion
> Total sales 2011: $68.3 billion
> Total profit: $1.4 billion
> Total employment: 133,120
> Sector: Aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), based in the Netherlands, had $16.4 billion worth of arms sales in 2011, roughly in line with 2010. Arms sales, however, comprised just 24% of the company’ entire sales, which totaled about $68.3 billion in 2011. EADS and BAE Systems attempted to merge for $45 billion in 2012, which would have created the world’s largest aerospace company. However, the deal collapsed in October after German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed concern that the new company would marginalize the influence of the German government and would focus decision making in France and the U.K.
6. Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC)
> Arm sales 2011: $21.4 billion
> Total sales 2011: $26.4 billion
> Total profit: $2.1 billion
> Total employment: 72,500
> Sector: Aircraft, electronics, missiles, ships, space
Like many of the companies on this list, Northrop Grumman makes a wide range of arms, including unmanned systems; air and missile defense radars; and critical incident response systems. In 2011, Northrop Grumman reported about $21.4 billion in arms sales, comprising 81% of the company’s $26.4 billion in total sales. But arms sales in 2011 declined from $28.2 billion in arms sales in 2010, after growing by $3.5 billion between 2007 and 2010. The company attributed the decline to reduced government spending on defense projects. Nevertheless, the company reported a profit of more than $2.1 billion in fiscal 2011, slightly better than the company’s earnings the previous year.
5. Raytheon (NYSE: RTN)
> Arm sales 2011: $22.5 billion
> Total sales 2011: $24.9 billion
> Total profit: $1.9 billion
> Total employment: 71,000
> Sector: Electronics, missiles
Raytheon, based in Waltham, Mass., is one of the largest defense contractors in the U.S. The company makes a wide range of defense products, including missiles such as the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. Arms sales totaled about $22.5 billion in 2011, comprising about 90% of the company’s total sales that year. However, these sales were down slightly from the $23 billion in arms sales in 2010.The slide hasn’t let up. Total sales in 2012 fell 1.5%, and Raytheon is expecting sales to fall 3% in 2013, a projection which doesn’t take into account the effects of sequestration on the company. Fortunately, the company can rely on overseas customers to somewhat offset weak sales at home. As of January, approximately 40% of the company’s backlog was booked overseas. The company expects approximately a 5% increase in international sales in 2013.
4. General Dynamics (NYSE: GD)
> Arm sales 2011: $23.8 billion
> Total sales 2011: $32.7 billion
> Total profit: $2.5 billion
> Total employment: 95,100
> Sector: Artillery, electronics, military vehicles, small arms/ammunition, ships
With 18,000 transactions worth $19.5 billion in 2011, General Dynamics was the third-largest contractor to the U.S. government. Of those contracts, approximately $12.9 billion worth went to the Navy, while an additional $4.6 billion went to the Army. The company reported just under $23.8 billion in arms sales in 2011, comprising 73% of the company’s total sales. Arms sales in 2011 were slightly below 2010 levels. The company employs approximately 95,000 workers worldwide and makes a host of products, including electric boats, tracked and wheeled military vehicles, and battle tanks. The company has expressed concern about the potential effects on U.S. military budgets due to sequestration, issuing layoff notices this week.
3. BAE Systems
> Arm sales 2011: $29.2 billion
> Total sales 2011: $30.7 billion
> Total profit: $2.3 billion
> Total employment: 93,500
> Sector: Aircraft, artillery, electronics, military vehicles, missiles, small arms/ammunition, ships
BAE Systems was the largest non-U.S. company based on arms sales, bringing in $29.2 billion worth in 2011. This represented 95% of the company’s total sales that year. Yet 2011’s arms sales were lower than 2010′s, when the company sold $32.9 billion worth of arms. The products that BAE sells include the L-ROD Bar Armor System that shields defense vehicles, and the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer that provides sophisticated simulation training for military pilots. In 2013, the company said its growth would likely come from outside the United States and Great Britain — its home market. BAE noted that its outlook for those two countries was “constrained,” likely due to the diminished presence in international conflicts and government budget cuts.
2. Boeing (NYSE: BA)
> Arm sales 2011: $31.8 billion
> Total sales 2011: $68.7 billion
> Total profit: $4.0 billion
> Total employment: 171,700
> Sector: Aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
Boeing was the second-largest U.S. government contractor in 2011, with about $21.5 billion worth of goods contracted that year. The Chicago-based company makes a wide range of arms, including strategic missile systems, laser and electro-optical systems and global positioning systems. Despite all these technologies, just 46% of the company’s total sales of $68.7 billion in 2011 came from arms. Boeing is the largest commercial airplane manufacturer in the world, making planes such as the 747, 757 and recently, the 787 Dreamliner. The company is also known for its space technology — Boeing had $1 billion worth of contracts with NASA in 2011.
1. Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT)
> Arm sales 2011: $36.3 billion
> Total sales 2011: $46.5 billion
> Total profit: $2.7 billion
> Total employment: 123,000
> Sector: Aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
Lockheed Martin notched $36.3 billion in sales in 2011, slightly higher than the $35.7 billion the company sold in 2010. The 2011 arms sales comprised 78% of the company’s total 2011 sales of $46.5 billion. As of 2011, the company employed 123,000 people worldwide. In the company’s aerospace and defense unit, Lockheed makes a wide range of products, including aircrafts, missiles, unmanned systems and radar systems. The company and its employees have been concerned about the effects of both the fiscal cliff and sequestration, the latter of which includes significant cuts to the U.S. Department of Defense. In the fall of 2012, the company planned on issuing layoff notices to all employees before backing down at the request of the White House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/09/war-companies-profiting_n_2839564.html

http://247wallst.com/2013/03/06/ten-companies-profiting-most-from-war-2/

7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money 11DEZ12

I have 2 nephews in the US Army, one has been to Afghanistan once (and I thank God He came back alive and physically unscathed). It is disgusting they have to buy much of the equipment they need to do their job of protecting our lives, our civil liberties, our human rights, OUR NATION. Much of the equipment they are issued and have to use is inadequate and puts their lives at risk. IT IS NOT due to lack of Defense Department funding, rather it is lack of oversight of Defense Dept spending, misappropriation of Defense Dept funds, the greed and selfishness of a top heavy officer corps and Congressional protection of expensive, wasteful, over priced private military contractor's profits. Some in the military-industrial complex recently called for cuts in Defense Dept spending, see my earlier post Top Two Percent To GOP: Tax Us & Defense Execs Say Deeper DoD Budget Cuts, Higher Taxes OK 5&3DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/top-two-percent-to-gop-tax-us-defense.html
This from AlterNet....

Hint: none of them have anything to do with national defense.

 

The David Petraeus scandal has shined a light on the luxurious, subsidized lifestyle of the U.S. military's top generals. But so far, what the media has uncovered only scratches the surface of the abuses. Here are eight absurd ways the military wastes our money--and none of them have anything to do with national defense.

1. A whole battalion of generals? The titles “general” or “admiral” sound like they belong to pretty exclusive posts, fit only for the best of the best. This flashy title makes it pretty easy to say, "so what if a few of our military geniuses get the royal treatment--particularly if they are the sole commanders of the most powerful military in human history." The reality, however, is that there nearly 1,000 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces, and each has an entourage that would make a Hollywood star jealous.

According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror--and polishing the boots of senior military personnel --became Washington’s number-one priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.)

Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are “spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,” he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.

Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, explains that this “brass creep” is “fueled by the desire to increase bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself.”

It’s sort of like how Starbucks titles each of its baristas a “partner” but continues to pay them just over minimum wage (and a caramel macchiato per shift).

As Rasor writes, “the three- and four-star ranks have increased twice as fast as one- and two-star general and flag officers, three times as fast as the increase in all officers and almost ten times as fast as the increase in enlisted personnel. If you imagine it visually, the shape of U.S. military personnel has shifted from looking like a pyramid to beginning to look more like a skyscraper.”

But the skyscraper model doesn’t mean that the armed forces are democratizing. In fact, just the opposite; they’re gaming the system to allow more and more officers to deploy the full power of the U.S. military to aid their personal lives--whether their actual work justifies it or not.

2. The generals’ flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to head an independent review of the Pentagon’s budget. Here’s the caution he came up with: “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries, and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.

A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million--per general. That’s not even including their own salaries--which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation--and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”

In Petraeus’ case, he didn’t want to give up the perks of being a four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces to be director of the CIA. He apparently trained his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked “fresh, sliced pineapple” before going to bed.

3. Scandals. Despite the seemingly limitless perks of being a general, there is a limit to the military’s (taxpayer-funded) generosity. That's led some senior officers to engage in a little creative accounting. This summer the (formerly) four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions. He traveled with up to 13 staff members, even on non-work trips, billing the State Department for their hotel and travel costs, as well as his family’s stays at luxury hotels.

In November, in the midst of the Petraeus scandal, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demoted Ward to a three-star lieutenant general and ordered him to pay back $82,000 of the taxpayers’ misused money. The debt shouldn’t be hard to repay; Ward will receive an annual retirement salary of $208,802.

Panetta may have been tough--sort of--on now three-star general Ward, but he’s displayed a complete refusal to reevaluate the bloated ranks of the military generals. Unlike his predecessor, Robert Gates, who has come out publicly against the increasing number of top-ranking officers and tried to reduce their ranks, Panetta has so far refused to review their numbers and has yet to fire a single general or admiral for misconduct. He did, however, order an “ethics training” after the Petraeus scandal.

4. Warped sense of reality. After the Petraeus scandal, the million-dollar question was: Did the general who essentially built the world’s most invasive surveillance apparatus really think he could get away with carrying on a secret affair without anyone knowing? Former Secretary of State Gates has floated at least one theory at a press conference in Chicago: “There is something about a sense of entitlement and having great power that skews people’s judgement.”

A handful of retired diplomats and service members have come out in support of Gates’ thesis. Robert J. Callahan, a retired diplomat who served as U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua, wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune explaining how the generals’ perks allow them to exist on a plain removed from ordinary people:

“Those with a star are military nobility, no doubt, and those with four are royalty. Flying in luxurious private jets, surrounded by a phalanx of fawning aides who do everything from preparing their meals to pressing their uniform trousers, they are among America's most pampered professionals. Their orders are executed without challenge, their word is fiat. They live in a reality different from the rest of us."

Frank Wuco, a retired U.S. Naval intelligence chief, agrees.

“With the senior guys and the flag officers, this is like the new royalty,” he said on his weekly radio show. “We treat them like kings and princes. These general officers in the military, at a certain point, become untouchable... In many cases, they get their own airplanes, their own helicopters. When they walk into a room, everybody comes to attention. In the case of some of them, people are very afraid to speak up or to disagree. Being separated from real life all the time in that way probably leaves them vulnerable (to lapses in moral judgement)."

Sounds like a phenomenon that’s happening with another pampered sector of society (hint: Wall Street). Given the epic 2008 financial collapse, do we really want to set our security forces on a similar path of power, deception and deep, crisis-creating delusion?

5. Military golf. Of course, generals and admirals aren’t the only ones who get to enjoy some of perks of being in the U.S. armed forces. Although lower ranking service members don’t get private jets and personal chefs, U.S. taxpayers still spend billions of dollars a year to pay for luxuries that are out of reach for the ordinary American.

The Pentagon, for example, runs a staggering 234 golf courses around the world, at a cost that is undisclosed.

According to one retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, who also just happens to be the senior writer at Travel Golf, the very best military golf course in the U.S. is the Air Force Academy's Eisenhower Blue Course in Colorado Springs, CO.

He writes, “This stunning 7,000-plus yard layout shares the same foothills terrain as does the legendary Broadmoor, just 20 minutes to the south in Colorado Springs. Ponderosa pines, pinon and juniper line the fairways with rolling mounds, ponds and almost tame deer and wild turkey.” (The Department of Defense did come under fire a number of decades ago when it was discovered that the toilet seats at this course cost $400 a pop.)

And the number of golf courses is often undercounted, with controversial courses in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Mosul, Iraq, often left off the lists, which makes assessing the total costs difficult.

Yet some courses rack up staggering expenses as they become far more than mere stretches of grass.

According to journalist Nick Turse, “The U.S. Army paid $71,614 [in 2004] to the Arizona Golf Resort -- located in sunny Riyadh, Saudi Arabia... The resort actually boasts an entire entertainment complex, complete with a water-slide-enhanced megapool, gym, bowling alley, horse stables, roller hockey rink, arcade, amphitheater, restaurant, and even a cappuccino bar -- not to mention the golf course and a driving range.”

DoD's Sungnam golf course in the Republic of Korea, meanwhile, is reportedly valued at $26 million.

For non-golfers, the military also maintains a ski lodge and resort in the Bavarian Alps, which opened in 2004 and cost $80 million.

6. “The Army goes rolling along!” Vacation resorts aren’t the only explicitly non-defense-related expenditures of the Department of Defense. According to a Washington Post investigation, the DoD also spends $500 million annually on marching bands.

The Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps all maintain their own military bands, which also produce their own magazines and CDs.

The bands are [pun intended] “an instrument of military PR,” according to Al McCree, a retired Air Force service member who owns Altissimo Recordings, a Nashville record label featuring music of the service bands.

The CDs are--by law--distributed for free, but that doesn’t mean the private sector can’t profit off these marching bands. According to the Washington Post article, “The service CDs have also created a private, profitable industry made up of companies that obtain the band recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. They then re-press and package them for public sale.”

As if subsidizing the industry of multibillion-dollar arms dealers weren’t enough, the record industry is apparently also leeching off the taxpayer-funded military spending.

7. The Pentagon-to-Lockheed pipeline. While the exorbitant costs of private planes and hundreds of golf courses may seem bad enough, the most costly problem with the entitlement-culture of the military happens after generals retire. Since they’re so used to the luxurious lifestyle, the vast majority of pension-reaping high-ranking officers head into the private defense industry.

According to William Hartung, a defense analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington DC, about 70 percent of recently retired three- and four-star generals went straight to work for industry giants like Lockheed Martin.

“If you don’t go into industry at this point you are the exception,” Hartung said.

This type of government-to-industry pipeline, which he said was comparable to the odious Wall Street-to-Washington revolving door, drives up the prices of weapons and prevents effective oversight of weapon manufacturing companies--all of which ends up costing taxpayers more and more each year.

“I think the overspending on the generals and all their perks is bad enough, but the revolving door and the ability of these people to cut industry a break in exchange for high salaries costs more in the long run,” said Hartung. “This can affect the price of weapons and the whole structure of how we oversee companies. It’s harder to calculate, but certainly in the billions, compared to millions spent on staff per general.”

http://www.alternet.org/economy/7-shocking-ways-military-wastes-our-money?paging=off