Slashdot Mirror
Somali Pirates Open Up a "Stock Exchange"
reginaldo writes to clue us that pirates in Somalia have opened up a cooperative in Haradheere, where investors can pay money or guns to help their favorite pirate crew for a share of the piracy profits. "'Four months ago, during the monsoon rains, we decided to set up this stock exchange. We started with 15 "maritime companies" and now we are hosting 72. Ten of them have so far been successful at hijacking,' Mohammed [a wealthy former pirate who took a Reuters reporter to the facility] said. ... Piracy investor Sahra Ibrahim, a 22-year-old divorcee, was lined up with others waiting for her cut of a ransom pay-out after one of the gangs freed a Spanish tuna fishing vessel. 'I am waiting for my share after I contributed a rocket-propelled grenade for the operation,' she said, adding that she got the weapon from her ex-husband in alimony. 'I am really happy and lucky. I have made $75,000 in only 38 days since I joined the "company."'"
They're freaking pirates! This woman is an idiot if she expects any money from this. It's not like she's seeding a movie!
Historically, pirates (in the 1600s US/Caribbean/Europe trade route sense) observed a fairly strict code of conduct which included reimbursing investors their fair share; widows/orphans got their ex-father's share, and generally they did a lot less killing than their reputation suggested.
It sounds like modern pirates appear to follow fairly similar rules, which makes for some interesting cognitive dissonance in those who romanticize the old-school version but demonize the Somali version.
They're freaking pirates! This woman is an idiot if she expects any money from this. It's not like she's seeding a movie!
One man's pirate is another's Robin Hood of the High Seas.
It's not necessarily true that you should expect a person who commits some crimes against some people (even violent crimes) to commit any crime against any person. Cultures across human history have survived off of raiding fat, rich neighbors and have not collapsed due to infighting and lack of ability to trust your neighbor. These "stock exchanges" were people contribute weapons for money are not necessarily any less reliable than a Scythian making a family member a good saddle before they rode off to sack the Romans, hoping for a cut of the pillage. People can be utterly trustworthy to their neighbors while being utter bastards to outsiders. It's really the historical norm.
Now, if these people were criminals that attacked their own people, then it would be pretty strange to expect fair dealing, but as long as "investors" and "entrepreneurs" see themselves as part of the same group, then there's no reason for an "investor" to expect to be treated as poorly as the pirates' victims. After all, they aren't "criminals" within their community.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Interestingly, this is a slightly distorted echo of how the notion of corporate structures and shared equity originated.
In the 1600's there was a bunch of money to be made in buying ships, equipping them and sending them to the East Indies to buy spices to bring back and sell.
But ships and equipment were so expensive that it was hard for anyone to rake together the capital to put forth an expedition, even though there would be a huge payoff at the end. So the idea of a 'joint stock company' was borne so people could club together to buy the ship and the necessaries. The Dutch East India Trading company effectively became the first public company in the world and paid an 18% dividend for over two centuries. Dutch law was made to allow pieces of the company to be bought and sold on a 'bourse' (house). Other people realised you could use the same idea for purposes other than buying ships. And here we are today, turned full circle albeit with more nefarious intent.
But interesting that modern equity-based capitalism was invented by the Dutch.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why these ships aren't arming themselves?
There are precedents in maritime law with regards to what differentiates a merchant ship and a military vessel. Also, having weapons on board presents many difficulties with respect to ships that port in many different countries with different customs and laws that apply to people that come into the country with arms.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The US had no part in the Somali Civil War, which started in 1991 and marked the end of a functioning government. The US was a part of the United Task Force which entered the country in 1992 to try to prevent famine, but they left in 1993, to be replaced by UN troops.
Somalia became a failed state all on its own, I'm afraid. In fact, the US has been criticised for not doing enough.
Except the private yacht owners who often lose everything they own and who's family is force to pay the ransom by any means.
There's a British couple held hostage in Somalia right now and their boat was found stripped to the hull and floating by a British naval vessel. The ransom is $7million, but they don't think their family can come up with it, so they've been asking the British government to pony up, but that seems unlikely.
Last word is that Islamic militants may try to buy them, or take them by force, to use for political purposes.
Win for all!