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 $75,000 in only 38 days since I joined the "company."'"
Have we got a great deal for you!!
Do you need an interactive website? Is telecommuting OK?
Now half of my dream equation is complete; however, my plans will truly come to fruition the day there is a Ninja stock exchange. Then the eternal hypothetical fight of the ages past can be settled, "Who would win in a stock trade battle, Ninja's or Pirates?" (btw, by settled I mean the Ninjas will trade the shit out of the Pirates...)
Perhaps we can send some folks from the BSA and RIAA over there to educate them about actual, real piracy. Might help them to stop confusing the term with copyright infringement.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Just a brief read of the article about the Dutch East India Company makes me wonder just how different the two really are.
Legitimacy as a company seems to be determined by how well you succeed and how long you've been around, more than your morals or ethics.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I think you miss the point. They're not rogues; it's a lucrative business that is the most profitable job out there.
They've been doing this for a while, and by now there has to be an infrastructure supporting this. The pirates have to have ports, ships, backers.
It's just come out into the open.
Understand Africa; a couple of US$ will buy a Kalashnikov. A $75,000 payday is a fortune that is more than most Somalis will see in a lifetime.
You can bet this will succeed, until something better (more profitable) comes along.
Remember that archelogists pay the going exchange in gold to their workers if they find any artifacts. Same thing; shipping companies will pay this as long as it's cheaper than the alternatives. As long as the Somalis charge 95% of the other routes, it will prosper.
I'd say they may well get their money back, plus much more. The pirates aren't the same guys as the scam artists. These guys are getting some serious money, but they do need investment upfront to fund the operations... Just because they are criminals in one respect, doesn't necessarily mean they are in all respects.
I think you're missing the point. This is not something Wall Street bankers are going to be investing in. The kind of people chipping in to this operation are probably the sort of people who are just as likely as the pirates themselves to not take being cheated so well, and express that dissatisfaction with automatic weapons.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
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.
Its honestly the other way round. Somalia is a failed state, a pure anarchy, and has been that way for a long time. Many of these pirates are teens that have never known what its like to have a government and are desperately poor and close to starving. Its cheaper for them to buy an AK-47 than to buy a meal. The area is in a terrible famine and drought, farming is not sustainable. The fishing grounds have been bleed dry as they were the only productive food source for a time. They have a choice of joining the islamists as suicide bombers, the genocidal warlords as child soldiers or becoming a pirate.
This is unregulated laissez faire capitalism at its finest. I'm so proud, little Somolia is growing up.
Wrong. There is partial regulation.
In a truly unregulated market the vessels losing millions of dollars would instead pay millions of dollars to have all of the pirates killed.
But they cannot do that because they are regulated.
This is nothing more than an example of uneven regulation (which is usually a sign of corruption, I'm looking at you united nations).
Pirate: I'd like to borrow some money.
Banker: For what?
Pirate: I'm planning a bank robbery. The return on your investment will be considerable.
Banker: That sounds reasonable...
Actually, by virtue of a large number of competing governments, and very low barriers to entry, the free market now provides Somalis with some of the finest governance available!
That's how it works, right?
And they don't have to worry about implementing a cap-and-trade program because if sea level rises they'll just float.
The difference in attitude comes from four things: First, the pirates who are primarily romanticized are pirates from European countries. Since the people doing the romanticization are Westerners this makes them more appealing since they potentially share more (geographicaly, culturally, ethnically etc.) Notice how Americans don't romanticize the Barbary pirates. Second, Somalia in particular has a history of problems interacting with the United States (remember the battle of Mogadishu?) and so the attitude their carries over directly to anything Americans hear anything connected to Somalia. Third, the current piracy more directly impacts our society's well-being. It is much harder to romanticize people when they are taking your goods and capturing people who are alive and have family to tell their stories and hardships to the media. This is directly related to the fourth point, romanticization is much easier when it is something that happened a long time ago. In that regard it is similar to humor (joking about the Inquisition, ok but potentially tasteless. Joking about the Holocaust. You need to be careful. Joking about 9/11? Yeah, that's going to be hard to pull off).
All of that said, I don't think people really romanticize historical pirates that much. Most of it is deliberately silly. Look at all the Ninja v. Pirate junk. The closest one has to genuine romaniticization are the Pirates of the Caribbean movies but those were a) Disney movies and b) utterly ridiculous (heck, the so called pirates did very little actual pirating unless they were clearly the bad guys).
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").
This has always puzzled me about lie-bertarians. To a dispassionate eye, the line appears to be so random and convenient only for the small-medium capitalists who incidentally provide the basis for this ideology to begin with. Why is it government function to protect only property, and human rights (which conveniently exclude the rights to basic food, shelter, job, and health care) ? And why the property is so sacred, of all the things a human being needs, such as "true" freedom (not just freedom to die from hunger), good health, or a family?
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.
So pirates are more honest than bankers/stock investers/politicians?
That i can believe in!
"Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
Ya, those cargo and tanker ships are a real threat to the fishing...
If their gripe is with foreign ships fishing in their waters they should be going after the frakking fishing ships, not the merchant ships well outside their territorial waters.
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.
That’s an interesting thought. So the woman gets paid and then the next day is robbed and killed by a roving gang or a warlord’s hunt and terminate party. The other investors complain to the Somalian Stock Exchange that they don’t feel safe investing because their money can’t be guaranteed. Business suffers as a result until the Stock Exchange or some other business springs up and offers protection for that money. For only a few percentage points off the top they can keep you safe. And hey, now that you have all that money and you are safe you might want to spend it and get the good things in life. Right? So you start to make purchases and start to acquire things. New businesses have to come into being to supply you with the food and housing and coca cola that you lust for. Given a long enough time a middle class emerges that begins to demand not only protection but running water, electricity, communications, etc. It wouldn’t be the first time that a group of criminals have created a society.
I'm not sure that's the main thing stopping them. The cost of arming merchant ships would be far higher than just losing/ransoming a few of them--- piracy rates are extremely low as a percentage of total shipping, so small as to be more or less in the noise on companies' balance sheets. Arming ships has other risks, also; for example, one reason ships are typically kept unarmed is that there's a risk that armed crew would hijack their own ship for random/profit.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It could be that it is cheaper just to wear the occasional losses.
Of course it is cheaper. The shipping companies take out insurance for this situation, and the pirates are careful to keep their demands high enough to make a profit, but low enough that they don't scare the ships away, or force the ships to take a different route or escalate the situation into an armed conflict with the west. It is a straight business decision.
NPR's Planet Money blog did a good podcast a while ago about how the pirating business operates.
--
Simon
That is the propaganda and lies that the pirates have been using to rationalize their lawlessness and I'm surprised anybody literate enough to post to slashdot is foolish enough to fall for it. They have been seizing ships far outside the 12 mile territorial limit and even far outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. They are now seizing ships off the Seychelles, which is many hundreds of miles south of Somalia. Seas outside of the exclusive economic zone are free to fish for any nation's fleet. So if this is their reason, why are they seizing yachts which are clearly not outfitted with commercial fishing gear and are hundreds of miles outside of the Somali EEZ? Because they are murderous thieves and thugs; that's why.
Wait, so...
The shipping companies don't lose money because they're insured, and the insurers don't lose money because they up the premiums, yet the premium increases don't come out of the shipping companies' pockets?
Sir, I think you have described a perpetuum monetare, a perpetual money machine. While Madoff would be proud, the second law of thermoeconomics says it can't exist.
Think of it this way: if a set of goods is on one set of hands instead of another, the other set of hands is (duh) not having those goods. It lost the equivalent to the amount of money those hands value the goods at. It can spread the loss around (some to itself, some to the insurance company, some to their customers, for instance), but there is a loss.
Otherwise, contemplate the world where I steal everything from everybody, own all the land, and won't trade with anyone; you can all shuffle dollar bills back and forth between insurance companies and the insured, but that won't get you your cars, computers or factories back.
Because the group of individuals known as a government can't protect your "right" to health-care, basic food, shelter or a job without taking those things from other individuals under threat of imprisonment if they don't cough up. So a "right" to food means someone else has to grow it on their land and hand it over, either being paid with money that been taken from *other* productive members of the village or point blank stolen and handed over to the person asserting their "right". Some right ey?
The right to "basic food" means the right to take something that someone else has put a lot of effort in, what or who gives *you* that right just by virtue of being born? And what if ther people growing their food stop growing it and demand their rights too? Property rights are the core of all rights, without being "allowed" to own any singular item or piece of land how can one be at all free? Given the track record of societies that don't recognise property rights but *do* recognise the "right" to strike, housing, healthcare and food *cough*Eastern Bloc*cough* there's an extremely strong historical argument for the basis of what the libertarians are saying.
I'm not even nearly a "lie-bertarian" and even I understand that....
I seem to remember the Somalians in Mogadishu being able to take down our choppers and engage our forces using tactics that were taught to them by Mujaheddin which they picked up fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. That's not to say there's not a lot of cannon fodder or that they're all trained and skilled fighters but the single largest mistake anyone can make in entering combat is to dismiss or underestimate your opponent. The country does not have a complete lack experienced fighters and with paydays we're talking about here it's going to draw the talent.
And as an employer, if these shipping companies put weapons in the hands of their sailors and tell them to resist rather than evade, hide, and lay low, then they are legally taking responsibility for their ability to fight. You don't hand someone a gun and say good luck. You give them that weapon and tell them to defend themselves you have to TEACH them how to defend themselves, give them tactics and training. That's a large investment in both time and money. A lot of people want the sailors armed because they want the pirates dead, but the shipping company's first priority is to not have ANY of their sailors killed, 2nd is to have the ships not hijacked, third is to have the ships not delayed on route, and the pirates being dead a distant fourth. They don't want to have to go into combat as a company, that's not their business. That's what the Navy's of the world should be taking care of.
Lastly, if you don't agree with what I've said about needing training, what makes in untrained maritime sailor with small arms a better combatant then a supposedly untrained pirate? Is the untrained sailor supposedly better at close quarter combat because he's white or has some level of education, high school or further? I don't remember any CQB training at my High School. I'm interested in what makes the untrained merchant sailor a better fighter then your theory of untrained pirates that have just experienced "random violence" which, by the way, does a lot of good during a firefight if it's not your first time seeing a buddies head get a hole blown through it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion