

The Queensway Syndicate: tens of billions in revenue; unknown owners. - pc
http://www.economist.com/node/21525847

======
tryitnow
I'm not going to comment on the subject matter of this article, rather I think
it's worth pointing out that we need more articles like this, investigating
corrupt, shadowy organizations that are ripping off innocent people.

In fact, it would be nice if our journalists looked into some American
corporations the way the Economist investigated Queensway.

Kudos to the Economist for doing reporting the way it should be done. Let's
hope they continue pursuing this. This is journalism the way it should be
done.

~~~
335555555GET
Why?

~~~
raganwald
At some basic level you have to decide whether free flow of information is
morally desirable or not. It’s somewhat axiomatic, you can argue it’s a good
thing for efficient markets, but that is actually circular reasoning as
someone who prefers inefficient markets would argue against the free flow of
information and in favour of information asymmetry.

So I guess I’m saying that some people simply believe the world is a better
place if there is more information going around, less secrecy, and fewer
private deals between shsadowy figures.

Many of those peole are also in favour of fewer restraints on people’s right
to make choices. That seems to capture much of the place where the hackeer
ethos overlaps with the startup culture: "Let people does at they like without
patents and other restrictions, but give everyone the information they need to
decide what to do for themselves effectively.”

If I could sum it up in a phrase, I would borrow from Doctors: _Informed
Consent_. To make an informed decision, you need to know the relevant facts
and have a basic understanding of the likely actual outcomes that your chocies
will create.

Shadowy syndicates cutting deals with corrupt regimes do not create an
environment of informed consent.

------
PLejeck
"Sonangol was deemed so corrupt in 2003 that Citibank closed all its
accounts."

Wow, when corrupt companies consider a company corrupt, that's not a good
sign.

------
buyx
In South Africa, the ruling party's Youth League, and it's president, Julius
Malema keep promoting the nationalization of the country's mines. They
recently started threatening to destabilize Botswana, because they claim it is
a "tool of the west"' while supporting the Zimbabwe regime.

Although nationalization is totally illogical, and unlikely to succeed (paying
for assets at fair value would bankrupt the country, and doing a grab would
collapse the country's reputation), they persist in pushing the issue.

Reading this article, the seemingly irrational behavior of Malema and the
Youth League seem to make more sense. There is of course, no evidence that
shadowy groupings are attempting to ruin South Africa's economic system so
they can swoop in and grab the ruins, but reading the article, it doesn't seem
particularly far-fetched.

------
temphn
> If that is right, then they would be depriving some of the world’s poorest
> people of desperately needed wealth.

Really silly to see the Economist, of all places, taking this kind of line.

The inhabitants of these countries lack the technological knowhow to drill for
oil and mine for minerals. If you're familiar with the area, it's no joke;
we're talking about serious physics, math, and computer science to get oil out
of the ground and ship it profitably.

For all kinds of reasons the Chinese have these skills and the Angolans do
not. The land will remain absolutely barren if foreigners do not bring their
knowhow. Moreover, it is not in China's interest to have an African civil war
raging over a possible oil supply as well, so they'll quash stuff like that
with authority.

Life around a Chinese-Angolan joint venture will not be paradise relative to a
US standard of living. But it will mean jobs, food, and relative political
stability, which is a far sight beyond what most other nations in sub-Saharan
Africa enjoy.

~~~
JimmyL
They're not complaining about foreign joint-ventures. The Economist, of all
publications, knows that they're essential to do sophisticated drilling in
developing countries.

What they're complaining about is that the proceeds are being directed through
private hands, as opposed to the actual governments of the developing
countries that need to drill their way out of poverty - for example, how the
group is dealing with and paying Zimbabwe's secret police directly for access
to the country's diamond mines, as opposed to dealing with the actual
government (who may be less friendly).

~~~
temphn
The government of Zimbabwe is run by Robert Mugabe. It's pretty hard for even
a secret police force to be worse than him.

Moreover, the governments of many of these countries are extremely rickety and
unstable. They are in the main kleptocracies and certainly not capable of
running any indigenous drilling operations.

So, it's not necessarily obvious that involving local politicians/warlords to
a greater degree would produce better outcomes.

------
hristov
ROFL I just thought of a sad little joke:

Q: What would it take for the Economist to notice rich countries fucking over
poor countries for mineral rights?

A: When the rich country is China.

But don't worry soon the Chinese too will figure out how to bribe the pathetic
asswhores that call themselves business journalists and we will not have to
worry about these stories marring our newspapers.

