What do you think?
Rate this book
The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates
Pack your cutlass and blunderbuss — it’s time to go a-pirating! The Invisible Hook takes readers inside the wily world of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century pirates. With swashbuckling irreverence and devilish wit, Peter Leeson uncovers the hidden economics behind pirates’ notorious, entertaining, and sometimes downright shocking behavior. Why did pirates fly flags of Skull & Bones? Why did they create a “pirate code”? Were pirates really ferocious madmen? And what made them so successful? The Invisible Hook uses economics to examine these and other infamous aspects of piracy. Leeson argues that the pirate customs we know and love resulted from pirates responding rationally to prevailing economic conditions in the pursuit of profits.
The Invisible Hook looks at legendary pirate captains like Blackbeard, Black Bart Roberts, and Calico Jack Rackam, and shows how pirates’ search for plunder led them to pioneer remarkable and forward-thinking practices. Pirates understood the advantages of constitutional democracy — a model they adopted more than fifty years before the United States did so. Pirates also initiated an early system of workers’ compensation, regulated drinking and smoking, and in some cases practiced racial tolerance and equality. Leeson contends that pirates exemplified the virtues of vice — their self-seeking interests generated socially desirable effects and their greedy criminality secured social order. Pirates proved that anarchy could be organized.
Revealing the democratic and economic forces propelling history’s most colorful criminals, The Invisible Hook establishes pirates’ trailblazing relevance to the contemporary world.
The Invisible Hook looks at legendary pirate captains like Blackbeard, Black Bart Roberts, and Calico Jack Rackam, and shows how pirates’ search for plunder led them to pioneer remarkable and forward-thinking practices. Pirates understood the advantages of constitutional democracy — a model they adopted more than fifty years before the United States did so. Pirates also initiated an early system of workers’ compensation, regulated drinking and smoking, and in some cases practiced racial tolerance and equality. Leeson contends that pirates exemplified the virtues of vice — their self-seeking interests generated socially desirable effects and their greedy criminality secured social order. Pirates proved that anarchy could be organized.
Revealing the democratic and economic forces propelling history’s most colorful criminals, The Invisible Hook establishes pirates’ trailblazing relevance to the contemporary world.
289 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
165 people are currently reading
3203 people want to read
About the author
Peter T. Leeson
15 books28 followersPeter T. Leeson is the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism in the Department of Economics at George Mason University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews
August 2, 2011
This book is far more interesting in its discussion of pirate history and culture than in its discussion of economics. The economics discussion is extremely rudimentary, and anyone with even a passing interest in the subject will not find it helpful. In addition, the author displays some biases in his own schools of economic theory.
Finally, the reliance on the rational actor was a bit extreme, and ignored important modern research about the way large groups of people act irrationally. Dr. Leeson is no doubt aware of this research, and perhaps he omitted it because it muddies a discussion that he wanted to keep clear and as straightforward as possible. Nevertheless, I think the phenomenon is worth a mention.
I recommend this book for those who have no background---formal or informal---in basic economics. It's easy to read, very short (I read it in one work day!), and the pirate history and information is engaging. I had hoped for a deeper discussion of the economic principles, but for those without the fundamentals, I think this is a great introduction.
Finally, the reliance on the rational actor was a bit extreme, and ignored important modern research about the way large groups of people act irrationally. Dr. Leeson is no doubt aware of this research, and perhaps he omitted it because it muddies a discussion that he wanted to keep clear and as straightforward as possible. Nevertheless, I think the phenomenon is worth a mention.
I recommend this book for those who have no background---formal or informal---in basic economics. It's easy to read, very short (I read it in one work day!), and the pirate history and information is engaging. I had hoped for a deeper discussion of the economic principles, but for those without the fundamentals, I think this is a great introduction.
June 5, 2013
Floating somewhere between three and five stars. I found this book delightful, but problematic--but also intriguingly problematic. Your tolerance for it may depend on how much tolerance you have for its tendency towards the economist-libertarian and for the cutesy. So, a "Management Seminar" offered by Blackbeard the pirate may not be your cup of tea--I was fine with it, if only in the sense that it made me happy not to have gone to business school. Leeson helped me to specify something present in all pirate literature: that it rests on a fantasy that the "externalities" of pirate communities to non-pirate communities are pretty much ignored, most of the time. So pirates look like whatever the author's fantasy of a rational person is--and that rationale is usually economic--so long as you ignore what they actually do to other people. This lines up beautifully with the Lockean account of capital: if all of labor and capital can be reduced to plucking acorns from trees, or to rationally-motivated pirates stealing only from ships' owners, then piracy (as a sort of fantastic/mundane stand-in for labor) can be made into an activity that is at once violent and economically rational. This book helped me to see why pirates are so integral to what might be thought of as the literature of capitalism, as they seem to exist in this floating state of pure economic rationality, unhindered by goodness or other ethical concerns. I'm starting to feel that the best way to get people to think outside of (or at least occasionally alongside) market paradigms is to just get them to read books like this, and indeed all of the documentary history of the growth of economics, and get them to notice how weird some of the prevailing assumptions are.
June 14, 2015
A discussion of pirate practices and why they were sound rational decisions by economical rules.
Covers such things as the reasons for their strict pirate code, and why they elected their captains and quartermasters and divided power between them. The logic of the Jolly Roger, which had the effect of saving the lives of both pirates and merchant sailors. The dilemma of torture -- on one hand, the passive resistance of hiding booty could make seizing the ship unprofitable, on the other, a reputation for torturing captives inspired resistance even when it was almost certainly hopeless. Brands -- like Blackbeard's. The value of a reputation for insane violence. Why most pirates were volunteers and neither forced men (if white) nor slaves (if black), and why there is such a tendency for them feign having been forced.
It has some flaws. True, studying the Golden Age of Piracy has its points, but there have always been pirates, and it might be appropriate to mention that. It doesn't discuss how the small size helped -- sometimes 300 or so, but still small when discussing an entire society. And the treatment of slaves assumes that slaves can not be treated well, even as equals, which is not, historically, true.
But overall an interesting treatment.
Covers such things as the reasons for their strict pirate code, and why they elected their captains and quartermasters and divided power between them. The logic of the Jolly Roger, which had the effect of saving the lives of both pirates and merchant sailors. The dilemma of torture -- on one hand, the passive resistance of hiding booty could make seizing the ship unprofitable, on the other, a reputation for torturing captives inspired resistance even when it was almost certainly hopeless. Brands -- like Blackbeard's. The value of a reputation for insane violence. Why most pirates were volunteers and neither forced men (if white) nor slaves (if black), and why there is such a tendency for them feign having been forced.
It has some flaws. True, studying the Golden Age of Piracy has its points, but there have always been pirates, and it might be appropriate to mention that. It doesn't discuss how the small size helped -- sometimes 300 or so, but still small when discussing an entire society. And the treatment of slaves assumes that slaves can not be treated well, even as equals, which is not, historically, true.
But overall an interesting treatment.
February 28, 2011
6 stars
Econ: Using the rational choice model to analyze pirate behavior is just too cool for words. He goes over a whole bunch of intro economic concepts but hey with pirates as the backdrop its just way more appealing. Also as Leeson says, much of pirate behavior is pretty inexplicable or apparently insane unless one applies the economic way of thinking. In the light of (Austrian) economics however, pirate social organization just seems to be the logical outcome of a particular set of unusual historical circumstances.
Liberty: Probably the coolest aspect of the book imo is the chapter explaining how pirate societies are veritable proofs of the viability of a stateless society. In short, his argument is that pirate societies faced the same economic problems which "legitimate" societies face, and they were able to successfully solve them through private models of governance. Furthermore, pirates were as pure of egoists as we could possibly procure so if *they* could get on fine without descending into a Hobbesian war of all against all the "legitimate" societies probably could as well. This also makes Dan D'Amico's work on prison social organization (conveying pretty much the same point) all the more interesting. 2 case studies of less-than-kind people creating an ordered anarchy purely out of self interest!
History: Leeson is not a historian, so he leans (by no means exclusively) on secondary sources. However theres still a helluvalot to learn here about pirates. For instance the differences between corsairs, pirates, privateers and buccaneers. Or the details of the "pirate codes". Or what tactics pirates would use to escape legal punishment in the event that they were captured.
Also, it's title is just too clever for words. Be prepared for plenty of wordplay if you venture forth.
Conclusion: Its a really clever, fun, and intellectually stimulating book. Why does any other pop-economics book exist? Steven Levitt can go S a D. Strongly recommend for lovers of economics, history, anarchism/libertarianism, and pirates.
Econ: Using the rational choice model to analyze pirate behavior is just too cool for words. He goes over a whole bunch of intro economic concepts but hey with pirates as the backdrop its just way more appealing. Also as Leeson says, much of pirate behavior is pretty inexplicable or apparently insane unless one applies the economic way of thinking. In the light of (Austrian) economics however, pirate social organization just seems to be the logical outcome of a particular set of unusual historical circumstances.
Liberty: Probably the coolest aspect of the book imo is the chapter explaining how pirate societies are veritable proofs of the viability of a stateless society. In short, his argument is that pirate societies faced the same economic problems which "legitimate" societies face, and they were able to successfully solve them through private models of governance. Furthermore, pirates were as pure of egoists as we could possibly procure so if *they* could get on fine without descending into a Hobbesian war of all against all the "legitimate" societies probably could as well. This also makes Dan D'Amico's work on prison social organization (conveying pretty much the same point) all the more interesting. 2 case studies of less-than-kind people creating an ordered anarchy purely out of self interest!
History: Leeson is not a historian, so he leans (by no means exclusively) on secondary sources. However theres still a helluvalot to learn here about pirates. For instance the differences between corsairs, pirates, privateers and buccaneers. Or the details of the "pirate codes". Or what tactics pirates would use to escape legal punishment in the event that they were captured.
Also, it's title is just too clever for words. Be prepared for plenty of wordplay if you venture forth.
Conclusion: Its a really clever, fun, and intellectually stimulating book. Why does any other pop-economics book exist? Steven Levitt can go S a D. Strongly recommend for lovers of economics, history, anarchism/libertarianism, and pirates.
September 24, 2023
Neredzamais āķis, pirāti, ekonomika. Domāju, tam ir jābūt kaut kam labam. Iesāku lasīt un pēc pusstundas man grāmata apnika, lasīšana tika pārtraukta uz nenoteiktu laiku. Šovasar saņēmos un grāmatu izlasīju.
Grāmatā, kā jau var noprast pēc nosaukuma, autors mēģina izskaidrot pirātu ekonomiku. Te ar pirātiem ir domāti reāli kuģu aplaupītāji. Pirātu ekonomika atšķirībā no valstu makroekonomikām nav cenas regulēšana ar piedāvājumu un pieprasījumu. Te ir vairāk, kas ir, to ņem, kam var, tam uzbrūk. Galvenais jautājums ir – kā cilvēki, kas lielākoties uz brīvprātības pamata ir pievienojušies pirātiem, spējuši organizēt savas darbības. Atbilde ir viena – peļņas maksimizācija. Peļņa bija padarījusi pirātus par vienu no demokrātiskākajām sabiedrībām astoņpadsmitā gadsimta beigās. Kapteiņi tika ievēlēti vēlēšanās, viens cilvēks – viena balss. Visi pirāti parakstīja tādu kā kuģa Konstitūciju, kapteinim nebija absolūta varas, pirāti rūpējās par sava zīmola uzturēšanu. Laba slava nozīmēja, ka tirgotāju kuģi mazāk pretosies, tas savukārt samazināja iespējamos cilvēkresursu zaudējumus.
Bija jau kapteiņi ar izbirušām skrūvītēm, tomēr tie ilgi biznesā nenoturējās, jo atradās kāds cits viņa aizstājējs. Bet nu tirgotāju kapteinim, kas slikti izturējās pret savu komandu, gan nebija ieteicams nonākt pirātu nagos. Lielākā daļa no pirātiem reiz bija bijuši tirgoņu kuģu apkalpēs. Lielākā daļa no turienes notinās tieši neciešamo apstākļu dēļ, tādējādi sastopot kādu bijušo matrozi, diezgan bieži sanāca lasīt zarnas pa visu klāju. Tas viss kopumā netieši uzlaboja tirdzniecības kuģu kapteiņu attieksmi pret savām apkalpēm. Grāmata atklāj arī, ka lielākā daļa tas ko mēs no Holivudas filmām esam uzzinājuši par pirātiem, ir totāls izdomājums. Viņu galvenais mērķis nebija dzert un dragāt pa jūru karojot ar karakuģiem, viņiem galvenais bija peļņa.
Grāmatas būtisks trūkums ir ekonomikas apskate tikai līdz brīdim, kad krava tiek nolaupīta un laupījums sadalīts. Naudas gadījumā viss būtu skaidrs, katrs tērē kā grib. Bet kas notiek ar salaupīto preci, kādi ir to sadales kanāli, kā tur notiek peļņas maksimizācija? Tas nav apskatīts vispār nemaz. Manuprāt, pirātu ekonomikas atšķirība nemaz nav tik liela kā autors to zīmē. Tas drīzāk ir mikroekonomikas speciālgadījums, kur daudzi indivīdi nonāk lielveikalā, kurā visas preces ir par brīvu, bet ierobežota vieta iepirkumu groziņos.
Autors savu stāstījumu balsta uz astoņpadsmitajā gadsimtā izdotajām grāmatām par šo tēmu, tas ir par pirātu ikdienas dzīvi un sadzīvi. Diemžēl viņa rakstītais teksts nebūt nav padevies interesants un saistošs. Autors ir centies, vietām sanāk, bet kopumā man bija sevi reāli jāpiespiež izlasīt šo grāmatu līdz galam. Augstskolas gados lasīt Hal Varian mikroekonomikas grāmatu man šķita daudz saistošāk, nekā šo grāmatu. Un tas neskatoties uz faktu, ka te nav neviena vienādojuma vai formulas. Te vairāk tādi pārspriedumi ar nelielu pirātu glorificēšanu. Nebūtu slikti, ja šiem pārspriedumiem bez sakarīga pārstāsta pamatojumā būtu arī kāds teorētisks pamatojums. Kopumā grāmatai lieku 7 no 10 ballēm. Iesaku lasīt tikai totālām ekonomikas teoriju mīļotājam, kas nevairās arī no speciālgadījumiem.
Grāmatā, kā jau var noprast pēc nosaukuma, autors mēģina izskaidrot pirātu ekonomiku. Te ar pirātiem ir domāti reāli kuģu aplaupītāji. Pirātu ekonomika atšķirībā no valstu makroekonomikām nav cenas regulēšana ar piedāvājumu un pieprasījumu. Te ir vairāk, kas ir, to ņem, kam var, tam uzbrūk. Galvenais jautājums ir – kā cilvēki, kas lielākoties uz brīvprātības pamata ir pievienojušies pirātiem, spējuši organizēt savas darbības. Atbilde ir viena – peļņas maksimizācija. Peļņa bija padarījusi pirātus par vienu no demokrātiskākajām sabiedrībām astoņpadsmitā gadsimta beigās. Kapteiņi tika ievēlēti vēlēšanās, viens cilvēks – viena balss. Visi pirāti parakstīja tādu kā kuģa Konstitūciju, kapteinim nebija absolūta varas, pirāti rūpējās par sava zīmola uzturēšanu. Laba slava nozīmēja, ka tirgotāju kuģi mazāk pretosies, tas savukārt samazināja iespējamos cilvēkresursu zaudējumus.
Bija jau kapteiņi ar izbirušām skrūvītēm, tomēr tie ilgi biznesā nenoturējās, jo atradās kāds cits viņa aizstājējs. Bet nu tirgotāju kapteinim, kas slikti izturējās pret savu komandu, gan nebija ieteicams nonākt pirātu nagos. Lielākā daļa no pirātiem reiz bija bijuši tirgoņu kuģu apkalpēs. Lielākā daļa no turienes notinās tieši neciešamo apstākļu dēļ, tādējādi sastopot kādu bijušo matrozi, diezgan bieži sanāca lasīt zarnas pa visu klāju. Tas viss kopumā netieši uzlaboja tirdzniecības kuģu kapteiņu attieksmi pret savām apkalpēm. Grāmata atklāj arī, ka lielākā daļa tas ko mēs no Holivudas filmām esam uzzinājuši par pirātiem, ir totāls izdomājums. Viņu galvenais mērķis nebija dzert un dragāt pa jūru karojot ar karakuģiem, viņiem galvenais bija peļņa.
Grāmatas būtisks trūkums ir ekonomikas apskate tikai līdz brīdim, kad krava tiek nolaupīta un laupījums sadalīts. Naudas gadījumā viss būtu skaidrs, katrs tērē kā grib. Bet kas notiek ar salaupīto preci, kādi ir to sadales kanāli, kā tur notiek peļņas maksimizācija? Tas nav apskatīts vispār nemaz. Manuprāt, pirātu ekonomikas atšķirība nemaz nav tik liela kā autors to zīmē. Tas drīzāk ir mikroekonomikas speciālgadījums, kur daudzi indivīdi nonāk lielveikalā, kurā visas preces ir par brīvu, bet ierobežota vieta iepirkumu groziņos.
Autors savu stāstījumu balsta uz astoņpadsmitajā gadsimtā izdotajām grāmatām par šo tēmu, tas ir par pirātu ikdienas dzīvi un sadzīvi. Diemžēl viņa rakstītais teksts nebūt nav padevies interesants un saistošs. Autors ir centies, vietām sanāk, bet kopumā man bija sevi reāli jāpiespiež izlasīt šo grāmatu līdz galam. Augstskolas gados lasīt Hal Varian mikroekonomikas grāmatu man šķita daudz saistošāk, nekā šo grāmatu. Un tas neskatoties uz faktu, ka te nav neviena vienādojuma vai formulas. Te vairāk tādi pārspriedumi ar nelielu pirātu glorificēšanu. Nebūtu slikti, ja šiem pārspriedumiem bez sakarīga pārstāsta pamatojumā būtu arī kāds teorētisks pamatojums. Kopumā grāmatai lieku 7 no 10 ballēm. Iesaku lasīt tikai totālām ekonomikas teoriju mīļotājam, kas nevairās arī no speciālgadījumiem.
December 30, 2017
Somehow it feels as though this book would be more satisfying if it were about something completely void of character or intrigue. As it is, there's enough fascinating historical information (especially in the afterword) to make Invisible Hook just interesting enough to be let down by.
Upfront, Leeson's careful and selective application of rational choice theory to pirate history, results in that just-so narrative typical of pseudo-scientific pop-lit (think any pop book on evolutionary psych, or paleo living). While the, at times obscene, practice of historical cherry-picking can be looked over for the most part (heck, the very expectation of it is the selling point of the book), the absurdly shoehorned concluding chapter about piratical management, is almost painful to read.
Along those lines, and before moving on to my major complaint with the book, there's a rather odd section where Leeson seems to gush impotent rage at views of a high prevalence of homosexuality amongst golden age pirates. It's not clear if the motivation behind this passage is some personal issue with homosexuality itself, or a halo-effect around some idealized vision of pirates he holds, but whatever the inspiration it's a jarring passage. The way his tone completely shifts from the rather consistent blend of nerdy-professor/first-time-pop-author, to angry kid defending his favourite superhero from bigoted slanders on the playground, is really off-putting and seems completely out of place in both the chapter, and the book as a whole.
Many of Leeson's authorial sins in Invisible Hook, were to be expected given his anarcho-capitalist leanings, but capital among them, and unforgivable, was making such naturally captivating subject matter so boring. Since starting this book, months ago, it's been a struggle to find the motivation to grind through a few pages here or there during any given week. Really, for such a short book about such exciting subject matter, the dullness is criminal.
[Afterthought] It's neither praise nor condemnation, but I feel it's worth mentioning the pleasant surprise at seeing a reference section in which an anarcho-capitalist cited actual empirical and scholarly data that wasn't produced in their strange Mises/Rothbard worshipping echo-chamber. If only it hadn't followed a particularly Rothbardian screed that seemed to pretend all other social sciences didn't exist...
Upfront, Leeson's careful and selective application of rational choice theory to pirate history, results in that just-so narrative typical of pseudo-scientific pop-lit (think any pop book on evolutionary psych, or paleo living). While the, at times obscene, practice of historical cherry-picking can be looked over for the most part (heck, the very expectation of it is the selling point of the book), the absurdly shoehorned concluding chapter about piratical management, is almost painful to read.
Along those lines, and before moving on to my major complaint with the book, there's a rather odd section where Leeson seems to gush impotent rage at views of a high prevalence of homosexuality amongst golden age pirates. It's not clear if the motivation behind this passage is some personal issue with homosexuality itself, or a halo-effect around some idealized vision of pirates he holds, but whatever the inspiration it's a jarring passage. The way his tone completely shifts from the rather consistent blend of nerdy-professor/first-time-pop-author, to angry kid defending his favourite superhero from bigoted slanders on the playground, is really off-putting and seems completely out of place in both the chapter, and the book as a whole.
Many of Leeson's authorial sins in Invisible Hook, were to be expected given his anarcho-capitalist leanings, but capital among them, and unforgivable, was making such naturally captivating subject matter so boring. Since starting this book, months ago, it's been a struggle to find the motivation to grind through a few pages here or there during any given week. Really, for such a short book about such exciting subject matter, the dullness is criminal.
[Afterthought] It's neither praise nor condemnation, but I feel it's worth mentioning the pleasant surprise at seeing a reference section in which an anarcho-capitalist cited actual empirical and scholarly data that wasn't produced in their strange Mises/Rothbard worshipping echo-chamber. If only it hadn't followed a particularly Rothbardian screed that seemed to pretend all other social sciences didn't exist...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 13, 2016
There are two ways you could happen upon this book. You could either (1) be interested in economics and want to know how it applies to pirates, or (2) be interested in pirates and want to know how economics can make sense of pirate behavior. I came into this book from option (1), and I think my experience suffered from it. Don't get me wrong - this was an EXTREMELY entertaining book, and I learned more than I ever thought I would about pirate customs and institutions. That being said, I think this book can best be thought of as a fantastic introduction to the economic way of thinking via a person's interest in pirates.
If nothing else, I strongly recommend that this book finds its way on your shelf as a way to show how societies can be organized without a strong central government and, in weeks like the one we find ourselves in, that is a fantastic lesson to learn.
If nothing else, I strongly recommend that this book finds its way on your shelf as a way to show how societies can be organized without a strong central government and, in weeks like the one we find ourselves in, that is a fantastic lesson to learn.
February 22, 2025
As someone who knows nothing about economics (and suffers the cost of this whenever I check my bank balance) this book was an entertaining exploration of the relationship between pirate history and broadly libertarian economic thinking. It's fairly repetitive and I don't find Leeson himself that amusing or skilled a writer, but the history speaks for itself, and the repetitive nature of the economic theory meant even an English graduate could understand, even if I felt the skewing might have been a little ideological.
Someone who is more interested and knowledgeable about economics might find the book off-putting, but I'd definitely recommend this for your nerdy One Piece fan nephew or something like that.
Someone who is more interested and knowledgeable about economics might find the book off-putting, but I'd definitely recommend this for your nerdy One Piece fan nephew or something like that.
December 9, 2014
The Invisible Hook offers a unique take on pirates, applying basic economic arguments to explain their behavior. Leeson has a funny and enjoyable writing style. People who appreciated books like Freakonomics and people interested in applying economic analysis to nonstandard settings may want to read it.
Unfortunately, the book is somewhat bloated. It originated in a few papers by Leeson, and there is not enough material here to extend into a whole book, and I sometimes felt like he was trying to force the facts into the economic framework just to elongate the book. More problematically, he often overstates his case in making his arguments. For example, Leeson laments the fact that people assume pirates usually tortured because they were crazy, when they actually did so to intimidate their adversaries thus making plundering easier. Leeson goes too far in the other direction, however, claiming without any data that most pirates were rational and the crazy ones were anomalies. More generally, Leeson's confidence in analyzing pirates as rational agents, obscures important aspects to explaining criminal behavior such as psychological motivations.
Leeson's economic analysis often comes off as simplistic or even strange. He confidently cites a theory about the costs of discrimination, affirming that this should usually lead to the erosion of discrimination, but does not mention empirical or experimental work (for example, see Mullanaithan) on discrimination in hiring. Particularly odd was his analysis of externalities. Reading the section, I was left with the impression that Leeson thinks well-defined air property rights will more effectively address pollution than will regulation.
Unfortunately, the book is somewhat bloated. It originated in a few papers by Leeson, and there is not enough material here to extend into a whole book, and I sometimes felt like he was trying to force the facts into the economic framework just to elongate the book. More problematically, he often overstates his case in making his arguments. For example, Leeson laments the fact that people assume pirates usually tortured because they were crazy, when they actually did so to intimidate their adversaries thus making plundering easier. Leeson goes too far in the other direction, however, claiming without any data that most pirates were rational and the crazy ones were anomalies. More generally, Leeson's confidence in analyzing pirates as rational agents, obscures important aspects to explaining criminal behavior such as psychological motivations.
Leeson's economic analysis often comes off as simplistic or even strange. He confidently cites a theory about the costs of discrimination, affirming that this should usually lead to the erosion of discrimination, but does not mention empirical or experimental work (for example, see Mullanaithan) on discrimination in hiring. Particularly odd was his analysis of externalities. Reading the section, I was left with the impression that Leeson thinks well-defined air property rights will more effectively address pollution than will regulation.
October 24, 2015
It becomes more and more apparent that pirates had better democratic institutions than that the current developed democratic nations. The democratic system pirates created punished those that broke the laws of the ship and rewarded those that followed them. The way externalities were fixed on board pirate ships with no government is something developed countries should be jealous of. Captain's, whether they where merchant or pirate, that did not take care of their crew got justice served upon them by the pirate crew. The extra brutality that pirates are known for, actually was used to save both pirate and innocent sailor life alike. The gargantuan amount of economics used to explain pirate behavior is marvel. Economics can be described so eloquently only by a few economists. The transition from understanding economics, to the implications of it on pirate behavior is extremely smooth.
July 4, 2015
Peter T. Leeson spoke at my college when I was a freshman (six years ago now) and I went for an extra credit in my gen ed econ class. His talk was so memorable that even six years later, when I needed to research piracy and wanted a unique angle, I remembered him and purchased his book. It didn't disappoint!
THE INVISIBLE HOOK provides a very interesting look into the life of pirates, examining the role of economics in everything from self-governance to torture. While maintaining a conversational, often amusing tone, Leeson does a fabulous job of blending the (potentially dry) foundations of economics with the fascinating life and customs of pirates. Definitely would recommend to pirate lovers, and/or reluctant economics students!
THE INVISIBLE HOOK provides a very interesting look into the life of pirates, examining the role of economics in everything from self-governance to torture. While maintaining a conversational, often amusing tone, Leeson does a fabulous job of blending the (potentially dry) foundations of economics with the fascinating life and customs of pirates. Definitely would recommend to pirate lovers, and/or reluctant economics students!
April 5, 2021
*Two stars instead of one for the creative premise and the fact that it wasn't particularly problematic so no hate to the author* however...
This was so boring, from the content to the structure. I mean it, two-hundred-and-something pages have never dragged so much.
I found it really strange how Leeson kept referring to other chapters constantly. And all those analogies, ugh - if I need to know twelve different supermarket metaphors to understand economics, then I'd rather stay out of the stock market.
Simply wasn't for me. Good luck, Hui, don't say I didn't warn you.
EDIT (05.04.21):
THIS BOOK SPARKED NO JOY, ONLY ANGER, HAS BEEN DEMOTED TO ONE STAR
This was so boring, from the content to the structure. I mean it, two-hundred-and-something pages have never dragged so much.
I found it really strange how Leeson kept referring to other chapters constantly. And all those analogies, ugh - if I need to know twelve different supermarket metaphors to understand economics, then I'd rather stay out of the stock market.
Simply wasn't for me. Good luck, Hui, don't say I didn't warn you.
EDIT (05.04.21):
THIS BOOK SPARKED NO JOY, ONLY ANGER, HAS BEEN DEMOTED TO ONE STAR
August 9, 2016
Excellent book. It was a rollicking good time.
To be fair, though, I'm also an econ nerd, so I think that freakonomics is a little too light on the regressions and heavy on the clickbait. In other words, this was a really fun book to read, but I'm the target audience, and your mileage may vary.
But if you want an interesting inspection of economics through the lens of pirates, this is a good one. Short read, too.
To be fair, though, I'm also an econ nerd, so I think that freakonomics is a little too light on the regressions and heavy on the clickbait. In other words, this was a really fun book to read, but I'm the target audience, and your mileage may vary.
But if you want an interesting inspection of economics through the lens of pirates, this is a good one. Short read, too.
January 12, 2017
This is a pretty dense book that covers only "golden age" piracy. I'm listening to it as an audiobook off and on, which is not ideal reading conditions, and yet I find that it is a wonderful thought-provoker on many levels and has sparked many interesting conjectures on long drives. The prose is often slyly hilarious, and I'm definitely glad I'm dipping into it. Not committing to finish it, but honestly, it doesn't feel like something I need to be linear about.
March 13, 2014
Supercilious. This author simplifies and underscores every point until you wonder if his intended audience consists of mentally handicapped first graders. Sound economic theory and history, packaged in an irritatingly condescending manner. I would recommend this for middle school kids, but I suspect most kids get sick of being talked down to.
January 30, 2021
I think I have an unhealthy interest in pirates
June 19, 2020
The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates by Peter T. Leeson is a book that examines the golden age of high seas piracy through the eyepatch (oh boy, the puns are starting early this review) of Economics. First the good. The Invisible Hook calls into question many of the popular stereotypes of pirates. Who knew that pirates preferred branding (and brandy) to the broadsword? Blackbeard, one of the most notorious pirate captains in history, abstained from killing. This just goes to show from the 18th century (and before) to the 21st century (and beyond), how good people THINK you are goes much further than how good you ACTUALLY are. Now the bad. Although Leeson is not a historian by trade, he presents all historical documents and references carte blanc; Leeson does not define 18th century nomenclature in terms of their modern equivalents which means reading will involve a lot of googling. The Invisible Hook lives in limbo between a serious academic work and a pop economics book. Leeson also makes the classic economist fallacy. While people do act in their own best interest, GROUPS of people act as a herd; they do not sit down and work out all of the economic algebra before making a decision. Leeson presents economic theory and assumes uneducated pirates would immediately adopt its principals which is far-fetched. Lastly Leeson doesn’t address the greatest pirate economics question of all: How much is corn on a pirate ship? A Buccaneer (okay I’ll stop).
The Invisible Hook is worth a read but would be vastly improved by how it presented reference material and if it chose between an academic work a pop economics book instead of both.
The Invisible Hook is worth a read but would be vastly improved by how it presented reference material and if it chose between an academic work a pop economics book instead of both.
March 14, 2022
An economics book about piracy that is written by an economist. We're talking old-time pirates from the late 1600s through to the early 1700s, not the label we apply to those who disrupt corporate governance or steal intellectual property.
Leeson makes a pretty compelling case that economic forces led to surprising cultures and social organizations aboard a pirate ship. Honestly, I have not previously considered what life was like aboard a pirate ship, however, if I did take such a mental journey, I would not have guessed that all pirates aboard a ship had a vote on the rules (e.g., division of booty, penalties for rules violations, labors, compensation for injuries), including who was captain and who was quartermaster.
Pirates are inherently interesting (I can say this because there are no pirates around) and if an economics book does not scare you off, then check out two of CGP Grey's cute videos on the topic (about 5 and 7:20 minutes each, respectively): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YFeE... and then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0fAz...
CGP Grey based the content of the videos from the book.
Still interested given these very particular criteria? Highly recommend.
Leeson makes a pretty compelling case that economic forces led to surprising cultures and social organizations aboard a pirate ship. Honestly, I have not previously considered what life was like aboard a pirate ship, however, if I did take such a mental journey, I would not have guessed that all pirates aboard a ship had a vote on the rules (e.g., division of booty, penalties for rules violations, labors, compensation for injuries), including who was captain and who was quartermaster.
Pirates are inherently interesting (I can say this because there are no pirates around) and if an economics book does not scare you off, then check out two of CGP Grey's cute videos on the topic (about 5 and 7:20 minutes each, respectively): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YFeE... and then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0fAz...
CGP Grey based the content of the videos from the book.
Still interested given these very particular criteria? Highly recommend.
August 2, 2020
The first 7/8ths of this book are quite a fun look at Pirate history and give a unique look into the world of early 17th century seamanship. It also is a nice introduction to some very basic economic terms and ideals that the author uses the lens of piracy to explain.
The last chapter honestly soured me quite a bit however as Leeson shows incredible bias to the ideas that people who are motivated by profit always act in rational ways, that government regulation is usually bad and that a libertarian approach to capitalism is the best economic system to live under.
The last chapter honestly soured me quite a bit however as Leeson shows incredible bias to the ideas that people who are motivated by profit always act in rational ways, that government regulation is usually bad and that a libertarian approach to capitalism is the best economic system to live under.
August 9, 2020
Entertaining book to learn more about pirate organization but the author's personal worldview shines through quite strongly, which makes it difficult to read sometimes. Bonus points for the genius title.
December 2, 2024
This was a really interesting book except for the bit where he talked about how racism was economically unviable and like that’s such an economist way of thinking, it’s very wrong and annoying that they think that.
October 31, 2024
I <3 pirates
April 18, 2023
A fun introduction to economics as represented by the organization of pirates. May also be read as the truth behind the series 'Our flag means death.' Somewhat repetitive, unfortunately.
January 7, 2021
So disappointing. Considering how many good books reference this one, I expected better. I have two major complaints that made it a chore to finish:
First, this book badly needs an editor (or a trained historian).
A micro example: the author has a irritating habit of using "cross reference" clauses everywhere. "As discussed in Chapter 6" "As discussed below" "As explained in Chapter 2". I just read the chapter, friend, I don't need constant reminders of where an analogy comes from!
A macro example: this book is FILLED with information that has nothing to do with pirates or how they operated as economic agents. He will state a single source about pirates, then drone on about a tangentially related topic to prove his conclusions about those pirates. One sentence will state that pirate crews voted for their captain. He will then go on for three pages about James Madison, the Federalist Papers, and American democracy. Another sentence will say pirates were profit motivated. Then he will launch into a lengthy discussion of incentives in modern firm behavior. These discussions lengthen the book without adding anything.
I do not understand any more about pirate democracy after reading this book than I did before. How did someone call for a vote? How did people debate the choice? What if the minority refused to acknowledge the result? How did the choice to vote on a captain begin? These are interesting questions about mechanics that Leeson cannot answer. Instead, he keeps referencing analogies that obscure rather than enlighten.
The book loses focus on these passages. You could cut them without losing any pirate-related knowledge. A good editor would have taken a meat axe to the manuscript. That would have saved me 100 pages.
The tangential passages also revealed the second complaint: He's espousing a world view rather than analyzing pirate economic behavior. I thought it odd that he kept analogizing to American democracy. I'd argue that pirates acted more like Robert's Rules of Order than a full nation-state's governance system. But he kept referencing these types of analogies. I recognized them from elsewhere: editorial pieces attempting to prove that laissez-faire economics and liberal democracy are the greatest gifts on Earth.
His frequent use of these tangential analogies made me realize he's using the lens of "pirate behavior" to espouse this world view. Almost all the book's analogies fit within this espousing framework. I think he's trying to show that because even pirates demonstrate this great behavior of cooperation and economic self-interest, their "progressive" nature shows that this is the natural and right way to do things. Little government is needed.
I'm not opposed to an author expressing a world view. I probably agree with a good deal of his opinions. But the author does this constantly with little else in the way of evidence. It ruins this book as a source of historical knowledge.
It's not all bad. I did learn a few interesting pirate techniques that probably would not have entered other history books ("Ads of Force" intrigue the hell out of me). Overall, though, I'd recommend watching or reading the media that cite to this book rather than reading it by itself.
First, this book badly needs an editor (or a trained historian).
A micro example: the author has a irritating habit of using "cross reference" clauses everywhere. "As discussed in Chapter 6" "As discussed below" "As explained in Chapter 2". I just read the chapter, friend, I don't need constant reminders of where an analogy comes from!
A macro example: this book is FILLED with information that has nothing to do with pirates or how they operated as economic agents. He will state a single source about pirates, then drone on about a tangentially related topic to prove his conclusions about those pirates. One sentence will state that pirate crews voted for their captain. He will then go on for three pages about James Madison, the Federalist Papers, and American democracy. Another sentence will say pirates were profit motivated. Then he will launch into a lengthy discussion of incentives in modern firm behavior. These discussions lengthen the book without adding anything.
I do not understand any more about pirate democracy after reading this book than I did before. How did someone call for a vote? How did people debate the choice? What if the minority refused to acknowledge the result? How did the choice to vote on a captain begin? These are interesting questions about mechanics that Leeson cannot answer. Instead, he keeps referencing analogies that obscure rather than enlighten.
The book loses focus on these passages. You could cut them without losing any pirate-related knowledge. A good editor would have taken a meat axe to the manuscript. That would have saved me 100 pages.
The tangential passages also revealed the second complaint: He's espousing a world view rather than analyzing pirate economic behavior. I thought it odd that he kept analogizing to American democracy. I'd argue that pirates acted more like Robert's Rules of Order than a full nation-state's governance system. But he kept referencing these types of analogies. I recognized them from elsewhere: editorial pieces attempting to prove that laissez-faire economics and liberal democracy are the greatest gifts on Earth.
His frequent use of these tangential analogies made me realize he's using the lens of "pirate behavior" to espouse this world view. Almost all the book's analogies fit within this espousing framework. I think he's trying to show that because even pirates demonstrate this great behavior of cooperation and economic self-interest, their "progressive" nature shows that this is the natural and right way to do things. Little government is needed.
I'm not opposed to an author expressing a world view. I probably agree with a good deal of his opinions. But the author does this constantly with little else in the way of evidence. It ruins this book as a source of historical knowledge.
It's not all bad. I did learn a few interesting pirate techniques that probably would not have entered other history books ("Ads of Force" intrigue the hell out of me). Overall, though, I'd recommend watching or reading the media that cite to this book rather than reading it by itself.
April 4, 2021
This book starts out okay. I mean, it's economics and pirates. Two things I have interest in. as a cross disciplinary work probably only economics and civil war would be better aimed at me.
And yet, here we are two stars. And that's with a pretty promising start. The history and examples are fine. Shallow draft but fine. There's some interesting discussion of trying to place various pirate activities into the language of economists. (which is backwards thinking but whatev.)
But the final part of the book is a wretched attempt to explain every success of pirates to free market economics. And utterly failing to do so, even limiting the examples to just the ones Leeson wants to give to show evidence for this twisted logic.
Consider the weird section on the ADA which attempts to describe the act as a complete failure based on a potential failing of one of its goals. That is cherry picking and not related to pirates and worse, makes the next section where pirate hunting by Great Britain is supposed to follow from the same thinking. Britain's regulations were the problem. (except then the book goes on to show that the real problem wasn't those regulations but the various other geopolitical aims that GB had at the time that were more important than pirates.
I feel like an active economist should have given a more nuanced view of that. And certainly if Leeson wanted to prove that Mises and Hayek nonsense he failed utterly. Name dropping Gordon Gekko--a fictional composite character--does not actually provide evidence for your case.
My suggestion is for people to start the book. about 3/4ths of the way (after the increasingly tortured attempt to describe whether the jolly roger was successfully signalling or not) stop reading. There's nothing but imaginary monsters out in the later waters of the book.
And yet, here we are two stars. And that's with a pretty promising start. The history and examples are fine. Shallow draft but fine. There's some interesting discussion of trying to place various pirate activities into the language of economists. (which is backwards thinking but whatev.)
But the final part of the book is a wretched attempt to explain every success of pirates to free market economics. And utterly failing to do so, even limiting the examples to just the ones Leeson wants to give to show evidence for this twisted logic.
Consider the weird section on the ADA which attempts to describe the act as a complete failure based on a potential failing of one of its goals. That is cherry picking and not related to pirates and worse, makes the next section where pirate hunting by Great Britain is supposed to follow from the same thinking. Britain's regulations were the problem. (except then the book goes on to show that the real problem wasn't those regulations but the various other geopolitical aims that GB had at the time that were more important than pirates.
I feel like an active economist should have given a more nuanced view of that. And certainly if Leeson wanted to prove that Mises and Hayek nonsense he failed utterly. Name dropping Gordon Gekko--a fictional composite character--does not actually provide evidence for your case.
My suggestion is for people to start the book. about 3/4ths of the way (after the increasingly tortured attempt to describe whether the jolly roger was successfully signalling or not) stop reading. There's nothing but imaginary monsters out in the later waters of the book.
January 22, 2018
This book is wonderful in every way. Peter is an excellent author because he makes a concept like spontaneous order to digestible using a real-world example. Granted, as a reviewer, I am not extremely fixated on spelling and grammar. I was told there is at least one glaring error I totally missed. However, I don't care. This book is excellent.
Peter takes you through the realities of the world of pirates. The economic choices they made and the reasoning behind it from a practical standpoint. Even if this book was just to bust the myth of pirates, it would be marvelous. However, the book goes so deep into that world that I find it just captivates. It's like having so many pop culture illusions shattered and I love that.
The economic premise of the book is amazing. Finally an author who points out the economic reasons people make decisions and how people will tend to come together for mutual benefit to improve the outcomes for all involved. Many people might think, "well this only applies to law-breaking pirates." Yet, Peter demonstrates it doesn't only apply to law-breakers. These concepts clearly can be applied to everyday behavior.
Great book.
Peter takes you through the realities of the world of pirates. The economic choices they made and the reasoning behind it from a practical standpoint. Even if this book was just to bust the myth of pirates, it would be marvelous. However, the book goes so deep into that world that I find it just captivates. It's like having so many pop culture illusions shattered and I love that.
The economic premise of the book is amazing. Finally an author who points out the economic reasons people make decisions and how people will tend to come together for mutual benefit to improve the outcomes for all involved. Many people might think, "well this only applies to law-breaking pirates." Yet, Peter demonstrates it doesn't only apply to law-breakers. These concepts clearly can be applied to everyday behavior.
Great book.
January 26, 2010
This book examines the behavior of 18th-century pirates through an economic lens, demonstrating how many of their seemingly bizarre behaviors were actually quite logical given the unusual conditions they worked under. It also illustrates how pirates pioneered concepts like democracy and racial integration, not for noble reasons, but because they made economic sense.
It's a fascinating read, although it occasionally feels a bit padded. Each chapter ends with a summary, and then much of this material is summarized again in chapter 8, a syllabus for an imaginary course on pirate management.
Chapter 8 is also where the author awkwardly inserts his own political views, using the pirates' use of self-regulation to argue that corporations should be allowed to self-regulate and that the ADA should be abolished. It's a bit of a non sequitur, and I kept thinking, "I get it. You're a libertarian. Can we get back to talking about pirates, now?" It also seems a bit odd to use the example of people who stole from the populace -- until eventually restrained by the government -- to argue that the government should not exercise restraint on corporations. Surely they have the same theft-inducing incentives?
In spite of these flaws, it's a fascinating read and brings a lot of insight into why pirates operated the way they did.
It's a fascinating read, although it occasionally feels a bit padded. Each chapter ends with a summary, and then much of this material is summarized again in chapter 8, a syllabus for an imaginary course on pirate management.
Chapter 8 is also where the author awkwardly inserts his own political views, using the pirates' use of self-regulation to argue that corporations should be allowed to self-regulate and that the ADA should be abolished. It's a bit of a non sequitur, and I kept thinking, "I get it. You're a libertarian. Can we get back to talking about pirates, now?" It also seems a bit odd to use the example of people who stole from the populace -- until eventually restrained by the government -- to argue that the government should not exercise restraint on corporations. Surely they have the same theft-inducing incentives?
In spite of these flaws, it's a fascinating read and brings a lot of insight into why pirates operated the way they did.
June 21, 2010
It's a very readable introduction to economics and "rational choice theory". Who'd have thought Blackbeard was simply doing the best cost-benefit analysis on how to pay his motley crew? As an account of pirate practices, it's interesting and objective. However, Leeson seems to want this to show that if even pirates make rational choices, then rational choice theory is all we need to understand people. That's not so obvious, though he does try to account for why the recent Somali-based pirates are different from their 18th-century predecessors. Rational choice theory assumes all men are selfish. Economics seized on this assumption back in the late 18th century and haven't let go of it yet, even though other intellectual disciplines have long since modified their extremism. Men might be selfish, but are women? For that matter, how selfish are men from non-capitalist societies? Which comes first, the selfishness, or the lack of social support in a capitalist system which throws men back onto their own resources? Leeson's argument doesn't get far enough into looking at the considerable difference between past and present pirates to show whether rational choice applies to our present more nuanced understanding of cultures and of "human" nature. It stops at the level of intellectual exercise.
December 16, 2020
2.5
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with this book, though I might quibble with the author's opinion on matelotage and queer history as it applies to pirate society, I suspect that my problem with his opinion however is less that I disagree fully with his statements and more that they are only articulated at a surface level. The surface level reading here, if that's what it is, comes off as callous and a bit naive. However surface level reading seems to be the problem with this entire book. There's nothing here you couldn't learn from Marcus Rediker's work unlike the Invisible Hook frames pirate economy within its socio-cultural context.
This book doesn't do that. I'd argue it actually pulls you out of the time and culture of pirates by constantly drawing comparison to modern economic situations/theories to explain Early Modern pirate economics. It's a misleading and anachronistic framework to saddle your audience with, though I might simply have been the wrong audience.
Again, overall there's nothing wrong with the book, I actually quite like the title l think it's clever (though ai think Leeson misses a trick in not mentioning Captain Hook as well as Adam Smith's Invisible Hook), it just doesn't present any new information, and the old information it does present is in a cumbersome and problematic framework.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with this book, though I might quibble with the author's opinion on matelotage and queer history as it applies to pirate society, I suspect that my problem with his opinion however is less that I disagree fully with his statements and more that they are only articulated at a surface level. The surface level reading here, if that's what it is, comes off as callous and a bit naive. However surface level reading seems to be the problem with this entire book. There's nothing here you couldn't learn from Marcus Rediker's work unlike the Invisible Hook frames pirate economy within its socio-cultural context.
This book doesn't do that. I'd argue it actually pulls you out of the time and culture of pirates by constantly drawing comparison to modern economic situations/theories to explain Early Modern pirate economics. It's a misleading and anachronistic framework to saddle your audience with, though I might simply have been the wrong audience.
Again, overall there's nothing wrong with the book, I actually quite like the title l think it's clever (though ai think Leeson misses a trick in not mentioning Captain Hook as well as Adam Smith's Invisible Hook), it just doesn't present any new information, and the old information it does present is in a cumbersome and problematic framework.
August 6, 2020
I found this book via some videoes by CGPgrey on youtube, and got excited to investigate further. This book was just fun. I mean, take pirates and sprinkle in some interesting economics and you have a stimulating way of learning something new.
It is pretty easy to read, but he manages to point out some economic structures in a pretty visual and engaging way that other economic books might not. Using new words like branding together with pyrates actually manages to shine a new light on the topic. Yes, pirates were barbaric in many ways but a lot of it had a kind of logic.
He is a bit heavy handed when it comes to pointing out how all the pirates choices was based on greed, but it is a good point that many people might need to hear. Sometimes social justice can come because of greed, not because of morals, and it can actually work.
I recommend this book to anyone really. If anything, you can revive your inner PIRATE YARR VOICE and be a BUCCANEER ! (in your head) Maybe use some of the knowledge in your social circles. Maybe.
It is pretty easy to read, but he manages to point out some economic structures in a pretty visual and engaging way that other economic books might not. Using new words like branding together with pyrates actually manages to shine a new light on the topic. Yes, pirates were barbaric in many ways but a lot of it had a kind of logic.
He is a bit heavy handed when it comes to pointing out how all the pirates choices was based on greed, but it is a good point that many people might need to hear. Sometimes social justice can come because of greed, not because of morals, and it can actually work.
I recommend this book to anyone really. If anything, you can revive your inner PIRATE YARR VOICE and be a BUCCANEER ! (in your head) Maybe use some of the knowledge in your social circles. Maybe.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews