Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#271

Post by freehunter »

mgbmtl wrote: post #258
Clubber wrote: post #5

I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It was nice to see his side of the story. I don't know much about this case in particular. It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Vice inter…

As a Canadian, I'm just curious: what are the current proposals to regulate pharmaceutical sales in the US? In most Canadian provinces, the provincial government is the only authorized purchaser for prescribed medication. It is then sold to pharmacies and hospitals, who are in charge of distribution. (in some provinces, such as Quebec, a mix of public or private insurance will then cover most of the purchase of medic…

There are no serious proposals on the table with any chance of becoming law. The ruling party believes that government should not be involved in healthcare in any way and would rather move in the direction of less regulation instead of more.

The minority party has several plans, but are still divided.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#272

Post by soundwave106 »

lojack wrote: post #175
blahblah3 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because his investors made money doesn't excuse him. Suppose you lent 10,000 to a friend and the friend promised to return it within a year. A year later, your friend doesn't pay you back and makes a bunch of excuses. Instead, he takes the 5,000 he has left to the casino, gambles it on the roulette wheel and by luck manages to turn that into 30,000 and pays you back 1.5 years later. I don't think you would be ha…

Your analogy is slightly off... suppose you lent $10,000 to an acquaintance known for being able to double it, and they promise to return it doubled in a year. A year later you ask for your money and he gives you $6,000 from someone else he convinced to do the same thing along with $6,000 from a different venture that was taking off and $8,000 work of equity for that startup. You didn't quite get what was promised, i…

The problem is, in most cases, historically the type of actions Shkreli tried often ends in disaster (often done by someone intentionally being malicious, I might add).

Shkreli may have been able to work his pseudo-Ponzi-ish scheme to investors' benefit. But it is pretty easy to look up the sordid history of the vast majority of Ponzi-type schemes, to see why this type of activity is generally illegal.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#273

Post by kbenson »

amyjess wrote: post #216
kbenson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertainin…

Al Capone wouldn't have been prosecuted for tax evasion if he wasn't an infamous mobster. This is how society's immune system functions.

Al Capone wouldn't have had to evade taxes if he wasn't obtaining his income through illegal means.

I also see a distinction between Capone and Shkreli in that Capone's other actions which may have influenced his trial were myriad illegal activities that they couldn't get evidence for. Shkreli is just believed to be an asshole.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#274

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

discombobulate wrote: post #255
singhrac wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing to consider is: why is he the one who decides who can afford the drug or gets a free version? Seems horrible to me - we have laws to protect equal access to services like this (Medicare, Medicaid). Another argument of his I found extremely disgusting is that he claims he's reinvesting profits from the price raise to further drug research. Ok, but again, we only have his word for that (and he's been convicte…

It's insurance that pays, I believe . So it's a function of price. He changed the price based on market condition. Agree on the second point. Personally, I don't think that's relavent.

And who pays insurance?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#275

Post by yellowstuff »

Harimwakairi wrote: post #233
huac wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, everybody came out okay - Shkreli really made his investors a lot of money! Yeah, he lied, but he did some incredible work: typical fraudsters take your money and run - he doesn't fit that mold. Honestly, the issue was that he's an utter asshole, including to his investors. Investors are willing to put with a lot if you triple their money, but Shkreli managed to cross that line. That made him an easy target f…

> ...he did some incredible work... Can you elaborate on this?

He pivoted from running a hedge fund worth -33 cents to creating a pharmaceutical company currently worth $800 million.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#277

Post by charlesdm »

emodendroket wrote: post #251
watwut wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might hav…

And you think getting rid of juries would help, or at least not make things worse? One of the reasons it's so high is that most cases are resolved as part of the plea system and never go to trial.

Isn't the main issue with a jury that is inherently unpredictable, and some people would prefer taking a decent plea over a bad verdict? People that aren't guilty shouldn't be forced to take a plea because the alternative could be worse. That is just wrong in every single way.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#278

Post by austenallred »

emodendroket wrote: post #256
austenallred wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does jury trials being imperfect imply that bench trials are perfect? A being true does not mean B is false...

The OP was saying that bench trials are much better, not just that jury trials are flawed.

better != perfect

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#279

Post by Clubber »

wfunction wrote: post #231
Clubber wrote: post #5

I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It was nice to see his side of the story. I don't know much about this case in particular. It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Vice inter…

> It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Do you have any suggestions on how what exactly they should've done? Passed a law that says "you cannot increase the price of a drug beyond 5x" or something?

Just to throw something out there to start, I would limit price hikes over time, say 10% a year. I'm open to any alternatives.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#280

Post by [deleted] »

RunawayGalaxy wrote: post #66
CydeWeys wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outrageous price increases directly led to people dying because they couldn't afford life-saving medication. There's no redeeming yourself from that just because you're charming or intelligent. Psychopaths often are.

FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. I believe that he was trying to draw media attention to the outrageous, legally-allowed colluding practices of the insurance and pharma industries. It would have been in his best interest to not draw attention to himself and slowly raise the price of the d…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN