Earlier quoted context omitted.
The operative word here is "all."
That doesn't matter. Lying during a business deal is still fraud.
Ever watch a commercial?
Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
321–330 of 633 posts
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relying exclusively on bench trials seems unappealing to me (and I guess to James Madison, who enshrined the right of trial by jury in the Constitution) 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 in…
"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…
You're right the US has a huge incarceration rate, but jury trials have nothing to do with this, since in the US trials functionally do not exist. I don't remember the numbers exactly (and they are changing and they differ by state/federal) but something like 1-5% of people thrown in jail actually go to trial.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#323I 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…
What's wrong with Congress questioning someone about legal but shady activity? If he broke the law, he'd just be prosecuted. No reason for Congress to have anything to do with it. But if what he did was legal but wrong, then maybe the law should be changed, and that's exactly what Congress is for.
Because Congress didn't need to find out any facts. They just wanted to put on a show to sway public opinion.
Remember when they questioned Toyota over unintended acceleration? That made Toyota apologize and generally made the public believe that Toyota was at fault.
Now, consider that at the time Congress questioned Toyota they were the largest shareholder in Toyota's biggest competitor (GM) and, when NASA examined the evidence, they found no issues in Toyota's products.
If you want to talk about securities fraud, that Congressional hearing should be at the top of the list.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pricing something correctly isn't immoral
Sure maybe you can explain what you mean by the phrase: "pricing something correctly"
What someone will pay & what someone will sell @. Normal basic econ.
Edit: (I can't seem to reply) I think non-gov monopolies are ok. You'd make a ton of money in your example, & then be able to create more drugs. Generally, I think it's good for talented people to get resources. Superior resource allocation.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? EDIT: Also, is that the only flaw you found with my comment? If so, lol.
Here's something on Wikipedia. I've not read it, yet. Not having a basis in economics is a reasonable argument, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging#Opposition_to_la... Edit: I'm trying to listen to a live Shkreli interview & replaying @ the same time. Sorry if I didn't rebut it as fully as I would normally.
You didn't really rebut at all, you just googled it and pasted a link here...
I think here even Sowell would agree that it exists. Basically price gouging can't exist if we use a simplified view of a perfectly competitive market. If we move over to a market with only one seller then we could probably define price gouging as when the monopoly firm charges a price higher (or much higher) than what we would see in a competitive equilibrium. AKA exactly what Shkreli did.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#326I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube, whilst he was live streaming. He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. He does, however, have a couple of major flaws. 1) He trolls. Hard. 2) It seems he lies. Which I picked up from a previous news article. (He claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund. It was more like $1.6mm. Something like that). I can forgive the trolling. It's over the…
I went to high school with a fellow like Shkreli and with same story: rising fortunes, financial lying, fraud, conviction. Same traits as above, though unlike Shkreli this guy was extremely personable and likable. He was just a congenital liar and driven by something inside to... do more, do something bigger. He had the most incredible stories in high school that largely turned out to be lies, but at the time it all…
> when they actually have the skills to do it more honestly.
That crossed my mind. That's why I think accepting failer is an inherant factor in business. Risk/reward. May win. Could lose.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge funds and the pharmaceutical company Retrophin, all of which he founded. Shkreli told investors he graduated from Columbia University, that his hedge fund was large and profitable, and that he had hired an auditor, they said. These were all lies, according to prosecutors. yeah seems like a great dude...
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…
> 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.
I think it's nice everyone came out okay, besides Shkreli in this case I guess. I still think what he did was wrong though because if you don't punish that kind of behavior, then you're encouraging people to do things that are wrong in the hopes they will succeed, and it won't always work out as it happened to do so here.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might find FedEx's origin story interesting. > “I asked Fred where the funds had come from, and he responded, ‘The meeting with the General Dynamics board was a bust and I knew we needed money for Monday, so I took a plane to Las Vegas and won $27,000.’ I said, ‘You mean you took our last $5,000— how could you do that?’ He shrugged his shoulders and said, ‘What difference does it make? Without the funds for the f…
Technically, Fred committed a fraud (actually I forget the technical term for the crime where you misuse funds). Its just that he wasn't prosecuted for it.
Could you be thinking of Misappropriation of funds? I'm not a lawyer and I haven't spent a lot of time looking it up but from the few places I looked it doesn't seem that it would fit.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure maybe you can explain what you mean by the phrase: "pricing something correctly"
What someone will pay & what someone will sell @. Normal basic econ. Edit: (I can't seem to reply) I think non-gov monopolies are ok. You'd make a ton of money in your example, & then be able to create more drugs. Generally, I think it's good for talented people to get resources. Superior resource allocation.
This isn't normal basic econ. This is a monopoly market.
Let's say I create a cure for a truly horrible disease like Huntington's. Let's say it cost me absolutely zero dollars of R&D, I just happened upon it in some weird stroke of happenstance and the FDA does a rush approval and gives me a grant for even those costs, basically fantasyworld but $0 expenditure by me so everything I make is pure profit. And let's say I bring this drug to market and I give it a very controversial price. Which is that I will cure you of Huntington's if and only if you pay me 1 million dollars or all of your worldly possessions, whichever is higher. Do you believe I should be able to do this?
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. My initial perception of Shkreli was the commonly accepted one of revulsion and hatred. After watching the Vice piece, plus a lot of Shkreli's finance talks and live streams, I find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent.
"Charming and unbelievably intelligent" are definitely fair descriptors for this man, just please bear in mind that these terms probably describe many other people who are also guilty of fraud. Sure he has his side. And yes he's probably been treated unfairly by the press. And no, he isn't guilty of all of the things people say. And yet none of that makes him actually innocent.
It's funny how incredibly susceptible HN seems to be to the smooth talkers.
Yeah, I know this person is technically being charged with being a Russian double agent and committing treason, but he just seems so down to earth, relatable, and smart! Swoon!