351–360 of 633 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good, more people should do this until it breaks and reforms. And not just do it, but do it with his face and smile. Because companies have been doing this for a long time, but there's no one to direct the anger onto.
You sound quite a lot like Trump. "Just let it fail..."
Earlier 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.
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.
What a horrible police officer right? There is no coming back from this...
In all seriousness I have a hard time blaming investor who had all rights to raise the price of his own product for whatever the fuck reason he wanted to, in a democratic society and on the free market that USA supposed to be. And thenof course then there is EpiPen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. But thing is, they are not actually equal on specialised matters? I understand that it works when you're dealing with things like murder. That can be relatively clear. But how about hacking? Securities fraud? Money laundering? Tax fraud? These are all highly specialised issues that the average person knows nothing about. No average person, unless they have an interest in it, will be able to make a good call on…
Just some clarification for those readers not in the U.S.. You as the defendant do not have to select have your case tried by a jury. You can select to have a bench trial instead. There is a presumption of innocence for the defendant, so the prosecutor has to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime in question. Juries find defendants not guilty more often then judges do. So if you want…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 com…
Is there such thing as a perfectly competitive market irl?
There's a canonical example used by the Mises Institute -- water after a hurricane. I watch a lecture half a decade ago. I don't have perfect information. Far from it. It was convincing. A stripped down model which made gouging look ridiculous. I think it's debatable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could argue that he hurt a lot of sick people by making it very difficult or impossible for them to afford the hundreds of percent price increases he laid upon the drugs he took control over. Edit: [0] "... it says that the drug is available for free to people with deep financial need. But Dr. Aberg has watched her patients have to "jump through the hoops" to get it. Patients have to prove both financial need and…
You have no clue what this court case was about, do you?
Raising the price of a drug though, as long as he can get away with it, is no crime, no matter how big the increase.
This makes me question though, did he raise the price of Daraprim so he could return money to the investors of his hedge fund?? If so, his entire defense (from his videos) of raising the price to meet his fiduciary duties to Turing's investors falls flat.
There seems to be a misconception regarding what Shkreli was found guilty of. The legal case here has very little to do with the pharmaceutical pricing controversy - it is a separate case based on a separate hedge fund that he managed. The gist of it is that he took people's money to start a hedge fund, lied to investors that the fund was doing fine when the hedge fund went belly up, but ended up returning everyone's…
>When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on that money. That will be a footnote at sentencing. Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or actual loss, whichever is greater . Further, the judge is allowed to take into account intended losses from his entire course of conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on which he was found guilty. In…
Q: How much time do you likely face?
Shkreli: Uh I'm guessing none on the short side 6 months long side
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…
> People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. I think the fact that he was acquitted on 2 of the 5 counts is evidence that the jury made a determination based on facts, rather than their feeling towards him. That being said, in a trial in the US, the judge applies the law, and the jury d…
Well, yes and no. They only bothered looking for his other crimes and prosecuting his because he became unpopular. That's disturbing.
What if I'm the victim of financial crimes by someone who didn't piss of Congress and the public? Where's my justice?
There seems to be a misconception regarding what Shkreli was found guilty of. The legal case here has very little to do with the pharmaceutical pricing controversy - it is a separate case based on a separate hedge fund that he managed. The gist of it is that he took people's money to start a hedge fund, lied to investors that the fund was doing fine when the hedge fund went belly up, but ended up returning everyone's…
If you owe the bank $1 million, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $1 billion, you own the bank.
They only convict the Martin Shkreli's and the Martha Stewart's. The people with real money are completely safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which happens because of power prosecutors have (ability to decide charge which makes all the difference - plea can make difference between a year and risk of 30 years in prison) which has little to do with jury vs judge. Majority of defendants deciding that they don't want to risk (or cant afford) a day in court is not an argument for that system.
It is a refutation of the argument that juries are bad because the US has a lot of people in jail, though.
They don't do that, they prevent pretty much nothing.