I entered a livestream question session with this clown and asked him his opinion on CRSPR tech and he replied "It has not future because 'it doesn't work'".. Thats when I knew he was full of crap
Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
451–460 of 633 posts
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things can be (and are) explained. Trials that contain complex technical violations tend to take longer, sure. Judges, expert witnesses, lawyers all spend a huge amount of time learning about/explaining these issues. It's especially incumbent upon the prosecutor to explain complicated issues -- if the jury can't understand someone's guilt, they are less likely to consider someone guilty beyond a reasonable doub…
Honestly, aren't you underestimating your own intelligence? Plenty of things can be simplified for non professionals, but the nuance of certain topics is then often lost. A single word in a written law can matter a lot. No disrespect to anyone, but can an average career teacher understand the nuances of securities law? Can (s)he understand the actual difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Some can, absolut…
Yeah, but judges are no better at interpreting the law many times. If you don't believe me, go read some of the decisions by americas Supreme Court. For example they said a man was black therefore no a man therefor he had no right to sue in court, which basically means no rights at all. How they missed the part about due process I don't know.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#453Jail time for Goldman/JPM execs: 0 and counting ...
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#454I wish people would stop using the word "modulo" like this.
It can mean "except for differences accounted for by" which I think is correct here.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The government likes to punish people for making them expend the time and effort of a trial While I understand why this is true, I hate it about our legal system. If you're not guilty then you shouldn't be coerced into a plea because of the draconian maximum punishment they hold over your head. This is evident nowhere more clearly than drug convictions, where they can lock you up for the rest of your life because y…
Prosecutors don't charge people if they aren't fairly confident that the evidence will result in a conviction. However they will also be willing to bargain for a plea to save the effort and expense of a trial. This lets them get more cases through the system in less time. They (or the police) might also try to pressure a suspect to confess, just to see if he will. That saves them even more time. So bottom line, you s…
> Prosecutors don't charge people if they aren't fairly confident that the evidence will result in a conviction.
Yes they do. They throw a huge array of charges, provable or now, at people with the intent to scare them.
Punishing people for refusing to plead guilty should be a crime.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#456Earlier 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...
"but he had a nice twitch stream" is just about the most absurd defense of someone involved in large scale corporate fraud I have witnessed in a long time
When the defense gets absurd, I go looking for the defender's agenda.
In this case, the original commenter wants to tar all centralized institutions as corrupt (congress, news, etc). His strategy is to paint Shrekli in the best possible light, to make him a martyr for the cause.
He even paints Shrekli as another Snowden:
> It exposes it. Not quite as monumental, but a Snowden moment. Remember, congress did squat about the price gouging, because that's what they get paid to do.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Without even any mention of what the manufacturer can do to cover cost increases? You really think it can be so simple?
I would suspect the vast majority of the cost of drugs is R&D, including the FDA approval process. They can factor that in on initial cost when they release the drug. The 10% is only for increases.
Hopefully instead of someone buying a drug that has already been released won't buy it because they can jack up the price 5000%. They would have to factor in the 10% rule when purchasing. Unfortunately this might lead to expensive release costs, but that already happens.
It might not be perfect, but 6000% increases because more yachts is a hell of a lot worse.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make money on a trade, someone else is losing money. That's nothing new. Where he went wrong is going into the healthcare space with that attitude. Shkreli thought that he didn't care about the bad PR it would bring him, but the microscope on him ended up uncovering illegal behavior.
I believe that's only true in flat or declining markets. Growth raises all boats, figuratively speaking.
Any time you buy, there's a counterparty selling, and vice versa. If they had not bought or sold on their end, they would have made the money rather than you.
That's all I was trying to say. Obviously this is simplistic and there are many reasons why someone might rationally be fine with being on the losing end- they might have something else better or less-risky to do with their capital, for example, or they might be a market maker that is not interested in holding anything long-term, etc.
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prosecutors don't charge people if they aren't fairly confident that the evidence will result in a conviction. However they will also be willing to bargain for a plea to save the effort and expense of a trial. This lets them get more cases through the system in less time. They (or the police) might also try to pressure a suspect to confess, just to see if he will. That saves them even more time. So bottom line, you s…
> Prosecutors don't charge people if they aren't fairly confident that the evidence will result in a conviction. Yes they do. They throw a huge array of charges, provable or now, at people with the intent to scare them. Punishing people for refusing to plead guilty should be a crime.
Example?
Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT: OK, nevermind, I guess.
>Perhaps that makes me a bad person. Not bad, merely ignorant. You're celebrating the incarceration of someone you presumably know very little about, all while searching for "true" victims ("perhaps the public?") to fuel your indignation.
I feel great. Shrekeli's a terrible person and I'm comfortable with him being held to account for his crimes.