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

McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 572 posts

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#391

Post by KoftaBob »

minikites wrote: post #378
KoftaBob wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know where to begin with this comment.

Name a big company or C-level executive that has faced any meaningful consequences for their misdeeds in the last 15 years. I can think of Bernie Madoff, but he was punished because he swindled rich people. If he swindled poor people he'd be on the cover of Fortune magazine.

I agree that big companies don't face meaningful consequences often enough for their misdeeds.

My comment was referring to your statement that if we did hold them accountable, the economy would fall apart.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#392

Post by bcrosby95 »

minikites wrote: post #369
omosubi wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Because people would actually be held accountable for their decisions? Shouldn't that be how it works to begin with? It would be painful in the short term but in the long term i think it would make people better off

I agree that it shouldn't be this way, but I remember 2008 and the fact that zero people were punished. The US government will protect corporate profits at all costs.

I agree, but I'm not really sure what that has to do with this:

> If big companies started facing consequences for their actions our economy would fall apart.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#393

Post by [deleted] »

bumby wrote: post #346
ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a very early P2P lending participant in the early days of Prosper Lending, I've seen the other side of this. Many borrowers adopt a mindset that they have earned the money they borrowed and don't feel that they need to pay it back. I came in to Prosper with a distaste for the apparent predatory lender tactics and came out with an appreciation that not everything that seems predatory really is. While there are plen…

> reasonably high APRs I think the disagreement may be on the definition of “reasonable”. Similar to utilities, I don’t think most people begrudge a company for making a “reasonable” profit. The problem sometimes comes when it starts to become unreasonable level of profit, predicated on lack of transparency and shady tactics

[deleted]

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#394

Post by bumby »

arcticbull wrote: post #376
lostcolony wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to. How many people have you met who were happy doing nothing, living with nothing, AND who made good employees doing anything at all? I've met exactly zero. The ambitious won't want to stay there; the unambitious may "unfairly" get their basic needs met, but they're hardly living the high life, and the lost -useful- labor to society is negligible. Almost certainly more than offset by the ambitious who…

This is in line with the results of Canada's early UBI experiments; substantially nobody left the workforce except to pursue liberal arts or stay-at-home parenting, both of which have intrinsic value. People are motivated by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including their social group at work, finding meaning in their lives through their work, and so on. UBI and unemployment isn't provide enough for…

I think the major fault with these studies is there participants know the benefits will end. I think this biases them towards continued working because they view it as a short term windfall that won’t sustain them rather than a long term solution. It would be incredibly hard to design an experiment to control for this.

Conversely, I think the hard part about implementing UBI is that it would be incredibly hard to roll back once people become accustomed to it

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#396

Post by lostcolony »

throwawayboise wrote: post #385
lostcolony wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do -now- about the ambitious people who live beyond their salaried means and end up being unable to pay the rent?

So what problem does UBI solve, then?

It guarantees a certain level of means. Obviously. It's not intending to address people who live outside their means; there are other controls for that. It's to ensure that a person's means is sufficient to cover their basic needs.

A person who is responsible with $10 a month may not be a credit risk, but clearly can't cover their needs; a person spending $10k a month when their job pays them only $8k is clearly a credit risk, living outside their means, despite earning enough to cover far more than their basic needs. You're strawmanning.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#397

Post by pessimizer »

tokai wrote: post #177
iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #93

The war on drugs is responsible for the opioid crisis. Companies psychopathically seek out profits, and need to be kept in check, but that does not diminish the fact that US (and Canadian) drug policy bears direct responsibility for opioid deaths. This kind of news story, while maybe satisfying, is a red herring. As long as addiction is criminalized, and legal drug supplies dont exist, it doesn't matter how many Purd…

The opioid epidemic was started by over prescription of legal opioids. The war on drugs is an inhumane disaster. But the opioid issue is on the US health system.

No. Addicts (after being tricked into addiction by the Sacklers and McKinseys of the world) without the war on drugs could continue to consume legal, clean opiates, which would fail to lead to fent overdoses, and fail to push users into grinding poverty and crime. Being a opiate addict would be like being an asthmatic, just without the high mortality rate that asthma brings.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#398

Post by foolinaround »

iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #93

The war on drugs is responsible for the opioid crisis. Companies psychopathically seek out profits, and need to be kept in check, but that does not diminish the fact that US (and Canadian) drug policy bears direct responsibility for opioid deaths. This kind of news story, while maybe satisfying, is a red herring. As long as addiction is criminalized, and legal drug supplies dont exist, it doesn't matter how many Purd…

since we are addressing the root cause in this sub-thread, i submit that we need to go one layer deeper than just the 'war on drugs'

what causes individuals to seek drugs or other harmful substances? Surely,similar substances existed throughout history? (maybe not as lethal, but still...)

I think it is the despair and lack of spiritual fulfillment for a person, and i think this coincides with what has been a failure in religions to make a relevant impact in individuals lives.

they have often made the situation worse by being judgemental further pushing said individual into this trap.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#399

Post by ipv6ipv4 »

bumby wrote: post #346
ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a very early P2P lending participant in the early days of Prosper Lending, I've seen the other side of this. Many borrowers adopt a mindset that they have earned the money they borrowed and don't feel that they need to pay it back. I came in to Prosper with a distaste for the apparent predatory lender tactics and came out with an appreciation that not everything that seems predatory really is. While there are plen…

> reasonably high APRs I think the disagreement may be on the definition of “reasonable”. Similar to utilities, I don’t think most people begrudge a company for making a “reasonable” profit. The problem sometimes comes when it starts to become unreasonable level of profit, predicated on lack of transparency and shady tactics

> I think the disagreement may be on the definition of “reasonable”.

Agreed. It very much does depend on the default rate.

FWIW when I now see 10%+ APRs on unsecured loans for presumably highly rated borrowers and much higher rates for riskier borrowers, I’m no longer shocked.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#400

Post by bcrosby95 »

leafmeal wrote: post #348
glaucon wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if I killed someone to get their wallet no one suggests that because I didn't get much out of the wallet it's OK for met to have a lenient sentence ? If McKinsey knowingly offered advice that led to thousand of deaths then the penalty should be more than $1200/body regardless of what their fees were.

What do you think an appropriate penalty is? When I first read this headline I was worried the fine would be just a slap on the wrist. I was glad to see it was more substantial. Personally, I think a fine like this is just if it causes consulting firms to think about the consequences of their actions and do the right thing in the future. Making firms responsible for damages they cause would be best. Making it it clea…

For basic fraud/bad behavior, off the top of my head, at least 5-6x what they made from it might be good. Anything involving direct, long term physical harm (such as death) needs a secondary penalty on top of this unrelated to profits made.

You have to account for not all of these schemes being uncovered. Then you have to add an actual penalty on top of it.

Post reply on HN