Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, as soon as you put a price on malfeasance, it becomes a spreadsheet decision for a corporation.
$573M for 450,000 overdose deaths. $1k+ per death.
Do you think this amount is high or low?
McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
481–490 of 572 posts
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think both sides are the same? Do you really think if Biden loses in 2024 he would call upon his supporters to attack the government? Do you really think that even if Biden did do this, that he would find dozens of supporters in Congress? Sometimes one side really is worse and acting enlightened by saying "both sides are the same" is becoming increasingly comical as empirical evidence continues to mount…
Who do you think destroyed this neutral space? Do you genuinely think both sides are equally at fault for destroying it? The question isn't who removed it, the question is who will restore it. What will it take to get human beings talking to each other again?
It will take the Republicans acting like adults. This is what I meant by both sides being different. The Democrats are interested in governing. The Republicans are not, because they detest the very existence of government.
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justice was not done in the case of Purdue. The Sackler family absconded with billions. They still need to be held to account.
It does seem a rather gaping hole in our legal/finance system that it's possible for a company to do a risky thing where the upside will occur soon, yet the downside will be delayed many years. Then the shareholders of the company can take out all the profits of the upside, walk away with all the cash and declare the company bankrupt when the downside happens. I think the only proper fix would be to disallow companie…
This doesn't make any sense. If the investors got money on the upside, they must've taken their investments out before the bankruptcy.
Then if the remaining investors pay the debts, they've also lost all the money they invested.
Where do you draw the line for investors responsible? Anyone who's still in? Whoever was ever in?
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like everyone is guilty? Not a very useful perspective imo
It's very possible for everyone to be guilty. We don't live in a world where if something isn't "useful" it isn't true. Your statement ends up reading sort of like "Is every Nazi guilty of the holocaust?" Technically maybe not, doesn't change the fact that of the matter that overall all Nazis are guilty. You can't run away from this with some garbage statement of "Not a very useful perspective." This incident literal…
I'm not unaware I have been very personally affected by the opioid crisis. And I don't think the pharma companies are responsible. I haven't met a single opiate addict (and I've met far too many for one lifetime) who blames pharma companies.
They accurately place the blame on themselves.
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#485I know someone who worked for McKinsey for a few years, and some of the projects he described were straight up slimy. The one I recall right now was helping a big payday lender (read: large scale loan shark) figure out how to get their money back from people who were behind on their payments. The problem was that they can only attempt to withdraw so many times from someone's bank before they're banned, so the agreed…
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…
yeah a lender trying to get back principal seems pretty ordinary, i thought the bad behavior is making it hard to pay down to drag out the interest payments.
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#486This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally responsible for this. All this settlement achieves is 'a cost of doing business', as they say. It's not punishment or deterrence. McKinsey and other companies like them will do similar…
From the New York Times article, "The amount McKinsey is paying is substantially more than it earned from opioid-related work with Purdue or Johnson & Johnson, Endo International and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, its other opioid-maker clients, a person involved in the settlement negotiations said" To me, "a cost of doing business" implies that they're making more money than it costs them. Here at least, that doesn't…
The EV is the payoff times the probability. If there were only a 10% chance of paying (for example) treble damages without admitting guilt, then a company would take that bet repeatedly and the wins would more than pay for the losses.
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both parties are bad because only bad parties can succeed in our bad system. Also because they're basically identical. They are ants contending over a postage stamp, on a continent of political possibility. The only thing we can expect them to do is what they've already been paid by lobbyists to do before. That's why CARES Act is more of the same, except worse, that we already saw in the 2008-9 "bailouts". The next t…
I agree with most of what you're saying. There's a huge space of possibilities that are completely invisible to the current system. But I disagree weakly with the second to last sentence, and strongly with the last sentence. The system we have cannot be changed via the methods it allows, however. Not all at once, that's for sure. But the right small changes early on can lead to very large changes later. Some of those…
Changes for the better will necessarily be extreme. If that weren't the case, we would have found a way to accomplish them already. Your "conservative" aunt won't like the changes we need any more than your "liberal" uncle will. News media firms are owned by people who like and propagandize in favor of the current system. It isn't important that all Americans like each other. In our current situation, 95% of Americans share certain interests even though they are culturally opposed. They could work together without liking each other.
After annoying powerful interests for decades, Martin Luther King Jr. finally tried to unite poor blacks with poor whites, not because they liked each other but because they shared common interests. He was assassinated within five months. TPTB can abide less racism, but not more class solidarity.
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
$573M for 450,000 overdose deaths. $1k+ per death.
Do you think this amount is high or low?
Can't speak for tkinom, but if you were friends with a thousand or two of those dollars, then you feel a punch in the gut. It's not so much "low" as it is "sad."
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justice was not done in the case of Purdue. The Sackler family absconded with billions. They still need to be held to account.
It does seem a rather gaping hole in our legal/finance system that it's possible for a company to do a risky thing where the upside will occur soon, yet the downside will be delayed many years. Then the shareholders of the company can take out all the profits of the upside, walk away with all the cash and declare the company bankrupt when the downside happens. I think the only proper fix would be to disallow companie…
This proposal seems to encourage "pump-and-dump" schemes to an even greater extent. Whoever gets left holding the bag will end up with shares worth negative dollars?
We saw last week how bad it is to hold excessively large short positions. This proposal would effectively make long positions have unlimited downside risk as well. I think it would have extremely deleterious effects on investment and the bad actors would still find ways to avoid the downside by leaving other shareholders holding "the bag."
Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source
#490This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally responsible for this. All this settlement achieves is 'a cost of doing business', as they say. It's not punishment or deterrence. McKinsey and other companies like them will do similar…
Wait. You want to destroy a $10B+ annual revenue business that does consulting across almost every industry because of this one project?
Edit: to the reply comparing this to murder, not it's not. And even if you do compare it, the court look at an individuals standing and contribution to the community all the time in sentencing.