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

541–550 of 572 posts

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

#541

Post by arcticbull »

malandrew wrote: post #524
arcticbull wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, I think the challenge is around committing to a 50 year study that they won't cancel later in a discretionary way. > 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 So we are left with something people like and don't want to give up, and that's bad because... :)

> So we are left with something people like and don't want to give up, and that's bad because... :) ... other people are burdened with providing it against their will. A Southern plantation owner in the pre Civil War southeast US had something they liked and didn't want to give up and it was most certainly very very bad.

UBI is universal, everyone gets it. I’d wager if you asked slaves if they were enjoying it they’d say no. One of the many problems is they weren’t being asked.

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

#542

Post by arcticbull »

Scoundreller wrote: post #535
refurb wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a dumb take. Canada has a very cushy social safety net and still has payday lending with interest rates of 49%. And the alternative of having payday lending is no lending - that is, these folks would have no way of getting a short term loan. Is that better?

> Is that better? Usually.

Indeed if payday lenders are profitable then they are extracting welfare from the worst off.

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

#543

Post by cocoflunchy »

neurotech1 wrote: post #292

Let's not forget, these are the same consultants that did work for Enron, work leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.[0] McKinsey is also advising various government agencies on optimizing their Covid-19 response[1], generating revenue of $100m and counting. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Controver... [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-mckinsey-is-making-10...

You make it sound like it's bad thing to help governments optimize their Codiv-19 response?

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

#544

Post by account42 »

Supermancho wrote: post #532
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They dont need to be good, they need to have real competition and realisation that is they break the law they will be slapped hard Also, we wont have functional society without Dysney and Nestle? What, society will collapse if we run out of chocolates and movies? People won't have diabetes?

> we wont have functional society without Disney and Nestle? What, society will collapse if we run out of chocolates and movies? The breadth of these companies is almost immeasurable. Nestle owns an immense amount of resource rights (eg the largest siphon of natural water from the Los Angeles basin) and industry (#1 food producing company in the world). Disney is the leading intellectual property holder of the world.…

> Nestle owns an immense amount of resource rights

Natural resources won't go away with the company that has scammed society to gain control of them.

> Disney is the leading intellectual property holder of the world.

I'm sorry, but how is that supposed to be an argument that removing Disney would have negative consequences?

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

#545

Post by account42 »

malandrew wrote: post #523
TeMPOraL wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they had a basic UBI of, say, $20k, would they quit their job, and not look for work, not work on personal projects, not look to go back to school, nothing, just do what they are assuming others will do, sit around, watch TV, that sort of thing? Rather than keep striving, keep working, and have both an extra $20k being paid to them currently, and that safety net in place in case they lose their job? Depends on p…

There's also nothing stopping people from accumulating all the things they need for a pleasant life of leisure and hobbies and then once they achieve that deciding to freeload off UBI and enjoy those hobbies. I'm less than a decade out from having most of the physical belongings I need for the myriad hobbies I enjoy. Once I get there free time plus 20k a year will be more valuable than being a contributing member of…

Many hobbies produce things that are immensely valuable to society.

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

#546

Post by account42 »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #518
malandrew wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you design an unemployment/UBI system that provides an incentive not to use it unless necessary and not to stay on it any longer than is necessary?

Naval ravikant put it succinctly , the real issue is that once the 51% know they can vote to redistribute the wealth of the remaining 49%, then that opens the door to...well, the JRE clip goes deeper https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eHim7CMOZ6U

And this is supposed to be worse than 1% accumulating most of the wealth how?

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

#547

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Supermancho wrote: post #532
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They dont need to be good, they need to have real competition and realisation that is they break the law they will be slapped hard Also, we wont have functional society without Dysney and Nestle? What, society will collapse if we run out of chocolates and movies? People won't have diabetes?

> we wont have functional society without Disney and Nestle? What, society will collapse if we run out of chocolates and movies? The breadth of these companies is almost immeasurable. Nestle owns an immense amount of resource rights (eg the largest siphon of natural water from the Los Angeles basin) and industry (#1 food producing company in the world). Disney is the leading intellectual property holder of the world.…

So we fine Starbucks for tax evasion, they close shop and you think they will not he replaced by local businesses literally overnight?

'The brands are stable, so families are able to be stable and confident about the future.'

You mean zero-hour workers at Dysney, or warehouse workers at Amazon that confidently piss in a bottle?

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

#548

Post by refurb »

arcticbull wrote: post #542
Scoundreller wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that better? Usually.

Indeed if payday lenders are profitable then they are extracting welfare from the worst off.

Huh? If the poor by Apple phone is able extracting welfare from them?

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

#549

Post by refurb »

jdironman wrote: post #500
refurb wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why ruin this mans life with one murder? He's active in all sorts of communities and contributes so much.

This would be like throwing a murder’s family in jail too.

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

#550

Post by minikites »

nitrogen wrote: post #530
minikites wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought our government was supposed to be "of the people" (also known as a democracy). Maybe we should expand access to voting (e.g. easier to register, no-excuse mail-in ballots, adding polling places, making election day a holiday, and/or extending voting days). We could also address gerrymandering and other structural issues (e.g. some system other than first-past-the-post). Now think about which side wants to d…

Now think about which side wants to do this and which side wants to stop them. And then? Instead of lumping people into "sides" like some seem to want us to do because they benefit from conflict, we can ask "Okay, the party can't be reasoned with, but what about the people?" I'm not denying there are politicians and pundits and whatnot who do everything they are accused of. I'm saying we can try to ignore them and fo…

>"Okay, the party can't be reasoned with, but what about the people?"

I addressed this earlier, the people can't be reasoned with either, that's what I meant when I said that reasonable GOP politicians get labeled as RINOs and then lose their primary race to the more extreme candidate. In fact, here's a very timely example. Ben Sasse was punished for doing exactly that: https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1357675346062057472

These voters have an outsized effect on government because of the electoral college and the fact that we give more votes to empty land instead of real Americans who happen to live in cities. If we had a fair voting system, these views would be much less mainstream and taken much less seriously. It sounds counter-intuitive but you have to force these people to "be reasonable" by taking away their power if they're not.

>the people who follow them out of tradition but don't fully agree with them.

I think a lot of the voters in this category have left the party, so most of the voters left are the unreasonable ones. Sometimes people can't be reasoned with and the only option left is to limit the damage they can cause.

Post reply on HN