"Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli convicted of fraud

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nor should it be illegal to change prices to whatever the market will bear, but independent of that I am pleased that he got his just desserts.

[Flo 2.0]

     Nor should it be illegal to change prices to whatever the market will bear, but independent of that I am pleased that he got his just desserts.

This dude literally made it where people could not afford already expensive life-saving drugs and it's a pretty bad argument saying that it should be legal to do that when his actions could have (did?) resulted in the end of someone's life (due to costs), where previously they would have been okay?

There needs to be much stronger government intervention in the prices of pharmaceutical drugs, my friend, because, in my opinion, right now that industry is already grossly profiting off of human suffering and that is wrong.

I'm not trying to be all holier-than-thou but you understand my feelings here, my dude?

[JA]

     Nor should it be illegal to change prices to whatever the market will bear, but independent of that I am pleased that he got his just desserts.

Yes, it absolutely should be illegal. And, ideally, the prices for such medications wouldn't be set by for-profit companies in the first place.

[Santander]

He jacked up the prices, and within months, another company began compounding an alternative priced at $1 a pill. That is the free market and consumer power at work.

With that being said, I'm open to requiring some degree of price stickiness, such as requiring a 60-day notice before increasing prices on life-saving drugs, or allowing existing patients to fill their scripts at the old price for 60 days after a price increase for more "quality of life" drugs. That would competitors in the market a chance to react to the price increases before they happen, and give patients the opportunity to visit a doctor to perhaps modify their treatment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nor should it be illegal to change prices to whatever the market will bear, but independent of that I am pleased that he got his just desserts.

This dude literally made it where people could not afford already expensive life-saving drugs and it's a pretty bad argument saying that it should be legal to do that when his actions could have (did?) resulted in the end of someone's life (due to costs), where previously they would have been okay?

There needs to be much stronger government intervention in the prices of pharmaceutical drugs, my friend, because, in my opinion, right now that industry is already grossly profiting off of human suffering and that is wrong.

I'm not trying to be all holier-than-thou but you understand my feelings here, my dude?

     Supposing that the government exists as the ultimate arbiter of social responsibility, changes within the current system would be wholly incongruous. I can agree that corporations need to develop a sense of social responsibility, but forcing that down their throats through price controls does not address what is actually happening. This problem has an altogether different root that government action will never touch.

     That aside, what do you propose as an alternative to "grossly profiting off of human suffering"? Companies seek to make a profit for their services, and drugs are not cheap. Sure, there ought to be a means to provide important drugs to those who otherwise cannot afford them, but pharmaceutical profits are a necessity of life; moralizing over them is useless, just as it was useless for ancient peoples to moralize over mining.

     Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

[JA]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

[SoLongAtlas]

You can still make a profit off of a drug's prices to help with the R&D costs (one of the main drivers of cost) but there is absolutely no need to jack up the prices 5000% and laugh at people that will die because they can't afford it. When I heard about MS doing this some months ago it really ticked me off that someone would do this just for spite and greed and not a justifiable cost measure. Yes, some increases are justified, but rarely needed, and are used as a way to boost R&D recoup and for more marketing.

The govt absolutely should be able to stop MS hacks and stuff like the EpiPen markups from happening as well as a boost for generics. Just because you have price controls doesn't mean the quality will automatically fail which is where most conservatives are making a false equivalency.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

     The problem here is the supposition on your part that the interests of the capitalist system are at odds with the interests of humans and humanity. Sure anarcho-capitalism is not in the interests of people, but neither is the complete abnegation of capitalism. When you take on the attitude that the mechanics of the market economy can in any and every way be subjugated to your own goals, or that there can exist no solutions that respect the integrity of the market economy, or that feeling sympathy necessitates petitioning for the intervention of the government in whatever way someone else tells you is proper, then you have bigger problems.

[Santander]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

Woke up on the wrong side of the bed?

[JA]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

     The problem here is the supposition on your part that the interests of the capitalist system are at odds with the interests of humans and humanity. Sure anarcho-capitalism is not in the interests of people, but neither is the complete abnegation of capitalism. When you take on the attitude that the mechanics of the market economy can in any and every way be subjugated to your own goals, or that there can exist no solutions that respect the integrity of the market economy, or that feeling sympathy necessitates petitioning for the intervention of the government in whatever way someone else tells you is proper, then you have bigger problems.

No, the problem is still the worship of the market system and prioritization of the profit motive. Ideally, the workers themselves would have control over the entirety of the labor, production, and distribution process, thereby eliminating the element of profit altogether. But we don't live in the world of ideals. So, we must do what's second best, and employ the government to intervene, as the sole body capable of representing human interests against the power of capital, to prevent such escalation of price by absorbing the industry. I agree; let's not place an arbitrary cap on the profits of pharmaceutical companies, let's abolish their private profits entirely. Why? Because the interests of humans should always come first.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

     The problem here is the supposition on your part that the interests of the capitalist system are at odds with the interests of humans and humanity. Sure anarcho-capitalism is not in the interests of people, but neither is the complete abnegation of capitalism. When you take on the attitude that the mechanics of the market economy can in any and every way be subjugated to your own goals, or that there can exist no solutions that respect the integrity of the market economy, or that feeling sympathy necessitates petitioning for the intervention of the government in whatever way someone else tells you is proper, then you have bigger problems.

No, the problem is still the worship of the market system and prioritization of the profit motive. Ideally, the workers themselves would have control over the entirety of the labor, production, and distribution process, thereby eliminating the element of profit altogether. But we don't live in the world of ideals. So, we must do what's second best, and employ the government to intervene, as the sole body capable of representing human interests against the power of capital, to prevent such escalation of price by absorbing the industry. I agree; let's not place an arbitrary cap on the profits of pharmaceutical companies, let's abolish their private profits entirely. Why? Because the interests of humans should always come first.

     I knew you would make this point. These drugs are developed in pursuit of a profit motive. You seem to think that I am some Randian who fetishizes business for its own sake. I am not; rather I understand that people pursuing profits is why we have drugs in the first place and that profits are an important enabling factor of human innovation. I thought your original point was that dying of preventable illnesses wasn't in the interests of humans.

[JA]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

     The problem here is the supposition on your part that the interests of the capitalist system are at odds with the interests of humans and humanity. Sure anarcho-capitalism is not in the interests of people, but neither is the complete abnegation of capitalism. When you take on the attitude that the mechanics of the market economy can in any and every way be subjugated to your own goals, or that there can exist no solutions that respect the integrity of the market economy, or that feeling sympathy necessitates petitioning for the intervention of the government in whatever way someone else tells you is proper, then you have bigger problems.

No, the problem is still the worship of the market system and prioritization of the profit motive. Ideally, the workers themselves would have control over the entirety of the labor, production, and distribution process, thereby eliminating the element of profit altogether. But we don't live in the world of ideals. So, we must do what's second best, and employ the government to intervene, as the sole body capable of representing human interests against the power of capital, to prevent such escalation of price by absorbing the industry. I agree; let's not place an arbitrary cap on the profits of pharmaceutical companies, let's abolish their private profits entirely. Why? Because the interests of humans should always come first.

     I knew you would make this point. These drugs are developed in pursuit of a profit motive. You seem to think that I am some Randian who fetishizes business for its own sake. I am not; rather I understand that people pursuing profits is why we have drugs in the first place and that profits are an important enabling factor of human innovation. I thought your original point was that dying of preventable illnesses wasn't in the interests of humans.

And, obviously, I don't share that conclusion. Therein lies the fundamental disagreement between us. Whether you are a Randian or not (which I know you're not) is rather beside the point; the point is that you prioritize the profit motive. Let me frame the issue this way: if there was objective, empirical evidence demonstrating that the profit motive, when applied to pharmaceuticals, results in lower quality R&D than the industry without the profit motivate (such as nationalization), would you still prefer the for-profit industry? Even that'd still ignore the problem of access, which is equally important as innovation. And, more importantly, your conclusion makes the baseless assumption that the profit motive is the sole or even primary driving force behind human innovation.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

     The problem here is the supposition on your part that the interests of the capitalist system are at odds with the interests of humans and humanity. Sure anarcho-capitalism is not in the interests of people, but neither is the complete abnegation of capitalism. When you take on the attitude that the mechanics of the market economy can in any and every way be subjugated to your own goals, or that there can exist no solutions that respect the integrity of the market economy, or that feeling sympathy necessitates petitioning for the intervention of the government in whatever way someone else tells you is proper, then you have bigger problems.

No, the problem is still the worship of the market system and prioritization of the profit motive. Ideally, the workers themselves would have control over the entirety of the labor, production, and distribution process, thereby eliminating the element of profit altogether. But we don't live in the world of ideals. So, we must do what's second best, and employ the government to intervene, as the sole body capable of representing human interests against the power of capital, to prevent such escalation of price by absorbing the industry. I agree; let's not place an arbitrary cap on the profits of pharmaceutical companies, let's abolish their private profits entirely. Why? Because the interests of humans should always come first.

     I knew you would make this point. These drugs are developed in pursuit of a profit motive. You seem to think that I am some Randian who fetishizes business for its own sake. I am not; rather I understand that people pursuing profits is why we have drugs in the first place and that profits are an important enabling factor of human innovation. I thought your original point was that dying of preventable illnesses wasn't in the interests of humans.

And, obviously, I don't share that conclusion. Therein lies the fundamental disagreement between us. Whether you are a Randian or not (which I know you're not) is rather beside the point; the point is that you prioritize the profit motive. Let me frame the issue this way: if there was objective, empirical evidence demonstrating that the profit motive, when applied to pharmaceuticals, results in lower quality R&D than the industry without the profit motivate (such as nationalization), would you still prefer the for-profit industry? Even that'd still ignore the problem of access, which is equally important as innovation. And, more importantly, your conclusion makes the baseless assumption that the profit motive is the sole or even primary driving force behind human innovation.

     Full nationalization, as in only the government may perform R&D, is a non-starter for me. Now if federal entities can cheaply research a superior product, then they should do it. They could produce drugs to treat AIDS (and many other diseases) and sell them at cut rates. If they just did that then the greed of Shkreli wouldn't be a concern. The pharma companies would be under heavy pressure to cut prices, or else go out of business.

     It is obvious that there are many motives for human innovation, but raising the $2.6B that is typically required to research a new drug is somewhat easier if you can promise a financial return. I will conclude by suggesting that the conflation of profit motive with for-profit industries that you seem to be making is an incorrect one; rent-seeking is alive and well in many non-profit ventures.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Discussion and argument when the principles dividing the two sides are clear and unbridgeable strikes one as rather pointless.

[Badger]

Discussion and argument when the principles dividing the two sides are clear and unbridgeable strikes one as rather pointless.

Good point.

"Cathcon is an idiot."

End of discussion.

( couldn't resist)

[Kingpoleon]

Sure, I understand your feelings. I do agree that your goals are worthy ones. My problem is that I principally differ from the methods implied.

Indeed. Your first priority is quite clear: the preservation of private property rights, the profit motive, and protection of the allegedly "invisible hand" of the capitalist market system. The interests of humanity which, in this instance, are sufferers of AIDS, are at best of second priority to the preservation of the integrity of your beloved free market. Humans and human interests take a back seat to the profit-motive. If that's the philosophy you want to embrace, that's your business, but don't feign sympathy for those negatively affected by it.

Did you even read Santander's response? The prices being put so high created an alternative that ruined the company's profits thereof within months.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Discussion and argument when the principles dividing the two sides are clear and unbridgeable strikes one as rather pointless.

Good point.

"Cathcon is an idiot."

End of discussion.

( couldn't resist)

Your point? My detachment from reality is not a matter of debate here, nor is your insolence.

[KingSweden]

You can still make a profit off of a drug's prices to help with the R&D costs (one of the main drivers of cost) but there is absolutely no need to jack up the prices 5000% and laugh at people that will die because they can't afford it. When I heard about MS doing this some months ago it really ticked me off that someone would do this just for spite and greed and not a justifiable cost measure. Yes, some increases are justified, but rarely needed, and are used as a way to boost R&D recoup and for more marketing.

The govt absolutely should be able to stop MS hacks and stuff like the EpiPen markups from happening as well as a boost for generics. Just because you have price controls doesn't mean the quality will automatically fail which is where most conservatives are making a false equivalency.

Well put, VM, like always.

Should note that defrauding investors is still a pretty serious crime and it's good to see him go to prison for it.

[Kingpoleon]

Discussion and argument when the principles dividing the two sides are clear and unbridgeable strikes one as rather pointless.

Good point.

"Cathcon is an idiot."

End of discussion.

( couldn't resist)

Your point? My detachment from reality is not a matter of debate here, nor is your insolence.

For a cynic who doesn't care about anyone else or even himself, you sure are defensive.

[Badger]

Discussion and argument when the principles dividing the two sides are clear and unbridgeable strikes one as rather pointless.

Good point.

"Cathcon is an idiot."

End of discussion.

( couldn't resist)

Your point? My detachment from reality is not a matter of debate here, nor is your insolence.

Insolence? I'm really trying to find some Nuance where you meant that ironically. No one outside villains from b-grade movies or the most anal of assistant principals in the universe actually use that term.

Take a joke, dude