Interesting interview with Martin Shkreli
- Thread starter Mntneer
- Start date
You can see the passive aggressive nature in him by suggesting that they play chess during the interview. However he makes valid points.
I wonder how much of that is actually true though, because he pulled the 5th amendment on everything during the Congressional hearing. When he was asked about people dying because they couldn't afford the drug, he would have easily answered to Congress that if people contact him he will give it to him.
As much as I wanted to be able to hate him more and disagree with everything he said ... you are right, he did make some good points. If they do as he has said they are going to do and take Daraprim and make a better version of it ... then overall this would end up being a good thing.
And if it's true that they reinvest 60% to research ... also a good thing.
It's hard to take him at his word though when he wouldn't answer anything at all before Congress. Although I kinda agree with him there too, that they are all a bunch of idiots.
I wonder how much of that is actually true though, because he pulled the 5th amendment on everything during the Congressional hearing. When he was asked about people dying because they couldn't afford the drug, he would have easily answered to Congress that if people contact him he will give it to him.
As much as I wanted to be able to hate him more and disagree with everything he said ... you are right, he did make some good points. If they do as he has said they are going to do and take Daraprim and make a better version of it ... then overall this would end up being a good thing.
And if it's true that they reinvest 60% to research ... also a good thing.
It's hard to take him at his word though when he wouldn't answer anything at all before Congress. Although I kinda agree with him there too, that they are all a bunch of idiots.
Can't blame him for taking the 5th. He knew they were looking for anything to hang him over, what he should have done is not made Trump faces and looked like an ***. It was also surprising how simple his place looked while being stocked with some valuable items.
That, combined with the 5th, is why I find it so hard to believe him in this interview.
He's a douchebag millionaire that knows rules don't apply to him and doesn't care about those of us who work every day for things like health insurance and still can't afford some of the vital things needed to maintain ours and our families health status because of people like him and the greedy people in the health industry. Until disaster strikes you, or illness strikes you and your family, you will never truly understand the REAL cost of a healthy life.
I think is where there is a departure in ideals. It doesn't become the responsibility of those who have become successful to take care of those who aren't. That's not in the charter.
He's going to have a lovely time in jail with that wonderful attitude, those boyish looks, and his narrow hips. I advise him to invest heavily in Vaseline, he's going to need it.
I won't speak for others, so with that said: I don't have a problem with entrepreneurs making money and I don't view it as their responsibility to take care of others. What I do have a problem with is extreme price gouging on medicines that save peoples' lives. In the interview he basically admitted to price gouging and attempted to justify it in his mind by rationalizing that he was price gouging Wal Mart, et al. I don't have any problems with "reasonable profit". However, we all know that greed runs many businesses and they have no limits to their profits, just as long as they think they can get away with it. The media has already debunked the pharma myth that research is a huge portion of their industry's budget. And by his own admission, pharmaceuticals comprise 20% of overall health care costs in this country. 20 % is nothing to sneeze at; he tried to dismiss it as being insignificant. If I had something making up 20% of my overall expenses in my own business, you bet your *** I would be reviewing ways to cut that expense.
And who in their right mind finds it logical that folks can just call him up and ask for financial help in getting the drug. PUHLEEZ. He's just sitting around by the phone waiting on those thousands of phone calls.
I hope his little scooter catches fire.
Dog is he successful or a crook? Money and status don't necessarily mean one is successful. Prince Charles has both by an accident of birth. Is he successful in anything other than being born to the right parents?
If you want rags to riches, El Chapo Guzman is uber successful and he did it all himself. Is El Chapo being persecuted for being too successful? Or is he simply a killer who fought his way to the top to be able to profit on other people's misery, and is now facing justice? Shkreli is currently in trouble for profiting off the misery of others, the ill, by manipulating drug prices. To me that's very close to El Chapo in deeds, and those deeds make Shkreli a manipulative crook, not a success by any definition of the word.
If you want rags to riches, El Chapo Guzman is uber successful and he did it all himself. Is El Chapo being persecuted for being too successful? Or is he simply a killer who fought his way to the top to be able to profit on other people's misery, and is now facing justice? Shkreli is currently in trouble for profiting off the misery of others, the ill, by manipulating drug prices. To me that's very close to El Chapo in deeds, and those deeds make Shkreli a manipulative crook, not a success by any definition of the word.
My point isn't reliant on self made success or inherited success, it's actually completely irrelevant. Having money does not come with a requirement to take care of those who don't regardless of how you made it. It's up to each man to figure out if that is something he wants to do. In my opinion, owning a company and taking care of your employees financially and providing employment is enough beyond family. If you want to do more, great, donate as you desire. This belief that just because you are in the top 25% and have the means does not mean you have to take care of the 75% who don't. I hate the mentality that has permeated this country in the last 8 years. A false narrative has been sold to the point of vilification of successful individuals.
Regarding this guy, he is doing what he CAN do, and that doesn't always intersect with what you SHOULD do. I think he is likely a POS but right now there is no alternative.
Dog, we are nearly in agreement here. I deviate when wealthy or family owe more than 8 hours pay for 8 hours work. There is no obligation of any kind that people are worth more than what is agreed to and following legal practice. The only ones who earn exemplary pay are those who make contributions that are exemplary to the task. - and don't spread the word that someone is making extra.
Ya think? You're pretty quick at coming to conclusions and judging others' character. You have a gift of discernment (sarcasm).
That would take a while for all, but retain congress and he will get very little honeymoon. And Harry Reid will be committed by then. And, the "me to" republicans have been relieved of their conservative titles in most instances.
Not that I'll be voting for him but I think you all better start warming up to a Trump Presidency.
c
I've seen it. I'll believe it when it happens. If it does happen, you better be ready for another 4 years of gridlock.
Here is how he (Trump) fares against he other Dem candidate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#!
I believe when there is fair competition, there is no/little need for regulation. The competition will set the price. Obviously in this case, there is no competition. Like I said in my earlier post, I believe in "reasonable profit". A similar example would be: once the government hires a contractor to do a job and a change comes up, the government has a duty to negotiate the cost of the change and they seek what is deemed a "reasonable profit". The government has no desire to see that company go out of business and at the same time, they have an obligation to the taxpayers to see that they don't get taken advantage of.
Not sure how that is a similar example. And just so I'm tracking, you think it's fair for Gov't to limit the amount of profit between corporations? I understand your point as it pertains to Gov't spending, there is even FAR clauses as it relates to that. I don't understand how anyone could say the Gov't should have a say in what and a company chooses to setup it revenue and cost modeling.
I'll say this, it does become quite the conundrum now that Gov't is a consumer so to speak with the ACA. It will be interesting how this plays out.
I would warm up in an second to any one of the republicans, if they had Kasich as a VP or higher. BTW I have followed your posts, I respect your opinion.
I've gotta be forthcoming in saying, I think after the last 16 years it's time we go this direction. Who knows, maybe this will be the **** show that allows us to transform our gov't back to something that is actually for the best interests of the people, all of them, and not at the expense of the ones who can afford it or the ones working to make it possible for those who can afford it.
It will be an interesting thing to watch, that's for sure. Even more so when the extreme liberal left start exploding and spontaneously combusting the first time he puts them in their place.
Trump and Sanders are showing that people are sick and tired of the party politician. Even though Sanders has been in the Senate for a long time, he's clearly more of an outsider than even the young Senators like Cruz and Rubio. Both he and Trump are tapping into it.