4 ms·

I remember reading about EpiPen when they did their price hike. The main reason they were able to do it is the FDA had given them (intentionally or not) a de-fa

I remember reading about EpiPen when they did their price hike. The main reason they were able to do it is the FDA had given them (intentionally or not) a de-facto monopoly in the US. https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault Of course, we don't want just anyone to be able to package up anything and sell it (unless it's the nutrition industry, for some reason) but at the same time, the EpiPen business isn't good for the country either. What's funny, is this company did the same thing as Shkreli, but does their CEO get the same treatment?

artursapek 9y ago
What treatment? Nothing happened Shkreli in response to what he did with Daraprim. His criminal trial had nothing to do with it. That's a common misconception thanks to our bottom-feeding media.
- Clubber 9y ago
  His public and constant grilling by the media. You certainly didn't hear endless stories about "Pharma Chick," who is the good senator's daughter. I'm aware that the "Pharma Bro" was convicted of securities fraud after tripling his investors investments.
  - artursapek 9y ago
    Ah, ok, we're in agreement.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > I'm aware that the "Pharma Bro" was convicted of securities fraud after tripling his investors investments. "Well you see, your honor, I did try to murder the man. But I failed, and the half hour run he took trying to escape me kick-started a healthy lifestyle that added years to his life. So, I did try to murder him, but in the end everyone benefited." This post-facto justification is like something out of an SNL skit.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      While I agree with you, the problem is trying a person is at the discretion of the state. I suspect the state was motivated by Shkreli's public reputation when they otherwise wouldn't be as motivated to prosecute if it were someone else of lesser celebrity, particularly since the investment outcome was overwhelmingly positive.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        We agree. Perhaps our point of disagreement is this: I believe that justifying objectively blatant criminality via the "discretion of the state" defense is counter-productive to changing this situation.
    - artursapek 9y ago
      False equivalence. Shkreli's intent was never to lose these peoples' money.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        Fraud does not necessarily result in loss. Losses do not necessarily result from fraud. The whole point of fraud laws is to outlaw behavior, not outcomes. Ditto "attempted X". > False equivalence Fraud != intent to lose people's money was literally the point of my post.

artursapek 9y ago

What treatment? Nothing happened Shkreli in response to what he did with Daraprim. His criminal trial had nothing to do with it. That's a common misconception thanks to our bottom-feeding media.

Clubber 9y ago
His public and constant grilling by the media. You certainly didn't hear endless stories about "Pharma Chick," who is the good senator's daughter. I'm aware that the "Pharma Bro" was convicted of securities fraud after tripling his investors investments.
- artursapek 9y ago
  Ah, ok, we're in agreement.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > I'm aware that the "Pharma Bro" was convicted of securities fraud after tripling his investors investments. "Well you see, your honor, I did try to murder the man. But I failed, and the half hour run he took trying to escape me kick-started a healthy lifestyle that added years to his life. So, I did try to murder him, but in the end everyone benefited." This post-facto justification is like something out of an SNL skit.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    While I agree with you, the problem is trying a person is at the discretion of the state. I suspect the state was motivated by Shkreli's public reputation when they otherwise wouldn't be as motivated to prosecute if it were someone else of lesser celebrity, particularly since the investment outcome was overwhelmingly positive.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      We agree. Perhaps our point of disagreement is this: I believe that justifying objectively blatant criminality via the "discretion of the state" defense is counter-productive to changing this situation.
  - artursapek 9y ago
    False equivalence. Shkreli's intent was never to lose these peoples' money.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      Fraud does not necessarily result in loss. Losses do not necessarily result from fraud. The whole point of fraud laws is to outlaw behavior, not outcomes. Ditto "attempted X". > False equivalence Fraud != intent to lose people's money was literally the point of my post.