3 ms·

There was no campaign. Nobody met in a smoke filled room and decided they were going to ruin the guy's life. What actuallu happened was the guy was a douchebag,

There was no campaign. Nobody met in a smoke filled room and decided they were going to ruin the guy's life. What actuallu happened was the guy was a douchebag, and people called him out for it. HN is the only place I find people defending that guy. I suspect it's because this forum is full of douchebags who identify with him.

girvo 8y ago
You’ve never seen /r/wallstreetbets then
1000units 8y ago
Or maybe he is a peer of ours and we actually know something about him beyond ridiculous and disgusting media depictions. Here's a fun question for you as an HN'er: what was the name of Shkreli's pharmaceutical company?
- intended 8y ago
  Starts with R? Checks... retrophin. Shkreli was one of many finance types who have fully drunk the koolaid. He is not alone, and the others too would be prosecuted if people had the time and awareness to be incensed with the culture. In his defense, shkrelli didn’t know he was a tool. On the one hand singing praises of the free market and on the other taking advantage of every loophole someone could find. I mean the argument that “no body has to pay a dime more.” Is so patently ludicrous for someone who works in finance, that it can only be called disingenuous. The difference between HN and New York is that finance thinks it’s ok. HN was founded by people/culture who saw Wall Street as everything they didn’t want to be. (And now a sad reminder of how money changes perception)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Starts with R? Checks... retrophin. No. Starts with T. Turing Pharmaceuticals.
    - intended 8y ago
      Retrophin was his first pharma firm, the one he made after leaving his hedge fund. That firm later sued him. Turing was his second pharma firm. Made soon after his ouster/leaving.
      - 1000units 8y ago
        And it was Turing that raised the price of Daraprim, which earned Shkreli the attention and reputation still being echoed in this thread.
  - exHFguy1 8y ago
    Finance people don’t think this type of behavior is OK either despite the ridiculous views of some people here. BTW, I could similarly make ridiculous statements about technologists or scientists. I’ve worked number of places and can’t think of a single person out of hundreds that would think this behavior is OK.
    - intended 8y ago
      I know many those who don’t think it’s ok, and are bothered by it, and many who think he is stupid and didn’t do anything particularly wrong. The morality of it is separated from the legality of it. The defense on this issue is pretty clear cut, raising the price is not illegal. If there is something illegal, then it should be in a regulation somewhere. If he is doing something the market is open to, then it’s not a problem and he is doing a service by forcing the market or regulators to respond. Maybe he was a douche about it, but that’s a stylistic issue, not a practical one. He did get dinged for securities fraud, not price gouging as I recall.
tomnipotent 8y ago
Humans are complex creatures with many facets, and a crime and shitty PR doesn't change that. Most people don't defend criminals or unpopular opinions as to avoid alienation and judgement. Generalizing people or groups of people over shallow associations says more about the commenter than those commented on.

girvo 8y ago

You’ve never seen /r/wallstreetbets then

1000units 8y ago

Or maybe he is a peer of ours and we actually know something about him beyond ridiculous and disgusting media depictions. Here's a fun question for you as an HN'er: what was the name of Shkreli's pharmaceutical company?

intended 8y ago
Starts with R? Checks... retrophin. Shkreli was one of many finance types who have fully drunk the koolaid. He is not alone, and the others too would be prosecuted if people had the time and awareness to be incensed with the culture. In his defense, shkrelli didn’t know he was a tool. On the one hand singing praises of the free market and on the other taking advantage of every loophole someone could find. I mean the argument that “no body has to pay a dime more.” Is so patently ludicrous for someone who works in finance, that it can only be called disingenuous. The difference between HN and New York is that finance thinks it’s ok. HN was founded by people/culture who saw Wall Street as everything they didn’t want to be. (And now a sad reminder of how money changes perception)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Starts with R? Checks... retrophin. No. Starts with T. Turing Pharmaceuticals.
  - intended 8y ago
    Retrophin was his first pharma firm, the one he made after leaving his hedge fund. That firm later sued him. Turing was his second pharma firm. Made soon after his ouster/leaving.
    - 1000units 8y ago
      And it was Turing that raised the price of Daraprim, which earned Shkreli the attention and reputation still being echoed in this thread.
- exHFguy1 8y ago
  Finance people don’t think this type of behavior is OK either despite the ridiculous views of some people here. BTW, I could similarly make ridiculous statements about technologists or scientists. I’ve worked number of places and can’t think of a single person out of hundreds that would think this behavior is OK.
  - intended 8y ago
    I know many those who don’t think it’s ok, and are bothered by it, and many who think he is stupid and didn’t do anything particularly wrong. The morality of it is separated from the legality of it. The defense on this issue is pretty clear cut, raising the price is not illegal. If there is something illegal, then it should be in a regulation somewhere. If he is doing something the market is open to, then it’s not a problem and he is doing a service by forcing the market or regulators to respond. Maybe he was a douche about it, but that’s a stylistic issue, not a practical one. He did get dinged for securities fraud, not price gouging as I recall.

tomnipotent 8y ago

Humans are complex creatures with many facets, and a crime and shitty PR doesn't change that. Most people don't defend criminals or unpopular opinions as to avoid alienation and judgement. Generalizing people or groups of people over shallow associations says more about the commenter than those commented on.