3 ms·

there are a number of famous criminals back in the game. Being infamous is invaluable on twitter: jordan belfort, Shkreli, billy mcfarland. Just get a twitter

there are a number of famous criminals back in the game. Being infamous is invaluable on twitter: jordan belfort, Shkreli, billy mcfarland. Just get a twitter account and sell the movie rights

pfannkuchen 2y ago
After listening to Shkreli talk for a few hours he seems like the sort of person who thought he was just being clever and it turned out to be technically illegal. As opposed to brazen criminality. I wouldn’t feel bad about hiring him (though would do some more digging first).
- shombaboor 2y ago
  in the long run it was probably good for his career. Everyone knows who he is. That type of PR/media awarenes/branding is worth a ton.
- tasuki 2y ago
  I think he paid his previous investors with money his later venture earned. This is illegal because it's stealing money from the latter venture investors. But heart in the right place, good intentions, imo.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    By this logic, Bernie Madoff has his heart in the right place, too.
    - tasuki 2y ago
      You're right I didn't phrase that well. The difference is that Bernie did only that, while Shkreli made enough money to pay all his investors...
      - seanhunter 2y ago
        Consider the following scenario: you have just been paid $1000 and you go to an ATM. A dude at the atm mugs you. He sees the big deposit that has just hit your account and says "tell you what, I'll only steal $900. Then you'll still be up $100 overall". You should be fine with this right? You still made $100. It's the same situation here. He took money that was due to one group of people and paid some of it to another group of people. This idea that if people make a net profit then it's basically ok even though he took some of their money is totally unsuported by the law for good reason.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Shkreli is a piece of shit. This is an example of his character: A new drug comes before the FDA for approval, and it is opened up for comment. Shkreli lodges an objection to approval of this drug. Why? Because it's unsafe? No - trials thus far have shown it to be safer than the existing drug options. Why? Because it's less effective? No - it's also been shown to be more effective than existing drugs. Perhaps it's more expensive? No - cost of R&D and production, and estimated retail costs are expected to be lower than existing drugs. Huh, odd. So why in this case would Shkreli oppose this drug getting to the market? The only reason he lodged an appeal with the FDA had nothing to do with the drug, but was because he and his company had just bought the patent to one of those 'existing drugs' referenced, and this new drug coming to market would crater the demand for his drug, and torpedo the profitability of his investment in buying the patent. Fuck Martin Shkreli.
Ajay-p 2y ago
Don't forget the most delusional of grifters: Anna Delvey

there are a number of famous criminals back in the game. Being infamous is invaluable on twitter: jordan belfort, Shkreli, billy mcfarland. Just get a twitter account and sell the movie rights

pfannkuchen 2y ago

After listening to Shkreli talk for a few hours he seems like the sort of person who thought he was just being clever and it turned out to be technically illegal. As opposed to brazen criminality. I wouldn’t feel bad about hiring him (though would do some more digging first).

shombaboor 2y ago
in the long run it was probably good for his career. Everyone knows who he is. That type of PR/media awarenes/branding is worth a ton.
tasuki 2y ago
I think he paid his previous investors with money his later venture earned. This is illegal because it's stealing money from the latter venture investors. But heart in the right place, good intentions, imo.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  By this logic, Bernie Madoff has his heart in the right place, too.
  - tasuki 2y ago
    You're right I didn't phrase that well. The difference is that Bernie did only that, while Shkreli made enough money to pay all his investors...
    - seanhunter 2y ago
      Consider the following scenario: you have just been paid $1000 and you go to an ATM. A dude at the atm mugs you. He sees the big deposit that has just hit your account and says "tell you what, I'll only steal $900. Then you'll still be up $100 overall". You should be fine with this right? You still made $100. It's the same situation here. He took money that was due to one group of people and paid some of it to another group of people. This idea that if people make a net profit then it's basically ok even though he took some of their money is totally unsuported by the law for good reason.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
FireBeyond 2y ago
Shkreli is a piece of shit. This is an example of his character: A new drug comes before the FDA for approval, and it is opened up for comment. Shkreli lodges an objection to approval of this drug. Why? Because it's unsafe? No - trials thus far have shown it to be safer than the existing drug options. Why? Because it's less effective? No - it's also been shown to be more effective than existing drugs. Perhaps it's more expensive? No - cost of R&D and production, and estimated retail costs are expected to be lower than existing drugs. Huh, odd. So why in this case would Shkreli oppose this drug getting to the market? The only reason he lodged an appeal with the FDA had nothing to do with the drug, but was because he and his company had just bought the patent to one of those 'existing drugs' referenced, and this new drug coming to market would crater the demand for his drug, and torpedo the profitability of his investment in buying the patent. Fuck Martin Shkreli.

Ajay-p 2y ago

Don't forget the most delusional of grifters: Anna Delvey