|
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
By Jassik 2015-09-22 10:31:20
Hillary Clinton and Jassik can go buy the company together and give the drugs away for free then. Problem solved....
wait a tick...just how many parasites does jassik have!?
Naw, I don't expect it to be free. But a lot of the drugs that have seen insane hikes are older and generic. There's doing business, then there's profiteering.
so buy the company and sell the drugs for a modest profit...
do I have to think of everything!
and really dude how many freaking parasites do you have anyways
3, but 2 are Pugs and one has a diamond ring.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-22 10:32:04
Incidentally, it might not be the common people with the biggest target on Shkreli's head if it ends up being his actions that bring the business model crashing down due to government intervention. It's one thing having the public hate you, but it's another having the super rich holding you personally responsible for their losses.
I actually saw one of his tweets that was very, very accurate.
He said his job wasn't to please consumers. It was to please his shareholders and take public heat for it.
That's frequently why the various sports commissioners are so reviled yet keep their jobs for decades on end.
They get paid millions to be the public face of the owners and take the heat for the owners questionable/unpopular calls that pad their bottom lines.
I don't like it. But it is true.
They should also be criminally liable for the result of those actions. If they faced actual consequences for breaking the law on behalf of the shareholders, there would be some incentive to push back against them. We are criminally liable (and financially liable) for all of our actions as executives.
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
Dumbed down version of the law
Justice department deals almost always include immunity. Just because someone CAN be held liable doesn't mean they ever are.
By Jassik 2015-09-22 10:35:54
Hundreds of criminal investigations of companies resulting in THOUSANDS of charges and you think a half dozen or so executives getting charged means anything? The fact that you threw Madoff in there is enough evidence that you're just trying to pick a fight.
By Ramyrez 2015-09-22 10:38:41
They should also be criminally liable for the result of those actions. If they faced actual consequences for breaking the law on behalf of the shareholders, there would be some incentive to push back against them.
They're not breaking any laws.
I wish they were, but they're not. That's how the system is currently constituted. The question of whether I agree with you or not about what should be is not what we're discussing.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-22 10:39:45
Give us some examples then, instead of talking out of an orifice (your pick).
Please tell us what crime they committed, what charge was brought against them, and why they were not prosecuted....
Don't worry, we all know you won't do anything.
By Jassik 2015-09-22 10:46:21
They should also be criminally liable for the result of those actions. If they faced actual consequences for breaking the law on behalf of the shareholders, there would be some incentive to push back against them.
They're not breaking any laws.
I wish they were, but they're not. That's how the system is currently constituted. The question of whether I agree with you or not about what should be is not what we're discussing.
MANY are, including the GM executives who worked absolution into their bankruptcy deal prior to the DoJ's suits. They knew the defect had already caused deaths and acted implicitly to hide it while working protections into deals with regulators.
 Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11397
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-09-22 10:56:53
It is definitely a tricky situation trying to balance Pharma profits with R&D costs, but this jackwad Martin Shkreli is going about it in the worst way possible. That jackwad incured no research costs. He bought the drug.
 Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-22 10:58:50
It is definitely a tricky situation trying to balance Pharma profits with R&D costs, but this jackwad Martin Shkreli is going about it in the worst way possible. That jackwad incured no research costs. He bought the drug.
Did you miss our follow-up discussion earlier?
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-22 10:59:53
Still waiting Jassik
By Jassik 2015-09-22 11:01:23
I think someone is gunning to be the first victim of the new rule... Read my last post, then do a little research. If you want to participate in a conversation, you should have at least SOME idea what it's about.
By Ramyrez 2015-09-22 11:05:19
MANY are, including the GM executives who worked absolution into their bankruptcy deal prior to the DoJ's suits. They knew the defect had already caused deaths and acted implicitly to hide it while working protections into deals with regulators.
I was referring to this specific drug situation.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2015-09-22 11:05:27
I think someone is gunning to be the first victim of the new rule...
there are more new rules!?
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-22 11:05:56
I think someone is gunning to be the first victim of the new rule... Read my last post, then do a little research. If you want to participate in a conversation, you should have at least SOME idea what it's about. Isn't it the one who made the statement who should provide the sources, not the one who counters the statement?
Why don't you admit that you have nothing but fluff?
By Ramyrez 2015-09-22 11:06:44
I think someone is gunning to be the first victim of the new rule...
there are more new rules!?
Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory!
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-22 11:07:35
I think someone is gunning to be the first victim of the new rule...
there are more new rules!? It's the "Catch-all" rule which Jassik wants to abuse.
Quote: "Crappy posts are against the rules, even if they do not explicitly ‘break’ a rule. Don’t be a rules-lawyer. If you find yourself typing 'but what rule, exactly, did I violate', it’s this one."
This rule is very subjective in nature. By default, everyone has crappy posts.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-22 11:13:11
MANY are, including the GM executives who worked absolution into their bankruptcy deal prior to the DoJ's suits. They knew the defect had already caused deaths and acted implicitly to hide it while working protections into deals with regulators.
I was referring to this specific drug situation.
Naw, though a case could be made for profiteering or price-fixing.
Isn't it the one who made the statement who should provide the sources the GM executives who worked absolution into their bankruptcy deal prior to the DoJ's suits.
One VERY well documented and well known case that happened recently. They knew the defect existed, knew it had caused deaths, continued to install the defective parts in new vehicles, and knew that the DoJ would find out, so they worked immunity into their bankruptcy and bailout deals.
It's the "Catch-all" rule which Jassik wants to abuse.
It's specifically for situations where a poster is being unnecessarily aggressive or antagonistic.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-22 11:18:29
One VERY well documented and well known case that happened recently. They knew the defect existed, knew it had caused deaths, continued to install the defective parts in new vehicles, and knew that the DoJ would find out, so they worked immunity into their bankruptcy and bailout deals. Only thing I could find about that bailout deal was improper wages.
I'm sure you have some source that would specifically tie knowledge of defects and immunity of any legal action. Well, besides hearsay, I hope.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-09-22 11:18:51
It's specifically for situations where a poster is being unnecessarily aggressive or antagonistic. So, you then?
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-22 11:19:40
On the flip side, there was that recent case with the peanut butter execs who are getting plenty of prison time for the salmonella outbreak that they tried to hide.
By Jassik 2015-09-22 11:24:33
On the flip side, there was that recent case with the peanut butter execs who are getting plenty of prison time for the salmonella outbreak that they tried to hide.
Yeah, the guy got like 28 years for knowingly putting contaminated food on the market that lead to the deaths of like 9 people and hospitalized at least 700. That's a pretty light sentence for those crimes and it's pathetic that we're applauding that as justice.
By Ramyrez 2015-09-22 11:27:58
On the flip side, there was that recent case with the peanut butter execs who are getting plenty of prison time for the salmonella outbreak that they tried to hide.
Yeah, the guy got like 28 years for knowingly putting contaminated food on the market that lead to the deaths of like 9 people and hospitalized at least 700. That's a pretty light sentence for those crimes and it's pathetic that we're applauding that as justice.
My hang up there comes with knowing that if some crazy poor (monetarily speaking) guy knowingly tampered with a product on shelves with intent to harm people and was caught, they'd face some serious, serious sentencing. Way stiffer than 28 years in a likely-comfortable prison situation.
Edit: Frankly, I say they should have just made him eat the peanut butter and refused him medical care for any ensuing complications.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-22 11:28:32
On the flip side, there was that recent case with the peanut butter execs who are getting plenty of prison time for the salmonella outbreak that they tried to hide.
Yeah, the guy got like 28 years for knowingly putting contaminated food on the market that lead to the deaths of like 9 people and hospitalized at least 700. That's a pretty light sentence for those crimes and it's pathetic that we're applauding that as justice.
As one commenter pointed out in an article I was checking, when you're 61, a 28 year prison sentence is basically life.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2015-09-22 11:29:45
As one commenter pointed out in an article I was checking, when you're 61, a 28 year prison sentence is basically life.
Assuming he serves 28 years, and doesn't just do 5 and get paroled for good behavior back to the lifestyle he had as he squirreled away money every which way before going on the inside.
Crime/punishment/sentencing is completely broken in this country though. Something I think most all of us have agreed upon in principle, if not the specifics.
By Jassik 2015-09-22 11:29:45
On the flip side, there was that recent case with the peanut butter execs who are getting plenty of prison time for the salmonella outbreak that they tried to hide.
Yeah, the guy got like 28 years for knowingly putting contaminated food on the market that lead to the deaths of like 9 people and hospitalized at least 700. That's a pretty light sentence for those crimes and it's pathetic that we're applauding that as justice.
My hang up there comes with knowing that if some crazy poor (monetarily speaking) guy knowingly tampered with a product on shelves with intent to harm people and was caught, they'd face some serious, serious sentencing. Way stiffer than 28 years in a likely-comfortable prison situation.
Exactly. And, it's not like there's a considerable amount of doubt, they have copies of emails where he was informed of the contamination and told them to sell it anyway. If I worked in that warehouse, a few pallets would fall off the dock and I'd see a lawyer about wrongful termination.
By Jassik 2015-09-22 11:33:48
As one commenter pointed out in an article I was checking, when you're 61, a 28 year prison sentence is basically life.
Basically life? That's a windfall, plenty of people are charged with HUNDREDS of years in prison. In this case, he'd be eligible for parole as early as his mid 70's and probably get it because of his age and the nature of his crime. It's really irrelevant how old he is now, previous sentences are used as a precedent in a lot of future sentencing. This guy get's 28 years, so the next guy whose negligent actions cause the death of half as many people might get 10-12, paroled in 7, etc.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-22 11:34:56
As one commenter pointed out in an article I was checking, when you're 61, a 28 year prison sentence is basically life.
Assuming he serves 28 years, and doesn't just do 5 and get paroled for good behavior back to the lifestyle he had as he squirreled away money every which way before going on the inside.
Crime/punishment/sentencing is completely broken in this country though. Something I think most all of us have agreed upon in principle, if not the specifics.
Federal prisoners can't get parole, and there's no way he's only doing 5 for good behavior. It doesn't work like that.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-22 11:37:20
As one commenter pointed out in an article I was checking, when you're 61, a 28 year prison sentence is basically life.
Basically life? That's a windfall, plenty of people are charged with HUNDREDS of years in prison. In this case, he'd be eligible for parole as early as his mid 70's and probably get it because of his age and the nature of his crime. It's really irrelevant how old he is now, previous sentences are used as a precedent in a lot of future sentencing. This guy get's 28 years, so the next guy whose negligent actions cause the death of half as many people might get 10-12, paroled in 7, etc.
Yeah, quote your source that says he can get parole. I'd like to see how he magically bypasses the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-09-22 11:37:43
As one commenter pointed out in an article I was checking, when you're 61, a 28 year prison sentence is basically life.
Assuming he serves 28 years, and doesn't just do 5 and get paroled for good behavior back to the lifestyle he had as he squirreled away money every which way before going on the inside.
Crime/punishment/sentencing is completely broken in this country though. Something I think most all of us have agreed upon in principle, if not the specifics.
Federal prisoners can't get parole, and there's no way he's only doing 5 for good behavior. It doesn't work like that.
Early release. Serving half of a sentence for good behavior is very common. Federal crimes are generally served concurrently, but good behavior credit is compounded.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-09-22 11:39:25
Half of 28 isn't 5. And it's "very common" to serve a half sentence anyway? I see loads of hearsay and generalizations being spewed out today.
[+]
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|
