Languish.org

Despicable  :mad:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/22/martin_shkreli_price_gouging_the_hedge_fund_bro_pulled_drug_price_hike_scheme.html

QuoteThat Guy Who Is Price-Gouging AIDS Patients Also Did It to Kids with Kidney Disease

By Jeremy Stahl

The former hedge fund manager whose pharmaceutical company has come under withering attack for allegations of egregious price-gouging on life-saving medication is the subject of a $65 million lawsuit by his former employer for alleged stock manipulation—and it turns out he once tried a similar price hike scheme with that company. During Martin Shkreli's tenure as CEO of Retrophin—the company that is now suing him—the company increased prices on a decades-old kidney medication by about 20 times its original cost, a move similar to the controversial price increase by his new company reported by the New York Times on Sunday.

Martin Shkreli's current company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, has been criticized by Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for spiking the price of a 62-year-old drug called Daraprim now used to treat AIDS patients. The price of one pill, which once cost $1, went up from $13.50 per tablet to $750 after Turing purchased it.

When Shkreli was CEO of Retrophin, the company purchased a kidney medication approved by the FDA in 1988 called Thiola and increased the cost from $1.50 per pill to $30 per pill.* That drug treated cystinuria, a lifelong disease for which there is no known cure and which afflicts about 20,000 patients in the United States. Forbes health care contributor Steve Brozak described the disease last year when news of the price increase broke:

Patients are usually diagnosed with the disease at a very young age and have an abnormally high concentration of an amino acid called cystine present in their urine. The excess cystine crystallizes regularly into stones that painfully travel through the kidneys, ureters or bladder. Imagine having a kidney stone form or pass once a month, tearing through your organs as it tracks its way out of your body.

There was no alternative drug for cystinuria sufferers, Brozak reported, and the 20-fold hike raised the price to about between $54,750 to $109,500 per year. At the time, Brozak argued that Retrophin was "turning patients into commodities like barrels of oil," while University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Associate Professor of Urology Benjamin Davies called it a case of "predatory capitalism on the backs of the sick and silent." Writing for Science Translational Medicine, pharmaceutical columnist Derek Lowe said the Thiola increase was the "most unconscionable drug price hike I have yet seen."

Shkreli is currently going on business news programs arguing for the current price hike on Daraprim by saying that it is necessary for future research and development. Last year, Retrophin made the exact same argument in a since-removed business presentation on its website to justify its price increase on Thiola, saying that it "plans to develop a long-acting version of Thiola® for once daily dosing." (In a hilarious and perhaps not atypical legal notice about the "anticipated development, timing, data readouts and therapeutic scope of programs in our clinical pipeline," the proposal warned "[t]hese forward-looking statements may be accompanied by such words as 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'forecast,' 'intend,' 'may,' 'plan,' 'project,' 'target,' 'will' and other words and terms of similar meaning. You should not place undue reliance on these statements.")

Retrophin, meanwhile, announced last month that it was suing Shkreli for more than $65 million in damages, alleging that he misused company funds to settle legal disputes against him and hedge funds he ran. Bloomberg Business reported at the time that Shkreli was "the target of investor lawsuits over his trading in Retrophin stock, and the company has said it received a subpoena tied to a probe by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, New York." The company claimed that the government had asked for information about Shkreli. It also alleged that through "sham consulting agreements" and stock manipulation schemes, he had fraudulently obtained more than $5.6 million in cash and $59 million in Retrophin stock from the company.

Shkreli told Bloomberg that the lawsuit was "baseless and meritless" and called the suit "preposterous" in an interview with Forbes. He also went on Twitter at the time of the lawsuit seeming to threaten a $150 million countersuit, saying "yeah whatever," and citing Wu-Tang Clan.

i am not the one to fuck with #wutang

— Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) August 17, 2015

Guillotine?  No, no, capitalism rocks.

Well, he has just been doxxed by hackers, but I hope this is just the beginning. I hope he will be hounded till he commits suicide.

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 01:14:18 AM
Well, he has just been doxxed by hackers, but I hope this is just the beginning. I hope he will be hounded till he commits suicide.

That's just a patch on a very broken system. Healthcare in the US (even with Obamacare) is completely borked.

Systemic reforms are needed but some tarring and feathering could be brought back again. In the past the societies were more lawless but social ostracism played a larger role too. In this global age the regulations and laws are not there but social ostracism has also grown much less powerful - we need Anonymous or Arrow to bridge that gap.

There should be legal ramifications for such villainy.

Cyber lynch mobs aren't a solution for anything.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 24, 2015, 02:52:14 AM
There should be legal ramifications for such villainy.

Cyber lynch mobs aren't a solution for anything.

I think he should be made an example of, so that everyone else is dead afraid of ever pulling something like this off in future. I am not sure this can be done within the framework of our legal system, so I am willing to accept an out-of-the-box solution this time.

Ugh. I really hate how this is going to put a squeeze on the pharma industry in general (as the story has always been that prices are too high and this is now a perfect example for hysterics) and the bastard didn't even have the guts to stay with his ridiculous move.

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:24:02 AM
Ugh. I really hate how this is going to put a squeeze on the pharma industry in general (as the story has always been that prices are too high and this is now a perfect example for hysterics) and the bastard didn't even have the guts to stay with his ridiculous move.

Poor pharma industry.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 03:25:22 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:24:02 AM
Ugh. I really hate how this is going to put a squeeze on the pharma industry in general (as the story has always been that prices are too high and this is now a perfect example for hysterics) and the bastard didn't even have the guts to stay with his ridiculous move.

Poor pharma industry.  :rolleyes:

I know nothing of the details of its workings but I am pretty sure it requires a lot of effort, learning, brains, and equipment to do pharma research. There have to be dividents, otherwise those people would leave their beneficial roles and careers and switch to something that just leeches on society. Might even sunk as low as becoming lawyers.

Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2015, 03:52:37 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 03:25:22 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:24:02 AM
Ugh. I really hate how this is going to put a squeeze on the pharma industry in general (as the story has always been that prices are too high and this is now a perfect example for hysterics) and the bastard didn't even have the guts to stay with his ridiculous move.

Poor pharma industry.  :rolleyes:

I know nothing of the details of its workings but I am pretty sure it requires a lot of effort, learning, brains, and equipment to do pharma research. There have to be dividents, otherwise those people would leave their beneficial roles and careers and switch to something that just leeches on society. Might even sunk as low as becoming lawyers.

:hug:

And Mart, why would I want pharma squeezed? One of the first things they slash to barebones is MR budget and that is not good for me!

Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2015, 03:52:37 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 03:25:22 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:24:02 AM
Ugh. I really hate how this is going to put a squeeze on the pharma industry in general (as the story has always been that prices are too high and this is now a perfect example for hysterics) and the bastard didn't even have the guts to stay with his ridiculous move.

Poor pharma industry.  :rolleyes:

I know nothing of the details of its workings but I am pretty sure it requires a lot of effort, learning, brains, and equipment to do pharma research. There have to be dividents, otherwise those people would leave their beneficial roles and careers and switch to something that just leeches on society. Might even sunk as low as becoming lawyers.

:rolleyes:

Actually, lawyers' fees are a significant part of big pharma costs.  :P

The problem here, rather than one of the pharma industry per se, seems to be of business practices at the management level and lack of regulation. For what I read, this drug's patent has ended, and in other countries it is available at very low prices (less than 1 dollar per pill in the UK, for instance, with some Indian generics being as low as a few cents per pill). How in the US a company can rampantly hike the price with no consequences after acquiring the rights to produce it is a matter for regulators.

Then what stops the patients from buying the drugs from elsewhere? :unsure:

Quote from: Monoriu on September 24, 2015, 05:18:41 AM
Then what stops the patients from buying the drugs from elsewhere? :unsure:

The drug market is extremely regulated in some aspects, and buying foreign drugs is normally impossible through legal means. Even in the EU this is something very controlled.

Yeah, it is fairly idiotic. For example, I remember some people being charged in Poland with directly importing a drug (without a license to do so) for private use when the national healthcare system ran out of it.

Generally, I think that in terms of patents and IP protection, we should just do away with territorial licensing. Any license or right should be global.

He should be able to charge whatever he wants for the drug. If the price is too high then he'll get competition. He is right - there's shit in toxoplasmosis drug research because the market is nonexistent. If it's lucrative you'll get companies developing alternatives that are more efficacious or have less side effects.

Anyway, daraprim isn't necessary to treat toxoplasmosis in HIV/AIDS patients. There is already a cheap and equally efficacious alternative called Bactrim (available for $4/month) but the outrage-journalism complex always needs to be upset at something. No one would ever have to pay $750/pill in the real world. Those calling for a lynching - looking at you Marty - should really be ashamed of themselves.

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 04:13:49 AM

Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2015, 03:52:37 AM

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 03:25:22 AM

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:24:02 AM
Ugh. I really hate how this is going to put a squeeze on the pharma industry in general (as the story has always been that prices are too high and this is now a perfect example for hysterics) and the bastard didn't even have the guts to stay with his ridiculous move.

Poor pharma industry.  :rolleyes:

I know nothing of the details of its workings but I am pretty sure it requires a lot of effort, learning, brains, and equipment to do pharma research. There have to be dividents, otherwise those people would leave their beneficial roles and careers and switch to something that just leeches on society. Might even sunk as low as becoming lawyers.

:rolleyes:

Actually, lawyers' fees are a significant part of big pharma costs.  :P

We should take to twitter and facebook and shame lawyers into lowering their fees. $500/hour? Why should you get that when Bubba makes $8.5/hour at McDonalds? Is your contribution to society 5800% more than a fast food worker? I bet orphan drugs and the regulatory system would be less expensive if we weren't always worried about the next predatory lawsuit around the corner.

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 07:21:34 AM
He should be able to charge whatever he wants for the drug. If the price is too high then he'll get competition.

That argument only holds water if there is free market competition.  It seems to be a bit of a dubious proposition in a case where there is one producer, very high barriers to entry, inelastic demand from consumers, and third-party payer.  It may be that you're still right, and I agree that journalists can be trusted to essentially lie in order to create an outrage, but that's an awful lot of assumptions you're violating here.

Quote from: Monoriu on September 24, 2015, 05:18:41 AM
Then what stops the patients from buying the drugs from elsewhere? :unsure:

The regulations, of which there is not enough according to Larch :P

Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2015, 07:40:32 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on September 24, 2015, 05:18:41 AM
Then what stops the patients from buying the drugs from elsewhere? :unsure:

The regulations, of which there is not enough according to Larch :P

Of course. I don't want my drugs being manufactured by some shady Chinese company, like most that are sold online. It's a matter of public health. The regulations that would need to be applied in the US case have to deal with healthcare pricing (a notorious issue over there), not with access to the market. And as Fate said, there are already alternatives.

Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2015, 07:37:56 AM

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 07:21:34 AM
He should be able to charge whatever he wants for the drug. If the price is too high then he'll get competition.

That argument only holds water if there is free market competition.  It seems to be a bit of a dubious proposition in a case where there is one producer, very high barriers to entry, inelastic demand from consumers, and third-party payer.  It may be that you're still right, and I agree that journalists can be trusted to essentially lie in order to create an outrage, but that's an awful lot of assumptions you're violating here.

Who determines what the price should be? The drug is long off patent. Any drug company could decide tomorrow to apply for permission to manufacture the drug. Our asshole hedge fund manager is able to get away with a price hike because it's not profitable for any other company to get into the market.

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 07:48:29 AM
Who determines what the price should be? The drug is long off patent. Any drug company could decide tomorrow to apply for permission to manufacture the drug. Our asshole hedge fund manager is able to get away with a price hike because it's not profitable for any other company to get into the market.

I've read that generic makers can't get their hands on the drug, because its distribution is tightly controlled.  Is that true?

Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2015, 07:55:56 AM

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 07:48:29 AM
Who determines what the price should be? The drug is long off patent. Any drug company could decide tomorrow to apply for permission to manufacture the drug. Our asshole hedge fund manager is able to get away with a price hike because it's not profitable for any other company to get into the market.

I've ready that generic makers can't get their hands on the drug, because its distribution is tightly controlled.  Is that true?

Sure, that aspect seems to be true if you want a stateside supply of the drug. But there's no reason a competitor couldn't buy a boat load of the drug from Europe for cheap and use that to reverse engineer the product.

The major hurdle would be R&D, regulatory approval, manufacturing design and development, regulatory approval of manufacturing, production, and packaging/distribution.

Again, who determines what the price should be?

I don't understand why competition is impossible, and if it is then customers should be happy that there is one supplier instead of zero. I don't see why pharma companies should do welfare, surely that's for states and non-profits.

Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 08:07:27 AM
Again, who determines what the price should be?

Angry mobs. The same people who historically determined food prices.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

I believe it is in Canada.  We probably can't hope to match their prodigious output of world-changing drugs though.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

Yup. Healthcare and education should be non-for-profit.

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 08:07:27 AM
Again, who determines what the price should be?

Antitrust authorities. For the last century or so.

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 01:46:00 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

Yup. Healthcare and education should be non-for-profit.

Sorry, you guys lost the Cold War.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 01:44:38 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

I believe it is in Canada.  We probably can't hope to match their prodigious output of world-changing drugs though.

It isn't, but I imagine you think a comparison of two countries, one of which has less than 1/10th the people and is devoid of the established infrastructure built up over a century of pharmaceutical research, is a good one?

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 01:46:00 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

Yup. Healthcare and education should be non-for-profit.

Law should be not-for-profit as well.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 01:44:38 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

I believe it is in Canada.  We probably can't hope to match their prodigious output of world-changing drugs though.

You should ask the good people at the Canadian pharmacy industry group about how many "world-changing drugs" are invented in Canada.

http://canadapharma.org/

:mad:

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 01:55:09 PM

Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2015, 01:46:00 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

Yup. Healthcare and education should be non-for-profit.

Law should be not-for-profit as well.

I agree.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 01:44:38 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

I believe it is in Canada.  We probably can't hope to match their prodigious output of world-changing drugs though.

No, it isn't. Drugs are very much a "for profit" capitalist industry in Canada.

Patented drug prices are subject to a price control mechanism. However, in reality, this mechanism has less and less relevance to actual drug pricing, because a large part of the market is covered by public insurance reimbursement - and the public insurers use their awesome bargaining power to muscle companies into giving them big discounts.

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 08:07:27 AM
Sure, that aspect seems to be true if you want a stateside supply of the drug. But there's no reason a competitor couldn't buy a boat load of the drug from Europe for cheap and use that to reverse engineer the product.

The major hurdle would be R&D, regulatory approval, manufacturing design and development, regulatory approval of manufacturing, production, and packaging/distribution.

Again, who determines what the price should be?

The issue Dguller is referring to is the impossibility of actually getting regulatory approval for a generic.  The FDA requires you to use actual, approved drugs in efficacy trials.  They do not require anyone to actually sell you those drugs.  Since Turing has set up a sole-source distribution chain, they can just tell anyone trying to create a competing generic to get fucked.

Now, the FTC may see things differently.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 24, 2015, 02:11:40 PM

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 08:07:27 AM
Sure, that aspect seems to be true if you want a stateside supply of the drug. But there's no reason a competitor couldn't buy a boat load of the drug from Europe for cheap and use that to reverse engineer the product.

The major hurdle would be R&D, regulatory approval, manufacturing design and development, regulatory approval of manufacturing, production, and packaging/distribution.

Again, who determines what the price should be?

The issue Dguller is referring to is the impossibility of actually getting regulatory approval for a generic.  The FDA requires you to use actual, approved drugs in efficacy trials.  They do not require anyone to actually sell you those drugs.  Since Turing has set up a sole-source distribution chain, they can just tell anyone trying to create a competing generic to get fucked.

Now, the FTC may see things differently.

Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in this case? Are you sure you can't base the effiacy trial from an approved European producer?

The drug was available via wholesale distribution for decades (until 9/11/2015) and no other pharmaceutical companies opted to go through the regulatory burden of obtaining the ability to produce this unprofitable drug. Let's kill all of the lawyers and lower the barrier to entry so that we don't end up forcing the single remaning manufacturer to act as a charity.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:54:47 PM
It isn't, but I imagine you think a comparison of two countries, one of which has less than 1/10th the people and is devoid of the established infrastructure built up over a century of pharmaceutical research, is a good one?

You should imagine I think Canada should produce 1/10 the new drugs the US does, everything else being equal.

I tend to see the absence of "established infrastructure" support for my point.  In the absence of a profit motive the tendency will be to free ride.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 02:42:28 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:54:47 PM
It isn't, but I imagine you think a comparison of two countries, one of which has less than 1/10th the people and is devoid of the established infrastructure built up over a century of pharmaceutical research, is a good one?

You should imagine I think Canada should produce 1/10 the new drugs the US does, everything else being equal.

I tend to see the absence of "established infrastructure" support for my point.  In the absence of a profit motive the tendency will be to free ride.

Once again, pharma is for-profit in Canada.

You didn't add an eh so it didn't count.

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 02:09:39 PM
Patented drug prices are subject to a price control mechanism. However, in reality, this mechanism has less and less relevance to actual drug pricing, because a large part of the market is covered by public insurance reimbursement - and the public insurers use their awesome bargaining power to muscle companies into giving them big discounts.

Which just means there is a lot of free ridership off of markets like the US where companies stand to make sizable profits.

After all, if all markets were like the UK - there would certainly be little incentive to be quick to innovate in say the biologic space given that the NHS wasn't really too keen on footing the bill until much cheaper biosimilars became available.

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:01:59 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 02:42:28 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:54:47 PM
It isn't, but I imagine you think a comparison of two countries, one of which has less than 1/10th the people and is devoid of the established infrastructure built up over a century of pharmaceutical research, is a good one?

You should imagine I think Canada should produce 1/10 the new drugs the US does, everything else being equal.

I tend to see the absence of "established infrastructure" support for my point.  In the absence of a profit motive the tendency will be to free ride.

Once again, pharma is for-profit in Canada.

Its funny because voters like Yi reject the Canadian health care model and apparently have no idea what they are talking about.

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:09:55 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 02:09:39 PM
Patented drug prices are subject to a price control mechanism. However, in reality, this mechanism has less and less relevance to actual drug pricing, because a large part of the market is covered by public insurance reimbursement - and the public insurers use their awesome bargaining power to muscle companies into giving them big discounts.

Which just means there is a lot of free ridership off of markets like the US where companies stand to make sizable profits.

No, it means that if purchasers of the drugs were more intelligent about bargaining with the pharma companies the price would reflect that fact.  Fate asked the right question.  Who determines the price?  The willing purchaser does.  Canadian provinces are just smarter about driving hard bargains with all drug companies.

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2015, 03:12:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:09:55 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 02:09:39 PM
Patented drug prices are subject to a price control mechanism. However, in reality, this mechanism has less and less relevance to actual drug pricing, because a large part of the market is covered by public insurance reimbursement - and the public insurers use their awesome bargaining power to muscle companies into giving them big discounts.

Which just means there is a lot of free ridership off of markets like the US where companies stand to make sizable profits.

No, it means that if purchasers of the drugs were more intelligent about bargaining with the pharma companies the price would reflect that fact.  Fate asked the right question.  Who determines the price?  The willing purchaser does.  Canadian provinces are just smarter about driving hard bargains with all drug companies.

Yeah because spending a lot of capital on innovative research would be a good move for pharma companies if their profit margins were sharply curtailed across the globe.

Quote from: Fate on September 24, 2015, 02:32:15 PM
Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in this case?

Not as yet.

QuoteAre you sure you can't base the effiacy trial from an approved European producer?

My understanding of the bioequivalence trial requirements is that if the source is not FDA-approved, it doesn't count.  My understanding of the import regulations is that an FDA-approved foreign manufacturer is free to sell drugs to US distributors.  Thus, if there were already FDA-approved European suppliers Turing wouldn't have a sole-source position to begin with.

QuoteThe drug was available via wholesale distribution for decades (until 9/11/2015) and no other pharmaceutical companies opted to go through the regulatory burden of obtaining the ability to produce this unprofitable drug. Let's kill all of the lawyers and lower the barrier to entry so that we don't end up forcing the single remaning manufacturer to act as a charity.

Understandable, but the previous de facto monopoly holder was not trying to abuse the position; the new one is.  In fact, I could ask you why GSK was selling the drug for so many years at an unprofitable price point, if it really was so terribly cheap to begin with.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 02:42:28 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:54:47 PM
It isn't, but I imagine you think a comparison of two countries, one of which has less than 1/10th the people and is devoid of the established infrastructure built up over a century of pharmaceutical research, is a good one?

You should imagine I think Canada should produce 1/10 the new drugs the US does, everything else being equal.

I tend to see the absence of "established infrastructure" support for my point.  In the absence of a profit motive the tendency will be to free ride.

The US became a center of pharma research.  Why?  I don't know, although I doubt it had a lot to do with major differences between America and Canada circa 1920.  Meanwhile, you might as well wonder why Canada never developed, say, a massive steel export industry, or a major aircraft industry, or a Hollywood.  The answer is other trading partners were first to develop those, and Canadians generally focused on what they could be best.

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 03:32:30 PM
The US became a center of pharma research.  Why?  I don't know, although I doubt it had a lot to do with major differences between America and Canada circa 1920.  Meanwhile, you might as well wonder why Canada never developed, say, a massive steel export industry, or a major aircraft industry, or a Hollywood.  The answer is other trading partners were first to develop those, and Canadians generally focused on what they could be best.

The answer is actually pretty simple. And you are correct. Canadian politicians of the day thought that creating a branch plant economy closely connected with the US would be the most beneficial model.  Not so much these days.  But that is the historical explanation.

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:01:59 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 02:42:28 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:54:47 PM
It isn't, but I imagine you think a comparison of two countries, one of which has less than 1/10th the people and is devoid of the established infrastructure built up over a century of pharmaceutical research, is a good one?

You should imagine I think Canada should produce 1/10 the new drugs the US does, everything else being equal.

I tend to see the absence of "established infrastructure" support for my point.  In the absence of a profit motive the tendency will be to free ride.

Once again, pharma is for-profit in Canada.

It's probably why it's so small and devoid of innovation. :(

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 03:36:37 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:01:59 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 02:42:28 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:54:47 PM
It isn't, but I imagine you think a comparison of two countries, one of which has less than 1/10th the people and is devoid of the established infrastructure built up over a century of pharmaceutical research, is a good one?

You should imagine I think Canada should produce 1/10 the new drugs the US does, everything else being equal.

I tend to see the absence of "established infrastructure" support for my point.  In the absence of a profit motive the tendency will be to free ride.

Once again, pharma is for-profit in Canada.

It's probably why it's so small and devoid of innovation. :(

Some of it develops first within our public university system first so that ought to make you happy.

:)

Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2015, 03:09:55 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 02:09:39 PM
Patented drug prices are subject to a price control mechanism. However, in reality, this mechanism has less and less relevance to actual drug pricing, because a large part of the market is covered by public insurance reimbursement - and the public insurers use their awesome bargaining power to muscle companies into giving them big discounts.

Which just means there is a lot of free ridership off of markets like the US where companies stand to make sizable profits.

After all, if all markets were like the UK - there would certainly be little incentive to be quick to innovate in say the biologic space given that the NHS wasn't really too keen on footing the bill until much cheaper biosimilars became available.

The markets in the US are different in a bunch of ways from Canada, but it has nothing to do with "free riders".  :lol: The public insurers for the larger provinces are just bigger than most private insurers, and thus able to get better prices because they can deliver volume.

That's how the markets work anywhere.

Private insurers are clamoring for rebates, too, but at least in Canada they lack the muscle to obtain them from manufacturers. Instead, the private insurers are turning on pharmacies - by putting together "preferred provider networks" whereby pharmacy chains agree to giving the insurers a slice in return for reimbursement exclusivity on high-priced drugs.

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
The markets in the US are different in a bunch of ways from Canada, but it has nothing to do with "free riders".  :lol:

It has everything to do with free riding. :mellow:

Either Canadian drug consumers are helping to amortize the R&D costs of new drugs or they're free riding on the people that are, in this case American consumers.

Really we need to stop free riding on the concept of "agriculture" and give the Middle East their due.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 01:44:38 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2015, 01:39:52 PM
Pharma should be a state industry, so that's not much of an objection.

I believe it is in Canada.  We probably can't hope to match their prodigious output of world-changing drugs though.

Some provinces (Quebec at least, unsure about the others) have a "drug insurance" where the government will act as an insurer for people who can not/don't want to get a private insurance that covers medications.

And lots of drugs have been developped in Canada, but the pace has slowed lately, since big pharmas are moving their operations to socialist shitholes that gives them tons of $$ in subsidies.  Like various US States, for example.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/rival-company-offers-1-alternative-pill-martin-shkreli-s-750-hiv-medication

QuoteRival Company Offers $1 Alternative Pill To Martin Shkreli's $750 HIV Medication

The man who raised the price of a common drug for HIV patients by 5,455% might be having some karma on his way after a rival company has vowed to make a $1 alternative of the same medication.

Last month, 32-year-old Martin Shkreli spent his 15 minutes of fame being the most hated man in America for upping the price of the life-saving medicine Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill. Thanks to the absence of price caps on medicine in the United States, this meant Shrekli's company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, was able to increase the cost of the medicine after purchasing its manufacturing rights.

However, San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals Inc said on Thursday it will soon be offering customized versions of the medicine in the form of an oral capsule for less than $1 a pill.

Both medicines treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic disease that commonly affects people with weakened immune systems, such as those with AIDS. The newer, cheaper pill will use formulations of the active ingredients pyrimethamine and leucovorin customized to the patient's needs. However, unlike Daraprim, the Imprimis medication will not be FDA approved.

In a statement, Mark L. Baum, CEO of Imprimis, said, "It is indisputable that generic drug prices have soared recently. While we have seen an increase in costs associated with regulatory compliance, recent generic drug price increases have made us concerned and caused us to take positive action to address an opportunity to help a needy patient population."

He also added: "We are here to serve our patients and their physicians. We believe that when we do a great job serving our customers, our shareholders will also benefit."

Shkreli did an AMA on Reddit this weekend where he faced questions on the price hike and the ensuing global backlash.

US Uncut attempted to get a comment from Shkreli on the development. His response was "lol."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 04:43:15 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
The markets in the US are different in a bunch of ways from Canada, but it has nothing to do with "free riders".  :lol:

It has everything to do with free riding. :mellow:

Either Canadian drug consumers are helping to amortize the R&D costs of new drugs or they're free riding on the people that are, in this case American consumers.

Alternately, the excess costs in the US have little to do with R&D and everything to do with marketing and legal costs.

Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2015, 11:27:40 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 04:43:15 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
The markets in the US are different in a bunch of ways from Canada, but it has nothing to do with "free riders".  :lol:

It has everything to do with free riding. :mellow:

Either Canadian drug consumers are helping to amortize the R&D costs of new drugs or they're free riding on the people that are, in this case American consumers.

Alternately, the excess costs in the US have little to do with R&D and everything to do with marketing and legal costs.

And profit.  At least that was the sole motivation for this recent price gouging.  Now Yi et al will say that is fine.  But they shouldn't hide behind R&D.

Maybe he is Chaotic Evil?

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
The markets in the US are different in a bunch of ways from Canada, but it has nothing to do with "free riders".  :lol:

Assertions are not arguments. :lol:

Economics would say that the drug companies are willing to sell to secondary markets like the Canadian market at any price that doesn't exceed marginal cost, if they can make their primary market pay more than average total cost.  That is the "free rider" problem.

Now, the free rider problem may not exist in this case, but it cannot be dismissed just because :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2015, 12:05:40 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2015, 11:27:40 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2015, 04:43:15 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
The markets in the US are different in a bunch of ways from Canada, but it has nothing to do with "free riders".  :lol:

It has everything to do with free riding. :mellow:

Either Canadian drug consumers are helping to amortize the R&D costs of new drugs or they're free riding on the people that are, in this case American consumers.

Alternately, the excess costs in the US have little to do with R&D and everything to do with marketing and legal costs.

That's also possible, but your argument is a lot more convincing than :lol: is.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2015, 12:05:40 PM

Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
The markets in the US are different in a bunch of ways from Canada, but it has nothing to do with "free riders".  :lol:

Assertions are not arguments. :lol:

Economics would say that the drug companies are willing to sell to secondary markets like the Canadian market at any price that doesn't exceed marginal cost, if they can make their primary market pay more than average total cost.  That is the "free rider" problem.

Now, the free rider problem may not exist in this case, but it cannot be dismissed just because :lol:

And lack of knowledge about the Canadian healthcare system isn't a sound basis for an argument, either.   :lol:

For there to be a "dismissal", there has to be an "argument" supported by things known as "facts".

Let's look at some "facts", shall we?

Costs in the US are higher than anywhere else in the developed world. Is this because the rest of the world are "free riders" on the US's R&D? Is the rest of the world a "secondary market"?

That seems to me to be an extraordinary assertion.

The real reason isn;t some sort of sinister conspiracy to make the US pay for the costs of R&D, but the fact that companies can make extraordinary profits in the US because of negotiation failure.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835182

QuoteThe major reason for the disparity in pricing is that the United States lacks any sort of central or universal healthcare system or agency that regulates across the board cost. In contrast, negotiations of drug prices between governments and pharmaceutical companies are routine in Canada, most European nations, and most countries in the Middle East and Far East. They have centralized authorities to negotiate more favorable prices with manufacturers, and some also have drug formularies and advisory boards that put restrictions on the use of new and expensive medications.

"In the US, we are covered under a fragmented system, where there really aren't enough numbers to negotiate effectively," said Leigh Purvis, director of health research at the Public Policy Institute at AARP (formerly known as the American Association for Retired Persons), a large membership organization for people 50 years and older. "We have different health insurers and they don't represent enough people to actively and successfully negotiate prices in the same way that other countries do."

The central fallacy is the notion that 'profits = R&D expediture', or that huge profits are necessary because of huge R&D costs. This is nowhere close to being true, and is based on a fundamental misapprehension of the way the market works.

QuoteBut at least for some new drugs, R&D amounts to purchasing a smaller company that already developed the product. An example is sofosbuvir, which has borne the brunt of intense scrutiny, including an ongoing Senate investigation. Gilead did not develop the product, but instead purchased a small company —Pharmasset, Inc. — for $11.2 billion in 2012. Pharmasset actually did the R&D and reported that the related costs for the drug totaled $62 million, and that it had $177 million in R&D costs company-wide over the 3 years that the drug was being developed. The company expected to profitably sell sofosbuvir for $36,000 a year — less than half of what Gilead is currently charging for it.

A similar situation is the case of pirfenidone (Esbriet), which just received FDA approval for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The drug was developed by InterMune, which pharmaceutical giant Roche recently purchased for about $8 billion. When the drug was approved, Roche announced that it would sell for $94,000 a year. Peter Bach, MD, one of the renegade physicians from MSKCC who pushed back on the price of aflibercept, notes in a report published in Forbes that if full market penetration is achieved, Roche could make back their full investment in 1 year.

"Once again, the potential to affix this huge price tag to Esbriet didn't spur the innovation, it spurred Roche to pay up for the company," writes Dr Bach. "Today's shareholders are super happy (and I'm glad for them), but how many of them were even around and invested in the company back when the high-risk decision to develop Esbriet was made?"

Moreover, companies are reluctant - and with reason - to transparently disclose how much actually goes to R&D:

QuoteIgnagni also questioned the lack of transparency in defining and separating R&D, marketing, separating out profits. "When we are talking about all the other industries in healthcare, there's not that kind of transparent ability to look," she said. "If you do start looking, you really see now that manufacturers are charging whatever they can get away with. We can't have a system that operates that way. We can't sustain it."

The fundamental differences between the US and Canadian drug markets are: (1) direct to consumer drug advertising of prescription-only drugs; (2) a lack of any centralized formulary bargaining mechanism; and (3) far higher drug prices. It seems to me, and to various commentators, that (1) and (2) have more to do with (3) than "free riding" on R&D costs. 

No doubt the mantra that the rest of the world ought really to be paying its fair share of Drug costs because otherwise they are free riders on R&D expenditures soothes the feelings of US consumers who are getting gouged by their system, but that doesn't actually make it true.

Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2015, 11:27:40 AM
Alternately, the excess costs in the US have little to do with R&D and everything to do with marketing and legal costs.

Meaning what, that R&D cost are insignificant?

The question you are asking is what sets the price in the US.  The price of drugs, like most things, is set by the intersection of supply and demand.

But that's not the relevant question to address the point I was raising.  That is: if the US set prices like Canada does, would the drug companies be incentivized to develop new drugs?  I maintain they would not, at least not to the extent they are now.

Which only shows why drug research should be state funded. Selling balloons and lollypops make for a good business. Healthcare and education don't and shouldn't be.

Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2015, 03:19:49 PM
Which only shows why drug research should be state funded. Selling balloons and lollypops make for a good business. Healthcare and education don't and shouldn't be.

State funded, or state funded and state run?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 03:17:10 PM

Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2015, 11:27:40 AM
Alternately, the excess costs in the US have little to do with R&D and everything to do with marketing and legal costs.

Meaning what, that R&D cost are insignificant?

The question you are asking is what sets the price in the US.  The price of drugs, like most things, is set by the intersection of supply and demand.

But that's not the relevant question to address the point I was raising.  That is: if the US set prices like Canada does, would the drug companies be incentivized to develop new drugs?  I maintain they would not, at least not to the extent they are now.

Once again, the maximum prices set by the PMPRB in Canada is not a major factor in why Canadian drug prices are on average a lot lower - that is down to the fact that the provinces negotiate drug prices with the individual manufacturers for inclusion on provincial public insurance formularies. There is nothing stopping US insurers from doing that, only they don't have the same bargaining power - they are more fragmented.

There is also the issue of how much R&D makes pharmacoeconomic sense. Many "new" drugs are not significant improvements over the old - the primary function is to extend the effective patent life. This is a tecnique known as "evergreening" and it works this way: it makes more sense to "tweak" a drug you know works, and then market it heavily, than to sink costs into developing something genuinely new - even if the "tweaked" version is no more effective than the "old" drug. Companies attempt to do this to avoid competition from generics, which invariably occurs when their patent monopoly runs out. Of course docs are free to prescribe the generic version of the "old" drug, but they may find this difficult to do if the patent is sold on the merits of the "new, improved" drug - via heavy investiment by the company in direct-to-consumer advertising.

A national system with smaller "payors" with less bargaining power, combined with allowing direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription-only drugs, simply leads to higher prices and greater profits. This has nothing to do with a genuine need to cover "pharmacoeconomically useful" R&D costs.

Is that system really necessary for funding the actual "brakethrough" drugs, or just a cynical rip-off to make maximum profits?

Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2015, 03:39:07 PM
Once again, the maximum prices set by the PMPRB in Canada is not a major factor in why Canadian drug prices are on average a lot lower - that is down to the fact that the provinces negotiate drug prices with the individual manufacturers for inclusion on provincial public insurance formularies. There is nothing stopping US insurers from doing that, only they don't have the same bargaining power - they are more fragmented.

You've said this before, but I still don't see what this has to do with the issue of free-riding.

QuoteThere is also the issue of how much R&D makes pharmacoeconomic sense. Many "new" drugs are not significant improvements over the old - the primary function is to extend the effective patent life. This is a tecnique known as "evergreening" and it works this way: it makes more sense to "tweak" a drug you know works, and then market it heavily, than to sink costs into developing something genuinely new - even if the "tweaked" version is no more effective than the "old" drug. Companies attempt to do this to avoid competition from generics, which invariably occurs when their patent monopoly runs out. Of course docs are free to prescribe the generic version of the "old" drug, but they may find this difficult to do if the patent is sold on the merits of the "new, improved" drug - via heavy investiment by the company in direct-to-consumer advertising.

A national system with smaller "payors" with less bargaining power, combined with allowing direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription-only drugs, simply leads to higher prices and greater profits. This has nothing to do with a genuine need to cover "pharmacoeconomically useful" R&D costs.

Is that system really necessary for funding the actual "brakethrough" drugs, or just a cynical rip-off to make maximum profits?

This has the appearance of arguing in the alternative: Canadians don't free ride, but if we do it's because we're free riding on worthless stuff.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 03:45:05 PM

Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2015, 03:39:07 PM
Once again, the maximum prices set by the PMPRB in Canada is not a major factor in why Canadian drug prices are on average a lot lower - that is down to the fact that the provinces negotiate drug prices with the individual manufacturers for inclusion on provincial public insurance formularies. There is nothing stopping US insurers from doing that, only they don't have the same bargaining power - they are more fragmented.

You've said this before, but I still don't see what this has to do with the issue of free-riding.

Simple - it is a difference in ability to negotiate, not evil communist guv'ment price-fixing, that is the driver for the difference in prices. Point is that there is nothing stopping the Americans from doing the exact same, if they only can get their act together. The companies are simply exploiting the fact that they can't.

Quote

QuoteThere is also the issue of how much R&D makes pharmacoeconomic sense. Many "new" drugs are not significant improvements over the old - the primary function is to extend the effective patent life. This is a tecnique known as "evergreening" and it works this way: it makes more sense to "tweak" a drug you know works, and then market it heavily, than to sink costs into developing something genuinely new - even if the "tweaked" version is no more effective than the "old" drug. Companies attempt to do this to avoid competition from generics, which invariably occurs when their patent monopoly runs out. Of course docs are free to prescribe the generic version of the "old" drug, but they may find this difficult to do if the patent is sold on the merits of the "new, improved" drug - via heavy investiment by the company in direct-to-consumer advertising.

A national system with smaller "payors" with less bargaining power, combined with allowing direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription-only drugs, simply leads to higher prices and greater profits. This has nothing to do with a genuine need to cover "pharmacoeconomically useful" R&D costs.

Is that system really necessary for funding the actual "brakethrough" drugs, or just a cynical rip-off to make maximum profits?

This has the appearance of arguing in the alternative: Canadians don't free ride, but if we do it's because we're free riding on worthless stuff.

Huh? "Free riding" assumes that something worthwhile is being "free rided" on. What's the accusation - that Canadians (hell, not just them - the rest of the developed world, too - no-one pays as much as Americans for drugs) are "free riding" because they aren't doing their duty in contributing to drug companies' enormous profits?  :hmm: I thought the issue was that they weren't paying their fair share of socially-valuable R&D expenses.

Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2015, 03:54:41 PM
Simple - it is a difference in ability to negotiate, not evil communist guv'ment price-fixing, that is the driver for the difference in prices. Point is that there is nothing stopping the Americans from doing the exact same, if they only can get their act together. The companies are simply exploiting the fact that they can't.

Pretend I'm a very stupid person and explain in very simple words how the fact that US could, if it wanted to, duplicate the Canadian drug reimbursement system demonstrates that Canadians are not free riding.

QuoteHuh? "Free riding" assumes that something worthwhile is being "free rided" on. What's the accusation - that Canadians (hell, not just them - the rest of the developed world, too - no-one pays as much as Americans for drugs) are "free riding" because they aren't doing their duty in contributing to drug companies' enormous profits?  :hmm: I thought the issue was that they weren't paying their fair share of socially-valuable R&D expenses.

I see.  So is your position that Canadians don't free ride on socially valuable R&D?

Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2015, 01:28:26 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2015, 12:05:40 PM
Assertions are not arguments. :lol:

Economics would say that the drug companies are willing to sell to secondary markets like the Canadian market at any price that doesn't exceed marginal cost, if they can make their primary market pay more than average total cost.  That is the "free rider" problem.

Now, the free rider problem may not exist in this case, but it cannot be dismissed just because :lol:

And lack of knowledge about the Canadian healthcare system isn't a sound basis for an argument, either.   :lol:

For there to be a "dismissal", there has to be an "argument" supported by things known as "facts".

Let's look at some "facts", shall we?

(snip of all the "evidence" not relevant to my assertion)

If you are going to "quote" a post of "mine," you should really make an "effort" to respond to the post you are "quoting."  This is something an "attorney" should already know.  Your "facts" do not in any "way" invalidate my "argument."  In fact, your entire "post" merely confirms the accuracy of my assertion. 

And your "scare" quotes don't "support" your "argument," either.

:lol:

" :lol: "

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2015, 04:04:39 PM

:lol:

:lol:

Man, everyone's having a great time in this thread  :lol:

 :lol:

Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2015, 04:11:41 PM
Man, everyone's having a great time in this thread  :lol:

It's a "barrel" of "laughs".

To me affordable medicine isn't a punchline.

"Tiny boats"

This thread sucks.  It needs more tits.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/GreatTit002.jpg)

You're welcome.

Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2015, 03:19:49 PM
Which only shows why drug research should be state funded. Selling balloons and lollypops make for a good business. Healthcare and education don't and shouldn't be.

Certainly. That might be a good option if we want to make sure R&D slows down dramatically.

Many of the best drugs were developed by academics anyway.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 03:17:10 PM

But that's not the relevant question to address the point I was raising.  That is: if the US set prices like Canada does, would the drug companies be incentivized to develop new drugs?  I maintain they would not, at least not to the extent they are now.

So?

We could hypothesize a setup where they could be even MORE incentived than they are now as well! Maybe we could pass a law making it mandatory that any new drug invented be given perpetual patents.

Is maximizing their incentive the ONLY thing that is important? Of course not - we are looking for some reasonable balance between healthy incentives and a rational market that serves the needs of people. Given that drug manufacturing has well understood restrictions, barriers to entry, and a host of market pressures that have very little resemblance to a free market, a slavish loyalty to only one side of the free market dogma (the side that, again, results in the ultra rich becoming yet more ultra rich) seems rather silly.

So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2015, 04:57:01 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 27, 2015, 03:19:49 PM
Which only shows why drug research should be state funded. Selling balloons and lollypops make for a good business. Healthcare and education don't and shouldn't be.

Certainly. That might be a good option if we want to make sure R&D slows down dramatically.

In Sweden it appears that a lot of the Left's animosity is simple misogyny. Making money from sectors with lots of women at all levels (healthcare, education) is bad, but making money in more male-dominated fields (construction, technology) is good. If you ask them why it's OK to make a profit from building the hospital and the machines within it but not OK to make a profit from caring for patients you never get a good answer.

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:05:56 PM
So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2015, 05:14:44 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:05:56 PM
So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

The choice of example has no bearing on the argument.

By the by, some articles on retrospective and current estimated costing on bringing a drug to market.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/2/

One thing that the Forbes article touches on, is that we are seeing more pharma companies do partnerships or acquisitions of biotechs funded by VCs, as it simply doesn't make as much sense to spend what needs to be spent to start up a bevy of experimental drugs with the hope that one becomes a blockbuster.

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:20:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2015, 05:14:44 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:05:56 PM
So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

The choice of example has no bearing on the argument.

I think it does. You tried to choose an example a product that could be seen to have a frivolous purpose. I think it would be hard to classify most medicines (and even your very example) as represented by that.

The reality is that given the cost to develop products, there actually has to be a good incentive for companies to want to do so. Certainly, as you say, it isn't all about maximising profit for pharma companies but I think it would be a mistake to argue that R&D landscape would look similar if the US brought its healthcare spend in line with Canadian/European markets.

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2015, 05:23:41 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:20:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2015, 05:14:44 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:05:56 PM
So yeah, not allowing companies to completely gouge the public and create monopolies on life saving treatments might result in them not being so motivated to invent the next Viagra. So what?

Very odd choice given that Pfizer had been developing that drug for a life threatening health condition and only switched to marketing it for sexual dysfunction when people came back reporting a peculiar side effect.

The choice of example has no bearing on the argument.

I think it does. You tried to choose an example a product that could be seen to have a frivolous purpose. I think it would be hard to classify most medicines (and even your very example) as represented by that.

Except that my point had nothing to do with the frivolity of the product.

Quote

The reality is that given the cost to develop products, there actually has to be a good incentive for companies to want to do so. Certainly, as you say, it isn't all about maximising profit for pharma companies but I think it would be a mistake to argue that R&D landscape would look similar if the US brought its healthcare spend in line with Canadian/European markets.

Well, I am not making any such argument, so ok.

I am just refuting the blanket argument Yi is making that if some action will cause a decrease in incentives, that alone is good reason not to take it.

Like I said, I could come up with a dozen ways we can increase incentives for developing drugs - that doesn't mean that they are good ideas. And just because something might decrease the incentive, doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:26:59 PM
Except that my point has nothing to do with the frivolity of the product.

Okay, then I've really no idea why you tacked that on at the end of your post.

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:26:59 PM
Well, I am not making any such argument, so ok.

Well, I think it is an important component of the discussion being had and whether or not certain markets are getting 'free ridership.'

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:26:59 PM
I am just refuting the blanket argument Yi is making that if some action will cause a decrease in incentives, that alone is good reason not to take it.

Like I said, I could come up with a dozen ways we can increase incentives for developing drugs - that doesn't mean that they are good ideas. And just because something might decrease the incentive, doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

Well, Yi can speak for himself but I didn't take him as saying that. On the other hand, I do think that if one is angling for the US to reduce drug spend - it would be well worth the time to look at what impact that decrease might have and what spend might be need to prevent a decline in R&D.

I'd also state that I think it very likely that such wasn't a critical issue when individual, smaller markets set about price controls as their spend wasn't as vital to whether R&D would have a substantial slow down.

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:05:56 PM
So?

So Canadians are free riding.  I thought I was making this pretty clear.

as an american, i'm OK with the US making necessary sacrifices to benefit the world

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 05:34:23 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2015, 05:05:56 PM
So?

So Canadians are free riding.  I thought I was making this pretty clear.

You have a weird obsession with the idea that someone, somewhere is free riding.

Quote from: LaCroix on October 27, 2015, 05:36:08 PM
as an american, i'm OK with the US making necessary sacrifices to benefit the world

If we do, it should be on the backs of taxpayers rather than consumers.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2015, 08:17:37 PM
You have a weird obsession with the idea that someone, somewhere is free riding.

So ossum

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 08:20:40 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2015, 08:17:37 PM
You have a weird obsession with the idea that someone, somewhere is free riding.

So ossum

I'm curious though, does you outrage at free riding extend to the banning of open shops and heavy punishments for environmental damage?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2015, 08:22:56 PM
I'm curious though, does you outrage at free riding extend to the banning of open shops and heavy punishments for environmental damage?

Which outrage would that be Raz?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 08:27:02 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2015, 08:22:56 PM
I'm curious though, does you outrage at free riding extend to the banning of open shops and heavy punishments for environmental damage?

Which outrage would that be Raz?

I can't help fee that you are unhappy about the idea of Free Riders.  Posting history indicate you are deeply concerned about the "free rider problem".

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 27, 2015, 08:20:05 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on October 27, 2015, 05:36:08 PM
as an american, i'm OK with the US making necessary sacrifices to benefit the world

If we do, it should be on the backs of taxpayers rather than consumers.

What makes you think it's not already on the backs of taxpayers?

Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and Obamacare probably add up to be the vast majority of healthcare spending dollars in the US.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2015, 08:37:38 PM
I can't help fee that you are unhappy about the idea of Free Riders.  Posting history indicate you are deeply concerned about the "free rider problem".

I thought I was supposed to be obsessed and outraged.

Quote from: Fate on October 27, 2015, 08:48:51 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 27, 2015, 08:20:05 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on October 27, 2015, 05:36:08 PM
as an american, i'm OK with the US making necessary sacrifices to benefit the world

If we do, it should be on the backs of taxpayers rather than consumers.

What makes you think it's not already on the backs of taxpayers?

Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and Obamacare probably add up to be the vast majority of healthcare spending dollars in the US.

I've always thought that the problem isn't so much that we don't have government-provided healthcare, but that we mostly do, it's just a completely effed-up, half-ass'ed system.  Or maybe 2/3's-ass'ed.

I think that, for free riding to occur, you'd have to show that the phrma companies were willing to sell to Canadians (and others) at near-marginal-cost, and that the Canadians and others knew those costs well enough to free-ride.  I don't think either case is proven.  It is entirely possible that the different costs of drugs is driven by different willingness to pay, and that occurs in any market.

Not that the pharma market is really a market as we understand it.  Restrictions on market entry and on buyer entry make this a highly distorted market not very subject to market generalizations.

 :lol:

Quote from: Fate on October 27, 2015, 08:48:51 PM
What makes you think it's not already on the backs of taxpayers?

Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and Obamacare probably add up to be the vast majority of healthcare spending dollars in the US.

That I'm not on any of those.  :mad:

Not that this necessarily has any relation to the costs of drugs, but I just paid 1200 bucks for new contact lenses. 3 years ago, they were 750. :bleeding:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 27, 2015, 09:56:28 PM
Not that this necessarily has any relation to the costs of drugs, but I just paid 1200 bucks for new contact lenses. 3 years ago, they were 750. :bleeding:

Hopefully the new ones will be more gentle on the eyes. :pinch:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 08:51:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2015, 08:37:38 PM
I can't help fee that you are unhappy about the idea of Free Riders.  Posting history indicate you are deeply concerned about the "free rider problem".

I thought I was supposed to be obsessed and outraged.

Okay, how do you feel about free riders?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 12:54:52 AM
Okay, how do you feel about free riders?

Enough of that, let's talk about me for a while.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2015, 09:17:35 PM
I think that, for free riding to occur, you'd have to show that the phrma companies were willing to sell to Canadians (and others) at near-marginal-cost, and that the Canadians and others knew those costs well enough to free-ride.  I don't think either case is proven.  It is entirely possible that the different costs of drugs is driven by different willingness to pay, and that occurs in any market.

To be honest, I think it'll be very difficult to ever get to the bottom of this - given many factors, including that no one ever seems to agree on what companies even spend on R&D.  While that article I linked about the Tufts study cites the cost to develop drugs (which I believe also includes costs for all the failures and then various things needed to be done to get approvals in each market) - on the other hand there is Donald W. Light who says development cost is only in the millions once you take off all the padding put on figures.

http://www.drugwatch.com/2014/10/15/americans-pay-higher-prices-prescription-drugs/

(Here's a link to his journal article - http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7522/958.extract)

Mother Jones summarises that as showing:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2005/11/truth-about-free-riders

Quote1) We can find no convincing evidence to support the view that the lower prices in affluent countries outside the United States do not pay for research and development costs. The latest report from the UK Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme documents that drug companies in the United Kingdom invest proportionately more of their revenues from domestic sales in research and development than do companies in the US.

2) Prices in the UK are much lower than those in the US yet profits remain robust.

3) Companies in other countries also fully recover their research and development costs, maintain high profits, and sell drugs at substantially lower prices than in the US.

4) But that report doesn't provide any evidence for its claim that "innovative drugs" are somehow less available in Europe as a result of overly-low prices.

5) Perhaps American pharmaceutical companies aren't marketing their absolute latest and flashiest patented drugs in Europe, true. But considering how many of these are "me-too" drugs with little to no significant medical benefit, perhaps it's no surprise that Europeans aren't suffering much for the loss.

Back on the free-rider side we do have:

http://www.economist.com/node/2388708 (Economist seeming to tepidly support findings from Bain regarding free ridership)

http://www.bain.com/bainweb/PDFs/cms/Marketing/InVivo_Imbalanced%20Innovation_030104.pdf (Bain's findings)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/07/01/obama-care-will-end-drug-advances-and-europes-free-ride-unless-china-steps-in/ (op-ed)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RKeJ9kZM7uwC&pg=PA188&dq=pharma+costs+free+riders&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMI_Zjv7dzkyAIVQ0YUCh0DpQE_#v=onepage&q=pharma%20costs%20free%20riders&f=false (book that notes that their might be negatives on being country that pays less)

Also, I just found this book that looks like it could be interesting from Oxford. It does note that this is something that should be investigated/considered, particularly if countries that make up a large fraction of global demand were to move to stricter price controls.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U6UheNp8IgoC&pg=PA267&dq=pharma+costs+free+riders&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Zjv7dzkyAIVQ0YUCh0DpQE_#v=onepage&q=pharma%20costs%20free%20riders&f=false

So highly debated, but yeah, no clear answers.

For myself though, I don't see how we wouldn't expect a slowing of drugs coming to market if the US adopted stronger price controls given that costs to create drugs wouldn't be shrinking.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 12:54:52 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2015, 08:51:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 27, 2015, 08:37:38 PM
I can't help fee that you are unhappy about the idea of Free Riders.  Posting history indicate you are deeply concerned about the "free rider problem".

I thought I was supposed to be obsessed and outraged.

Okay, how do you feel about free riders?

I think I was the one to bring free ridership up here, and it wasn't because I was outraged but rather always find it a bit odd that it is rejected that the US is funding a lot of R&D costs and that everything would actually be better off if the US adopted some strong price controls along some mix of Canadian/European models.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2015/12/turings-martin-shkreli-regrets-5000-price-hike-says-it-wasnt-high-enough/

QuoteTuring's Martin Shkreli regrets 5,000% price hike—says it wasn't high enough

CEO of Turing says he was forced to raise price, appease shareholders.

In a Healthcare summit hosted by Forbes on Thursday, Martin Shkreli, the founder and CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, admitted he made a mistake by raising the price of a decades-old drug by more than 5,000 percent. But it's not the mistake you might expect.

In response to an audience member who asked him if he would have done anything differently in regard to raising the price of the drug, Daraprim, Shkreli replied, "I probably would have raised the price higher."

That price hike, which brought a pill of Daraprim from about £9 to £500 earlier this year, has drawn fiery scorn from the public, media, and lawmakers. Daraprim is a 62-year old drug used to treat toxoplasmosis, a disease caused by a parasitic infection. Toxoplasmosis often strikes people with compromised immune systems, such as AIDS patients.

During the 25-minute interview, Shkreli explained the price hike regret. "I could have raised it higher and made more profits for our shareholders, which is my primary duty," he said.

According to Forbes, Shkreli went on to explain why he recently decided to go back on a plan to lower Daraprim's price, saying that companies were still "begging" for business despite the higher drug cost. He also blamed complicated distribution models and a lack of alternatives for forcing the price hike.

Earlier this week, a pharmaceutical drug manager announced that it would promote the distribution of a 60p-per-pill alternative to Daraprim.

Whatever. His 15 minutes are way over.

Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2015, 05:24:35 AM
Whatever. His 15 minutes are way over.

Do you think some businessmen, who've been brought up in an on-line world, now can't separate out on-line behaviour from who to behave in the market, because to my mind he now just seems to be trolling/attention seeking.

Scratch out businessmen and insert people and sure. ;)

Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2015, 06:50:10 AM
Scratch out businessmen and insert people and sure. ;)

Well that's for you to say Gaby, as I don't have a broad knowledge of young people and your generation.

To me it would seem common sense to both keep one's online life separate from work and also to not allow online ways to bleed into professional/business behaviour. Or am I missing something.

Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 08:04:35 AM
To me it would seem common sense to both keep one's online life separate from work and also to not allow online ways to bleed into professional/business behaviour. Or am I missing something.

That seems a good idea.  I have no idea why you are bringing that up in this thread, but if you are asking for advice, i'd say follow the rule you have outlined here.

Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 12:48:42 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 08:04:35 AM
To me it would seem common sense to both keep one's online life separate from work and also to not allow online ways to bleed into professional/business behaviour. Or am I missing something.

That seems a good idea.  I have no idea why you are bringing that up in this thread, but if you are asking for advice, i'd say follow the rule you have outlined here.

:D

Some people have never met a good idea that they didn't ignore.

Apparently Shkreli is also the guy who bought the Wu-Tang-Clan album of which only a single copy was published :lol:

http://www.geek.com/news/ceo-who-raised-prices-on-cancer-drugs-also-bought-the-one-of-a-kind-wu-tang-album-1641765/

Quote[...]

It all looks a lot worse for Shkreli considering Bloomberg Business has outed him as the person who bought Wu Tangs 31 track double LP that the rap group only produced a single copy of. The album is called Once Upon a Time in Shaolin and according to Wu Tang member RZA, it's a piece of art. "We're about to put out a piece of art like nobody else has done in the history of music," RZA said before the album was finished. "We're making a single-sale collector's item. This is like someone having the scepter of an Egyptian king."

The Clan hired an auction group called Paddle8 to handle the sale and put a copyright on the album forbidding anyone besides the Wu-Tang clan from releasing the album for profit in the next 88 years. At first, the rap group considered making a legal agreement with the eventual buyer to not let anyone else listen to it, but eventually the group decided that the buyer would have complete control over the album, like a work of art. The buyer could destroy it or release it free on the internet, the Wu-Tang Clan didn't care.
Buyers that Paddle8 deemed legitimate were able to listen to 13-minute samples from the album before bidding. They played a short clip for a few writers and potential buyers in March in New York and one of the attendees noticed that not only was the entire Wu-Tang Clan on the album, but some of the female vocals had been performed by Cher. The small part of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin that was heard was deemed excellent.

Enter Shkreli, who is a collector of music memorabilia and owns things like Katy Perry's old guitar and Kurt Cobain's old Visa card. One of the Paddle8 auctioneers told him that a bunch of real Wu-Tang fans, even the famous ones, would want to hear the already mythic Wu Tang album and he should buy it to get some face time with them. Shkreli thought it was a good idea and sent a staff member to listen to another few snippets of the album before putting in a bid.

The final amount Shkreli won the auction with is still unknown (rumor is it was about $2 million), but the whole deal went down before his company's price increase on Daraprim put his name in the news. Now that his identity has been revealed, RZA has commented to clarify: "The sale of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was agreed upon in May, well before Martin Skhreli's [sic] business practices came to light. We decided to give a significant portion of the proceeds to charity."

Shkreli, though, really doesn't seem to care about either controversy. He hasn't even listened to the album yet. The quote Bloomberg got from him on the subject was: "I could be convinced to listen to it earlier if Taylor Swift wants to hear it or something like that," Shkreli says. "But for now, I think I'm going to kind of save it for a rainy day."
Which means he is not even close to releasing the full album for free on the internet, which is within his legal rights. What a douchebag.

Oh noes!

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/362770911.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_NYBrand

QuoteFBI Arrests Notorious Pharma CEO Martin Shkreli

Martin Shkreli, the pharmaceutical company CEO who sparked outrage after raising the price of an anti-infective drug from $13.50 to $750, has been arrested by the FBI in an investigation related to a hedge fund and drug company he once ran, Reuters and CNBC reported Thursday.

Shkreli, 32, who is now the boss of Turing Pharmaceutical in New York, was previously the manager of hedge fund MSMB Capital Management and chief executive of biopharmaceutical company Retrophin Inc.

Reuters said it witnessed Shkreli's arrest. Details of the charges were not immediately available.

In September, Shkreli announced that he was jacking up the price of Daraprim, prompting backlash, which led the company to say last month it was cutting the cost of the drug.

Shkreli recently made headlines after it was revealed that he was the mystery buyer of the new single-copy Wu-Tang Clan album "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin." He reportedly paid $2 million as the highest bidder for the exclusive album and told Bloomberg Business he was waiting to listen to it "for a rainy day."

Quote from: Syt on December 10, 2015, 08:00:37 AM
Apparently Shkreli is also the guy who bought the Wu-Tang-Clan album of which only a single copy was published :lol:

http://www.geek.com/news/ceo-who-raised-prices-on-cancer-drugs-also-bought-the-one-of-a-kind-wu-tang-album-1641765/

Quote[...]

It all looks a lot worse for Shkreli considering Bloomberg Business has outed him as the person who bought Wu Tangs 31 track double LP that the rap group only produced a single copy of. The album is called Once Upon a Time in Shaolin and according to Wu Tang member RZA, it's a piece of art. "We're about to put out a piece of art like nobody else has done in the history of music," RZA said before the album was finished. "We're making a single-sale collector's item. This is like someone having the scepter of an Egyptian king."

The Clan hired an auction group called Paddle8 to handle the sale and put a copyright on the album forbidding anyone besides the Wu-Tang clan from releasing the album for profit in the next 88 years. At first, the rap group considered making a legal agreement with the eventual buyer to not let anyone else listen to it, but eventually the group decided that the buyer would have complete control over the album, like a work of art. The buyer could destroy it or release it free on the internet, the Wu-Tang Clan didn't care.
Buyers that Paddle8 deemed legitimate were able to listen to 13-minute samples from the album before bidding. They played a short clip for a few writers and potential buyers in March in New York and one of the attendees noticed that not only was the entire Wu-Tang Clan on the album, but some of the female vocals had been performed by Cher. The small part of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin that was heard was deemed excellent.

Enter Shkreli, who is a collector of music memorabilia and owns things like Katy Perry's old guitar and Kurt Cobain's old Visa card. One of the Paddle8 auctioneers told him that a bunch of real Wu-Tang fans, even the famous ones, would want to hear the already mythic Wu Tang album and he should buy it to get some face time with them. Shkreli thought it was a good idea and sent a staff member to listen to another few snippets of the album before putting in a bid.

The final amount Shkreli won the auction with is still unknown (rumor is it was about $2 million), but the whole deal went down before his company's price increase on Daraprim put his name in the news. Now that his identity has been revealed, RZA has commented to clarify: "The sale of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin was agreed upon in May, well before Martin Skhreli's [sic] business practices came to light. We decided to give a significant portion of the proceeds to charity."

Shkreli, though, really doesn't seem to care about either controversy. He hasn't even listened to the album yet. The quote Bloomberg got from him on the subject was: "I could be convinced to listen to it earlier if Taylor Swift wants to hear it or something like that," Shkreli says. "But for now, I think I'm going to kind of save it for a rainy day."
Which means he is not even close to releasing the full album for free on the internet, which is within his legal rights. What a douchebag.

It's nice to know he needs the money for a good cause.  :)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbinaryapi.ap.org%2F5686024673174a69b24f1a15ba94f880%2F460x.jpg&hash=11aee7324884d32907533feb8e5501901d918984)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbinaryapi.ap.org%2Ff42f0f306cce4bbcac347d5d2f9c6b98%2F460x.jpg&hash=1636e7eca7287e82711b904fa8802dbafeec9a51)

Damn you Obama!  Now the creme of Capitalism is taken down, and free riders be ridin' everywhere. :(

Will the government seize the Wutang album?
Maybe they can replace the IRS hold music with it.

Nevermind, the FBI are total squares and didn't even touch the album:
https://twitter.com/NewYorkFBI/status/677597263540191232
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXzc124o.png&hash=a623dd13b38d734cadabea596e8ca2021c309072)

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 17, 2015, 05:18:45 PM
Nevermind, the FBI are total squares and didn't even touch the album:
https://twitter.com/NewYorkFBI/status/677597263540191232
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXzc124o.png&hash=a623dd13b38d734cadabea596e8ca2021c309072)

Don't worry.  The WuTang Clan and Bill Murray are on the case.

https://twitter.com/eastwes/status/674628837481820160/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

QuoteThe buying party also agrees that, at any time during the stipulated 88 year period, the seller may legally plan and attempt to execute one (1) heist or caper to steal back Once Upon A Time In Shaolin, which, if successful, would return all ownership rights back to the seller. Said heist or caper can only be undertaken by currently active members of the Wu-Tang Clan and/or actor Bill Murray, with no legal repercussions.

Coudn't have happened to a nicer chap.

Quote from: mongers on December 17, 2015, 09:50:05 PM
Coudn't have happened to a nicer chap.

It could have happened to a nicer chap, but I'm glad it didn't.

Quote from: frunk on December 17, 2015, 09:55:48 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 17, 2015, 09:50:05 PM
Coudn't have happened to a nicer chap.

It could have happened to a nicer chap, but I'm glad it didn't.

Over here the expression is often used in an ironic way.  :bowler:

What's the deal with this Wu Tung clan (the name sounds like a Chinese Taoist stream, also a common name used in Chinese martial arts novels.  Sorta like naming your group after the Rivendell elves).  They produced an album but somehow only printed one copy of it?  :unsure:

Yes, a hip hop act that got their name from those said Martial Arts films. Very popular when they started back in late 80's/early 90's.

Not to be confused with the Poon Tang Clan.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2015, 10:12:31 PM
What's the deal with this Wu Tung clan (the name sounds like a Chinese Taoist stream, also a common name used in Chinese martial arts novels.  Sorta like naming your group after the Rivendell elves).  They produced an album but somehow only printed one copy of it?  :unsure:

They've produced many popular albums. That being so, they were able to auction of their latest to the highest bidder.

It's a money making/advertising gimmick.

There was some insanity online a little while ago over a supposed bill murray clause. Alas
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/6805582/bill-murray-wu-tang-heist-clause-fake

I doubt it's a money making gimmick, they could have made a lot more money if they released that album to the public like normal.

Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2015, 12:15:40 PM
I doubt it's a money making gimmick, they could have made a lot more money if they released that album to the public like normal.

Yeah, I think it is what they say it was - an art thing.

Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2015, 12:15:40 PM
I doubt it's a money making gimmick, they could have made a lot more money if they released that album to the public like normal.

Uncertain these days unless you've a particularly technically inept fanbase (*cough* Adele *cough*)

Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 12:59:40 PM

Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2015, 12:15:40 PM
I doubt it's a money making gimmick, they could have made a lot more money if they released that album to the public like normal.

Uncertain these days unless you've a particularly technically inept fanbase (*cough* Adele *cough*)

How exactly do you determine the technical proficiency of the fanbase?

Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2015, 12:15:40 PM
I doubt it's a money making gimmick, they could have made a lot more money if they released that album to the public like normal.

Could they really have?

A quick googling suggests their last album didn't sell very well.  Wu Tang Clan is long past their musical heyday.

This gave them a guaranteed payday, plus got them loads more publicity than simply releasing an album traditionally would have.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 01:29:01 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 12:59:40 PM

Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2015, 12:15:40 PM
I doubt it's a money making gimmick, they could have made a lot more money if they released that album to the public like normal.

Uncertain these days unless you've a particularly technically inept fanbase (*cough* Adele *cough*)

How exactly do you determine the technical proficiency of the fanbase?

Age, education level, that sort of thing.
I actually have seen studies that suggests rock music fans tend to be the most intelligent of folk :smarty:
No idea about Wu Tang Clan but I presume with the love of mixes  that rap fans aren't too bad.

Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 02:32:39 PM
Age, education level, that sort of thing.

And where do you find these stats?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 03:46:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 02:32:39 PM
Age, education level, that sort of thing.

And where do you find these stats?

The same place he finds the facts he argues with here; he uses rectal extraction.

:o

Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2015, 11:55:58 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 03:46:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 02:32:39 PM
Age, education level, that sort of thing.

And where do you find these stats?

The same place he finds the facts he argues with here; he uses rectal extraction.

:o How does it all fit in there?

His arrest is the best Christmas gift yet.

It would be karmic if he got AIDS in prison but couldn't afford the medication.

Stop beating up on Tyr FFS.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 03:46:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 02:32:39 PM
Age, education level, that sort of thing.

And where do you find these stats?

I'm not getting your line of questioning here.
Where do you get any statistics? You'd have do a study (or find one already done).

Quote from: Martinus on December 19, 2015, 02:22:00 AM
His arrest is the best Christmas gift yet.

It would be karmic if he got AIDS in prison but couldn't afford the medication.

Ymmv but I don't really care about him at all.

Quote from: Tyr on December 19, 2015, 09:47:04 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2015, 03:46:41 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 18, 2015, 02:32:39 PM
Age, education level, that sort of thing.

And where do you find these stats?

I'm not getting your line of questioning here.
Where do you get any statistics? You'd have do a study (or find one already done).

Let's say I find it unlikely you've found a study comparing technical know-how among the fans of various artists, Adele in particular, and proffer an alternative hypothesis: She sells more records because she has more fans, not because her fans don't know how to listen for free.

Just do the math. Shit Goat has around 10 fans. They have sold zero records. Scale that to Adele numbers of sales to get her number of fans? Not enough people in the universe.

Looks like his deal was defrauding people to get them to invest in a company, then would use their money to pay back creditors/angry investors from previous companies he ran that had failed. Definitely a "ponzi-like" scheme, and thus he's probably looking at serious time. The government tends to take a dim view of self-dealing and many many counts of lying to investors about your financials. This is more like Madoff than it is Martha Stewart, so he could be looking at serious incarceration time. I mean in a world where Raj Rajaratnam didn't defraud investors and "only" committed the crime of doing lots of insider trades and he got over a decade, and that was more of a Wall Street insider case that didn't get a ton of press. Shkreli on the other hand was a press villain before he ever got arrested, and defrauded people out of money on multiple occasions.

Turns out greed is not good.

Quote from: garbon on December 19, 2015, 10:23:47 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 19, 2015, 02:22:00 AM
His arrest is the best Christmas gift yet.

It would be karmic if he got AIDS in prison but couldn't afford the medication.

Ymmv but I don't really care about him at all.

It would probably do you good to care about something besides yourself for a change.

Quote from: Martinus on December 20, 2015, 01:59:40 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 19, 2015, 10:23:47 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 19, 2015, 02:22:00 AM
His arrest is the best Christmas gift yet.

It would be karmic if he got AIDS in prison but couldn't afford the medication.

Ymmv but I don't really care about him at all.

It would probably do you good to care about something besides yourself for a change.

Pot, kettle?

That really only applies to positive feelings anyway.