That explains a lot.Uncle Jimmy? I get my stuff from side named Heisenberg.
I suppose it would depend on the regulation(s). If the govt regulates the profit per sale on life saving medication, the price will be kept fair and affordable.Do you not realize it's idiotic regulation in the first place that allows douchebags like this guy to pull this kind of shit?
Fact is considerable amount of regulation and laws and oversight has zero to do with safety and protecting consumers. What they are really there for is to protect the establishment, serve as barriers of entry.
I like your car. You should sell it to me for $5. If you don't, I'll sue you. See how that goes wrong?You wouldn't need a body for me to convinct this asshole of murder.
I don't get why people like this aren't brought to trial more. I don't need evidence to convict someone this easy to hate, just opportunity.
Also that it makes sense to have agreements with some countries that avoid requiring companies to go through the certification process multiple times. If a drug has been shown to be effective in Germany or the UK, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do the same trials again in Canada and again in the US. The two other regulatory bodies could automatically certify the effectiveness of drugs after reviewing the studies, rather than requiring them to be repeated.You WANT the kinds of production and quality regulations that are in place. You want to know that when a bottle is labeled ibuprofin that is exactly what it is. The problem being expressed here in this price hike is a problem of inefficient regulation rather than over regulation.
No, it's not. It's the only market in which the consumer's quality and quantity of life is virtually held for ransom by a debilitating condition.Health care is a market like any other.
Lots of people are pissed about CEO Martin Shkreli buying the HIV drug patent and raising the price of Daraprim from $13 to $750 overnight, some 5000%, as though his goal is to price-gouge HIV patients for profit.
Guys, think bigger.
This guy is a Wall Street trader. If you've never taken a finance class, you may not know this, but there is more than one way to make money on stocks: you can make money on stocks when prices go up by buying low and selling high, but you can also make money on stocks when prices go down.
The second way is called shorting stocks. Basically, you borrow stocks from someone who already owns them and then resell them (even though you don't own them). Then, you hope that the price goes down before you have to repay on your debt of borrowed shares. If the price indeed goes down, you buy more stocks at the new, lower price, use those to return the ones you borrowed, then pocket the price difference, less fees. It's a form of speculation, and it involves buying stocks on margin, which is part of what caused the stock market crash in 1929 that led us into the Great Depression.
It is illegal to manipulate the price of a stock from the inside so that it goes down in such a way that you can profit off of it like this. In fact part of the plot of the James Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies" used this concept. However, it's NOT illegal to piss a ton of people off by raising the price of an HIV drug 5000%, draw a lot of political attention to the fact that a company is gouging poor HIV patients, and bait politicians like Hillary Clinton into tweeting about it, causing the company's stock to crash.
Guys, Martin Shkreli is making millions and millions and millions of dollars-the LOWER biotech stocks go. In fact he tweeted about it in advance. He said on August 12, 2015 at 3:05 PM via Twitter that VTL's stock would take a dive within weeks and recommended shorting it:
"$VTL is a short. I think it goes down 80% in the next few weeks."
(His tweets are currently private, so you won't be able to see this one if you go to his Twitter feed)
Oh, and would you look at that (see attached pic). On Friday, August 21, it went from $17.68 to $3.65 on Monday, August 24, and has remained under $4 per share since then. In fact, biotech stocks across the board dropped about 5%!
I think that the reason he did this with an HIV drug specifically is that an HIV drug would get the most media attention. This particular drug is, in fact, pretty rarely used to treat HIV. It's more commonly used to prevent malaria, in fact. But the more outrageous the price-gouging seems, both in degree and in heartlessness considering the disease it treats, the more media attention it will get. This causes more politicians to speak out against it, causing it to get even MORE media attention, and making Shkreli even MORE money.
Another case for more and better regulations.Fun theory: ...
Calm down Ron PaulDo you not realize it's idiotic regulation in the first place that allows douchebags like this guy to pull this kind of shit?
Fact is considerable amount of regulation and laws and oversight has zero to do with safety and protecting consumers. What they are really there for is to protect the establishment, serve as barriers of entry.
Insider trading is illegal, as is the purposeful manipulation of a stock in that manner. Also c level officers have to declare their sales and buys of stock will in advance.Another case for more and better regulations.
And what if the outside friends, otherwise not associated with the trades, of these legally inside people make the trades?Insider trading is illegal, as is the purposeful manipulation of a stock in that manner. Also c level officers have to declare their sales and buys of stock will in advance.
Oh well that's all right then.Insider trading is illegal, as is the purposeful manipulation of a stock in that manner. Also c level officers have to declare their sales and buys of stock will in advance.
It does make sense, but you start to run into sovereignty issues.Also that it makes sense to have agreements with some countries that avoid requiring companies to go through the certification process multiple times. If a drug has been shown to be effective in Germany or the UK, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do the same trials again in Canada and again in the US. The two other regulatory bodies could automatically certify the effectiveness of drugs after reviewing the studies, rather than requiring them to be repeated.
No company is going to go through trials simultaneously, because that's way too costly if it doesn't work. So you first go through one process, hopefully learn that drug X works and you have 10 years of patent protection left.Thenyou start the certification process in other large markets. That can easily cut another 3-5 years out of the time, leaving you with 5-7 years to make money in those markets.
You could say the same for food or housing: both are pretty important. Enough so for the state to intervene, with the cost particularly salient in housing (*cough* San Francisco, New York) -- i.e. shortages.No, it's not. It's the only market in which the consumer's quality and quantity of life is virtually held for ransom by a debilitating condition.
There are legitimate reasons for short selling.Perhaps we need a regulation making short selling itself illegal.
ding ding ding, we have a winnerPatents, copyrights, and intellectual property would still be a thing in a free market economy. Unless of course you want all drug development to completely stop because your formula can just be trivially copied by anyone after you sink hundreds of millions into discovering it.
I would say the difference between health care and other types of free market goods and services is that consumers do not behave the way they are intended to for a marketplace to function as it should. People simply don't purchase their health care in the same manner as they do a car, a home, or food. The idea of the informed consumer comparing competing goods and services then making their purchasing decision based on their best option for the lowest price just doesn't translate to health care.No, it's not. It's the only market in which the consumer's quality and quantity of life is virtually held for ransom by a debilitating condition.