I'm through the first four. Herewith, a few thoughts. Across all episodes, there is so much conflation of shady behavior with illegality that I can't quite tell what the point if the show is.

I applaud the ingenuity of VW for gaming the system to beat the emissions test. Trying to pass off their diesels as "clean" is unethical, but I'm kinda of the old school NASCAR mentality that if you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin. Ultimately, we can't have companies lying about their products, so the consequences were justified.

The payday loan episode was interesting. I knew they were shady but I didn't know how shady. Tucker is sleazy and deserves his downfall, but I think that he got screwed for operating a business that is legal. I also applaud him for his Indian tribe scam. If he'd done it a little better he probably wouldn't have gotten caught.

What was the point of the Valeant episode? Nothing they did was illegal and no one committed a crime. Yeah, raising prices screws a handful of individuals, but they get away with it by and large because third parties pay for nearly all medical care in this country. And if someone else is paying for drugs, the user doesn't care the cost.

The hsbc episode was the most interesting, but I found the attempt to equate money laundering with actual murder to be ridiculous. My hot sports opinion is that money laundering shouldn't even be a crime. If law enforcement can't stop wrong-doing at its source, why should a bank be Shanghaied (eh?) into helping?

It's called "Dirty Money", not "Illegal Money".

Few would argue that Valient, HSBC, and VW were bastions of corporate responsibility. Ethics has to play a roll at some point.

You do understand that laundering the money helps hide the criminals from law enforcement correct?

thisguy05 said:

---

I'm through the first four. Herewith, a few thoughts. Across all episodes, there is so much conflation of shady behavior with illegality that I can't quite tell what the point if the show is.

I applaud the ingenuity of VW for gaming the system to beat the emissions test. Trying to pass off their diesels as "clean" is unethical, but I'm kinda of the old school NASCAR mentality that if you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin. Ultimately, we can't have companies lying about their products, so the consequences were justified.

The payday loan episode was interesting. I knew they were shady but I didn't know how shady. Tucker is sleazy and deserves his downfall, but I think that he got screwed for operating a business that is legal. I also applaud him for his Indian tribe scam. If he'd done it a little better he probably wouldn't have gotten caught.

What was the point of the Valeant episode? Nothing they did was illegal and no one committed a crime. Yeah, raising prices screws a handful of individuals, but they get away with it by and large because third parties pay for nearly all medical care in this country. And if someone else is paying for drugs, the user doesn't care the cost.

The hsbc episode was the most interesting, but I found the attempt to equate money laundering with actual murder to be ridiculous. My hot sports opinion is that money laundering shouldn't even be a crime. If law enforcement can't stop wrong-doing at its source, why should a bank be Shanghaied (eh?) into helping?

---

Do you know what co-insurance and co-pays are? End users care who is paying for life-saving medication because if it gets too expensive, the insurance company will drop them from their insurance, and they can't receive their medication.

free_mhayden said:

---

About 3/4ths of the way through the Valeant episode and growing really tired of these slow-motion walks of Fahmi and close-ups of her in sunglasses.

Ooooh, lets do another shot of her at her desk with the downtown lights behind her.

The report is entertaining/informative, but do all the episodes have this much production filler?

---

As SACR mentioned, there's no way she's still holding her VRX short.

It was like watching an infomercial for her. This Bloomberg article is the only reference I found with some substance.

Quote:

---

Quadir, who expects to raise $200 million at her newly created Safkhet Capital and begin trading early next year, may face an uphill climb.

---

These two, working out of a co-working office space in Manhattan is going to raise $200MM?

Sure, I get that. Obviously there are adverse effects to some people, like the ones highlighted in the show. I think my main point is valid about costs. Broadly speaking, this is why health care is so expensive in this country. If people paid for drugs (routine procedures, check ups, etc.), like they pay for everything else they buy, they wouldn't be so expensive.

I also recognize we can't get there from here, by making people start paying now. The whole system would have to be blown up and built from scratch, which isn't gonna happen.

I think there's a case to be made that all economic activity is good economic activity. Drugs are a scourge, but they're being sold whether the money is laundered or not.

By bringing the money into the legitimate system, hsbc's shareholders earn more money, it's borrowers have access to more capital and the legit economy grows.

thisguy05 said:

---

I'm through the first four. Herewith, a few thoughts. Across all episodes, there is so much conflation of shady behavior with illegality that I can't quite tell what the point if the show is.

I applaud the ingenuity of VW for gaming the system to beat the emissions test. Trying to pass off their diesels as "clean" is unethical, but I'm kinda of the old school NASCAR mentality that if you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin. Ultimately, we can't have companies lying about their products, so the consequences were justified.

The payday loan episode was interesting. I knew they were shady but I didn't know how shady. Tucker is sleazy and deserves his downfall, but I think that he got screwed for operating a business that is legal. I also applaud him for his Indian tribe scam. If he'd done it a little better he probably wouldn't have gotten caught.

What was the point of the Valeant episode? Nothing they did was illegal and no one committed a crime. Yeah, raising prices screws a handful of individuals, but they get away with it by and large because third parties pay for nearly all medical care in this country. And if someone else is paying for drugs, the user doesn't care the cost.

The hsbc episode was the most interesting, but I found the attempt to equate money laundering with actual murder to be ridiculous. My hot sports opinion is that money laundering shouldn't even be a crime. If law enforcement can't stop wrong-doing at its source, why should a bank be Shanghaied (eh?) into helping?

---

Interesting

thisguy05 said:

---

Sure, I get that. Obviously there are adverse effects to some people, like the ones highlighted in the show. I think my main point is valid about costs. Broadly speaking, this is why health care is so expensive in this country. If people paid for drugs (routine procedures, check ups, etc.), like they pay for everything else they buy, they wouldn't be so expensive.

I also recognize we can't get there from here, by making people start paying now. The whole system would have to be blown up and built from scratch, which isn't gonna happen.

---

Are you saying that ideally no one would have health insurance because it would be made affordable due to free market pressure?

Many drugs are one-of-a-kind. Either people buy DrugXYZ or they stay sick and/or die. No pressure to decrease price.

Health insurance exists because the free market determined that it was a win-win for consumers and the insurance companies. Patients that require more care/more drugs don't have to choose between suffering/dying and going broke. Insurance companies make a ton of money because most of their customers don't need extensive care/extensive drugs.


BTW, I'm not saying that people should be required to have insurance (i.e. the individual mandate).

I prefer my shortsellers wear sunglasses in the dark.

thisguy05 said:

---

I think there's a case to be made that all economic activity is good economic activity. Drugs are a scourge, but they're being sold whether the money is laundered or not.

By bringing the money into the legitimate system, hsbc's shareholders earn more money, it's borrowers have access to more capital and the legit economy grows.

---

I really hope you're half-joking. From a purely economic standpoint, you might not be completely wrong. But surely you can see how allowing this type of thing to carry on is extremely damaging to society (and ultimately the economic health of the country) as a whole.

The new BSA/AML (bank secrecy/anti money laundering) laws require banks to verify "beneficial" ownership of all non-individual customers. Beneficial ownership = 25% owner. In theory, this helps reduce money laundering by bringing the true beneficiaries into the light.

What's funny about that is that this could be resolved at company formation and/or tax time via the return. The reason it falls on the banks is because they can't / won't sue the state or federal government for allowing criminal enterprise to open legal entities. Instead, they put it all on the banks whom they can fine. The proceeds of those fines keeps thousands of politicians and bureaucrats employed.

They don't want to solve the problem, because it will eliminate their jobs or impact their donors.

dp

That makes more sense.

Precisely!

I really don't think routine visits to primary care providers are the reason health insurance is so high. It's the shared costs of the small percentage of sick people who have huge expenses for care and drugs.

On my EOB, the insurance company ends up paying the doc less than $100 after co-pay and negotiated payments.

I really don't have a firm position on healthcare except I think it should be de-coupled from employers and we should have the ability to shop nationally for coverage. Likewise for your 401(k)/403(b).

I also don't think there is one simple reason why our healthcare is so high. My wife is an NP and her hospital has more billing clerks than beds. The system is so complicated that the overhead alone to navigate it is astronomical.

Drug costs are a Catch-22. As is, the U.S. is the pharmaceutical R&D powerhouse of the world by some margin. Our patent system only protects that investment for twelve years. If we start opening up to generics sooner, shrinking the time to recoup R&D efforts - will it stifle advancement?

Maybe because we're a lawsuit happy society and doctors unnecessarily issue tests and medications to CYA?

I really have no idea!

Quote:

---

The system is so complicated that the overhead alone to navigate it is astronomical

---

but this "creates jobs"...

Watched the last two. The maple syrup episode was the weakest of the series. It was an interesting topic, but it wasn't very well done. Was it a crime story? An infomercial for the federation? Also highlighted the unevenness of the series: drug cartel bad, syrup cartel good. Give me a free market.

The trump episode was good. Didn't cover any new ground, but it was entertaining. As with any con man, people believe what they want to believe. Someone lamented to me that he wished that'd come out before the election. But I think if it had he'd have won even more votes!

thisguy05 said:

---

Watched the last two. The maple syrup episode was the weakest of the series. It was an interesting topic, but it wasn't very well done. Was it a crime story? An infomercial for the federation? Also highlighted the unevenness of the series: drug cartel bad, syrup cartel good. Give me a free market.

The trump episode was good. Didn't cover any new ground, but it was entertaining. As with any con man, people believe what they want to believe. Someone lamented to me that he wished that'd come out before the election. But I think if it had he'd have won even more votes!

---

Agree, the maple syrup one doesn't belong with the rest of the series. The independent producers trying to connect a robbery with their cause was just weak.

I automatically assume it is leftist BS because the title has Martin Shkreli on it, who I applaud for what he did with his drug company.

I don't care what he did on the investor side. But buying that drug and raising prices.

I'm sure the idiot jury hated him for being a bad capitalist.

Even with a Texas accent, there is a difference
between illegal and all legal.

Shkreli appears on certain Netflix accounts, other ones show the monkeys from the VW story.