Martin Shrkeli is guilty of being bad person, but he’s certain he’s a good capitalist.
As Donald Trump is a stress test for American democracy, the pharmaceutical executive is one for our economic system. Both run fairly well if those occupying seats of power act decently and responsibly, but, come on, let’s be adults here.
The smirking 33-year-old entrepreneur, who believed only the profits of his shareholders mattered when he drastically spiked the price of lifesaving medicine, essentially performing a legal mugging of those who depend on EpiPens, never should have been placed in a position to monopolize such a market. Regulation that encouraged competition was required, as was a lever that thwarted those who exploited the system. It’s just another reminder that corporations aren’t of the people, by the people and for the people–they aren’t people.
David Crow of the Financial Times penned an excellent profile of the remorseless, brat-faced “pharma bro” as he awaits trial on securities fraud, still treating life like a zero-sum game. An excerpt:
If the private Shkreli is any different to the pugnacious public persona, it is not immediately apparent. “This is my date spot if you will,” he says, gesturing to the dark panelled walls of his favourite haunt, as he launches straight into his defence. I should not, he swiftly makes clear, expect any regrets.
“To me the drug was woefully underpriced,” he says. Rather, he thinks he should have charged a higher price still because Daraprim can keep people alive: “It is not a question of ‘Is this fair?’, or ‘What did you pay for it?’, or ‘When was it invented’. It should be more expensive in many ways”.
He boasts of other attempts to buy old drugs for fatal diseases with the “ingenious plan” of inflating their prices as well, and suggests that executives who eschew such tactics are, in effect, defrauding their investors. “If you have a drug that is $100 for one course of therapy, and you know that you can charge $100,000, what should shareholders think when you say, ‘I’d rather not take the heat’?” he asks. …
The conversation, like any other in the US these days, soon turns to the presidential election. While not registered to vote, Shkreli instinctively supports Donald Trump despite his flaws. “The symbolism of his success is in many ways what you’re voting for. It’s sort of like the Statue of Liberty; he’s an icon that represents something.
“I think that his supporters endorse being rash, being American, being polarising and having this un-PC, unedited attitude. In many ways it’s not a surprise that I identify with that.” Later, it occurs to me how often Shkreli himself speaks in Trumpisms, like this: “I’ve had my photo taken a lot with people who say, ‘I support you, you inspire me, you’re the American dream’.”•