VW's diesel scandal and Shkreli's drug price-gouging

More of the same - this week was not exactly ethical capitalism's (if such a thing exists) finest hour:

VW may have to pay fines in the billions for deceiving pollution monitors and violating the Clean Air Act with their TDI "clean diesel" vehicles (stock plunged 20% in response). Apparently it's not so easy for a diesel engine to be both clean burning AND great mileage.

There is a new (and sick) trend in biopharma (link1, link2) where shell companies buy up the rights to "below market price" drugs and then jack up the prices by orders of magnitude to make a ROI. Well, at least those firms aren't deluding themselves that they're trying to help patients - they're explicit in their pure pursuit of profit, and it doesn't matter if needy patients are priced out.

----

Following up on VW and drug prices:

How an academic lab at UWV (an ironically similar acronym) detected VW's diesel cheating: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383663/vw-emissions-scandal-photo. I just wonder why VW's diesel rivals didn't question how VW could get superior mileage/torque while still keeping pollution low (the diesel engine is kind of zero-sum for these performance metrics). Like wouldn't they say, "Wow, in our lab we can only get 25 mpg if we stay under the NOx limit - I wonder how VW gets 40 mpg?" (numbers are fictional) Other auto makers are professing that their vehicles don't cheat, but we'll see. Even though very few light cars in the US are diesel, we of course have plenty of semi-trucks and heavier vehicles spewing particulates and carcinogens every day (but at least in CA, these vehicles now have to adhere to tighter limits). Not sure how big the impact will be in Europe, where ~half their light cars are diesel (but they have fewer cars per capita and drive fewer miles per capita vs. the US).

This article has an interesting viewpoint on the Shkreli drug prices scandal: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/9/23/9383899/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price. He's been such an a-hole and unapologetic capitalist re: his company's actions that he's garnered a ton of negative publicity. That actually helps to shed light on the drug price-gouging issue that Big Pharma has been engaging in for decades (BS loopholes to extend patents, buying the rights to generics or cheaper rival drugs to keep them off the market, etc.). Hopefully the increased attention and outrage will motivate lawmakers to consider new rules for the industry, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd prefer Trump over Jeb

Because the latter just keeps proving that he is the biggest tool in the world! At least Trump is right about money in politics, taxing the 1%, and women's health.

Some highlights from last night:

Rand calls out Jeb for "getting away with" smoking pot as a kid because he's privileged, but plenty of dark skinned poor people get their lives ruined by a drug conviction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZgYLo-89vg

Bush "faulted" Trump for inviting Hillary to his wedding, and Trump said that everyone on the stage was beholden to their donors but him, who has refused millions. Of course Jeb tried to deny this.

https://youtu.be/ZSsKGBIuFW8?t=137

Trump also alleged that Dubya's failures is the reason why Obama became the next president. Then Jeb totally pivoted and said, "At least my brother kept us safe," to thunderous applause. Kept us safe!?! Didn't 9/11 happen under his watch? How many Americans and our friends died in Iraq and Afghanistan on his watch? How many vets committed suicide and/or got addicted to drugs, and how many military families were impacted by divorces, disabilities, etc.? How much did public health suffer due to panic/hardships from the financial crisis? And of course - Katrina. His terrible grasp of historical context is mind-blowing. Yes, Trump sucks about facts and policy. But he's a CEO and manages his own brand, so at least he gets big picture stuff better than those other bureaucrats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT0ZFolQWqY

It's kind of funny how it was everyone-vs-Trump now. He's not used to getting called out and attacked (more than he's dishing out) I'm sure. But it might backfire and make Trump look more sympathetic/righteous. Of course every front-runner has to deal with more scrutiny, but the roles dynamic is interesting here. To his supporters, the DC establishment is trying to sink Trump because he's a legit threat now an would really shake things up if he got power. But that is why Trump is popular, so I doubt his fans would prefer to support guys like Jeb or Rubio just because they seem to know more about policy. I guess his fans would prefer that he not utter so many apish insults, but he fires them up, which is more than the other hopefuls can claim. Can we please have at least 6 of those losers bow out this week!?!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/16/440718361/the-1-passage-you-need-to-read-to-understand-donald-trump-s-appeal

And sorry I forgot to add Jeb's most pathetic move of the night: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/422637-jeb-bush-pulled-this-hilarious-power-move-when-standing-next-to-trump/

Have some self-respect, man. Dubya is twice the man Jeb is (for better or worse).

J&J: America's "most admired unlawful company"

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/chapter-1.html

Here's a multi-chapter story (2 parts published so far) about J&J, the company we know (and love) for no-tears baby shampoo, Band-Aids, Tylenol, etc. They make us feel better and healthier. But their low-margin consumer products division is only 9% of their profits, and their pharma/devices division is where most of the money (and controversies) are.

I interned at a J&J acquisition last decade, and of the 3 pharma companies I've worked at, I felt that J&J emphasized ethics the most. This is probably due to their "Creedo culture". Remember the 1982 Tylenol crisis where some guy in Chicago was opening up bottles and putting cyanide in them? That led to 7 customer deaths, and the voluntary development of tamper-proof drug containers by J&J that became the industry standard. That tragedy could have sunk the company (Tylenol's market share of analgesics initially fell from 35% to 7%... haha who were those crazy 7%, very loyal employees or people without TVs?), but J&J's leader at the time, James Burke, held the ship together and eventually restored their brand image. It is now a celebrated crisis mgmt. business case, and Burke won the Medal of Freedom in 2000 (I don't know if it was fully merited or not).

Part of their brand recovery plan was the drafting of the Creedo (written in stone like the 10 Commandments, and next to the Stars & Stripes), or guiding principles for what kind of company they should be. On paper is sounds very good and even inspirational (it was for a 23 year old): their order of priorities are customers/users, business partners, employees, communities, and lastly shareholders. Of course that challenged their fiduciary duty as a publicly-owned company, but the Board must have approved it. Maybe the thinking is that these stakeholders are not zero-sum; if you are good to patients and others, the money will also flow to shareholders (Merck says something similar). They drove these points home during new hire orientation, and also recognize employees each year who are especially faithful to the Creedo.

But apparently the "thought leaders" and businessmen (corporate criminals are overwhelmingly male) in the pharma/device divisions didn't really live it out on multiple occasions. I don't know how much "Creedo compliance" actually takes place - like are employees rated and comped for how ethical they are (how Google partly evaluates employees on their "Googleyness")? Doubt it. But maybe all of this lofty Creedo stuff is just a smoke screen to get patients, employees, and gov't to believe that medical companies are somehow more trustworthy and admirable than "regular companies" that just make widgets, because their higher mission is to save lives.

The record indicates that medical companies/providers are no more ethical than the rest of us, and are in fact also responsible for millions of deaths, billions in fraud, and countless injuries over the years (some preventable or willful). Sure, their net impact is probably positive, but the J&J case could be another big example why for-profit medicine does not lead to the best outcomes for society as a whole.

All the Star Wars crap of 2015 is not really Star Wars

To switch gears, since the refugee issue is too heartbreaking and Trump is still dominating the domestic agenda - let's talk art and culture:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-coolest-new-39-star-c1249116534652982/photo-catch-phrase-game-1441389503687.html

The recent commercialization of Star Wars in preparation for Episode 7 is going way overboard, but what do you expect from Disney? Part of the SW allure is that it's retro and a bit nerdy. When it's so mainstream and ubiquitous, then it just becomes McStarWars. Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old (middle-aged) man, but Star Wars is the property of MY GENERATION (Gen X). We didn't have the internet back then and we missed the party that was the 1960s, so can we at least hold onto Star Wars?

The companies and kids of today don't get to bastardize, piggyback, and profit from it. Did my generation remake crappier versions of Gone with the Wind and The Godfather? No, those were the classics of previous eras, and they remained preserved and unaltered like the great pieces of art/history/culture they are. To be clear, I'm not a hoarder - obviously I am very open to share the magic of Star Wars with today's audience, but we shouldn't remake what Star Wars is. The prequels were bad enough (IMO they never happened).

It's quite possible that Episode 7 (and the thousand other soul-less "Star Wars universe" spinoffs that the Disney film factory is planning) could be good movies. But it's not Star Wars. And seeing how JJ Abrams totally failed at his modern rendition of Wrath of Khan, I unfortunately am expecting Episode 7 to be a lot of pandering and recycling of old Star Wars content to evoke cheap, nostalgic, Pavlovian affinity. "Let's make it look like old Star Wars, but with modern style!" R2-D2 gives way to soccer ball BB-8. Vader's red lightsaber now has stupid side lasers at the hilt. There's an X-wing that's painted black. Is that the best you can do with a $100MM plus budget? I will give JJ credit that he's using real physical sets and effects at least, rather than lazy and sterile Lucasfilm CG.

Young George Lucas and team didn't try to remake War of the Worlds - they charted their own course at great risk and difficulty. But that's how you make history (i.e. no one will remember Iron Man 3). Why don't Disney/JJ try to make a new franchise that is even better than Star Wars? Do they have the talent and audacity to try, instead of rebooting and copying like corporate hacks? And yes, I realize that original Star Wars also borrowed from (or was inspired by) previous sci-fi adventure material, but the keywords are "borrow/inspire" and not "copy." Shakespeare borrowed from Greece and Rome - that is fair game for artists. Most people agree that Star Wars was also innovative and revolutionary on many levels. I guarantee that Episode 7 will not be. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to succeed with a different, fresh concept (e.g. anyone remember the original Matrix?). If you use the Force, you can do it. :)

---

Yup, not a lot of originality and remaking original classics today in TV and movies (star wars, 21 jump street, Miami vice, a-team) etc, seems like Hollywood is running out of ideas. Or capitalizing on the fact that the generations that are solid into their careers are willing to pay money for things they are nostalgic about as kids. Like how our toys as kids are collectable and classic Nintendo games sell for a lot on ebay. That's probably because our generation grew up (and some raised via TV babysitter ) with Hollywood entertainment. As we look into our parents' and grandparents' generation, there still is a market for nostalgic things they grew up with, but the more you rewind time, the less Hollywood entertainment was involved in their upbringing. They still buy classic toys but also are willing to spend bucks on what makes them feel nostalgic : antiques, classic cars, music memorabilia, WWII memorabilia, etc. 

I was listening to a morning talk show and they were saying how most blockbusters this past summer were not original. Either re-makes, or continuation of a movie series, such as Hunger Games, Avengers, Jurassic Park. Squeezing the extra buck out of a formula that works vs coming out with something original.

We are starting to sound like the old men we rolled our eyes at when they ranted about "back in our day" and the problem with the kids these days!
---

Yeah we might be becoming those "get off my lawn you damn kids!" type soon. :) I don't have as much time to watch films anymore, but I really don't have much interest either. The attractive, quality stories are just not there. And I am so tired of super hero movies that basically have the same characters and same story arcs every time. Disney better consider "customer fatigue" too when they pump out so much Marvel and SW stuff. It's not cool or memorable anymore when it's everywhere (like Michael Kors' recent drop in sales). I can't imagine how horrible Halloween will be when 80% of the boys are either Marvel or SW characters, and all the girls are Elsa. Thanks again, Disney.

And I think the cinema trend will only persist due to the huge commercial success of reboots/sequels like "Jurassic World" and "Avengers." Some series are pretty good start-to-finish, like Harry Potter. Some don't know when to quit when they're ahead and stretch it out way too long, like Hobbit (quality definitely suffers when quantity increases). But as Hollywood becomes more corporate than artistic, of course they will go after the lower-risk, high ROI projects like cheap "found footage" horror movies, pop-culture themed rom-coms, and tentpole franchises like Marvel and Mission Impossible. I suppose the customers are partly to blame again (esp. the dumbass foreign audiences who always eat up our schlock!), since we fork over the money for copycat/formula films, and not for the riskier, original works (there are some exceptions like "Mad Max: Fury Road" which was an excellent reboot, done in a fresh style with a new story that actually moved people).

Maybe Tarantino strikes the best balance; his films obviously pay homage to his youth interests and inspirations like Blaxploitation and Spaghetti Westerns, but all his movies are of exceptional quality, with a new angle, and no pandering/cheap nostalgia. He makes movies with the thinking fan in mind, and with film school discipline in mind - to a point where he may have created his own genre that others can't copy (because no businessman can beat a passionate, skilled artist). That is obviously not Disney's style though. They even copy their own scenes.

Re: Star Wars, I have no problem with sequels if they are superior (which Empire was, though after that Jedi became too kiddie). If the prequels were somehow better films, I don't think people would have complained that they undermined the originals. The plan all along was to have Eps 4-6 in a series, because that closed the loop on the story arc. And it was executed by generally the same team, so there was respect for the original vision. Clearly they weren't remakes or spinoffs. OTOH, Eps 1-3 did not need to get made. The whole point of a "back story" is that it doesn't need to be told in as much detail as the main story. No one cares what happened during the Old Republic and the Clone Wars. It's just a setup for the status quo where there is a mean Galactic Empire and a righteous rebellion trying to defeat them.
It's quite possible that Episode 7 (TFA) will be a good movie. It will certainly be better than the prequels (though that is not a bold statement!). I will try to view it as a standalone sci-fi film. Because of my personal bias, it can't compare to the originals. So I don't "hate" it yet, I just don't consider it real Star Wars (maybe this is not a logical sentiment, but hey, "fan" is short for fanatic :). Like how horrible "Prometheus" wasn't really an "Alien" film, but a pathetic origin story attempt to ride coattails.

It's hard to successfully continue a story (that had a very clean ending) 30+ years later with a different production team, context, audience tastes. The James Bond franchise kind of makes it work because the core formula is simple, they are popcorn movies and don't take themselves too seriously (until recently when the tone got darker), and the films rarely build on each other (again, until recently). Also, Eps 4-6 progressively introduced new elements (a love story, Yoda, better effects, etc.). I don't know what will truly be novel about TFA, since the "new" characters and imagery mostly look like ripoffs of the old ones. While I would prefer TFA not get made, there is some fair rationale and hope for it. However, the spinoff side movies that Disney has planned are too much IMO (they are going to recover their $4B investment no matter what). We are going to get saturated with Star Wars to the point that it's not special anymore. Think Marvel x10. The Starbucks effect. Even if 10% of their films are great, the other mediocre/poor ones (and excessive merchandising) will detract from the overall product. That's why I think Lucas' final "F U" to his critics was selling to Disney of all buyers. They are exploiters, not custodians.
Maybe I'm being melodramatic, but one of my favorite memories of childhood was playing Darth Vader with my dad. I would make the gesture to "Force choke" him, and he would fall to the ground pretending to be in pain. It cracked me up. I am grateful that Star Wars enabled countless moments like that between fans over the years. I really doubt the prequels and new films can do that. Even my dad, just a casual movie goer, immediately noticed that it was wrong for Yoda to be in over-the-top CG lightsaber fight scenes in the prequels. "Yoda is a sage, not an action hero. He is peaceful and uses his mind." It's sad that recent Lucasfilm couldn't understand the essence of the characters they created decades ago.

Refugee crisis

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-03/5-groups-doing-important-work-help-refugees-you-may-not-have-heard
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-germany-presses-europe-into-sharing-refugees

Frankly I've been avoiding this topic because it's just too damn depressing. Being a refugee fleeing war is one of the scariest situations to me - I can't possibly imagine leaving your whole existence behind to flee to a foreign place. Because if you don't, you or your loved ones will starve/be conscripted/get raped-murdered.

The US helped many in my family who were refugees in the 1970s, but we really haven't done that recently, not since Somalia. What are the UN, US, and UK doing about the current crisis? Germany has been forced into a leadership situation and pledged to absorb 800K mostly Syrian refugees (out of a potential 4M). If we won't physically take in people, at least we can send cash and supplies to those who are.

I've already written about how the US turned its back on allies and refugees before (below). Are we complacent to hide behind our geographic isolation? The UK's excuse is that the world should focus on "improving conditions" in Syria so there isn't a need to flee. Well they aren't doing squat about that either, so what gives? I know every nations has very needy people domestically and may not be able to support many new visitors. Greece is on the front lines, and obviously is not in the best position to handle the crisis. If the US was as welcoming as Scandinavians per capita, we would be taking in 5M refugees this year. And we can, for probably the cost it takes to maintain a nuclear carrier. But we won't.

http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/08/children-fleeing-central-america.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/05/refugee-to-native-ratios.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-and-responsibility-to-protect.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/10/with-friends-like-these.html

How about China too? Aren't they the #2 economy and don't they want to be respected as a global leader? Syria is a key partner - what are they doing for their friends? Like climate change, it's someone else's problem, even if the victims are innocent and the definition of deserving help.