In an article this morning on Medium.com, Jason Smith writes that the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, Martin Shkreli is a jerk (he used a different word, though). Mark’s company bought a drug company that makes an anti-food-borne-illness pill needed by people who have AIDS and cancer, and right away he raised the price 55 times, from $13.50 to $750.
We shouldn’t call Shkreli a jerk. When we do that, we’re complaining, but not in a way anyone can do anything about. Everyone has the right to be a jerk. There’s no other (decent) reason to call Shkreli a jerk.
Maybe Smith, the author, wanted to shame Shkreli into reversing his decision. But think about it! If someone is enough of an asshole to raise the price of medicine used by cancer and AIDS patience to $750 per pill, do you think they’ll feel shame?
Shkreli probably did some research, modeled the elasticity of the market and determined at the price at which he can make the most money. If you look at company charters, there’s usually no other legal purpose for a company other than to make money. Shkreli is probably just a psychopath, meaning he was born able to feel little or no empathy, and he doesn’t have guilt or shame. He doesn’t particularly value people he’s not emotionally involved with (dependent on). Estimates are that about 1% of the population are like this, and 4% of CEOs are!
Doesn’t care about people
The distinction between jerk vs psychopath is important. We can’t regulate jerks. We could regulate psychopaths, or find another solution. We could say it’s a deviance that prevents them from being reliable citizens, so they either can’t be CEOs, or they’re required to have some kind of moral supervision, or they’re simply not allowed in industries like healthcare where compassion is particularly important. Or maybe we lessen the length of a medical patent to 5 or 10 years to minimize the effort. Or maybe we give the FDA the authority to invalidate a patent if it’s used cruelly. Raising the price like this of a lifesaving drug could alert the SEC that he’s probably a psychopath, so they could look into his background, and if he is, take action. He needn’t be fired or lose his patent- he could simply be forced to lower the price of the pill. And, the company could be liable for the cost of the FDA’s efforts.
I’m not saying we SHOULD do this. What I’m saying is that if we let go of our righteous indignation and look at what’s happening in a situation, instead of just complaining, it might be easy to find a constructive solution.
This is the foundation of PeopleCount.org. Our two major parties have sorted themselves into pretty coherent groups, so on many issues they disagree hugely. We have Congressional gridlock. But instead of figuring out on which issues they agree and disagree, they’ve locked themselves into a power struggle so they fight about almost everything. They often see ideological differences where there are none.
We often take this to mean a solution is impossible. We need not. If we stop name-calling, we could see that if these groups, as well as the rest of us, could communicate dispassionately about what we want, some of the gridlock would disappear and we could solve some of our problems. This is one thing that PeopleCount.org will provide, this Winter, in 2016.
PeopleCount won’t suddenly make people reasonable, but it’ll help. And as people use it and see that all their opinions are expressed, they’ll feel they’ve taken actions consistent with responsible citizenship. As more people act as responsible citizens, our culture will begin to change, in the right direction, toward more cooperation and compromise, solving problems instead of just bickering. Over a few years, our culture will improve. And in that new, improved culture, even more will be possible.
So finish your tantrum. Let go of your upset. Accept the situation exactly as it is. What’s possible?