Markdoc

I basically assume that all major sports leagues are corrupt: we have franchises generating huge amounts of money, that operate as legal quasi-monopolies, but which are exempt from the kind of oversight that we expect for businesses and financial institutions. Moreover, they are allowed to operate as cartels. At the same time the code of conduct that they used to run on in the pre-franchise era has been scrapped. Frankly, it would be a miracle if any of them were not corrupt.
 
cheers, Mark

Soar, that was a really long post simply to say "I just don't get it".
 
I don't think the argument is about trying  "to appease a group of people who can't be appeased". I've talked to some, you know, actual women, and their - almost universal - complaint is "Why are there so few characters actually designed with us in mind?" We're not talking about penis-chopping manhaters here, but ordinary gamers, who feel that they are being ignored at best, actively mocked at worst, by much of the gaming industry.
 
I think you make the point exquisitely when you put Batgirl and Robin in the box, because it really is a good comparison: neither of them are original stand-alone characters like Batman. Both of them are derivative, subsidary appendages of the actual character, and both are well-worn archetypes: female version and trusty sidekick, respectively. Batgirl, Female Thor, Supergirl, She-hulk ... etc are not characters designed with women or girls in mind. Like Linkle, they are simply a male hero with tits slapped on, or as you put it yourself, just a reskinning of the character.
 
So I'm not surprised that this approach didn't satisfy feminists (or indeed, women in general) because not only was it not what they were asking for, but it was in fact exactly one of the things they were criticizing.
 
You make this point very well in your post, though I'm pretty sure it wasn't the point you were hoping to make.
 
cheers, Mark

In Sweden I think it's "One swallow does not a summer romance make"
 
cheers, Mark

Food for thought .... http://www.statista.com/chart/3411/police-shootings-in-perspective/.
 
They didn't adjust for population size (which is bad, sloppy or both) but the US is about 5 times the size of the UK and 4 times the size of Germany, population-wise, so you can make the comparison easily enough.
 
cheers, Mark

Soar, that was a really long post simply to say "I just don't get it".
 
I don't think the argument is about trying  "to appease a group of people who can't be appeased". I've talked to some, you know, actual women, and their - almost universal - complaint is "Why are there so few characters actually designed with us in mind?" We're not talking about penis-chopping manhaters here, but ordinary gamers, who feel that they are being ignored at best, actively mocked at worst, by much of the gaming industry.
 
I think you make the point exquisitely when you put Batgirl and Robin in the box, because it really is a good comparison: neither of them are original stand-alone characters like Batman. Both of them are derivative, subsidary appendages of the actual character, and both are well-worn archetypes: female version and trusty sidekick, respectively. Batgirl, Female Thor, Supergirl, She-hulk ... etc are not characters designed with women or girls in mind. Like Linkle, they are simply a male hero with tits slapped on, or as you put it yourself, just a reskinning of the character.
 
So I'm not surprised that this approach didn't satisfy feminists (or indeed, women in general) because not only was it not what they were asking for, but it was in fact exactly one of the things they were criticizing.
 
You make this point very well in your post, though I'm pretty sure it wasn't the point you were hoping to make.
 
cheers, Mark

Soar, that was a really long post simply to say "I just don't get it".
 
I don't think the argument is about trying  "to appease a group of people who can't be appeased". I've talked to some, you know, actual women, and their - almost universal - complaint is "Why are there so few characters actually designed with us in mind?" We're not talking about penis-chopping manhaters here, but ordinary gamers, who feel that they are being ignored at best, actively mocked at worst, by much of the gaming industry.
 
I think you make the point exquisitely when you put Batgirl and Robin in the box, because it really is a good comparison: neither of them are original stand-alone characters like Batman. Both of them are derivative, subsidary appendages of the actual character, and both are well-worn archetypes: female version and trusty sidekick, respectively. Batgirl, Female Thor, Supergirl, She-hulk ... etc are not characters designed with women or girls in mind. Like Linkle, they are simply a male hero with tits slapped on, or as you put it yourself, just a reskinning of the character.
 
So I'm not surprised that this approach didn't satisfy feminists (or indeed, women in general) because not only was it not what they were asking for, but it was in fact exactly one of the things they were criticizing.
 
You make this point very well in your post, though I'm pretty sure it wasn't the point you were hoping to make.
 
cheers, Mark

Oh, you're missing the point, all right. Nobody is actually demanding reskinning. So nobody is going to be appeased, because nobody is asking for that apart, maybe, from you.
 
What women, by and large are asking for is characters written either with them in mind, or at least not specifically aimed only at guys only. Catwoman, not Batgirl. A female character who can stand or fail on her own merits, not Link with tits. They are also asking for the same kinds of choices that guys already get. When playing Diablo III, as a guy, I had the choice of gender-match characters ranging from young, lithe guy to grizzled veteran warrior. As a female, my choices ranged from hot shapely babe with short hair to hot shapely babe with long hair.
 
Reskinning as a a lazy-ass excuse for not addressing these issues is a source of discontent, not a demand people want addressed. So of course they won't be pleased. Who on earth would expect them to be pleased when served up something they have repeatedly said they don't want?
 
cheers, Mark

Oh, you're missing the point, all right. Nobody is actually demanding reskinning. So nobody is going to be appeased, because nobody is asking for that apart, maybe, from you.
 
What women, by and large are asking for is characters written either with them in mind, or at least not specifically aimed only at guys only. Catwoman, not Batgirl. A female character who can stand or fail on her own merits, not Link with tits. They are also asking for the same kinds of choices that guys already get. When playing Diablo III, as a guy, I had the choice of gender-match characters ranging from young, lithe guy to grizzled veteran warrior. As a female, my choices ranged from hot shapely babe with short hair to hot shapely babe with long hair.
 
Reskinning as a a lazy-ass excuse for not addressing these issues is a source of discontent, not a demand people want addressed. So of course they won't be pleased. Who on earth would expect them to be pleased when served up something they have repeatedly said they don't want?
 
cheers, Mark

Soar, that was a really long post simply to say "I just don't get it".
 
I don't think the argument is about trying  "to appease a group of people who can't be appeased". I've talked to some, you know, actual women, and their - almost universal - complaint is "Why are there so few characters actually designed with us in mind?" We're not talking about penis-chopping manhaters here, but ordinary gamers, who feel that they are being ignored at best, actively mocked at worst, by much of the gaming industry.
 
I think you make the point exquisitely when you put Batgirl and Robin in the box, because it really is a good comparison: neither of them are original stand-alone characters like Batman. Both of them are derivative, subsidary appendages of the actual character, and both are well-worn archetypes: female version and trusty sidekick, respectively. Batgirl, Female Thor, Supergirl, She-hulk ... etc are not characters designed with women or girls in mind. Like Linkle, they are simply a male hero with tits slapped on, or as you put it yourself, just a reskinning of the character.
 
So I'm not surprised that this approach didn't satisfy feminists (or indeed, women in general) because not only was it not what they were asking for, but it was in fact exactly one of the things they were criticizing.
 
You make this point very well in your post, though I'm pretty sure it wasn't the point you were hoping to make.
 
cheers, Mark

This is kind of cool.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291134/Ancient-warrior-s-tomb-laid-untouched-3-500-years-discovered-Greece-alongside-huge-hoard-treasure-including-gold-jewellery-signet-rings.html
 
cheers, Mark

This is kind of cool.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291134/Ancient-warrior-s-tomb-laid-untouched-3-500-years-discovered-Greece-alongside-huge-hoard-treasure-including-gold-jewellery-signet-rings.html
 
cheers, Mark

This is kind of cool.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291134/Ancient-warrior-s-tomb-laid-untouched-3-500-years-discovered-Greece-alongside-huge-hoard-treasure-including-gold-jewellery-signet-rings.html
 
cheers, Mark

This is just introverted gibberish. Change a few pronouns and a few activities and the article could have been written by a woman. In fact, I've read very many, very similar articles that were written by women, except they were about societal pressures to be feminine. Which makes the point, that it isn't about masculinity - or femininity, or even gender roles, for that matter: I've also read similar screeds on being Catholic (or not, in a catholic environment). It's about how we react to social pressure to conform to a specific role (or roles, because we are all expected to assume multiple roles).
 
It's a pity. The author starts out promisingly, writing "Speaking for myself—the only person I can reasonably speak for—being a Man never seemed like an attainable goal, let alone a desirable one. This has something to do with me and who I am, certainly ..." and then goes on to ignore his own starting premise and write as though his own experience is universal. I understand his experience, because it's very similar to my own. But his conclusions and his reactions - even though entirely understandable to me, based on shared experience - are diametrically opposed to my own. So his own experience is not universal. Nor is mine – nor are the experiences of my many geek friends that run the spectrum. They are all equally valid … and only a tiny subset deal with anxiety issues. And it is a pity, because there are a few insightful comments mixed in with the gibberish.
 
So masculinity isn’t an anxiety disorder. He has an anxiety disorder about his masculinity. That’s an issue he’s going to have to solve or learn to accommodate himself. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but locating the real root of a problem is the first step in resolving it. Trying to externalize it, the way he does here is actually only going to deepen his issues, because the world is not going to change to accommodate his personal problem.
 
Cheers, Mark

This is just introverted gibberish. Change a few pronouns and a few activities and the article could have been written by a woman. In fact, I've read very many, very similar articles that were written by women, except they were about societal pressures to be feminine. Which makes the point, that it isn't about masculinity - or femininity, or even gender roles, for that matter: I've also read similar screeds on being Catholic (or not, in a catholic environment). It's about how we react to social pressure to conform to a specific role (or roles, because we are all expected to assume multiple roles).
 
It's a pity. The author starts out promisingly, writing "Speaking for myself—the only person I can reasonably speak for—being a Man never seemed like an attainable goal, let alone a desirable one. This has something to do with me and who I am, certainly ..." and then goes on to ignore his own starting premise and write as though his own experience is universal. I understand his experience, because it's very similar to my own. But his conclusions and his reactions - even though entirely understandable to me, based on shared experience - are diametrically opposed to my own. So his own experience is not universal. Nor is mine – nor are the experiences of my many geek friends that run the spectrum. They are all equally valid … and only a tiny subset deal with anxiety issues. And it is a pity, because there are a few insightful comments mixed in with the gibberish.
 
So masculinity isn’t an anxiety disorder. He has an anxiety disorder about his masculinity. That’s an issue he’s going to have to solve or learn to accommodate himself. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but locating the real root of a problem is the first step in resolving it. Trying to externalize it, the way he does here is actually only going to deepen his issues, because the world is not going to change to accommodate his personal problem.
 
Cheers, Mark

This is just introverted gibberish. Change a few pronouns and a few activities and the article could have been written by a woman. In fact, I've read very many, very similar articles that were written by women, except they were about societal pressures to be feminine. Which makes the point, that it isn't about masculinity - or femininity, or even gender roles, for that matter: I've also read similar screeds on being Catholic (or not, in a catholic environment). It's about how we react to social pressure to conform to a specific role (or roles, because we are all expected to assume multiple roles).
 
It's a pity. The author starts out promisingly, writing "Speaking for myself—the only person I can reasonably speak for—being a Man never seemed like an attainable goal, let alone a desirable one. This has something to do with me and who I am, certainly ..." and then goes on to ignore his own starting premise and write as though his own experience is universal. I understand his experience, because it's very similar to my own. But his conclusions and his reactions - even though entirely understandable to me, based on shared experience - are diametrically opposed to my own. So his own experience is not universal. Nor is mine – nor are the experiences of my many geek friends that run the spectrum. They are all equally valid … and only a tiny subset deal with anxiety issues. And it is a pity, because there are a few insightful comments mixed in with the gibberish.
 
So masculinity isn’t an anxiety disorder. He has an anxiety disorder about his masculinity. That’s an issue he’s going to have to solve or learn to accommodate himself. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but locating the real root of a problem is the first step in resolving it. Trying to externalize it, the way he does here is actually only going to deepen his issues, because the world is not going to change to accommodate his personal problem.
 
Cheers, Mark

This is just introverted gibberish. Change a few pronouns and a few activities and the article could have been written by a woman. In fact, I've read very many, very similar articles that were written by women, except they were about societal pressures to be feminine. Which makes the point, that it isn't about masculinity - or femininity, or even gender roles, for that matter: I've also read similar screeds on being Catholic (or not, in a catholic environment). It's about how we react to social pressure to conform to a specific role (or roles, because we are all expected to assume multiple roles).
 
It's a pity. The author starts out promisingly, writing "Speaking for myself—the only person I can reasonably speak for—being a Man never seemed like an attainable goal, let alone a desirable one. This has something to do with me and who I am, certainly ..." and then goes on to ignore his own starting premise and write as though his own experience is universal. I understand his experience, because it's very similar to my own. But his conclusions and his reactions - even though entirely understandable to me, based on shared experience - are diametrically opposed to my own. So his own experience is not universal. Nor is mine – nor are the experiences of my many geek friends that run the spectrum. They are all equally valid … and only a tiny subset deal with anxiety issues. And it is a pity, because there are a few insightful comments mixed in with the gibberish.
 
So masculinity isn’t an anxiety disorder. He has an anxiety disorder about his masculinity. That’s an issue he’s going to have to solve or learn to accommodate himself. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but locating the real root of a problem is the first step in resolving it. Trying to externalize it, the way he does here is actually only going to deepen his issues, because the world is not going to change to accommodate his personal problem.
 
Cheers, Mark

This is just introverted gibberish. Change a few pronouns and a few activities and the article could have been written by a woman. In fact, I've read very many, very similar articles that were written by women, except they were about societal pressures to be feminine. Which makes the point, that it isn't about masculinity - or femininity, or even gender roles, for that matter: I've also read similar screeds on being Catholic (or not, in a catholic environment). It's about how we react to social pressure to conform to a specific role (or roles, because we are all expected to assume multiple roles).
 
It's a pity. The author starts out promisingly, writing "Speaking for myself—the only person I can reasonably speak for—being a Man never seemed like an attainable goal, let alone a desirable one. This has something to do with me and who I am, certainly ..." and then goes on to ignore his own starting premise and write as though his own experience is universal. I understand his experience, because it's very similar to my own. But his conclusions and his reactions - even though entirely understandable to me, based on shared experience - are diametrically opposed to my own. So his own experience is not universal. Nor is mine – nor are the experiences of my many geek friends that run the spectrum. They are all equally valid … and only a tiny subset deal with anxiety issues. And it is a pity, because there are a few insightful comments mixed in with the gibberish.
 
So masculinity isn’t an anxiety disorder. He has an anxiety disorder about his masculinity. That’s an issue he’s going to have to solve or learn to accommodate himself. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but locating the real root of a problem is the first step in resolving it. Trying to externalize it, the way he does here is actually only going to deepen his issues, because the world is not going to change to accommodate his personal problem.
 
Cheers, Mark

This is just introverted gibberish. Change a few pronouns and a few activities and the article could have been written by a woman. In fact, I've read very many, very similar articles that were written by women, except they were about societal pressures to be feminine. Which makes the point, that it isn't about masculinity - or femininity, or even gender roles, for that matter: I've also read similar screeds on being Catholic (or not, in a catholic environment). It's about how we react to social pressure to conform to a specific role (or roles, because we are all expected to assume multiple roles).
 
It's a pity. The author starts out promisingly, writing "Speaking for myself—the only person I can reasonably speak for—being a Man never seemed like an attainable goal, let alone a desirable one. This has something to do with me and who I am, certainly ..." and then goes on to ignore his own starting premise and write as though his own experience is universal. I understand his experience, because it's very similar to my own. But his conclusions and his reactions - even though entirely understandable to me, based on shared experience - are diametrically opposed to my own. So his own experience is not universal. Nor is mine – nor are the experiences of my many geek friends that run the spectrum. They are all equally valid … and only a tiny subset deal with anxiety issues. And it is a pity, because there are a few insightful comments mixed in with the gibberish.
 
So masculinity isn’t an anxiety disorder. He has an anxiety disorder about his masculinity. That’s an issue he’s going to have to solve or learn to accommodate himself. I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic, but locating the real root of a problem is the first step in resolving it. Trying to externalize it, the way he does here is actually only going to deepen his issues, because the world is not going to change to accommodate his personal problem.
 
Cheers, Mark

I've SEEN the Russian naval base in question, not so many years ago. I know it features prominently in discussions between armchair strategists online, but I don't think that it has the slightest interest to Putin or the Russian military at all, except as a propaganda piece. It's a tiny harbour with a few rusting corrugated iron sheds, with two cranes, one of which has rusted out, and fallen over into the harbour. When I saw it, the floating piers were derelict and there was a rusted sunken ship at one wharf. It was, in a word, desolate. The Russians are entirely smart enough to know that a small, useless harbour in an area where they cannot reliably project airpower is not a military asset on the global stage, but a liability, which is exactly why they've left it to decay. Promises to rebuild it so that it could host aircraft carriers or cruisers have so far produced bupkiss, and the current Russian buildup isn't even in the area of the port. Edit: and the Russians are actually using their access to the much better port at Limmasol in Cyprus rather more than their Syrian option anyway. I don't know what the status is now, but prior to the war, their "naval base" had a staff of 4.
 
No, Putin's interest and his whole foreign policy - which has been pretty consistent for the last decade and a half - is built around one thing: maintaining Russia's ability to intervene in global energy markets. That's it, period, finito. Every action he has taken in the past has been consistent with that goal in mind, including his intervention in Ukraine and now his intervention in Syria. Putin is irrevocably marked by the collapse of the USSR and the USSR collapsed because - like today's Russia - it was critically dependant on energy revenues for foreign exchange. When OPEC pulled the plug on oil prices in the '80s, that was all she wrote for the USSR. Putin - in his own ham-handed way - is trying to ensure there is no rerun, and for that, he wants a seat at the table in the Middle East. Syria - and the Assad regime - is the last proxy the Russians have left in the area, although they are attempting to cuddle up to Egypt again. The last thing he wants is a new government that is supported by the US or Saudi Arabia becoming dominant in Syria. And that's why the Russians are not hitting ISIS right now, instead hitting the more moderate rebels pressing the regime forces. It suits Putin just fine to have unrest in the Middle East, and ISIS is, quite frankly, useful to him at the moment. As long as they are not strong enough to tople Assad, the worst he is likely to send their way is harsh words. It's also why the Russians moved into Syria at right this moment, as soon as Turkey and other NATO members started taking a more active role.
 
cheers, Mark

I've SEEN the Russian naval base in question, not so many years ago. I know it features prominently in discussions between armchair strategists online, but I don't think that it has the slightest interest to Putin or the Russian military at all, except as a propaganda piece. It's a tiny harbour with a few rusting corrugated iron sheds, with two cranes, one of which has rusted out, and fallen over into the harbour. When I saw it, the floating piers were derelict and there was a rusted sunken ship at one wharf. It was, in a word, desolate. The Russians are entirely smart enough to know that a small, useless harbour in an area where they cannot reliably project airpower is not a military asset on the global stage, but a liability, which is exactly why they've left it to decay. Promises to rebuild it so that it could host aircraft carriers or cruisers have so far produced bupkiss, and the current Russian buildup isn't even in the area of the port. Edit: and the Russians are actually using their access to the much better port at Limmasol in Cyprus rather more than their Syrian option anyway. I don't know what the status is now, but prior to the war, their "naval base" had a staff of 4.
 
No, Putin's interest and his whole foreign policy - which has been pretty consistent for the last decade and a half - is built around one thing: maintaining Russia's ability to intervene in global energy markets. That's it, period, finito. Every action he has taken in the past has been consistent with that goal in mind, including his intervention in Ukraine and now his intervention in Syria. Putin is irrevocably marked by the collapse of the USSR and the USSR collapsed because - like today's Russia - it was critically dependant on energy revenues for foreign exchange. When OPEC pulled the plug on oil prices in the '80s, that was all she wrote for the USSR. Putin - in his own ham-handed way - is trying to ensure there is no rerun, and for that, he wants a seat at the table in the Middle East. Syria - and the Assad regime - is the last proxy the Russians have left in the area, although they are attempting to cuddle up to Egypt again. The last thing he wants is a new government that is supported by the US or Saudi Arabia becoming dominant in Syria. And that's why the Russians are not hitting ISIS right now, instead hitting the more moderate rebels pressing the regime forces. It suits Putin just fine to have unrest in the Middle East, and ISIS is, quite frankly, useful to him at the moment. As long as they are not strong enough to tople Assad, the worst he is likely to send their way is harsh words. It's also why the Russians moved into Syria at right this moment, as soon as Turkey and other NATO members started taking a more active role.
 
cheers, Mark

I've SEEN the Russian naval base in question, not so many years ago. I know it features prominently in discussions between armchair strategists online, but I don't think that it has the slightest interest to Putin or the Russian military at all, except as a propaganda piece. It's a tiny harbour with a few rusting corrugated iron sheds, with two cranes, one of which has rusted out, and fallen over into the harbour. When I saw it, the floating piers were derelict and there was a rusted sunken ship at one wharf. It was, in a word, desolate. The Russians are entirely smart enough to know that a small, useless harbour in an area where they cannot reliably project airpower is not a military asset on the global stage, but a liability, which is exactly why they've left it to decay. Promises to rebuild it so that it could host aircraft carriers or cruisers have so far produced bupkiss, and the current Russian buildup isn't even in the area of the port. Edit: and the Russians are actually using their access to the much better port at Limmasol in Cyprus rather more than their Syrian option anyway. I don't know what the status is now, but prior to the war, their "naval base" had a staff of 4.
 
No, Putin's interest and his whole foreign policy - which has been pretty consistent for the last decade and a half - is built around one thing: maintaining Russia's ability to intervene in global energy markets. That's it, period, finito. Every action he has taken in the past has been consistent with that goal in mind, including his intervention in Ukraine and now his intervention in Syria. Putin is irrevocably marked by the collapse of the USSR and the USSR collapsed because - like today's Russia - it was critically dependant on energy revenues for foreign exchange. When OPEC pulled the plug on oil prices in the '80s, that was all she wrote for the USSR. Putin - in his own ham-handed way - is trying to ensure there is no rerun, and for that, he wants a seat at the table in the Middle East. Syria - and the Assad regime - is the last proxy the Russians have left in the area, although they are attempting to cuddle up to Egypt again. The last thing he wants is a new government that is supported by the US or Saudi Arabia becoming dominant in Syria. And that's why the Russians are not hitting ISIS right now, instead hitting the more moderate rebels pressing the regime forces. It suits Putin just fine to have unrest in the Middle East, and ISIS is, quite frankly, useful to him at the moment. As long as they are not strong enough to tople Assad, the worst he is likely to send their way is harsh words. It's also why the Russians moved into Syria at right this moment, as soon as Turkey and other NATO members started taking a more active role.
 
cheers, Mark

I've SEEN the Russian naval base in question, not so many years ago. I know it features prominently in discussions between armchair strategists online, but I don't think that it has the slightest interest to Putin or the Russian military at all, except as a propaganda piece. It's a tiny harbour with a few rusting corrugated iron sheds, with two cranes, one of which has rusted out, and fallen over into the harbour. When I saw it, the floating piers were derelict and there was a rusted sunken ship at one wharf. It was, in a word, desolate. The Russians are entirely smart enough to know that a small, useless harbour in an area where they cannot reliably project airpower is not a military asset on the global stage, but a liability, which is exactly why they've left it to decay. Promises to rebuild it so that it could host aircraft carriers or cruisers have so far produced bupkiss, and the current Russian buildup isn't even in the area of the port. Edit: and the Russians are actually using their access to the much better port at Limmasol in Cyprus rather more than their Syrian option anyway. I don't know what the status is now, but prior to the war, their "naval base" had a staff of 4.
 
No, Putin's interest and his whole foreign policy - which has been pretty consistent for the last decade and a half - is built around one thing: maintaining Russia's ability to intervene in global energy markets. That's it, period, finito. Every action he has taken in the past has been consistent with that goal in mind, including his intervention in Ukraine and now his intervention in Syria. Putin is irrevocably marked by the collapse of the USSR and the USSR collapsed because - like today's Russia - it was critically dependant on energy revenues for foreign exchange. When OPEC pulled the plug on oil prices in the '80s, that was all she wrote for the USSR. Putin - in his own ham-handed way - is trying to ensure there is no rerun, and for that, he wants a seat at the table in the Middle East. Syria - and the Assad regime - is the last proxy the Russians have left in the area, although they are attempting to cuddle up to Egypt again. The last thing he wants is a new government that is supported by the US or Saudi Arabia becoming dominant in Syria. And that's why the Russians are not hitting ISIS right now, instead hitting the more moderate rebels pressing the regime forces. It suits Putin just fine to have unrest in the Middle East, and ISIS is, quite frankly, useful to him at the moment. As long as they are not strong enough to tople Assad, the worst he is likely to send their way is harsh words. It's also why the Russians moved into Syria at right this moment, as soon as Turkey and other NATO members started taking a more active role.
 
cheers, Mark

Great news.
But the article is right, this is a big problem in the US: it's not just one sleazebag financier. This is a growing problem, and it's got little to do with the pharma industry per se: these specialist drugs have been around for decades without companies trying to pull this kind of ****. The reason is that for a real pharma company that makes and sells multiple products, the damage to their brand is not worth the relatively small, quick profit off one niche drug like this.
 
But over the last 15 years, we've seen an influx of guys like the one in this case, who are actually financiers. Thier business model is to find a single product that has a monopoly, borrow a bunch of money and buy it, jack the price up as high as they possibly can and skim off as much profit as possible. Typically, what will happen is that when the price goes skyhigh, another generics company will get in on the action, but, as noted, that takes a few years. The new generic competitor can make a decent profit by undercutting the skyhigh price, but of course that price is usually way above the initial starting price.
 
When that happens the financier usually jumps ship at his own company. Burdened with the debt he took on to buy the product, but without the skyhigh prices needed to sustain that debt, it crashes and burns, the financier walks off with a huge profit, and goes looking for another drug to repeat the process.
 
The sytem is like a rachet, inevitably forcing up the prices of all kinds of products. It's not just medicines: this happens throught the US healthcare system. We recently went through a similar process with the special cleaning fluid used to clean and disinfect a lot of machinery like dialysis machines and blood pumps.
 
I should note though, that this is a US problem, not a global one. It doesn't happen in other developed countries. Fixing the problem requires two things the US healthcare industry will fight to the death: pricing transparency and open markets.
 
Cheers, Mark

I'm familiar with the drug. It's an old antibiotic, decades off patent and as far as I know, has never been on tiered pricing (that's the deal where rich countries pay more to subsidise access for the poorest countries). The manufacturing price is confidential, but based on the cost of similar drugs, I'd expect it to be a bit less than a dollar per pill. These days it's only used for special, difficult-to-treat cases, because it has a high frequency of side effects, but it still has medical value because it's effective in a few cases where other antibiotics fail. It was available a few years ago at a low price because the original manufacturer was only producing it since there was no other source. They weren't making any money off it, just keeping it on the market for the patients who needed it. There's a fair number of legacy drugs like that around.
 
So, no, there's nothing to suggest the new price reflects anything other than a desire to gouge customers who don't have an alternative. That opinion is backed by the fact that this guy has form. He started a company called Retrophin, whose business was based around buying up a niche drug with only one supplier and jacking up the price - only 2000% in that case. It made him pretty rich, but he was fired from there amid claims of embezzlement and insider trading in the company stock. Prior to that, he ran a hedge fund, which made him a lot of money, but went bankrupt, amid .... you guessed it, claims of embezzlement and insider trading.
 
Technically speaking, what he is doing is not illegal. But you can gauge his degree of compassion by his response to the claim that some people would die because the price rise would price the drug out of reach. He responded by tweeting "Ain't my problem".
 
Cheers, Mark

Part of me goes "Eh". As speaker he was neither effective nor effectual - he basically got nothing done during his tenure. The other part of me suspects that his sucessor will make him look pretty good.
 
cheers, Mark