Tuesday, July 30, 2013
I don't quite understand how people can do that. Our country is formed on immigration. While yes, we are American, that is not an ethnicity. We are all made up of genes from countless other countries. America is a melting pot!
Now what many people against immigration argue, is that immigrants steal American's jobs. They think that immigrants mooch off our hard work and do absolutely nothing to contribute to our country. But for the most part, this isn't true. Immigrants actually boost our economy! They take any job that will have them, that they have the skills for. Then with that money, they pay rent, they buy groceries, they put the money back into the economy!
Another argument brought up by the anti immigrant supporters in this article is that immigrants, especially those from Mexico are stupid. This is just an ignorant statement. It's like when Europeans say all Americans are fat and lazy. There are always those who fit a stereotype, but nine times out of ten, it is just a small percent of the entire population that were the cause of the creation of the stereotype.
This quote is from an article supporting Keynesain economics. Keynesian economics thinks that during a recession, people should continue to spend their money freely, which will stimulate the economy and bounce the country back.
I disargee. Recessions are unavoidable, they happen routienely. Their purpose is to weed out the companies and ideas that are weakest, with the least support from the public, and open up those goods and resources to a new idea, or to those businesses who have already proven their worth.
When a recession eliminates the weakest links, that recession is ended, in a free market. Our economy cannot and should not be controlled by Keynesian politicians. Everyone needs to step back, no rules and regulations, and see what happens. We will see the jobs that we need, we will see where the money goes and does not go, we will see the economy fix itself.
Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/despite-keynesians-victory-economic-policy-holds.html?pagewanted=all
Friday, July 12, 2013
The new rules that will go into effect in 2014 are not protecting the liberty of the insurers. The insurers should have the right to decide who they will make exchanges with and the new law requires that insurers must accept applicants even if they are sick. A fair market exchange should allow the two people making the exchange to agree upon the exchange. If one person does not feel as if the benefits and greater than the costs then they should have the right to not make the exchange. The government may be protecting the liberty of certain individuals by giving them the opportunity to receive health-care, but during this process they are not protecting the liberty of the group of individuals who own the health-care insurance companies. A way to fix this problem would be to not make a new law that requires insurers to accept people they would not like to, but to create a government run health insurance company that has to accept everyone that applies regardless of their health.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Although Employee Recognition Programs have their downsides, I believe that these programs are beneficial to employees and can help better a company’s way of work. Some reasons why this is true are employee recognition systems reward workers who advance the business’ goals. This opens the door to rewards for hard work, creativity, loss prevention, and initiative by workers at all levels. An employee nomination process motivates other employees to work harder. Finally, leveled employee rewards offer recognition for various forms of worker excellence. People respond to changes in incentives in predictable ways. These workers are being given rewards (the incentive), such as a pay raise or a bonus, for working hard. These workers will respond to this change in the predictable way by working hard for these rewards, which follows this rule of human action. Because this concept of Employee Recognition Programs fit this rule of human action, it is shown that having these programs are beneficial to employees.
I however disagree. I believe that legalizing marijuana was the right decision. I believe that this is because from an economic standpoint, there would be numerous benefits to legalizing Marijuana. A new industry could emerge that would allow people to buy and sell marijuana without being sent to jail. The illegal pot dealer that is currently making their money in the black market could possibly start a profitable business. They would already have a good amount of clients, which is a key to succeed in any business. Since Marijuana is no longer illegal, customers could receive their order from the mail legally since there is no need for drug trafficking anymore. This would create many jobs across the country, which will help the big problem of unemployment as well. Also, prisons are able to save a lot of money from not having to put Marijuana users in jail anymore. Moreover, if a marijuana distribution grew large enough, it could be registered and traded on an exchange which would mean that Marijuana could be taxed so that the government could benefit. Voluntary trade (cooperation) means that both gain. The person who is the buyer is giving up some money in return for the good or service, the seller is giving up to get the money. The exchange allows both parties to benefit from it, which means that they have both gained which suits this rule of human action and why legalizing Marijuana is the best choice because if it was not legalized, these benefits could not exist.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
"The federal DACA program allows immigrants to apply to remain in the country if they arrived in the United States as children, have no criminal record and are in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. While Georgia law allows illegal immigrants to attend its public colleges, it has erected barriers, including requiring them to pay out-of-state tuition. They are also barred from the University of Georgia , Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, Georgia College & State University, the Medical College of Georgia or any other campus that has rejected academically qualified applicants over the last two years because of space or for other reasons. TheRegents adopted the ban to address mounting public and political concerns that academically qualified Georgia residents could lost spots at premier state colleges to illegal immigrants."
I think it is very nice that the DACA program allows immigrants to stay in the US and obtain a higher education. The only thing I do not agree with is that they have to pay out of state tuition. I do not think that is very fair for the immigrant if they have lived in state most of their life and are trying to succeed and increase their knowledge and attend college. Also, I think it is ridiculous that some of those schools in Georgia rejected perfectly qualified students because they are immigrants because of the fear of natural born citizens potentially losing a spot at the school to illegal immigrants. If they are qualified, and probably better qualified than others, then they should get the privilege to be accepted and attend the college and further their education. They are obviously putting a lot of effort on their education and trying to succeed in this country. Let them have a chance and prove that they can do it.
My uncle was an illegal immigrant and attend high school in the states. He was valedictorian of his school. He was very smart and got excellent grades. He did not go to prom or parties because he was studying. He put everything he had in his studies. He wanted to succeed and further his education. He wanted to attend college. The university he wanted to go to and most of them actually would not let him apply because he was an illegal immigrant. He was left to settle at a community college for many years. This breaks my heart because you could see his dedication and potential. He could have finished his schooling earlier if he was only allowed to attend a university. He did get citizenship and attended a university and graduating with honors and is doing a wonderful job today.
In this article, it says, "Abortion was supposed to empower women, free them from the rigours of childbearing and the drudgery of housework, and enable them to achieve an equal place with men in the workforce". Some say that abortion is good for the economy because it reduces the government spending. With abortion, there are less students which means there is a less demand for teachers. This saves the government money by not having to pay so many teachers.
I don't think that abortion is saving the economy from spending. Government spends money no matter what. We are in debt still and there are a lot of abortions still going on. I think that abortions are actually hurting the economy. All those bodies lost are bodies that could have contributing to our economy. They are potential consumers. Even though babies are too young to consume, their parents do it for them. There is demand for a lot of things for babies such as; diapers, wipes, food, toys, etc. Abortions are hurting the economy with not contributing to the consuming of those products.
Abortion is also making the population growth go down. "Population growth is a major source of economic growth. More people create more demand for products and services and supply labour that is need by industry and commerce". With the population decreasing, there is a low supply of teachers, nurses, key professions, etc. "Abortion and more efficient birth control together have wiped out about half of our future human resources".
Is it just me or does this seem wrong? First of all these politicians need to be a little more mature and quit fighting so much. The article referenced democrats and republican being so disagreeable and blaming the other party for the inability to come to an agreement. While there are many that have claimed their per diems the entire time they were in session there were some that claimed only some or part of what they are allowed. Senator David Frockt a Democrat from Seattle said it best, "We shouldn't be getting paid when we're not doing our work within the time allotted." These politicians are wasting taxpayer money by not being able to come to an agreement. It seems more and more these days there is a sense that democrats and republicans can't seem to come to an agreement in many areas of government for the benefit of the people. State workers may be laid off while the Washington Legislature tries to come to an agreement. These men and women in government need to work together and be more willing to compromise. Why should taxpayers pay more when they are accomplishing nothing? I'm pretty sure in most professions, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. Politicians should be treated the same.
There is a common belief that most of the unemployment we see today is because of a skills gap. This means that the good jobs that people want to get, nobody can get because they are unqualified or under-educated. Recent research shows that neither is a reliable reason for the unemployment problem. In a good economy there would be many job openings and few that are unemployed. In April there were 3.8 million job opening and unemployment was still at 7.5% or 11.7 million people. Clearly there are not enough job openings for all those needing work. In this weak economy the real problem is not a skills gap but rather that companies can not justify hiring more workers.
I think there are many reasons that there are so many still unemployed. The jobs available may be less than desirable or people are just unwilling to take a low-paying position. Also with so many needing jobs, employers can be choosy in who they decide to employ. In dealing with the recent recession many are still hesitant to spend money. Not putting money into the economy will only hurt it further. Corporate executives want us to think that we need more educated, more highly trained people to have available into the workforce so they can get government aid in programs to help workers. The real problem is not the skills gap but the lack of money going into the economy. If we don't start spending, companies can't rationalize hiring more employers.
Friday, June 14, 2013
I disagree with these beliefs of abortion being beneficial to the economy. I think abortion plays a key factor in our economy's crisis. If a woman has an abortion, she is simply taking away her chances of consumer spending in the real economic market. Consumer spending is the dominate way the economy operates and functions. Babies are demanding individuals and may not be able to contribute first handedly to the economy, but their mothers can be greater consumers that help in the consumer spending, allowing the economy to thrive. Babies need diapers, toys, blankets, books, cribs, clothing every few months. They have a higher demand for regular spending than any other age group. I think that people with babies are of greater importance in the economy than anyone else. Abortion is not the answer. Getting rid of babies that are born second hand consumers, that grow o be first hand consumers will only harm the economy. Government officials need to realize this and take a stand in order to help a life, and the ever important economy.
Because gas prices are on the continual rise, and because gas has become a key part of our society, it is likely that consumers will make the sacrifice to purchase such gas instead of products that are not of daily use. Every seller in the market in in hopes of earning a profit. It would be impossible for a seller to make a profit if they were not selling, and it would be even more difficult to compete with products that have no similarities; gasoline in this instance. Although high gas prices are increasing and staying that high, the economy always "fixes" itself. If there is a surplus, then the demand will lower, and vice versa with a shortage. Gas prices will not always remain consistently high, and the economy will return to normal after a short period of time. The economy is in constant change, and it is constantly making improvements and adjustments to the world around it.
I won't try and hide my bias here. I hate Frontier Airlines. Ever since they abruptly abandoned their highly successful operations at the Colorado Springs Airport, I gave up hope that they were a decent, level headed company. So when I first saw this article, I got the "I-told-you-so Dance" warmed up. The article outlines the new fee changes to be implemented by Frontier. This includes charging check-in fees for all bags carried by passengers who didn't book through Frontier's official website. (Costs start at $20 a bag.) Another of the major changes is charging for all onboard drinks. Soft drinks aren't excluded from this policy. (Drinks start at $2 a drink.)
Already the mob is picking up their pitchforks and torches and heading for Frontier's headquarters. Frontier Airlines has forgotten the number one and most important rule: The Customer is King. Customers have already expressed their ire over the changes, expressing plans to cancel flights, start flying with rival Southwest Airlines, and even, as one irate customer put it:
"(I)...will be canceling my Frontier credit card I carry with them," said Andy Kepler said in an e-mail to The Denver Post. "Their moves just seem to make zero sense to keep customers. ... I will now move away from Frontier more than ever."
Frontier Airlines is streamlining their operations, but on the wrong end. Sacrificing customer satisfaction should be the last move of a floundering airline. The airline industry is one of service to its customers, and therefore should make all effort to keep their reason for being in business happy. By cutting back on services, and charging for every last thing, customers won't understand, and will only flee to the next best competitor, never to come back. Then it is only a matter of time before the complete collapse of the business. Frontier Airlines has already failed its customers, so now it's only a matter of time before the complete business failure of Frontier Airlines itself.
At first, I didn't see anything out of the ordinary with this article. It's talking about how coal mine owners in Montana are excited at the prospect of new coaling ports opening up on the west coast, so that it will be easier to export their coal. (To China, primarily.) The article then talks about the lament of the mine owners, because of the small market of coal in the United States and that it's probably only going to get smaller in the future. That's where I started to get suspicious.
Coal is hardly going away anytime soon in the United States. In fact, it's the most popular method of electric production, with 37% of the entire United States' power plants using coal. People love to be "eco-friendly" until the bill comes. That's where coal gets its security from. It's cheap and that's why it's so popular all over the country. I was confused at the excitement over exporting coal to China. Why are we exporting coal, when we are already importing coal from other countries? 75% of coal imported into the United States comes from Columbia, at a whopping 7 million tons of coal every year! I just don't understand why you would want to go through the hassle of exporting coal when it could be sold locally within the country? I'm sure that the coalitions of coal mine owners could easily petition Congress for rent seeking, and impose heavy tariffs on foreign coal. It just seems like an over complication for the coal market when it could be a much simple and streamlined process.
(Numbers obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov)
This is an interesting article over a recent supreme court ruling, as recent as yesterday, that ruled 9-0 that gene sequences cannot be patented. The argument made by the court is that singling out a gene sequence that occurs in nature is not the same as inventing something. The Corporation in Utah was able to retain patents over two synthetic DNA sequences because this did qualify as an invention. That corporation is Myriad Genetics, and the code they held a patent for was important in identifying the probability of breast and ovarian cancer in women. Now, after this decision, the expected cost of these tests is lower and easier to obtain.
Patents are government sanctioned monopolies over new innovations. They allow the first person to invent a product to secure extra profit from it's production for a specified period of time, without feared of being pushed out by someone else able to recreate it cheaper. This is essentially a subsidy for innovation. The thought behind this is that innovation is a positive externality, that creates benefit for others outside of the market. But, the vast majority of these inventions occur within the market, lowering prices and increasing productivity in other markets. These advances in technology are exceptionally important, but do not qualify as a positive externality. From an efficiency standpoint, no patents should be issued because they create a monopoly (market failure), and they should not be an incentive to invent. Patents hurt the consumer and should not exist, this case should have never been a question.
In this article, the author loosely tries to explain how the price of gas is determined, and why the price will vary from place to place. The example used in the article is in California in 2012, when Michael Denis paid $4.69/gallon and 4 miles away Lupe Alfaro only had to pay $3.89/ gallon. The difference comes, "because fuel refiners charge unequal amounts to service station dealers in separate areas based on a host of closely guarded factors, such as nearby competition, traffic volume and station amenities." The writer essentially calls gasoline pricing a conspiracy designed to hurt consumers in a way that retail stores do not. His example is that sweaters in a chain's stores will always have similar pricing.
Gas stations operate at a level approaching pure competition. The barriers to entry are low, and if they do not function at the market level, then they will not sell and they will go out of business. They are price-takers. The distributor sells to the highest bidder, depending on demand, and then the local gas stations can only put out the product at the market price. These stations might have a chain name, but they are normally independent franchises and are constrained by demand as much as the next. If consumers are willing to shop around and choose cheaper locations, then prices will have to change to accommodate. The market drives these factors, it is not some large business conspiracy that is bent on sucking extra profit out of the consumer.
In terms of protecting liberty, the government would be protecting the rights to a certain design of a product. However, in order for counterfeit sellers to make a profit selling these goods, they have to use lower quality products in making these goods, thus making a lower quality product overall. People who are willing to purchase a lower quality product for a lower price than the higher quality version will. Their item will probably also break down more quickly or have technical issues. For this reason, I don't believe that counterfeit sellers have much if any impact on the sales of the trademark products. I also don't believe that Margaret Chin has put this proposal into action in order to protect trademark items.
I believe that Chin has proposed this bill for personal reasons. Counterfeit sellers are not hurting their possible trademark competitors nor any other third party. There is no market failure. If anything this bill would decrease competition and increase the price of trademark items, making it even more difficult for consumers to afford them. Counterfeiters are simply making a decent profit of the sale of a more cheaply made, similar item. Chin should not be using force to tell consumers what they can and cannot buy as this removes voluntary action and thus spontaneous order will not occur.
The real reason Chin is proposing this bill is more likely that she feels that her social status is somehow threatened because while she owns an authentic bag others around her are buying the "same thing" but at a lower price because they cannot afford what she can.
We all know that the government, in order to control consumption of the things it considers bad, taxes them.
When the tax goes up so does the actual cost paid by the consumer. An increase of the tax on cigarettes pushes the price higher. In turn we have fewer people willing or able to buy cigarettes. Higher prices, fewer smokers. Fewer smokers, less production. Less production means fewer jobs.
On the other hand we can increase the sales of select goods and services. When we want more of something we subsidize it. If we want fewer people in the work force we simply subsidize them.
We pay people for agreeing to not produce. Just as we once paid farmers to not plant, we pay Americans to avoid innovation and unpleasant work. Hence, we are turning millions of people into consumers and
into non producing individuals. This is economically devastating. Don't get me wrong. There are many people out there who, for valid reasons, cannot hold a job. These are not the people we should resent paying for. It is the nearly 10 million individuals living off the government (system) that I question.
Paying healthy people to stay home and collect benefits (that our tax dollars pay for) makes less sense
than subsidizing junk food and cigarettes does.
The government states that the reason for these gun laws is to prevent tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. There are three different gun control laws that the article discusses that may go into effect; required background checks for buyers at gun shows, a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and the ban of semi-automatic rifles.
From an economic stand-point, the government might be looking at this in terms of a market failure. If there is market failure, it would most likely be a negative externality in which a transaction is made between two parties and a third is made worse off. There are now three things we must look at to see if this is true. It must be an unintentional nonmarket interdependence. We would have to see if the transaction itself is what is harming the third party, which in this it's not. People are not dying because people choose to buy guns. Even if this were the case, it would be intentional on the buyers end.
We could compare this to the ban on the buying, selling and use of heroine. Do people die from the buying and selling of heroine. The answer is no. Do people die from the use of heroine? Yes. But the ban on heroine does not stop people from buying, selling and using it. It may lower the number of exchanges, however a ban creates other problems. Heroine users must now steal and perform other illegal acts in order to obtain the money to purchase the drug. A similar thing would happen if there were a ban on guns. Would murder and other criminal activity with the use of guns still occur? Yes. A black market for assault rifles and other banned weapons would appear, making it more difficult for authorities to keep track.
If the government were to treat guns and ammunition like a negative externality and simply increased the tax to decrease the number of weapons and ammunition sold, there would be fewer weapons being made, sold, and bought in the market. From a liberty perspective, law abiding citizens may not be happy about the increase in prices for such goods, but at least the people have the freedom of purchasing weapons. This would also prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from obtaining guns through illegal means for reasons of protecting their 2nd Amendment rights or simply protecting their lives from non-law abiding citizens.
In conclusion, government would not be protecting the peoples liberty and would cause potential other related criminal activity by putting a ban into effect.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The Obama administration eliminated more than 170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective. It has been found that states that prescribe abstinence only sex education programs in public schools have significantly higher birth rates than states with more comprehensive sex education programs.
Teen pregnancy negatively impacts the economy. Teen moms are less likely than their peers to receive a high school diploma. They are very unlikely to attend college. This leads to significant amounts of lost earnings. Teenage pregnancy affects the job sector and education. They are more likely to be reliant on government programs. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education it's estimated that over the course of a teen moms lifetime she will cost the nation 260,000 dollars in lost earnings, taxes, and productivity.
I don't believe that students like Ceylia should be denied use of her college degree. Every individual has choices. A person acts in an effort to achieve a purpose. Purposeful action involves the choice of purpose and the choice means. She studied hard to get where she is today. She would ultimately be paying more taxes and make greater contributions as a professional. We have people who are United States citizens who do nothing but take advantage of the welfare system. That is their choice. These immigrants who are succeeding in making their lives better shouldn't be penalized because their parents came into the country illegally.
Monday, June 10, 2013
I believe that Obama is using the wrong type of force by signing the new gun laws because there is a negative externality in the purchase of guns. There are multiple third party people that are being harmed by guns each day and therefore he should tax the purchase of guns and equipment to an appropriate amount. Since the American government cannot always protect it's people and their property, they should not make it more difficult for people to obtain guns by enforcing new laws. Government's policies and actions result from the purposeful actions of individuals and therefore I believe people have gone to the government and requested them to make these new gun laws, when the government should have taxed the purchase of guns and equipment.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
I found the article mostly to be informative and didn't cause much cause for debate... what interested me the most was actually all the comments that were posted below the article. Obviously if you are a student this is an important issue. First of all tuition is expensive. My husband just finished his college degree about two years ago and now I am a student and the loans are definitely piling up. I understand where people are coming from and the frustration they feel behind the increases. What startled me was that there were quite a few comments that stated they thought that college education should be free. College should be free? I find this thought completely absurd. Another comment made really struck home with me. The comment made was that we take things for granted if we don't have to earn it. I couldn't agree more. My first year at college I received a scholarship and the remaining portion of my tuition was paid for with a grant. I was attending college for "free". And let's just say my first year at college was less than productive. I mean I did ok, but I certainly did not try as hard as I could and I dropped some courses half way through. I just didn't care all that much. I finally finished my Associate's degree and then years later I am finally finishing my Bachelor's degree. I am an A student, I have been on the Dean's list and I have received a small scholarship recently. I work my butt off at school and here is why... I am paying for it. I am paying a lot for it. Not only am I paying tuition and fees, but I pay for it with time away from my husband and my three kids. My education means enough for me to take the time away from them and in my eyes, I am going to make it worth it. My perspective has changed so much since that first year right out of high school when I was getting a "free ride".
So would it be nice if college was "free"? Well my bank account would sure be appreciative. But nothing in this life is free. And if students want a college education the truth is, it comes at a cost. This rate increase is no different than the unsubsidized loan rates right now, which a lot of students are already dealing with. We know what we are signing up for when we take out students loans. If we are unwilling to pay them back, we shouldn't take them out in the first place.
The article can be found here.
Monday, June 03, 2013
Dr. Alan Scott wrote this article, and it seems to me is writing it from a Liberty standpoint. The constitution clearly states that we have the right to bear arms, BUT congress can regulate it at any time. He says that the reason there is a lot of gun violence in the U.S. is basically because we have a hard time finding the balance between our rights, and our freedom to live in a society with gun regulation. No one can ever agree on that balance in congress. He also says that there is a higher percentage of people using guns other than self-defense in their homes because they never got background checks. He then goes on to say that an effective way of regulating guns would be to ban them all together, and from what I understand, to "rebuy" them from the government. He contradicts himself shortly after that by saying that this would lead to overthrowing the government.
This seems like an exaggeration to me. First of all, the constitution covers us from a liberty point of view from the government ever banning guns..."we have the right to bear arms". While they do have the right to regulate gun control, they cannot simply ban our guns completely. Second, coming back to "rebuy" our guns, thus leading to overthrowing of the government is ridiculous.
He states that the U.K. has less than 200 deaths per year from guns. This is because their government regulates their gun control a lot more than the U.S. This is how we should lower our gun violence as well. It is efficient, and not damaging our Liberty rights.
What it does not cover is how this effect the people who already have secure jobs and dental insurance. It does not cover whether we will have to pay taxes on this new program. It also is concerning that unless there is any other competition out there, it will soon be monopolized and will in turn become a market failure.
I did not think to add the link until I already closed the browser, but it is called Brighter Dental Program.
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Monday, April 09, 2012
With all of the emerging economies in the world, China has received much of the media’s attention. According to a New York Times article, China is in high inflation for food, gas, and housing markets. What causes inflation is too much money is floating around in a nation mixed in with natural disasters and very high growth levels. This is China’s problem. Right now china is looking for ways to control the level of growth in the country, through policy. China has some help right now because of the economic instability of the European Union.
To control inflation, China will have to institute some sort of contractionary policy that will absorb some of the circulating money. (One method that the U.S. uses is to sell bonds and treasuries) To slow growth down, however China has to incorporated restraints on their exporting and importing of goods and is debating on how much to reduce the rate of funds supplied to lenders. A possible problem when it comes to adjusting to these new policies, as least when dealing with inflation, is getting a clear picture of the economy when looking at the indexes.
This article is from the New York Times and deals with oligopoly.
Medco and Express Scripts (two large P.B.M. companies) decided to merge in September of 2011 and were subsequently approved in April 2012 totaling a $29.1 billion merger. P.B.M. companies are “pharmacy benefit managers”, and manage prescription plans for employers and insurers. The reason this is a big deal is the consequences of letting two large firms, such as these, merge. The Federal trade commission usually prevents these types of merges from happening; however, (unlike with AT&T and T-Mobile) the FTC let this one slip through the cracks.
The effects of the FTC’s decision to allow the companies to merge are as follows: they now have more influence over prices than before, which could create entry barriers; rebates pharmacies contract for will become even smaller (profit loss). (The reason why Walgreens stopped accepting Express Scripts in the first place), and consumers will be forced to join a mail order service instead of being allowed the freedom to choose a pharmacy to receive services. The consequence for opting out of this mail-order service is the consumer will pay the entire cost of the drug, which can be very expensive.
With lower rebates and less consumers coming to pharmacies for their needs, there is not a very high chance that this will lower prices as the Express Scripts spokesperson claims. It will make it more difficult for pharmacies to earn any profit, decrease an already limited competition and force the drug industry wherever the merged company takes it, hence the reason why anti-trust laws are in place.