Talk:Deregulation

message: I agree and made the move but somebody reversed the move without comment Tiles 01:07 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
Why we need a separate article for an deregulation in each country? Sure, the current article has only mention about dereguration in USA so I added mentioon about that in Japan and someone erased it. Why?? -- Taku 01:37 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
See above.  Your contribution added very little to deregulation or to deregulation in Japan, for that matter.  I suggest that we split the article into 2. Leave the page but transfer the US info to Deregulation in the United States.  OK?
No. I know the article is not good enough but then we need to expand it. I mean simply put why we should not discuss Deregulation in general and talk about that only in the USA? Deregulation occurs not only in U.S. -- Taku 04:01 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
Oh, also about spliting. In wikipedia, it is more preferable to have one article discussing the same topic happening in different countries. See prefecture or district. -- Taku 04:03 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
I am happy to write an article on Deregulation in New Zealand and will add it to my "to-do" list.  I do not accept that it is useful to clutter up a general page.  Far better to have a decent article on deregulation with appropriate links to examples as in Revolution, where the specific circumstances of national revolutions are listed as links to articles.
I think the reason of the status of Revolution article is because if you combine them into one article, it can be too long. Now mention about deregulation in USA is very short so I don't see much motivation to split it off. I don't think having some sections corresponding each country is a cluttered. There are a lot of articles in herre. For example, prefecture, divorce and many other I don't remember. -- Taku 01:18 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
If you are happy, I am happy.  When you finish the section on Deregulation in Japan we can discuss this again.  Cheers Tiles 04:00 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
If someone ever writes about deregulation in Russia this page WILL be cluttered. BL 04:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Gray Davis said he was "deregulating" the electricity market, but I think he was lying. Rather, he was trying to "socialize" it, in the sense of moving the market away from the free market principles practiced so successfully by Pennsylvania.
Since I feel so strongly about this, I hesitate to start writing. I wouldn't like to lose my NPOV credentials. But could anyone help shed some light on what happened in California (pre-Schwarzenegger)?
*stated intent of Davis's plan
*actual effect
**according to Davis
**according to newspapers
**according to Davis critics
*intervention by Bush
*current situation
The above is an outline of what should be in that article. Or did someone already write it? If so, please add a link. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 14:49, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See California electricity crisis.  The real problem was the ineffective deregulation that resulted in the failure of the market.  The architects of the PJM market (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland) had a clear vision of how the market should operate and put in place the appropriate rules see PJM.  In California the political process resulted in a series of compromises without a clear understanding of the risks inherent in a deregulated electricity market.  I live in New Zealand so have little or no understanding of the personalities but from here it would appear that good advice from knowledgeable people such as Prof Bill Hogan (Harvard) was ignored by the politicians in California and it would seem just that the State Governor should take the blame. Tiles 07:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the California electricity crisis article has POV problems, although it does acknowledge that the fateful decisions were made prior to the Davis administration. I live in California; the crisis is going to recur, because nothing substantial has been done to provide adequate electricity production and tranmission infrastructure. I will put the California electricity crisis article on my to-do list, and see if I can balance it somewhat. --Herschelkrustofsky 18:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: This has now been done. I think it is more balanced now; we'll see how other editors respond. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: California

message: This article has a POV problem. It uses words such as "unfortunate," "more balanced approaches to regulation," etc. Rhobite 18:51, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
There should be a distinction between deregulating tarrifs etc. (which can be justified) and dregulating safety or environmental policies (which cannot be justified) 209.197.154.157 19:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a lot of work generally. Be bold! - if others disagree they'll let you know. Rd232 talk 12:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: So, is there some reason why there isn't listed a deregulation in the U.S. in a positive light?  Because I really doubt that all regulation is bad.  129.186.18.81 01:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy - because some Wikipedia admins don't want it to be shown in anything other than a bad light. Check out the edit histories to find where substantial arguments cited in favor of deregulation are ruthlessly expunged. --86.131.93.168 09:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US deregulation 

message: A post of 10/12/07 updates the deregulation discussion to take into account published work on the origins of transport deregulation ('The Best Transportation System In the World", by Rose, Seely and Barrett, Ohio State University press, a part of a series of publications on historical perspectives on business enterprise, edited by Blackford and Kerr) and several publications by the Brookings Institute and the American Enterprise Institute in Washington (citations provided on request). Ordermaven 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  update on dereg discussion 

message: In late November, Npaghunie added comments which touch on important subjects, but were in a format very hard to read, had no references or sourcing, and dealt with subjects already treated at some length, with sourcing,  in two existing articles – the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Concentration of media ownership These articles, on close reading, cover in major substance the points which Npaghunie  raised, in documentable fashion.    
I therefore substituted for these comments in this dereg discussion a framework for exposing the issues raised, a reference to a book treating these and related issues,  and links to the existing wikipdia articles where these issues are treated. Further development could be done by sourced work on those articles.Ordermaven 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  telecomm dereg edit 

message: Many issues with the article exist, primarily the "U.S. Case Study" section, which reads like it was cribbed from the Mises Institute website.
J.R. Hercules (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to the previous edit (mine). The anon editor who recently edited the Argentina section apparently wasn't aware about Wikipedia's strict policy against original research. J.R. Hercules (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with article 

message: Without even noticing the  POV banner at the top of this article, I immediately winced when I saw that, in the section detailing deregulation "by country" there was no heading for "The United States."
Instead, as I expected to find, the United States was covered by the first half of the entire ARTICLE.  I guess the US is not considered a mere "country" like all those other faraway lands.... instead, we, as a worldwide race, are supposed to always remember that the USA, an "elite entity above all others" is always first, foremost, and - without having to ever say so - the main focus of all Wiki articles.  
I want to re-edit this article, but I am having trouble finding a starting point, and I have yet to read all the commentary of other users. I do intend to read it though....  
And, being a US citizen, I don't mean to insult others, because I find these articles to be embarrassing to all residents of the US - myself included - and I hope that others will agree.  There's a whole world out there beyond this neck of the woods.  itinerant_tuna (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americentrism At Its Finest 

message: Since it has been mentioned by others here at the talk, I Was Bold and added tags for cleanup and for unbalanced. I want to do cleanup anyway, but want to sidestep the controversy.
In  my opinion (and for unbalanced I am allowed to have one)
* The article is too americo-centric.
* The article is very definitely POV, though it can't sometimes make its mind up which view it's taking
I will cleanup trying to skirt any genuine controversy, i.e. not change meaning just usual gnome business. I will also (as mentioned above in talk) try to balance by expanding deregulation in the UK, after all we have been doing it for over 25 years now, in fact America is still far more regulated than the UK. (And I have lived in both places, yes.) But if the POV continues, might as well scrap the article and start again.
That's my opinion, as I say for unbalanced I am entitled to one. Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW if you wonder how I got here, I was adding as a link to electricity articles such as load balancing (electrical power). Quite frankly was appalled this was such a diatribe rather than an encyclopaedic article about deregulation. SimonTrew (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: OK I've balanced it a little structurally by putting the US in country order and RoI and UK under European Union. I think that it's better to keep countries in alpha order, the EU is a bit of an anomaly here I admit, RoI and UK were in their alpha places but EU is not a country. I moved legislation into respective jurisdictions and checked the refs corrected them added correct dates and titles and authors and publishers. So, as I said, wasn't going to affect the controversy, just conforming to WP:MOS. Checking external links now. SimonTrew (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added tags cleanup and unbalanced 

message: The American section of this article couldn't be more imbalanced if it was lifted directly from a Republican congressional aide's memo. -- 24.191.234.242 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous right-wing slant 

message: Nothing about Iceland at all, yet it suffered one of the worst financial disasters at the hands of American bankers and corporations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlaser (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland 

message: Could someone add citations for the discussion of recent Australian history?  DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: 1.  Could someone add more citations, including for the claim that "Former Premier Ralph Klein based the entire deregulation scheme on the Enron model?  
2.  I'm revising the last paragraph. 
:Before:  "Former Premier Ralph Klein based the entire deregulation scheme on the Enron model, and continued with it even after the highly publicized and disastrous collapse of Enron because of illegal accounting practices. Illegal accounting practices at a particular company have no implication for the relative merits of instituting a more market-oriented energy system. Allowing energy production and prices to be determined by the market does not imply that illegal accounting practices will become legal or widespread."  This is subtly biased by (a) failing to mention the  California electricity crisis and (b) suggesting that the problems with Enron were primarily illegal accounting.  Illegal accounting ultimately brought Enron down.  However, the California electricity crisis, manufactured substantially by Enron, is a case study in how not to do deregulation.  
:My new version:  "Former Premier Ralph Klein based the entire deregulation scheme on the Enron model, and continued with it even after the highly publicized and disastrous  California electricity crisis (and the collapse of Enron because of illegal accounting practices.)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMCEddy (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: A few months ago I  an  by . I believe this action is entirely justified, as the edit was made in bad faith and contains numerous significant issues:
# No no references for either of the claims was provided.
# The claim about the economy cited specific numbers, but didn't say what the numbers actually represent.
# The number supposedly representing the change in New Zealand's economy is many times smaller than the most likely statistic (based on the description) it could represent. The standard statistic for comparing economies and economic trends) is PPP-adjusted GDP. Between 1985 and 1992 New Zealand's increased 18% per-capita and 29% overall, not 4.7%.http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=39&pr.y=14&sy=1985&ey=1992&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=196&s=PPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=
# In the context of a process of deregulation that ended in 1995, there is no apparent objective reason to end the date range in 1992. Due to the fact that New Zealand's economy slumped in the early 90s, with the lowest point in 1992, that choice seems intentional. Extending the date range to 1996 (the earliest logical ending point) shows that there it was a significantly better economic period, as the PPP-adjusted GDP increased 47% per capita and 70% overall.http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=39&pr.y=14&sy=1985&ey=1996&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=196&s=PPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= The range should really be extended further, as many economic changes take years to bear fruit. The point being that the increase after 1992 would be reflected in whatever metric that 4.7% represents, so specifically avoiding it strongly implies an intent to mislead.
# Data from New Zealand's national statistics office refutes the claim about poverty. According to that document there was either a very small decrease or very small increase in the poverty rate during that period. Again, without a source I can't determine why this is.
# The edit removed a sentence about the economy rebounding in 1991, despite it being referenced.
That last point, in particular, is what I believe makes it clear that the entire edit was in bad faith, and that none of the information is reliable. This is backed up by the fact that my attempts to find reliable sources for the claims (both at the time I reverted the edit, and while making this post) found entirely different results. Because of all of the above, I feel that there is no reason the edit belongs on Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, a few weeks later the edit was  by  with some changes:
# It did not remove the sentence about the 1991 economic rebound.
# Slightly different wording and punctuation (the addition of "Also" at the beginning being the most significant).
# The addition of a reference (formatted incorrectly) to a page about New Zealand's GDP. It provides a lot of data, but none matching the claim.
# It removed a request for citation for no apparent reason.
Since most of the issues were not addressed, I'm planning to to revert the edit again shortly after saving this post, then reference it in the . If anyone would like to to re-post that edit, I ask that they first address the above issues. My goal here is to prevent an edit war.
Rob (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's got to go. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand – An attempt to prevent an edit war after reverting the same bad faith edit for the second time. 

message: this is a method of privatization, it is when the government allow private firms to operate in some industries of the economy. Thus the government will be having a motive of discouraging statutory monopolies. For example it may allow private transport to operate in some routes of the country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlingtonmzie (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deregulation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Deregulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110106164019/http://multiut.net/ to http://www.multiut.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Deregulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092836/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1989%20micro/1989_bpeamicro_peltzman.PDF to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1989%20micro/1989_bpeamicro_peltzman.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092836/http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1989%20micro/1989_bpeamicro_peltzman.PDF to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1989%20micro/1989_bpeamicro_peltzman.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Deregulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607083903/http://www.piac.ca/energy/ontario_electricity_restructuring/ to http://www.piac.ca/energy/ontario_electricity_restructuring/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628182209/http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0516/primetimeinvestigates.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0516/primetimeinvestigates.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324051222/http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html to http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201151309/http://cei.org/gencon/025%2C01722.cfm to http://www.cei.org/gencon/025%2C01722.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103234543/http://www.usgaselectric.net/page10.html to http://usgaselectric.net/page10.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Deregulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404155331/http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1169.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg1169.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified