Talk:Deregulation

Move
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)

California
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

POV
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)


 * 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)

US deregulation
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)


 * 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)

In fact, I posted something which was unfavorable to deregulation, and it was "ruthlessly expunged". JHobson2 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

update on dereg discussion
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)Ordermaven 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

telecomm dereg edit
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)

Issues with article
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)

J.R., the work on this page which I have done under 'ordermaven' (forgot password) was not based on the Mises Institute stuff, but on scholarly and Department of Transportation research, cited. Also on examination of National Archive and congressional files publicly available in Washington which verified the scholarly work. One could go to the records of publications of AEI and Brookings, cited on the page, where more scholarly work is available. These citations could be added. If you would like to mention or discuss specific issues which may have occurred to you, why not email? Ordermaven2 (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

The panel on the right linking this article to the series on capitalism is a quite helpful addition. Good move Ordermaven (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the empty tag. Please specify which issues should be handled. According to this template's instructions, it should not be left blank. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The description of the creation of the regulatory state is completely wrong. These regulations were not put forth to protect the consumer, but rather to protect big business from competition.Nuwriter (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Americentrism At Its Finest
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)

-

D Modlin, as one who has spent time on this page I agree that it is now American centric. Have thought that the the best way to make it less so is to beef up the sections on other countries. There is a great deal of development internationally which could be reported on in electricity, telecommunications, and postal services. I just haven't to date taken the time to do all that. If you would like to share the load of putting more in, would be more than willing to collaborate. One can get good stuff on telecommunications in the reports of the International Telecommunications Union, available on line. http://www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx. One can also get some stuff on electricity from Brookings Institute publications. Jim Campbell, in Washington, is an excellent source on postal matters, well plugged in to policy issues over decades. His website, with references to his publications, is www.jcampbell.com. Ordermaven (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Here is my two cents: I read the entire article and many of the articles accessible by clicking on the links. I think what has happened is that an article about the Great Depression and its causes morphed into a very scanty discussion of deregulation. After reviewing all your comments and reading the article again, I would like to propose concluding the Great Depression article with some statement about deregulation emerging as a significant force under the Nixon Administration. Then, chop out all the rest and create NEW article about deregulation based on the chopped out part.

The new article would benefit from the same format as the Great Depression article, presenting different schools of thought in the beginning as the history of deregulation is explained, then proceeding to a detailed explanation of each school of thought and how it played a role in shaping the deregulation policies currently in force. Also, it is important to define what new regulations went into place simultaneously instead of adding a single sentence as an afterthought.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional financier nor an academic scholar. Like many Americans, I have a university degree and a couple decades of corporate management under my belt. I consult Wikipedia for information about topics I want to know more about. As stated above, I started reading the Great Depression article, perused several links on the 2008/2009 financial crisis, and then went back to the Great Depression article. It struck me as weird how an article on the Great Depression ended with a scantily written discourse on deregulation. That is why I suggest you create a full-blown article on deregulation and take it out of the Great Depression article altogether. Providing a link would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.216.103 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

____

unnamed, I have deleted the section on the 1921-29 'deregulation' and the great depression as it is undocumented -- has no citation to known scholarly work -- and is not supported by the discussion of the causes of the Great Depression in the linked article on the Great Depression.

Likewise have deleted the para attributing the 2007-2009 financial crisis to the repeal of the Glass-Steaball Act. The link to fast changing wiki page on the current crisis contains no such assertion, and the para had no cite to support the assertion that many have claimed such a connection. The causes of this problem are still under debate, as you know, and probably will be for some time. There may be a credible claim that the Bush Administration's generally hands-off orientation was a causative factor. I am personally inclined to think that is so. But such a statement, if offered in the article, should be referenced to scholarly work, and probably should also reflect the many other reasons offered for the phenomenon, such as the vast amount of capital in the global economy looking for application immediately preceding the bursting of the bubble. A nuanced and sourced discussion of the extent to which Bush Administration inclinations to allow very free markets fed into our current situation is possible -- indeed at some point desirable -- but probably should be developed first on the page relating to the financial crisis and should certainly be based on solid, documented sources.

Ordermaven      —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordermaven (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

-- unnamed

1.	A careful reading of the The Richard Vietor article cited in the proposed deregulation 1921-29 section did not reveal clearly stated support either for the proposition that there was in fact a deregulation movement in 1921-29 – that is, a movement to repeal regulatory legislation -- or that any such deregulation caused a bubble which caused the great depression

2.	 The closest thing I can find to any sort of backup to this paragraph’s assertions s to the cause of the Great Depression is a paragraph in the ‘cause’ section of the ‘great depression’ page which states that the Roosevelt Administration tended to argue that the excesses of big business had led to an unstable economy. But this paragraph is one of seven putative causes listed in this page, and is not backed up in that article either by cited economic theory or cited facts. It is simply stated as the cause Roosevelt offered.

3.	The separate wiki page on causes of the great depression does not mention Roosevelt’s speeches. .

4.	If we were to pick one asserted cause of the Depression to mention, we would be obliged to note that a great many other causes have been offered, and there is no firm consensus on causes, as does the current wikipedia page on causes of the great depression.

5.	While it is true that presidents from Roosevelt through Kennedy left much of the 1930’s regulation of industry in place, a more accurate statement would point out that Truman (whose Justice Department opposed cartel price making, a central part of the transport regulatory system), Eisenhower and Kennedy each sought to roll back regulatory restraints on competition in transportation. This is set out in “The Best Transportation System in the World, Rose, Seely and Barrett, Ohio State Univ Press, 2006, pp 97 et seq.

6.	 What is supported by the Vietor cite and other sources is that the 1921-29 period was one in which there was relatively few controls on the market, at least as compared to the 1930-60 period, Roosevelt Administration put in several regulations attempting to suppress competition, attempts of this sort included in the National Industrial Recovery Act were stricken, and the ‘deregulation’ efforts of the 1970-80 period reversed much of the legislation suppressing competition while leaving in place things like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Social Security Administration. .

I have therefore revised this paragraph to delete the unsupported language as to the ‘deregulation’ of the 1921- 29 period – the verification guidelines are clear that unsupported assertions are not to be let stand -- to include language that the Roosevelt Administration attempted to shore up a weak economy by suppressing competition in several ways, and some of these things were struck down in the 30s and others later reversed.. The edited language now refers to Great Depression and causes of great depression pages to deal with cause issues. To the extent the language deals with causes of the Great Depression, it adopts the language in the existing wikipedia pages on the Great Depression, including the reference to Roosevelt’s views, rather than creating a new or separate explanation for the Great Depression.

The Rolling Stone article cited for the assertion that Glass-Steagall elimination might be one of the causes of the 2008-9 financial meltdown does give some support for the proposed language in the paragraph relating to that crisis. However, the discussion on the Wikipedia page on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes clear that there is a debate on this point, and reports that debate in a balanced fashion, as is required by the Neutral Point of View  guidelines for Wiki editing. I have added a reference to a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal which collects a number of different articles cite several argued causes for the financial crisis – a global capital excess, poor bond raters, mortgage fraud, sleepy regulators, and the Community Reinvestment Act. . I have therefore changed the language to reflect the neutral point of view, keeping the reference to the Glass Steagall Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordermaven (talk • contribs) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy discussion
Set up a new section on 'controversies' to reflect opposing opposing points of view on deregulation which had been inserted in the definition section. Best to keep the definition itself simple and clean. As to the controversies, the language was not sourced but contained links to extensive and well sourced articles. So kept the links and emphasized them, rather than giving brief, partial and necessarily incomplete allusions to the extensive materials in the articles. Ordermaven (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea. I was just thinking of that myself and came here to propose a plan before I read the above. One dispute I'm thinking about is the one I described (in another thread) about the opposing points of view on "deregulation" as a factor in the California electricity crisis. Here are the two points of view, as near as I can tell:
 * That deregulation, i.e., the removing of government controls on the production and sale of energy, is in general a bad idea. California's crisis proved this.
 * That deregulation is in general a good idea. California's restructuring was not an example of deregulation. Rather, the government adding new restrictions on both the production and sale of energy.


 * What's the best way to describe the controversy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed, those two points of view are out there, but what has been happening is a slow, hampered, attempt by the Federal Energy Regu;atory commission to create designed competition by means of 'standard market design' templates. This is the current manifestation of long standing attempts to get common carrier transmission of competing generation sources begun with the Otter Tail Power case -- Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States. 410 U. S. 366 (1973. At this point there are a number of regtional transmission operators using at least some elements of SMD prescriptions. You can see a chart of these if you go the FERC website and click on the 'market oversight' tab. ( I tried to give you a direct link but for some reason it seems not to work)You can see a rather dense recent commentary on this effort by the Federal Trade Commission at

So a discussion of 'controversy ' as to electricity deregulation might proceed by saying that neither of these two points of view describe the evolution of regulatory and competition policy in the electric utility sector. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has not adopted the Theirer point of view that government should just back off its extensive regulatory role and let a competitive system emerge, nor has it despaired of creating effectively competitive interstate wholesale power markets which perform better than the alternatives available. Rather, it continues a long standing effort to create such an effectively competitive, efficient wholesale power market. The issue is not really electricity 'deregulation', bad or good. It is engineering wholesale power competition, how good can we make it?

Richard Vietor has written a book called 'Contrived Competition' in which he asserts that we have engaged in a program to make markets competitive by design, not just vacillate between laissez faire and strict price and entry regulation. There is some truth to this, particularly in the electric utility industry and in telecommunications in countries which formerly had state owned but now privatized communications systems.

I will look around for some book cites and FERC cites to use if you would like to pursue this approach -- ordermaven 68.49.36.102 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ed, here is a better cite to the FERC policy, from the FERC website. Gooc comprehensive overview of the policy and its recent historical development ordermaven 68.49.36.102 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Ordermaven (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Added tags cleanup and unbalanced
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Note #10 is not a source in current form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.131.15 (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous right-wing slant
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)

I agree. there is a sentence in the opening paragraph that makes zero sense and is inflammatory for no reason. Deregulation is different from liberalization because a liberalized market, while often having fewer and simpler regulations, can also have regulations in order to increase efficiency and protect consumers' rights, one example being anti-monopoly legislation. However, the terms are often used interchangeably within deregulated/liberalized industries. If no one objects, I will delete it.Stregamama (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Iceland
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)

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

Canada
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)

New Zealand – An attempt to prevent an edit war after reverting the same bad faith edit for the second time.
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:


 * 1) No no references for either of the claims was provided.
 * 2) The claim about the economy cited specific numbers, but didn't say what the numbers actually represent.
 * 3) 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%.
 * 4) 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. 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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:


 * 1) It did not remove the sentence about the 1991 economic rebound.
 * 2) Slightly different wording and punctuation (the addition of "Also" at the beginning being the most significant).
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) 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)
 * I agree. It's got to go. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Deregulation
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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/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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)