Often I hear that over the past 30 years, the US has had a policy of “Deregulation”. If this is true, what are events that people could point to that could possibly give credit to this theory? Can you disprove them?
There has been a form of deregulation. It’s been essentially to free one part of a transaction, but not the other. See, for instance, deregulation of airlines under Carter, and Davis’ deregulation of utilities in California. See also the Bush-era repeal of Glass-Seagal.
Is that all? That doesn’t seem that much.
The Federal Register, the book which lists government regulations, has increased 16%, or 10,000 pages to a total of 73,000 pages over the last 30 years. So if 10,000 more pages is deregulation, then yes we’ve been deregulated 
Perhaps the regulations have increased, but maybe the rate of increase has decreased?
Richard Nixon –rail and truck deregulation
G. Ford –railroad deregulation part 2
Carter –railroad, motor carrier, and air transport deregulation, natural gas deregulation.
80s-90s –more of the same plus some deregulation of ocean travel and bus travel. (1996?) deregulation of telecommunications. (late 1990s) deregulation of financial sector.
From wikipedia’s “deregulation” article
What was deregulated among the telecommunication and financial industry? Perhaps Clinton was more of a free market individual then people give him credit.
Can be easily countered. More rules does not necessarily mean more restrictions. Take for example “You may not purchase anything without the permission of the Federal Gov.” versus “You may not purchase Gold without the permission of the Federal Gov. You also may not purchase silver, oil, or any other high-priced commodity in bulk.”
The second one uses far more words but is certainly less restrictive than the first.
Handing over special privileges to corporations is what usually falls under what the mainstream calls ‘deregulation’.
That’s an interesting point. That fits with the “deregulation=fascism” framework that is often used by the left.
That’s an interesting point. That fits with the “deregulation=fascism” framework that is often used by the left.
Yes. That goes along with the general idea that we should assume our opponents not to be idiots.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010051803/finance-mine-oil-debt-disasters-deregulation
“So with the conservative government of Reagan and then later under the all-out anti-government conservative administration of George W. Bush we have had the opportunity of seeing just what happens when these “free market” ideas are given free reign to replace democracy. Anti-government zealots were put into positions inside the government and used that power to take apart the protections that We, the People had painstakingly built.”
Yeah. Prepare to laugh.
Oh, boy, let’s deconstruct this BS.
all-out
Bush was always a middle of the road compromiser.
anti-government
This is completely indefensible from any historical or logical perspective. How can the man who campaigned and then became the central executive officer of the most powerful empire in human history be ‘anti-government’?
conservative
Bush was not conservative at all, either in the classical liberal, Constitutionalist or social conservative sense.
administration of George W. Bush
Bush and his appointees hardly represent one ten thousandth of the actual administration and power centers, which are located in the bureaucracy, media and academic institutions.