Subject:
|
Re: British railway industry (was Re: UK devolved government (was Harry Potter but who remembers that?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:11:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1217 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > In what way is Railtrack an example of privatization?
> >
> > Well that's what it the Government called it at the time!
>
> Yes. But calling something X doesn't make it X. Unless you agree that
> California recently "deregulated" its power industry.
Just for clarification (since there's no way to defend CA's policy): can a
system be referred to as "deregulated" if regulations are removed; ie:
reduced regulation = deregulation, or is it necessary for *all* regulation
to be removed; ie: no regulation = deregulation? Semantically, I can see an
argument in either direction, but I'm curious to see the general view.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
