write a short essay that argues for or against deregulation

• Contributors
• Mission and Values
• Submissions
• The Regulatory Review In Depth

Deregulation Then and Now

Series of essays.

Leading scholars compare deregulation under the Reagan and Trump Administrations.

Effective deregulation can be complicated. It requires coordinated efforts of agency leaders, officials, and legislators. To move these efforts forward, it can help to have a White House that is committed to the deregulatory cause.

That was the case nearly forty years ago during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. And it is the case today, with the current White House expressing a strong deregulatory zeal.

How does the Trump Administration’s deregulatory agenda compare with that of the Reagan Administration? Is the Trump agenda simply an echo of the Reagan era? Or is the current Administration’s initiative something new and different?

Last fall, a panel of experts organized by Nicholas R. Parrillo of Yale Law School gathered at the annual conference of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice to assess similarities and differences between the Reagan and Trump deregulatory agendas. Panel members compared current policies, such as the “one in, two out” executive order , with the Reagan Administration’s focus on benefit-cost analysis.

The Regulatory Review  invited the participants in the ABA panel to share their reflections on deregulatory efforts of the past and the present. This series brings together the following contributors: Jefferson Decker , associate professor at Rutgers University-New Brunswick; Susan E. Dudley , director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Marissa Martino Golden , associate professor at Bryn Mawr College; Reuel Schiller , professor of law at the Hastings College of the Law, University of California; and Adam J. White , assistant professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

A Brief History of Regulation and Deregulation

March 11, 2019 | Susan E. Dudley, George Washington University

Ever since Congress created the first federal regulatory body more than 130 years ago, people have debated the proper role for what has been called the “fourth branch” of government. This essay provides a brief history of regulation and deregulation, reviewing the key milestones that have shaped regulatory practices in the United States from the mid-1900s to the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Regulatory Reforms and Counter-Reformations

March 12, 2019 | Adam J. White, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

How should the Trump Administration’s approach to regulatory reform be understood? Just as we best understand everything else about President Trump: partly as an agent of radical change, but mostly as a symptom of deeper trends that far predate him.

Deregulation, Reagan-Style

March 13, 2019 | Jefferson Decker, Rutgers University-New Brunswick

History can help explain the politics of regulation, but only if we first understand that there exist different kinds of regulation. Economic regulation often manages the supply or prices of certain goods in specific industries, and social regulation often protects the public from general harms such as pollution. Economic and social regulation have different histories that need to be considered when comparing the regulatory agendas of different presidencies—and sometimes even when considering policies within the same presidency.

Deregulation Drains Government Expertise

March 14, 2019 | Marissa Martino Golden, Bryn Mawr College

Two things that make the current Administration distinct from the Reagan Administration are President Trump’s more explicit disregard for bureaucratic expertise and his increasingly savvy use of his appointment power. Civil service turnover has reached much higher levels over the past two years. Who will be left to provide the expertise needed should a future President seek to re-regulate? The current brain drain of expert careerists from regulatory agencies may be the most significant difference between deregulation then and now.

The Ideological Origins of Deregulation

March 18, 2019 | Reuel Schiller, Hastings College of the Law at University of California

The story of the left-leaning intellectual origins of deregulation is not simply an exercise in intellectual or cultural history. Widespread antipathy towards the state can be most easily traced to ideas closely connected to the New Left, the Counterculture, and other left-wing subcultures during the 1970s. Indeed, the link between this source of anti-bureaucratic thought and the politics of deregulation suggests why many deregulatory policies had such broad purchase in the politics of the late 20th century.

Related Essays

Trump’s Deregulatory Failures

Scholar argues that President Trump’s deregulatory agenda was not successful in the long term.

Jimmy Carter, The Great Deregulator

By pushing for deregulation and adopting other reforms, President Carter left an enduring legacy on the U.S. regulatory system.

Auditor Highlights Trump Administration’s Deregulatory Failure

A Government Accountability Office report finds that deregulatory executive orders had limited effects.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Deregulation?

Understanding deregulation, the bottom line.

• Laws & Regulations
• Investing Regulations

Deregulation: Definition, History, Effects, and Purpose

The term deregulation refers to the reduction or elimination of government power in a particular industry. Deregulation is usually enacted by government bodies to create more competition within an industry. The struggle between proponents of regulation and those of government nonintervention has shifted market conditions. Some of the industries that have been deregulated in the United States include trucking, railroad, airline, and finance .

Key Takeaways

• Deregulation is the reduction or elimination of government power in an industry.
• Removing regulations allows businesses to operate more freely and can stimulate the economy.
• Critics suggest that deregulation can lead to monopolies and hurt consumers.
• The financial industry has undergone a great degree of deregulation.

Deregulation involves removing regulations and restrictions within an industry. It reduces a lot of the bureaucracy involved, which makes it cumbersome and overbearing for companies to do business. This is normally done at the executive level, which means legislation must be passed and signed into law by a country's leader.

Proponents of deregulation say it:

• Reduces burdensome red tape
• Creates a competitive edge
• Opens up opportunities for entry for new players
• Helps stimulate the economy
• Allows companies to free up capital to use to run their businesses

But there is plenty of criticism. Those against deregulation say it may help create monopolies and lead to a lack of transparency on how businesses operate. Eliminating regulations can also have detrimental impacts on consumers. Without any regulatory framework in place, companies are free to exploit consumers' interests. For instance, the deregulation of the financial sector gave financial institutions the power to decide how they would use their capital and how they would charge consumers fees.

Deregulation proponents argue that overbearing legislation reduces investment opportunity and stymies economic growth, causing more harm than it helps.

The History of Deregulation in the Financial Industry

The early days.

The financial sector in the U.S. wasn’t heavily regulated until the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that resulted. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration responded to the financial crisis by enacting financial regulation. This includes the Securities Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934 and the U.S. Banking Act of 1933, otherwise known as the Glass-Steagall Act .

The Securities Exchange Acts required all public companies to disclose relevant financial information and established the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to oversee securities markets.

The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a financial institution from engaging in both commercial and investment banking . This reform legislation was based on the belief that the pursuit of profit by large, national banks must have spikes in place to avoid reckless and manipulative behavior that would lead financial markets in unfavorable directions.

1980s to 1990s

In 1986, the Federal Reserve reinterpreted the Glass-Steagall Act and decided that 5% of a commercial bank’s revenue could be from investment banking activity. In 1996, that level was pushed up to 25%. The following year, the Fed ruled that commercial banks could engage in underwriting . In 1994, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act was passed, amending the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, to allow interstate banking and branching.

In 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act, or Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , was passed under the watch of the Clinton administration and overturned the Glass-Steagall Act completely. In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act prohibited the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating credit default swaps and other over-the-counter (OTC) derivative contracts. In 2004, the SEC made changes that reduced the proportion of capital that investment banks have to hold in reserves.

The Great Recession and Beyond

This spree of deregulation came to a grinding halt following the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 and the financial crash of 2007–2008 , most notably with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 , which restricted subprime mortgage lending and derivatives trading.

However, with the 2016 U.S. election bringing both a Republican president and Congress to power, then-President Donald Trump and his party set their sights on undoing Dodd-Frank. In May 2018, Trump signed a bill that exempted small and regional banks from Dodd-Frank’s most stringent regulations and loosened rules put in place to prevent the sudden collapse of big banks. It passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support after successful negotiations with Democrats.

Trump said that he wanted to “do a big number” on Dodd-Frank, possibly even repealing it completely. However, the bill's co-sponsor and former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said of the new legislation, “This is not a ‘big number’ on the bill. It’s a small number.” The legislation left major pieces of Dodd-Frank’s rules in place and failed to make any changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) , which was created by Dodd-Frank to police its rules.

Effects of Deregulation

The hoped-for effects of deregulation are to increase investment opportunities by eliminating restrictions for new businesses to enter markets and increase competition. Increasing competition encourages innovation, and as companies enter markets and compete with each other, consumers can enjoy lower prices.

Lessening the need to use resources and capital to comply with regulations allows corporations to invest in research and development (R&D) . Without needing to comply with mandated restrictions, businesses will develop new products, set competitive prices, employ more labor , enter foreign countries, buy new assets, and interact with consumers without the need to obey regulations.

Example of Deregulation

We highlighted some of the key measures taken to deregulate the financial industry above. Other industries experienced the removal of regulations.

In 1978, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act, which gave more control to airline companies and changed the landscape of the industry. By removing certain restrictions, the law allowed new airlines to enter the market , including smaller ones. It also allowed airlines more freedom to fly to new locations, increase the number of planes in the air, and boost the number of passengers per flight.

What Are the Most Regulated Industries in the United States?

The most regulated industries in the United States are:

• Petroleum and coal product manufacturing
• Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
• Motor vehicle manufacturing
• Non-depository credit intermediation
• Depository credit intermediation
• Scheduled air transportation
• Oil and gas extraction
• Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing
• Deep sea, coastal, and Great Lakes water transportation

What Would Happen If There Were No Federal Regulations in the U.S.?

Hazards would increase for people taking medicine, driving cars, eating food, and using other consumer products that were no longer subject to regulated safety standards.

Workplaces would lack safe environments or conditions. Weekends and overtime might be eliminated, forcing employees to work long hours or face the prospect of losing their jobs. For example, rivers and other bodies of water could become heavily polluted and even catch fire, as they did before the passage of the Clean Water and Environmental Protection acts in 1970.

What Are Some of the Benefits of Deregulation?

Deregulation can spur economic growth. By allowing companies to run their business how they prefer, they can be more efficient. There are no rules that specify how they can run their factories or whether they can use specific materials to produce their goods and services.

Reducing bureaucratic red tape also frees up capital for companies to invest in labor or new equipment. Companies can also lower their fees and thus attract more customers.

Deregulation has boosted competition and lowered prices for consumers in sectors like airlines and telecommunications.

As deregulation takes effect, it reduces barriers to entry. New businesses don’t have as many fees or regulatory considerations, so it is less expensive to enter markets.

Deregulation lowers costs of operations, allows more businesses to enter a market, and lowers prices for consumers. These factors can help stimulate efficiency and lead to increased economic growth.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. " Speech by SEC Commissioner: Securities Regulation After Glass-Steagall Reform ."

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission-Investor.gov. " The Laws that Govern the Securities Industry ."

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco-Economic Research. " Cracking the Glass-Steagall Barriers ."

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. " Regulation H-Section 109 of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act ."

Financial Reserve History. " Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, Commonly Called Gramm-Leach-Bliley ."

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. " Congress Passes Commodity Futures Modernization Act ."

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “ Final Rule: Supervised Investment Bank Holding Companies (Corrected Version) .”

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. " 17 CFR Parts 229 and 249-Conflict Minerals; Proposed Rule ."

Washington Post. " Congress Approves Plan to Roll Back Post-Financial-Crisis Rules for Banks ."

National Air and Space Museum. " Airline Deregulation: When Everything Changed ."

Mercatus Center-George Mason University. " The McLaughlin-Sherouse List: The 10 Most-Regulated Industries of 2014 ."

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. " Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) ."

• A Primer on Important U.S. Banking Laws 1 of 29
• Dodd-Frank Act: What It Does, Major Components, and Criticisms 2 of 29
• Major Regulations Following the 2008 Financial Crisis 3 of 29
• Too Big to Fail: Definition, History, and Reforms 4 of 29
• Volcker Rule: Definition, Purpose, How It Works, and Criticism 5 of 29
• Understanding the Basel III International Regulations 6 of 29
• What Is Basel I? Definition, History, Benefits, and Criticism 7 of 29
• Basel II: Definition, Purpose, Regulatory Reforms 8 of 29
• Basel III: What It Is, Capital Requirements, and Implementation 9 of 29
• What Basel IV Means for U.S. Banks 10 of 29
• A Brief History of U.S. Banking Regulation 11 of 29
• The Evolution of Banking Over Time 12 of 29
• How the Banking Sector Impacts Our Economy 13 of 29
• What Agencies Oversee U.S. Financial Institutions? 14 of 29
• Dual Banking System: Meaning, History, Pros and Cons 15 of 29
• Glass-Steagall Act of 1933: Definition, Effects, and Repeal 16 of 29
• Bancassurance: Definition, How It Works, Pros & Cons 17 of 29
• Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA): Definition and Requirements 18 of 29
• Bank Secrecy Act (BSA): Definition, Purpose, and Effects 19 of 29
• How Banking Works, Types of Banks, and How To Choose the Best Bank for You 20 of 29
• Chartered Bank: Explanation, History and FAQs 21 of 29
• Nonbank Financial Institutions: What They Are and How They Work 22 of 29
• Shadow Banking System: Definition, Examples, and How It Works 23 of 29
• Islamic Banking and Finance Definition: History and Example 24 of 29
• What Is Regulation E in Electronic Fund Transfers (EFTs)? 25 of 29
• What Is Regulation CC? Definition, Purpose and How It Works 26 of 29
• Regulation DD: What it is, How it Works, FAQ 27 of 29
• Regulation W: Definition in Banking and When It Applies 28 of 29
• Deregulation: Definition, History, Effects, and Purpose 29 of 29

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

11.4 The Great Deregulation Experiment

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Evaluate the effectiveness of price regulation and antitrust policy
• Explain regulatory capture and its significance

Governments at all levels across the United States have regulated prices in a wide range of industries. In some cases, like water and electricity that have natural monopoly characteristics, there is some room in economic theory for such regulation. However, once politicians are given a basis to intervene in markets and to choose prices and quantities, it is hard to know where to stop.

Doubts about Regulation of Prices and Quantities

Beginning in the 1970s, it became clear to policymakers of all political leanings that the existing price regulation was not working well. The United States carried out a great policy experiment—the deregulation that we discussed in Monopoly —removing government controls over prices and quantities produced in airlines, railroads, trucking, intercity bus travel, natural gas, and bank interest rates. The Clear It Up discusses the outcome of deregulation in one industry in particular—airlines.

Clear It Up

What are the results of airline deregulation.

Why did the pendulum swing in favor of deregulation? Consider the airline industry. In the early days of air travel, no airline could make a profit just by flying passengers. Airlines needed something else to carry and the Postal Service provided that something with airmail. Thus, the first U.S. government regulation of the airline industry happened through the Postal Service, when in 1926 the Postmaster General began giving airlines permission to fly certain routes based on mail delivery needs—and the airlines took some passengers along for the ride. In 1934, the antitrust authorities charged the Postmaster General with colluding with the major airlines of that day to monopolize the nation’s airways. In 1938, the U.S. government created the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to regulate airfares and routes instead. For 40 years, from 1938 to 1978, the CAB approved all fares, controlled all entry and exit, and specified which airlines could fly which routes. There was zero entry of new airlines on the main routes across the country for 40 years, because the CAB did not think it was necessary.

In 1978, the Airline Deregulation Act took the government out of the business of determining airfares and schedules. The new law shook up the industry. Famous old airlines like Pan American, Eastern, and Braniff went bankrupt and disappeared. Some new airlines like People Express were created—and then vanished.

The greater competition from deregulation reduced airfares by about one-third over the next two decades, saving consumers billions of dollars a year. The average flight used to take off with just half its seats full; now it is two-thirds full, which is far more efficient. Airlines have also developed hub-and-spoke systems, where planes all fly into a central hub city at a certain time and then depart. As a result, one can fly between any of the spoke cities with just one connection—and there is greater service to more cities than before deregulation. With lower fares and more service, the number of air passengers doubled from the late 1970s to the start of the 2000s—an increase that, in turn, doubled the number of jobs in the airline industry. Meanwhile, with the watchful oversight of government safety inspectors, commercial air travel has continued to get safer over time.

The U.S. airline industry is far from perfect. For example, a string of mergers in recent years has raised concerns over how competition might be compromised.

One difficulty with government price regulation is what economists call regulatory capture , in which the firms that are supposedly regulated end up playing a large role in setting the regulations that they will follow. When the airline industry was regulated, for example, it suggested appointees to the regulatory board, sent lobbyists to argue with the board, provided most of the information on which the board made decisions, and offered well-paid jobs to at least some of the people leaving the board. In this situation, it is easy for regulators to poorly represent consumers. The result of regulatory capture is that government price regulation can often become a way for existing competitors to work together to reduce output, keep prices high, and limit competition.

The Effects of Deregulation

Deregulation, both of airlines and of other industries, has its negatives. The greater pressure of competition led to entry and exit. When firms went bankrupt or contracted substantially in size, they laid off workers who had to find other jobs. Market competition is, after all, a full-contact sport.

A number of major accounting scandals involving prominent corporations such as Enron, Tyco International, and WorldCom led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The government designed Sarbanes-Oxley to increase confidence in financial information provided by public corporations to protect investors from accounting fraud.

The Great Recession, which began in late 2007, was caused at least in part by a global financial crisis, which began in the United States. The key component of the crisis was the creation and subsequent failure of several types of unregulated financial assets, such as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs, a type of mortgage-backed security), and credit default swaps (CDSs, insurance contracts on assets like CMOs that provided a payoff even if the holder of the CDS did not own the CMO). Private credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poors, Moody’s, and Fitch rated many of these assets very safe.

The collapse of the markets for these assets precipitated the financial crisis and led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, a major investment bank, numerous large commercial banks, such as Wachovia, and even the Federal National Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae), which had to be nationalized—that is, taken over by the federal government. One response to the financial crisis was the Dodd-Frank Act , which majorly attempted to reform the financial system. The legislation’s purpose, as noted on dodd-frank.com is:

To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end “too big to fail,” to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, [and] to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices. . .

All market-based economies operate against a background of laws and regulations, including laws about enforcing contracts, collecting taxes, and protecting health and the environment. The government policies that we discussed in this chapter—like blocking certain anticompetitive mergers, ending restrictive practices, imposing price cap regulation on natural monopolies, and deregulation—demonstrate the role of government to strengthen the incentives that come with a greater degree of competition.

Bring It Home

More than cooking, heating, and cooling.

What did the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) decide on the Kinder Morgan / El Paso Corporation merger? After careful examination, federal officials decided there was only one area of significant overlap that might provide the merged firm with strong market power. The FTC approved the merger, provided Kinder Morgan divest itself of the overlap area. Tallgrass purchased Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, Trailblazer Pipeline Co. LLC, two processing facilities in Wyoming, and Kinder Morgan’s 50 percent interest in the Rockies Express Pipeline to meet the FTC requirements. The FTC was attempting to strike a balance between potential cost reductions resulting from economies of scale and concentration of market power.

Did the price of natural gas decrease? Yes, rather significantly. In 2010, the wellhead price of natural gas was $4.48 per thousand cubic foot. In 2012 the price had fallen to just $2.66. Was the merger responsible for the large drop in price? The answer is uncertain. The larger contributor to the sharp drop in price was the overall increase in the supply of natural gas. Increasingly, more natural gas was able to be recovered by fracturing shale deposits, a process called fracking. Fracking, which is controversial for environmental reasons, enabled the recovery of known reserves of natural gas that previously were not economically feasible to tap. Kinder Morgan’s control of 80,000-plus miles of pipeline likely made moving the gas from wellheads to end users smoother and allowed for an even greater benefit from the increased supply.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Steven A. Greenlaw, David Shapiro, Daniel MacDonald
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Principles of Economics 3e
• Publication date: Dec 14, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-3e/pages/11-4-the-great-deregulation-experiment

© Jan 23, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

Arguments for and against Regulation

In: good regulation, bad regulation.

• Author & abstract
• Related works & more

Corrections

(Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT))

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

Arguments for and against Regulation

Cite this chapter.

• Imad A. Moosa 2  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Banking and Financial Institutions ((SBFI))

15k Accesses

In this chapter we present arguments for and against regulation in general and financial regulation in particular. Arguments for regulation may come in response to arguments against deregulation, and vice versa. This is why arguments for and against regulation are lumped together rather than separated, and this is why there may be some overlapping in the arguments. We reach the conclusion that corruption is (or should be) the main justification for financial regulation and that it is related to other justifications for regulation. For example, it is argued that corruption and greed can cause financial instability, which is typically considered to be the main objective of financial regulation.

Download to read the full chapter text

Chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others.

Good regulation versus bad regulation

Economic and ideological corruptions of the regulatory state.

Concluding Remarks

• Mutual Fund
• Free Market
• Market Failure
• Global Financial Crisis
• Financial Regulation

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Australia

Imad A. Moosa ( Professor of Finance )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2015 Imad A. Moosa

About this chapter

Moosa, I.A. (2015). Arguments for and against Regulation. In: Good Regulation, Bad Regulation. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Banking and Financial Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137447104_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137447104_2

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-68593-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-44710-4

eBook Packages : Palgrave Economics & Finance Collection Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Final dates! Join the tutor2u subject teams in London for a day of exam technique and revision at the cinema. Learn more →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Economics news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Economics Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Topic Videos

Deregulation in the UK - Examples and Evaluation

Last updated 23 Jan 2023

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

In this short topic video we look at industry deregulation. We consider some recent examples of deregulation in the UK and summarise some of the main arguments for and against a supply-side policy of deregulation. Industry deregulation refers to the process of removing or reducing government regulations and controls on certain industries or businesses.

• Market Deregulation

You might also like

Contestable markets (revision quiz).

Quizzes & Activities

Supply-Side Economics - Product Market Reforms

Study Notes

Privatisation

Uk housing market - the housing shortage, contestable markets, competition policy case study - royal mail privatisation.

Flying to Berlin cheaper than a return train journey to London - market failure or market success?

28th January 2016

​The Grass is Greener on the Other (Privatised) Side

14th March 2016

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

This Economist Really Loves Free Markets

By Peter Coy

Opinion Writer

Capitalism and free enterprise might seem synonymous, but Americans don’t view them the same way. According to Gallup , only about 60 percent of Americans have a positive image of “capitalism,” while 84 percent view “free enterprise” positively.

That distinction makes sense to Clifford Winston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “‘Free markets’ is an unambiguous term, which implies a lack of inappropriate government intervention as consumers and firms pursue their own interest in a competitive environment,” he wrote to me in an email on Friday. “So, I certainly support free markets.” In contrast, he went on, “‘capitalism’ does not necessarily exclude what is known as crony capitalism, where firms take advantage of the government to get an unfair advantage.”

I’ve been exchanging emails with Winston about his advocacy for free markets and deregulation for several months and I decided it was time to write a newsletter about his ideas, because even though I don’t agree with everything he says, he makes some strong points that I think readers would benefit from hearing.

Winston, who has a doctorate in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and has been at Brookings since 1984, has written, co-written or coedited 16 books and has had scholarly articles published in top journals such as The American Economic Review. His latest book, “Gaining Ground: Markets Helping Government,” came out last year.

Winston cites the rapid development of Covid vaccines as an example of how markets can compensate for flaws in governance. Much of the federal government, including the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, underreacted to Covid, Winston writes in “Gaining Ground.” After at first underestimating the risk of Covid, the Trump administration tried to drum up domestic manufacturing of medicines, pharmaceutical ingredients and masks that were readily available abroad at lower prices, he writes.

The private sector came to the rescue as drugmakers rapidly developed effective vaccines, Winston writes. He gives some of the credit for the vaccines to the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed effort, but faults the government for then botching the deployment, partly by not adequately opposing anti-vaccine messaging.

The toilet paper shortage of 2020 was another pandemic development that looked like a market failure at the time but was actually solved by market forces, Winston argues. The shortages occurred because the pandemic broke supply chains and fearful consumers hoarded supplies, but profit-seeking companies quickly found ways to ramp up production and fix distribution to fill unmet needs, he says.

Market forces also could have helped in December when thousands of domestic flights were canceled during the outbreak of the Omicron variant, he argues. He says the government should end regulations that prohibit foreign airlines from flying domestic routes in the United States. Deregulation, he says, would increase competition and lower fares.

In a 2020 book , “Autonomous Vehicles,” Winston and a co-author argued that regulators should not stand in the way of the development of self-driving cars and trucks, which they said could revolutionize transportation. (At the same time, he’s not entirely hands-off when it comes to autonomous vehicles. In an essay this year for Barron’s, he and Joan Winston, his wife, a technology policy analyst, wrote that Elon Musk, the chief executive officer of Tesla, had hurt the reputation of autonomous vehicles by “establishing his own proprietary testing procedures and adoption standards.”)

Winston’s faith in markets extends even to political strife. After the billionaire investor Ray Dalio said in February that the United States appeared to be on the path to “some form of civil war,” Winston wrote an essay for Barron’s arguing that market forces have the ability to mitigate civil conflict if business leaders step up.

Winston would also dismantle a lot of occupational licensing, which he says needlessly inflates prices for services and benefits only incumbents, such as hairdressers and lawyers. Lawyers shouldn’t need to graduate from accredited law schools to practice, and bar exams should be optional, he argues. He points to Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow as good lawyers who never graduated from law school.

Winston also told me he’s frustrated by recent arguments that blame markets for problems such as trucker burnout and last year’s Texas blackout. He says those arguments cherry-pick facts to falsely imply causality and ignore the overall benefits brought by deregulation.

“Both markets and governments make mistakes,” Winston wrote last year in a blog post for the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics. “The big difference is that inefficient government policies persist indefinitely, while markets have incentives to correct their inefficiencies given sufficient time, often by developing technological and product innovations.”

The readers write

Regarding your March 18 newsletter opposing cuts in gasoline taxes: Fifty years ago a colleague and I wrote a paper with a Harvard professor, Hendrik Houthakker, proposing a very large gasoline tax, which we would have offset by cutting the employee Social Security tax. We showed that the proposal would lead to a substantial reduction in gasoline consumption while actually boosting economic activity. Those with lower incomes would have benefited the most because the Social Security tax was and is regressive. Sadly, the idea failed. Now, in the midst of a crisis several nations in Europe as well as California and New Jersey are putting the idea to work. Bravo.

Philip Verleger

Quote of the day

“I still don’t really like the word ‘destiny.’ It’s just a target that people draw after the fact, in the place where the arrow landed.”

— Victor Miesel, a character in Hervé Le Tellier’s novel “The Anomaly,” translated from the French by Adriana Hunter (2021)

Have feedback? Send me note to [email protected] .

Peter Coy has covered business for nearly 40 years. Follow him on Twitter @ petercoy

Arguments for and Against Regulation

Arguments for government regulation.

Key concepts:

Unregulated markets may fail – a misallocation of resources.

Regulation has done much to improve the quality of life for consumers and employees and give them more rights. Products are generally safe.

Competition provides goods and services at lower prices, increasing standards of living and wellbeing.

Regulation defends small businesses and defeats monoposonies

Students should be aware that the EU single market was designed to create a level playing field for all business, leading to strong competition with rules that are fair to all. Harmonising regulation makes this a reality.

Arguments against government regulation

Adds to costs and pushes up prices. Safe working environments, the living wage, and meeting EU product standards all raise business costs.

Compliance with regulation can cause delays.

Regulation is often ineffective and misguided – with gov failure adding to market failure.

Not being able to collude with one another may force them to compete on price.

There is a trade-off between employee protection regulations and the level of employment/job creation.

– Flexible labour markets in the UK (UK already has less employment protection than many similar economies) and the Netherlands have been credited with facilitating lower rates of unemployment and livelier job creation.

– Germany got good results from similar structural reforms in the labour market of the early 2000s.

– The French government is aware of the need for similar policies as it grapples with high unemployment. E.g. French gain right to avoid work e-mails outside of working hours

• Almost all regulation has some potential to reduce profitability, so businesses typically complain about regulation and lobby politicians to try to reduce it.

‘Fear the Boom and Bust’ a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

Another debate arises here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Theme 4 focuses on the extent to which the gov should be involved in our economy.

It’s a big focus of your pre-release as well: “ This year the context is government intervention and market failure in the UK. ”

To summarise: Keynes is for gov intervention. Hayek is for the free market.

Hayek thought free markets tended toward a workable equilibrium that reflected people’s desires and choices.

The new Keynesian ideas believed that free markets sometimes guided economies into ditches from which only concerted government action could pull them out.

Hayek would support the ‘Japanese Laissez-faire’ approach.

Keynes would support the Labour ‘spend money to make money’ appraoch.

Are you a Hayek or Keynes backer? To what extent should the gov be involved in an economy?

Exam Style Question

Data Response question on business regulation

Extract A. GSK: It’s happened again

On February 12 th 2016 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced its biggest-ever fine. British pharmaceutical giant GSK was fined £37m for illegally stifling the launch of a cheap rival to its Seroxat antidepressant. For GSK, Seroxat was a major money-spinner, launched in 1991 and with annual sales of more than £1,550 million by 2000. But its patent was about to expire, in 2003. Seeing that drugs-producers such as Teva of Israel and Merck of Germany were about to launch lower-cost copycat rivals, GSK effectively bought them off. It paid its rivals not to launch a rival product for about two years beyond the patent expiry date.

The Competition and Markets Authority said GSK was guilty of “illegal behaviour designed to stifle competition at the expense of NHS and taxpayers” . And went on to argue that the deal was designed to “prevent, restrict or distort competition” . The copycat drugs manufacturers who received the payments were also fined. When, eventually, competition arrived for Seroxat, the price of the antidepressant fell by 70% within two years.

The CMA’s executive director for enforcement said the GSK fine showed “our determination to take enforcement action against anti-competitive practices in sectors big and small” . But given that GSK’s actions kept competition away for 2 years, and its annual turnover (at the time) was just over £20,000 million a year, it could be argued that the company got away very lightly. The rules state that breaking competition laws can result in fines of up to 10% of annual turnover. That would amount to £4,000 million!

The approach is different in the U.S., where fines can be breathtaking. In 2012 GSK agreed to pay a fine of £1,900 million after admitting a multi-year ‘criminal scheme to hide unhelpful scientific evidence, manipulate articles in medical journals and lavish gifts on sympathetic doctors’ ( The Independent , July 2 nd 2012). That, too, was in relation to Seroxat (marketed as Paxil in the U.S.).

Source: The Financial Times and others

Extract B. The cost of medicines

In 2013/14 the NHS spent £14.4 billion on medicines, an increase of 7.6% on the previous year. NHS spending on medicines amounts to less than 1% of UK GDP compared with 1.5% in countries such as France and Germany.

Source: Pharmaceutical Journal Nov 18 th 2014

Questions (20 marks; 25 minutes)

Explain how GSK’s behaviour displays characteristics of and oligopolist. (4)

Discuss two possible reasons why the UK government authorities seem quite tame in the penalties they place on companies such as GSK. (8)

Discuss the possible impact of an effective patent on a drug such as Seroxat on the efficiency of the market for that drug. (8)

Key concepts for questions

Question 1 - key concepts:

In this case the primary issue seems to be the interdependence of firms. GSK seems to have entered an agreement to pay a number of potential rivals, in order to minimise competition. This must mean that lines of communication were clear between these ‘rivals’, i.e. they could talk to each other to come to an agreement (and transfer the cash)

Other characteristics such as product differentiation seem to have been unimportant in this case, as the implication of the text is that the brand name _Seroxat _mattered little

Question 2 - key concepts:

Extract B may give a hint. Possibly the UK authorities think that Britain is doing relatively well out of the drug companies, with a lower bill (relatively) than countries of comparable size and affluence. Perhaps they think that going easy on them in relation to fines is part of an implicit deal (which, in fact, sounds pretty suspect legally). But ultimately such a huge sum is at stake (approx. £15 billion a year) that it’s vital to get value-for-money from the drug companies.

Perhaps UK authorities are simply too timid in the face of multinationals. At the moment HSBC seems about to announce that it will stay in the UK having gained concessions due to its threat to move its head Office to Hong Kong. Whereas the Americans have the confidence to punish law-breaking companies severely, we seem too worried. We cut corporation tax yearly, and compromise (with a Google or a GSK) rather than punish unambiguously. We fear punishing to the point where a business’s profit is damaged – perhaps this is partly due to regulatory capture?

Question 3 - key concepts:

Regarding allocative efficiency, that takes place when production continues until the last unit provides a marginal consumer benefit equal to the marginal cost of producing, in other words where production represents consumer preferences. Patents would definitely get in the way of that: creating an artificial price dictated by the company, not by the market – a price at which those with real demand may not be able to afford to buy.

Productive efficiency takes place when output is at the lowest point on its average cost curve (i.e. where marginal cost cuts the average cost curve). A patent on a drug like Seroxat may make little difference to whether or not output is productively efficient, because the product is a necessity and therefore demand may be affected little by the high price.

Argumentative Essay Examples to Inspire You (+ Free Formula)

Table of contents

Meredith Sell

Have you ever been asked to explain your opinion on a controversial issue? 

• Maybe your family got into a discussion about chemical pesticides
• Someone at work argues against investing resources into your project
• Your partner thinks intermittent fasting is the best way to lose weight and you disagree

Proving your point in an argumentative essay can be challenging, unless you are using a proven formula.

Argumentative essay formula & example

In the image below, you can see a recommended structure for argumentative essays. It starts with the topic sentence, which establishes the main idea of the essay. Next, this hypothesis is developed in the development stage. Then, the rebuttal, or the refutal of the main counter argument or arguments. Then, again, development of the rebuttal. This is followed by an example, and ends with a summary. This is a very basic structure, but it gives you a bird-eye-view of how a proper argumentative essay can be built.

Writing an argumentative essay (for a class, a news outlet, or just for fun) can help you improve your understanding of an issue and sharpen your thinking on the matter. Using researched facts and data, you can explain why you or others think the way you do, even while other reasonable people disagree.

Free AI argumentative essay generator > Free AI argumentative essay generator >

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an explanatory essay that takes a side.

Instead of appealing to emotion and personal experience to change the reader’s mind, an argumentative essay uses logic and well-researched factual information to explain why the thesis in question is the most reasonable opinion on the matter.  

Over several paragraphs or pages, the author systematically walks through:

• The opposition (and supporting evidence)
• The chosen thesis (and its supporting evidence)

At the end, the author leaves the decision up to the reader, trusting that the case they’ve made will do the work of changing the reader’s mind. Even if the reader’s opinion doesn’t change, they come away from the essay with a greater understanding of the perspective presented — and perhaps a better understanding of their original opinion.

All of that might make it seem like writing an argumentative essay is way harder than an emotionally-driven persuasive essay — but if you’re like me and much more comfortable spouting facts and figures than making impassioned pleas, you may find that an argumentative essay is easier to write. 

Plus, the process of researching an argumentative essay means you can check your assumptions and develop an opinion that’s more based in reality than what you originally thought. I know for sure that my opinions need to be fact checked — don’t yours?

So how exactly do we write the argumentative essay?

How do you start an argumentative essay

First, gain a clear understanding of what exactly an argumentative essay is. To formulate a proper topic sentence, you have to be clear on your topic, and to explore it through research.

Students have difficulty starting an essay because the whole task seems intimidating, and they are afraid of spending too much time on the topic sentence. Experienced writers, however, know that there is no set time to spend on figuring out your topic. It's a real exploration that is based to a large extent on intuition.

6 Steps to Write an Argumentative Essay (Persuasion Formula)

Use this checklist to tackle your essay one step at a time:

1. Research an issue with an arguable question

To start, you need to identify an issue that well-informed people have varying opinions on. Here, it’s helpful to think of one core topic and how it intersects with another (or several other) issues. That intersection is where hot takes and reasonable (or unreasonable) opinions abound. 

I find it helpful to stage the issue as a question.

For example: 

Is it better to legislate the minimum size of chicken enclosures or to outlaw the sale of eggs from chickens who don’t have enough space?

Should snow removal policies focus more on effectively keeping roads clear for traffic or the environmental impacts of snow removal methods?

Once you have your arguable question ready, start researching the basic facts and specific opinions and arguments on the issue. Do your best to stay focused on gathering information that is directly relevant to your topic. Depending on what your essay is for, you may reference academic studies, government reports, or newspaper articles.

‍ Research your opposition and the facts that support their viewpoint as much as you research your own position . You’ll need to address your opposition in your essay, so you’ll want to know their argument from the inside out.

2. Choose a side based on your research

You likely started with an inclination toward one side or the other, but your research should ultimately shape your perspective. So once you’ve completed the research, nail down your opinion and start articulating the what and why of your take. 

What: I think it’s better to outlaw selling eggs from chickens whose enclosures are too small.

Why: Because if you regulate the enclosure size directly, egg producers outside of the government’s jurisdiction could ship eggs into your territory and put nearby egg producers out of business by offering better prices because they don’t have the added cost of larger enclosures.

This is an early form of your thesis and the basic logic of your argument. You’ll want to iterate on this a few times and develop a one-sentence statement that sums up the thesis of your essay.

Thesis: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with cramped living spaces is better for business than regulating the size of chicken enclosures.

Now that you’ve articulated your thesis , spell out the counterargument(s) as well. Putting your opposition’s take into words will help you throughout the rest of the essay-writing process. (You can start by choosing the counter argument option with Wordtune Spices .)

Counterargument: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with too small enclosures will immediately drive up egg prices for consumers, making the low-cost protein source harder to afford — especially for low-income consumers.

There may be one main counterargument to articulate, or several. Write them all out and start thinking about how you’ll use evidence to address each of them or show why your argument is still the best option.

3. Organize the evidence — for your side and the opposition

You did all of that research for a reason. Now’s the time to use it. 

Hopefully, you kept detailed notes in a document, complete with links and titles of all your source material. Go through your research document and copy the evidence for your argument and your opposition’s into another document.

List the main points of your argument. Then, below each point, paste the evidence that backs them up.

If you’re writing about chicken enclosures, maybe you found evidence that shows the spread of disease among birds kept in close quarters is worse than among birds who have more space. Or maybe you found information that says eggs from free-range chickens are more flavorful or nutritious. Put that information next to the appropriate part of your argument. 

Repeat the process with your opposition’s argument: What information did you find that supports your opposition? Paste it beside your opposition’s argument.

You could also put information here that refutes your opposition, but organize it in a way that clearly tells you — at a glance — that the information disproves their point.

Counterargument: Outlawing the sale of eggs from chickens with too small enclosures will immediately drive up egg prices for consumers.

BUT: Sicknesses like avian flu spread more easily through small enclosures and could cause a shortage that would drive up egg prices naturally, so ensuring larger enclosures is still a better policy for consumers over the long term.

As you organize your research and see the evidence all together, start thinking through the best way to order your points.  

Will it be better to present your argument all at once or to break it up with opposition claims you can quickly refute? Would some points set up other points well? Does a more complicated point require that the reader understands a simpler point first?

Play around and rearrange your notes to see how your essay might flow one way or another.

4. Freewrite or outline to think through your argument

Is your brain buzzing yet? At this point in the process, it can be helpful to take out a notebook or open a fresh document and dump whatever you’re thinking on the page.

Where should your essay start? What ground-level information do you need to provide your readers before you can dive into the issue?

Use your organized evidence document from step 3 to think through your argument from beginning to end, and determine the structure of your essay.

There are three typical structures for argumentative essays:

• Make your argument and tackle opposition claims one by one, as they come up in relation to the points of your argument - In this approach, the whole essay — from beginning to end — focuses on your argument, but as you make each point, you address the relevant opposition claims individually. This approach works well if your opposition’s views can be quickly explained and refuted and if they directly relate to specific points in your argument.
• Make the bulk of your argument, and then address the opposition all at once in a paragraph (or a few) - This approach puts the opposition in its own section, separate from your main argument. After you’ve made your case, with ample evidence to convince your readers, you write about the opposition, explaining their viewpoint and supporting evidence — and showing readers why the opposition’s argument is unconvincing. Once you’ve addressed the opposition, you write a conclusion that sums up why your argument is the better one.
• Open your essay by talking about the opposition and where it falls short. Build your entire argument to show how it is superior to that opposition - With this structure, you’re showing your readers “a better way” to address the issue. After opening your piece by showing how your opposition’s approaches fail, you launch into your argument, providing readers with ample evidence that backs you up.

As you think through your argument and examine your evidence document, consider which structure will serve your argument best. Sketch out an outline to give yourself a map to follow in the writing process. You could also rearrange your evidence document again to match your outline, so it will be easy to find what you need when you start writing.

5. Write your first draft

You have an outline and an organized document with all your points and evidence lined up and ready. Now you just have to write your essay.

In your first draft, focus on getting your ideas on the page. Your wording may not be perfect (whose is?), but you know what you’re trying to say — so even if you’re overly wordy and taking too much space to say what you need to say, put those words on the page.

Follow your outline, and draw from that evidence document to flesh out each point of your argument. Explain what the evidence means for your argument and your opposition. Connect the dots for your readers so they can follow you, point by point, and understand what you’re trying to say.

As you write, be sure to include:

1. Any background information your reader needs in order to understand the issue in question.

2. Evidence for both your argument and the counterargument(s). This shows that you’ve done your homework and builds trust with your reader, while also setting you up to make a more convincing argument. (If you find gaps in your research while you’re writing, Wordtune Spices can source statistics or historical facts on the fly!)

Get Wordtune for free > Get Wordtune for free >

3. A conclusion that sums up your overall argument and evidence — and leaves the reader with an understanding of the issue and its significance. This sort of conclusion brings your essay to a strong ending that doesn’t waste readers’ time, but actually adds value to your case.

6. Revise (with Wordtune)

The hard work is done: you have a first draft. Now, let’s fine tune your writing.

I like to step away from what I’ve written for a day (or at least a night of sleep) before attempting to revise. It helps me approach clunky phrases and rough transitions with fresh eyes. If you don’t have that luxury, just get away from your computer for a few minutes — use the bathroom, do some jumping jacks, eat an apple — and then come back and read through your piece.

As you revise, make sure you …

• Get the facts right. An argument with false evidence falls apart pretty quickly, so check your facts to make yours rock solid.
• Don’t misrepresent the opposition or their evidence. If someone who holds the opposing view reads your essay, they should affirm how you explain their side — even if they disagree with your rebuttal.
• Present a case that builds over the course of your essay, makes sense, and ends on a strong note. One point should naturally lead to the next. Your readers shouldn’t feel like you’re constantly changing subjects. You’re making a variety of points, but your argument should feel like a cohesive whole.
• Paraphrase sources and cite them appropriately. Did you skip citations when writing your first draft? No worries — you can add them now. And check that you don’t overly rely on quotations. (Need help paraphrasing? Wordtune can help. Simply highlight the sentence or phrase you want to adjust and sort through Wordtune’s suggestions.)
• Tighten up overly wordy explanations and sharpen any convoluted ideas. Wordtune makes a great sidekick for this too 😉

Words to start an argumentative essay

The best way to introduce a convincing argument is to provide a strong thesis statement . These are the words I usually use to start an argumentative essay:

• It is indisputable that the world today is facing a multitude of issues
• With the rise of ____, the potential to make a positive difference has never been more accessible
• It is essential that we take action now and tackle these issues head-on
• it is critical to understand the underlying causes of the problems standing before us
• Opponents of this idea claim
• Those who are against these ideas may say
• Some people may disagree with this idea
• Some people may say that ____, however

When refuting an opposing concept, use:

• These researchers have a point in thinking
• To a certain extent they are right
• After seeing this evidence, there is no way one can agree with this idea
• This argument is irrelevant to the topic

Are you convinced by your own argument yet? Ready to brave the next get-together where everyone’s talking like they know something about intermittent fasting , chicken enclosures , or snow removal policies? 

Now if someone asks you to explain your evidence-based but controversial opinion, you can hand them your essay and ask them to report back after they’ve read it.

Share This Article:

7 Practical Solutions to Make AI Sound More Human: A Writer’s Guide

What’s a Semicolon? + When to Use It (With Examples)

The 12 Longest Words in English Defined and Explained

Looking for fresh content, thank you your submission has been received.