>
> > if it cannot be run profitably, how 'efficient' could it be?
> >
> > /jordan
>
Are you familiar with the concept of a public good? I don't say thsi snidely, but it's an uncontroversial part of mainstream economics that there are goods that would benefit everyone, but cannot be reliably provided by the market. This is because of the proclivity of people to free ride, as it were: each benefits if other pay for the good, but it's rational for each to also not pay himself if he can get away with it. If everyone does this, we don't get the good. Standard examples: roads, schools, national defense. Each of these things, except for possibly the last in the case of the US, are clearly necessary for increasing social welfare. We would all be much poorer in every respect if we let the free market and the free rider problem deprive of of these goods. Rail is clearly another example, like roads. Health care is too, witness the appalling state of the US health care system versus the national health in places where, unlike Britain, national health care is actual taken seriously. I am thinking of Germany, France, Canada, Cuba, for example. In saying all this, bear in mind that unlike many on this list I am a great fan of markets. But they belong in their place. They should be our servants, not our masters.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx