From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   bob  wrote:   
      
   >Considering that things like compulsory purchase powers over land are a   
   >form of subsidy (because the buyer of that land is forcing the owner to   
   >sell it at less than they would otherwise chose to sell it at), I would   
   >extend that to any transportation infrastructure of any kind.   
      
   >Transportation infrastructure is the classic case of the economic   
   >benefits being almost entirely external to the owner of the   
   >infrastructure.  In cases like this, it is pretty much universally   
   >recognised that government provision (or interference in the market to   
   >bring about the required objective) is beneficial to all.   
      
   Dude, you have a logic gap there:   
      
   You lept from "benefits are external", which is correct, to "beneficial   
   to all", which is false. The benefits of transportation go to land   
   value, and it depends on the proximity of the land to the transportation   
   infrastructure. Also, if one owns residential land, one might not   
   appreciate being under an airport landing approach path.   
      
   What would be universally beneficial to all would be if there was a   
   strict relationship between costs and benefits, so that those with a   
   proportionate benefit pay a proportionate share of costs; a bit of   
   hedging as it's difficult to avoid outside subsidy whenever government   
   has its hand in anything.   
      
   With government, most of the time, there's no direct relationship between   
   taxation and benefit, which is exactly what prevents government "good"   
   being universally beneficial and can distort the economy.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)