|
Does that mean airlines, breweries, aerospace should all be publicly funded? What about opening international banking operations? What about an inusrance IPO? No because, in part, as far as I am aware these are not declining cost industries. As I have said previously, economists recognise that there are differences between the market for roads and the market for ice-creams (and beer and plane rides). Further, I have made no judgment about whether roads should be publicly or privately funded. My argument was about whether governments should ensure the provision of information through road signage; not about who should fund roads. What social costs? Congestion and pollution are spread more thinly. The veracity of my statement, and my broader argument, was not dependent on their being such social costs - you are the one who raised the issue of environmental regulation. That said, environmental costs often arise in the construction of roads themselves, and the thinner spreading of emissions, while possibly having localised environmental benefits, is unlikely to do much for aggregate emmissions levels and their effects on global warming. It is also possible that more roads would lead to more road travel which could increase aggregate emmissions. You previously stated that businessmen learn from their mistakes and revise their estimates if they become unprofitable. So the orads built privately would be socailly optimal. No, all it means is that roads built privately would be (or would tend towards being) constructed and run in a way that is privately optimal; not socially optimal.
| 
