byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) (01/19/90)
In article <1616@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes: > In article <2769@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: > >The Chunnel is an example of a large scale engineering project which shows > >that it does NOT take the STATE to do something large, useful, and interesting. > I repeat, the Channel Tunnel does not exist, and seems at present to be in > some danger of collapsing without state intervention to subsidise rail > links etc. In France, on the other hand, the state railway company has > built a fast and efficient network which will allow French industry rapid > access to the post-1992 market. If the economic justification for the tunnel is insufficient for it to be built, isn't that the proper outcome? If the state controls this by subsidies, the reason for it being built or not depends more or who has more political power, not on whether the cost of the chunnel is justified. Sometimes NOT doing something is the right choice, free markets allow the best approximation available of the RIGHT choice in issues like this. Subsidies only cloud the real work going on. Brian Yoder -- -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- | Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); | | uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers | -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-