Of course. I was pushing back against the claim in the original post, which argued for socializing transportation costs on economic grounds:

>Transportation is a service that's critical to economic function.

Transportation is not amongst the subset of goods/services where having individual market actors pay for its production leads to economically sub-optimal under-production.

Whether transportation should be subsidized for other reasons is an entirely different subject.

I am a bit less convinced about the "optimalities" in practice, because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge.

>>because differences in funding costs, risk preferences etc. can lead to inefficiencies in the real world that a state actor could bridge.

I don't understand, could you elaborate?

For example: corporations have a lot of secondary objectives beyond profit such as limited volatility of profits that can suppress beneficial activities. State actors can take different risks and absorb such volatility by funding activities and then recovering via taxes (simplistiscally). In the financial markets this gets often arbitraged away, but in slow and high cost markets, those arbitrageurs aren't necessarily forming.

Similarly, time preferences can stop long-term beneficial activities by corporate actors.

In the end, it is about bridging different preferences.

Yes, market friction like what you note is possible. But in theory, those points of friction and inefficiency can be overcome by the market with innovations in financial instruments.