Simple infrastructure development could be a more beneficial, socialistic use of public sector interference in the markets.

I agree with the perception that there is a need for urban renewal in the US. Infrastructure development could make that renewal much more cost effective and beneficial to the populace.

As an example, "conduits to markets" could be ensured by the appropriate department of the local government.

One specific example of a public sector business venture that provies "conduit to markets" is that of public sector ownership of the physical layer of telecommunications infrastructure.

In our federal form of government, the general government of the Union could ensure a hypothetical telecommunications trunk line to each state and all federal property.

The states could ensure the same to each county and each county to each city or individual.

In this hypothetical, the physical availability of the telecommunications trunk line is guaranteed by the appropriate pubic sector entity responsible.

The public sector can generate revenue in this manner. The private sector would be able to provide "content" at lower cost and with a higher "standard of living" than is currently available to the market.