Railroads are a good example of investment in public infrastructure, so one needs to ask, did they provide a public good, or mostly private goods? Undoubtedly railroads greased the wheel of commerce and thereby enriched a lot of people—not just the tycoons, either: also small town farmers and businessmen who could bring their wares to bigger markets.

Other communication and transportation media have led to a loss of locality—African kids where Nike T-shirts, Russian kids wear hoodies and listen to The White Stripes. The pro-market theorists would argue that though there are hiccups on the way, freer channels mean that fewer things are prohibited to more people.

It occurred to me this morning that the process that results is one of equilibration, and there are different kinds of equilibration. Mohammed can go to the mountain, or the mountiain can come to Mohammed; either way, Mohammed and the mountain become equilibrated.

From what I understand, railroads strengthened small towns but interstate highways weaken them (small towns are generally shrinking today though they were growing a century ago). Why is that? Is it that you can pack all your belongings into a Honda, drive to the next bigger town and start a life?

Whatever the reasons for the direction of motion, lubricating the market can mean that goods and funds get exchanged across locales, leading to a win-win outcome; or it can mean that there's no longer a barrier to emigrating from your home town. A perceived disadvantage to one's hometown need not be suffered: everyone thinks there's a better job to be had in New York, and anyone can pick up and go to New York. The result? Warm bodies are siphoned away from Anytown, USA, and into Bigurb, USA.

Now is the point in the essay where I should start to shape my thoughts into a compelling and original thesis. I'll keep you posted if there's any progress on that front.