Extract
[...] From this observation, two conclusions can be drawn: the first is that the initial investment is so high in certain sectors that an infinite number of individual trips are needed to make it profitable (and therefore the cost of an individual trip is extremely high), and consequently, if a private company were to manage the SNCF, the price for passengers of a transportation ticket or a subscription would be much higher than it is currently. However, transportation, like education and health, is a right rather than a privilege that only the wealthy can afford. For these two main reasons, a private company has very little incentive to offer services such as transportation, education, or health. And yet, these are absolutely essential goods and services in a society. Thus, the State is the only actor capable of meeting the demand for these goods and services to society. [...]
[...] It is not unknown that the State is an important actor in the economy, but we will illustrate it here with this example. To better understand how the example of a state-managed enterprise such as the SNCF shows the crucial importance of the State in the economy, we must first understand the different types of goods and services that exist. Here, the considered good is transport, which is an auxiliary good: that is, it is rarely requested for itself, but as a complement to work, leisure, etc., as it serves the movement of people and goods. [...]
[...] The "invisible hand" is described as the mechanism allowing the market to regulate itself towards an economic optimum that benefits all actors, while they only seek their personal interest." Or, we have just seen through the example of the SNCF: if all actors only seek their personal interest, certain goods and services would never be produced. In fact, no actor (in seeking to optimize their personal interest) would offer passenger transport as the SNCF does currently. And yet, the demand for transport would still exist. Leaving the economy to its own forces without state intervention therefore leads to a market imperfection. The state is the guarantor of good economic functioning, therefore the mechanism of the invisible hand does not, by itself, ensure the optimum functioning of the economy. [...]
[...] However, the critique of the invisible hand is more complex than that: it is for the state to ensure this type of goods and services such as transport and education, so that the potential of the 'invisible hand' is fully realized by other actors in the economic life. In fact, it is precisely because the state sets up roads and working transport, and quality education, that economic actors can realize their full potential. And it is only within the framework of state intervention upstream of the economic game itself that one could consider the functioning of the 'invisible hand' to achieve an economic optimum, and not as Adam Smith had initially envisioned. [...]
