[hollerith]

I doubt investment in railroads or aviation in the US was anything close to majority-government. I'd be shocked if the government's share of cumulative investment in petroleum production since 1859 (the start of commercial production when Edwin Drake's well near Titusville, Pennsylvania, struck oil) was above 2%.

[nobodyandproud]

For railroads, just wrong.

Can’t speak for the rest, but we still subsidize airlines and the infrastructure to make it possible.

As we should.

All of the little industrialists and VCs here on HN wouldn’t have a prayer of striking it rich without the median income workers paying (hard-carrying) your little dreams.

[hollerith]

If I'm wrong, Wikipedia is wrong, too:

>Financing of railroads provided the basis for a dramatic expansion of the private (non-governmental) financial system. Construction of railroads was far more expensive than factories: in 1860, the combined total of railroad stocks and bonds was $1.8 billion; in 1897, it reached $10.6 billion (compared to a total national debt of $1.2 billion). Funding came from financiers in the Northeastern United States and from Europe, especially Britain. About 10 per cent of the funding came from the government, particularly in the form of land grants that were realized upon completion of a certain amount of trackage. The emerging American financial system was based on railroad bonds . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport

Although neither my quote nor the surrounding text explicitly states that it refers to the US rail system, the sentence that starts, "About 10 per cent of the funding came from the government" has a footnote that is a reference to this book:

>Edward C. Kirkland. Industry Comes of Age: Business, Labor and Public Policy, 1860–1897. The Economic History of the United States, Vol. VI.