{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021541950113378686, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.26241134751773, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Camembert: A National Myth (review)

both Britain and the United States. Possibly the problem here is that Channon distrusts markets but also recognizes that government intervention has its limitations. Unfortunately, he never tells us this. Overall, Channon’s assertion that government was a positive force in railroad history is undermined by his failure to lay a theoretical foundation for his critique and by his narrative inconsistencies. Geoffrey Channon’s book merits attention because it raises important issues and addresses them in interesting if not always effective ways. Its inconsistencies, stemming from its fragmented nature and lack of conceptual framework, obscure the valuable points that the author makes. His book should spur renewed debate on the role of the railroads in the British and U.S. economies, and additional comparative work on railroads in general.