Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:39:41 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Thursday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

One can't argue against all subsidy, it is inherent that each and
every specific case of subsidy might arguably have demonstrable
benefits to society. It is important to realise, however, that
it is no longer considered beneficial to society to subsidise farm
production.

Why?

Saying "free market" is not an explanation.

No, it is the assumed default among reasonable men. It is the
presence, not the absence of a subsidy that must have a special
explanation attached to it. It does not make sense to ask, why some
enterprise should -not- have a subsidy.

I live on the fringe of a shipbuilding town. I doubt very much whether
Europe has produced an unsubsidised ship of over 5,000 tonnes for more
than a generation.
--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'