On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 21:50:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
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.

How about conspiracy theory?

In a country without a command economy is it easier for government to
control agricultural production with or without paying subsidy?

It was never a secret that cap in the origin, and all along the way
has come with intents to influence agricultural production. The mental
exercise is to realise that government has very little such intent any
more, and far less than it needs to justify the current cap payments.