You are absolutely right. We shouldn't make assumptions. We should be looking at the data to see what we value we really are getting for the subsidy. But, sinc

You are absolutely right. We shouldn't make assumptions. We should be looking at the data to see what we value we really are getting for the subsidy. But, since nobody seems to be incorporating that data in the discussion, I'm not sure we can really fault the other commenter for believing that we are getting the desired results out of the existing subsidies. The results haven't shown up as a clear negative with respect to the intended outcome, so it is natural to assume, without better information, that it is working just fine. And, as you said, if it is working just fine there is no need for change. Absolutely, more data is needed in this discussion to evaluate the effectiveness of what we have and to compare against alternatives. But to outright dismiss the unmeasured effectiveness of a subsidy because a handful of people have proven the willingness to do the same without that subsidy seems to be the only silly part of this discussion.