I enjoyed reading your comment but didn't wholly agree with this bit: > If subsidies were good without drawbacks, we'd subsidise everything. Many voters are s

I enjoyed reading your comment but didn't wholly agree with this bit: > If subsidies were good without drawbacks, we'd subsidise everything. Many voters are sensitive to what they perceive as wasteful use of public funds, so your claim only makes sense in a sort of idealized, platonic dictatorship. Admittedly, governments do waste funds occasionally so the concerns are not necessarily baseless. However I can easily see a government choosing not to subsidize a 'perfect' project simply because they want to appear frugal to voters - after all, that is a significant reason why the UK has had so many austerity policies that have slowed public investment. > And land is a famous special case; there should be a land tax to weed out people trying to make money from owning undeveloped land. Henry George, is that you? I can certainly get behind that argument!