In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
Long term the subsidies help to reduce the end product price to the
consumer.

Well obviously you can't have your cake and eat it too. Those low
prices are paid by the consumers via taxes. Factor in stuff like
deadweight loss (from taxation), bureocracy etc. and you end up with a
net loss.

OTOH had we never had any to begin with, we *might* be
better off and then again we might not.

My personal opinion is that some level of agricultural subsidies are
warranted for some nations to guarantee a domestic food supply, so
that people won't starve to death in case of some international
crisis.

OTOH, the current US and EU practice of dumping overproduction on the
world market with government subsidies, and thus forcing poor third
world farmers out of business, is IMHO very reprehensible to say the
least.

I can't see why ethanol would be a particularly good fuel for planes;
it's hydrophilic (as opposed to gasoline or most petroleum products

Which to me is a good thing up to a point. IE, if you get a bit of
rain in the mix it might reduce the power slightly, but at least it
wouldn't cause a failure. OTOH you could get a lot in and never know
it, which would not be considered a good thing.

Certainly the problem can be solved, evidenced by millions of cars
running fine on gasohol fuel. As I see it, the problem regarding
aircraft is the high cost of new parts and recertification.


--
Janne Blomqvist