The wikipedia article has citations and external links, which are far more trustworthy than your hand waving and bullshit which you just made up on the spot.<p>&gt; There really isn&#x27;t enough detail there, but what detail there is suggests those numbers are completely made up.<p>Read the report, it has plenty of details, I don&#x27;t really feel like spoonfeeding an ignorant and dishonest bullshitter.<p>&gt; A multi-decade accounting isn&#x27;t useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries.<p>Of course it&#x27;s useful, just because it doesn&#x27;t agree with your opinion doesn&#x27;t make it irrelevant.<p>&gt; The tax-based &quot;subsidies&quot; appear to just be referring to the ability to write off expenses, an aspect of the tax code that is nearly universal to every industry in all nations.<p>No, there are specific tax subsidies, which is why it is mentioned explicitly. Not sure why you are handwaving and trying to imagine a reality which agrees with your retarded opinion.<p>&gt; There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses.<p>Blah blah. Not even worth arguing.<p>&gt; The second part of that summary, referring to &quot;exemptions&quot; from economic regulations, is bizarre. We don&#x27;t generally have price controls or limits on the rate of return in the United States.<p>There are many price controls in the US, once again you are showing your extreme ignorance.<p>&gt; It seems like that report probably just chose arbitrary numbers for what it felt the profit rate should have been, and added the difference between that and the real numbers into the subsidy number.<p>No, it&#x27;s just that you are very stupid and dishonest.<p>&gt; That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy.<p>Hahahaha.