There really isn&#x27;t enough detail there, but what detail there is suggests those numbers are completely made up.<p>You left out the part where the report covers the period of 1950-2010 - a 60 year period. A multi-decade accounting isn&#x27;t useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries.<p>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. There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses.<p>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. 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. That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy.<p>You also left out the part where the real subsidies, those to the renewables industries, are actual giveaways of money.<p>I&#x27;m not sure how an honest inquiry could make these mistakes and engage in these false comparisons, which probably explains why you used a throwaway account to post.