alt Hacker News> Like if destroying the trees to grow something else was more profitable than continuing to sell the produce then why does it require a government subsidy?
Because why pay for something when you can get someone else to pay for it?
> Like if destroying the trees to grow something else was more profitable than continuing to sell the produce then why does it require a government subsidy?
Because why pay for something when you can get someone else to pay for it?
"The industry has captured the government and is doing a corruption" is the thing consistent with the theory. The non-corruption/capture reason for the government to pay for it is supposed to be what?