Talk politics.

There's another related question. Now, we saw with Solyndra that a company that should have died in its crib became pretty big, and remained so inefficient that it couldn't prosper without subsidization. How many companies are there, though, that receive subsidies, and that's the *only* thing making them viable? I'm not sure. I'd wager that without the lax private property enforcement (or outright corrupt seizure), currency manipulation, and direct cash subsidies, a large chunk of China's businesses wouldn't continue to operate in the black. That means that their businesses aren't going through the normal weeding out done by normal market forces. How much inefficiency are they allowing to continue? At what point do the benefits of the free market (specifically in making companies produce better products for less money to capture share of a competitive market) outweigh the negatives of not having subsidies? Isn't that a sort of benefit in itself of *not* having subsidies? One wonders how much it's actually worth, though.