>>That won't happen, because government subsidizing underperforming enterprises is the worst form of socialism.
>
>Yeah, well... as we both know, the government only considers it socialism if they have to subsidise individual citizens. For corporations, it's your tax money working to make your life better.

Now that's the government of the people for the people... giving money to me would make my life worse, but giving it to a corporation so it can make profit off me will somehow be better for me? Seems to be the two peoples in the first part of the sentence are not the same.

>>>I can't believe you think they'll just sit back and absorb the difference. No, Dragan, it will be you that will have to live with 'lower profits', not them.
>
>>Ah, but then they'd lose me as a customer. So who'd they sell to?
>
>Everybody else.

I think that it's not just the hypothetical 'me' that will have to live with lower profits, but the hypothetical 'everybody else' as well. So that other guy will also be lost as a customer. The corporations are sawing the branch on which they sit.

>Do you grow your own food now?

Just a few tomatoes and cucumbers. Cucumbers because they look nice while they grow (and they won't be sticky as they are in the grocery), tomatoes to remember the taste. And my wife bakes bread - there's something utterly wrong with the industrial bread when the whole aisle in the grocery has a not-so-attractive smell.