[kube-system]

Price controls on utilities in the US are extremely common and successful. There are good ways to implement price controls and there are bad ways. Also, there are just as many examples of bad outcomes when you treat markets which are inherently unfree (i.e utilites, where infrastructure is typically monopolized) as free markets.

[BelenusMordred]

Price controls are successful until they aren't. The US can subsidise an egregious amount of bad policies for a very long time I suspect, from agriculture to health, it's not really going to hurt as there are other parts of the diverse economy that can pay.

An better example would be Venezuela, with the largest oil reserves on Earth, they subsidised energy costs to an extreme extent and it was one of the things that drove them into the ground.

People seem to dislike my comment above, yet no one seems to be arguing for petrol to cost ten cents a litre. Why not subsidise fuel if doing such things has such a successful history in the United States?

[kube-system]

Different markets have different dynamics, and therefore will react to economic interventions in different ways. Furthermore, the resulting effects of those interventions will have different impacts on consumers, depending on what the thing is. Any policy that is enacted will have multiple effects, and the determining factor in whether a policy will succeed or fail is whether those effects are acceptable.

For example, many EU countries have decided to enact policies that knowingly lead to high prices for motor vehicle petroleum, but this was decided to be acceptable because alternatives like public transportation exist, and are in many cases, preferable. Energy used to heat someone’s home is different in impact.

Venezuela’s economic issues are not a result of subsidies of petroleum for domestic use.

> Why not subsidise fuel if doing such things has such a successful history in the United States?

We do.