The only reason the paper authors called it a subsidy is because people sadly don’t care about externalities nearly as much as subsidies.
It's one thing to argue that we should consider unpriced externalities subsidies -- I'd even agree -- but it's quite another to use this alternative proposed definition/classifcation in order to intentionally cultivate a misrepresentation of the underlying facts.
People notice shit like this and don't take kindly to being misled.
The difference is that I don't object to the terminology, just it's intentionally deceptive application.
Reminded me of this exchange:
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
I’m curious which part of my comment you think plays that role.
When you're right, there's no need to stretch the truth.
Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond:
> Amazon would have used city services without paying for them. Who pays for these services? The people, with their tax dollars..
No, Amazon still would have paid taxes - an estimated $25 billion in taxes over the next 5 years. This is the same erroneous thinking as people who think that they're gaming the system by buying stuff on Steam summer sales. You're not actually getting any money, the company is generating greater sales by offering customers a better deal.
> A partial truth is often the best lie.
But not when people are smart enough to see that your truth is incomplete. And while some people may fall for the conflation of externalities with subsidies, people with power and influence are less likely to do so and when they spot this ruse they're going to be even more adverse to whatever point you were trying to make because you've demonstrated as willingness to tell mistruths.
A partial truth is often the best lie.
This isn't a tortured analogy, it isn't an unconventional use of the term, these things are economically equivalent.
Most people don't know the word "externality," so using a less precise term that they do know is not in any way deceptive.
"Most people don't know the word "externality," so using a less precise term that they do know is not in any way deceptive."
People do know the word 'subsidy' and most know that it means a direct gift or tax benefit by the government which is not the same thing as an externality. What's more, they do know the word 'cost' as well, which is much clearer in this case than 'subsidy'.
A subsidy is a direct monetary transfer. A diffuse externalized cost does not qualify.
All of them?
>This isn't a tortured analogy, it isn't an unconventional use of the term, these things are economically equivalent.
No they are not. This isn't the equivalent of a tax break that other companies are being taxed for. It's a think for which no taxes exist for anyone. No industries are being taxed for these externalities.
It doesn't fit any of the dictionary definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
>Most people don't know the word "externality," so using a less precise term that they do know is not in any way deceptive.
It's not a less precise term. It's the wrong term. Might as well call it a bailout if you're going for political outrage.
The WTO are happy to include money not spent, or tax not received as valid when deciding if a subsidy is in place.
Now, if you object to it being called a subsidy, fine. (Although I’d like to know which step in my story stops qualifying as one.) But “a tortured analogy”? No way.
Then why are you talking about a garbage company? Your whole comment is building an analogy.
>Although I’d like to know which step in my story stops qualifying as one.
This is where it stops qualifying:
>Instead of taking the land, the government just declares that it’s legal for the garbage company to dump trash on other people’s land, and the owners just have to deal with it. This is quite different in the details from the original subsidy, but the overall effect is essentially the same.
The government saying "it's legal to do X" and all companies in any industry and any individual (what we're talking about is CO2 emissions) are allowed to do it, it's not a subsidy. It's just behavior with an externality that the government doesn't tax.