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.