4 ms·

"subsidy" and "externalized cost" aren't mutually exclusive concepts (as you hint at in "...because subsidies aren't just externalized costs" [emphasis mine]),

"subsidy" and "externalized cost" aren't mutually exclusive concepts (as you hint at in "...because subsidies aren't just externalized costs" [emphasis mine]), so your semantic argument rests on shaky foundations. an externalized cost can be considered a subsidy in many contexts, including legal/political ones. like most words, "subsidy" may have a more specific meaning in a particular context, but understood differently in a general context. so taking a stance that one definition is better than another is relatively futile (in the sense that it convinces no one who's not already sympathetic). so rather than relying on semantics, make the argument you're really trying to make, which, by context, seems to be that you don't think externalized costs should be used in the comparison.

i_cant_speel 7y ago
They were making the argument that the headline shouldn't use an intentionally misleading word when there is a much better suited word that accurately and clearly conveys the meaning. Using a "technically correct" word isn't a defense when the vast majority of your target audience isn't going to properly understand the true meaning.
- underdown 7y ago
  It's also not technically correct. Externalities are externalities because they don't effect price while subsidies inherently effect price.
- cat199 7y ago
  Pretty sure if anyone should be using 'technically correct' terms from the field of economics, it should be the IMF.
astine 7y ago
"so rather than relying on semantics, make the argument you're really trying to make, which, by context, seems to be that you don't think externalized costs should be used in the comparison." No, externalized costs are important to take into account when making policy decision. Obviously we should be worried about the costs of climate change. The point I really want to make is that this is the wrong context in which to include externalities in the definition of subsidy because we are already implicitly using a definition of subsidy provided by the OP which excludes externalities.
- clairity 7y ago
  i'm not sure how it's the wrong context, but no matter. my point was that the semantic argument is entirely beside the point. the real question is whether we should consider the externalized costs of fossil fuels in policy decisions, and if so, when and how? fossil fuels have favored status (not undeservedly) across the world. given what we know now about how it's extraction/use effects the world, including on us humans, should we continue to favor it over other energy sources? in my estimation, fossil fuels have a useful place in our energy history (as an energy intermediary), but can only be a stepping stone to a more sustainable energy future that more directly harnesses energy from the sun (our ultimate energy source anyway). on the way, we should reduce the harmful impacts of fossil fuels as much as possible, without regard to the profits of oil magnates.
  - astine 7y ago
    "i'm not sure how it's the wrong context, but no matter." Actually, this is important. The original article talks about government subsidies in the renewable energy market. It's only talking about direct subsidies and tax breaks, not externalities. In response, someone posted an IMF report about subsidies in the fossil fuel market as a comparison. This report does include externalities. This means that we are not comparing apples to apples. It creates the impression that governments directly gave $5.2T to fossil fuel companies in 2017, which is not the case. My broader point though, is that the distinction between an externality and a government policy meant to deal with that externality is a useful and important distinction to make. Some people on this thread seem to be arguing that because they see no moral distinction between the two (this is debatable but doesn't matter to my argument,) that there should be no semantic distinction, but I disagree, and strongly. For one, these things are measured differently, and the government policy is usually set in terms of the externality. Subsidies and taxes directly impact a government's budget whereas externalities don't (at least not in the same way) which matters when doing public accounting. Subsidies and taxes are mandated by law whereas exxternalities exist as a result of economic activity. Externalities can also be addressed by means other than taxes or subsidies. By way of analogy, consider the reverse. There are both positive and negative externalities. We sometimes subsidize industries in order to encourage positive externalities. For example, schooling is often publicaly funded in first world nations because having an educated populace is a positive externality. If an untaxed negative externality is the same as a subsidy then it stands to reason that an unsubsidised positive externality is a tax. If in improving the appearance of my home I improve the value of my neighborhood (a positive externality) did I just get taxed the value of my neighborhood's value increase and am I owed a subsidy as a result? I think that most people would answer 'no'.

i_cant_speel 7y ago

They were making the argument that the headline shouldn't use an intentionally misleading word when there is a much better suited word that accurately and clearly conveys the meaning. Using a "technically correct" word isn't a defense when the vast majority of your target audience isn't going to properly understand the true meaning.

underdown 7y ago
It's also not technically correct. Externalities are externalities because they don't effect price while subsidies inherently effect price.
cat199 7y ago
Pretty sure if anyone should be using 'technically correct' terms from the field of economics, it should be the IMF.

astine 7y ago

"so rather than relying on semantics, make the argument you're really trying to make, which, by context, seems to be that you don't think externalized costs should be used in the comparison." No, externalized costs are important to take into account when making policy decision. Obviously we should be worried about the costs of climate change. The point I really want to make is that this is the wrong context in which to include externalities in the definition of subsidy because we are already implicitly using a definition of subsidy provided by the OP which excludes externalities.

clairity 7y ago
i'm not sure how it's the wrong context, but no matter. my point was that the semantic argument is entirely beside the point. the real question is whether we should consider the externalized costs of fossil fuels in policy decisions, and if so, when and how? fossil fuels have favored status (not undeservedly) across the world. given what we know now about how it's extraction/use effects the world, including on us humans, should we continue to favor it over other energy sources? in my estimation, fossil fuels have a useful place in our energy history (as an energy intermediary), but can only be a stepping stone to a more sustainable energy future that more directly harnesses energy from the sun (our ultimate energy source anyway). on the way, we should reduce the harmful impacts of fossil fuels as much as possible, without regard to the profits of oil magnates.
- astine 7y ago
  "i'm not sure how it's the wrong context, but no matter." Actually, this is important. The original article talks about government subsidies in the renewable energy market. It's only talking about direct subsidies and tax breaks, not externalities. In response, someone posted an IMF report about subsidies in the fossil fuel market as a comparison. This report does include externalities. This means that we are not comparing apples to apples. It creates the impression that governments directly gave $5.2T to fossil fuel companies in 2017, which is not the case. My broader point though, is that the distinction between an externality and a government policy meant to deal with that externality is a useful and important distinction to make. Some people on this thread seem to be arguing that because they see no moral distinction between the two (this is debatable but doesn't matter to my argument,) that there should be no semantic distinction, but I disagree, and strongly. For one, these things are measured differently, and the government policy is usually set in terms of the externality. Subsidies and taxes directly impact a government's budget whereas externalities don't (at least not in the same way) which matters when doing public accounting. Subsidies and taxes are mandated by law whereas exxternalities exist as a result of economic activity. Externalities can also be addressed by means other than taxes or subsidies. By way of analogy, consider the reverse. There are both positive and negative externalities. We sometimes subsidize industries in order to encourage positive externalities. For example, schooling is often publicaly funded in first world nations because having an educated populace is a positive externality. If an untaxed negative externality is the same as a subsidy then it stands to reason that an unsubsidised positive externality is a tax. If in improving the appearance of my home I improve the value of my neighborhood (a positive externality) did I just get taxed the value of my neighborhood's value increase and am I owed a subsidy as a result? I think that most people would answer 'no'.