4 ms·
I guess letting the externalities go as a freebie could be considered a subsidy but I hear ya.
by pstuart 3y ago
I guess letting the externalities go as a freebie could be considered a subsidy but I hear ya.
- HPsquared 3y agoWith that definition, a completely anarchic state would have subsidies all over the place. Sounds wrong.
- closewith 3y agoSounds exactly right to me.
- nerdponx 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- HPsquared 3y agoExternality is a real concept and so are subsidies, but "failure to take action against some party imposing costs on others" doesn't amount to a subsidy of that activity Like, if the government fails to crack down on illegal drug distribution and all its associated externalities, is that a subsidy? Where does it end? It's nonsense.
- iudqnolq 3y agoI don't think it makes sense to slice up society into tiny divisions and categorize each one like that. For example the government takes affirmative action to create the concept of land ownership and corporations. Those legal fictions then assist for example this polluter.
- HPsquared 3y agoMy whole point is advocating consistent definitions of words, not subdivision and special pleading.
- pstuart 3y agoI concur in principle in consistent word usage, but I'm not aware of one other than externalities for this issue, and that is too vague to convey the fact that public money is spent in support of their profit.
- pstuart 3y agoThe War on Drugs helps subsidize the cartels and drug dealers by creating a market that only they can fulfill. We pay an obscene amount of money for sustaining that market. It's semantics: instead of giving money directly to the organization, let them make money and have the public money be spent to clean up the mess they made. Same difference: private profit and public expenditure for it.