Economists know this definition, yes. But, as the parent hints, this is separate from the phenomenon that the use of epistemic language that does not match the

Economists know this definition, yes. But, as the parent hints, this is separate from the phenomenon that the use of epistemic language that does not match the common use of a term undermines legitimacy/trust in the institution. > There is no misuse or twisting of definition. The denial of such perceptions in the general population will presumably have little influence on the perceptions of the general population. At worst, it will merely lead to further polarisation. I can fully understand the desire to defend the definitions of one's own discipline, but it doesn't help with the question of how third parties perceive it. We need to remember that outside the epistemic community of economists, giving something to someone (a subsidy) is not the same as not taking something from someone (not taxing) - and I'd guess that no amount of academic writing or passionate insisting is going to change that in the near future.