3 ms·

Everything “Free” is Subsidized

noodle 17y ago
i would agree if the article said that everything "free" does actually get paid for in some form (especially with respect to business dealings). but a "subsidy" and to "subsidize" has a specific meaning that isn't as universally applicable as the article tries to make it.
- chinmi 17y ago
  Then what is this specific meaning that the author fails to understand? I think it's pretty clear what he means by it.
  - noodle 17y ago
    i understand what he's saying just fine, and i would understand it if he used "taxed" or something similar instead. i'm probably just being too picky about semantics here, but i'm taking issue with the actual redefinition of a specific economic term on a well respected business site. n) subsidy (a grant paid by a government to an enterprise that benefits the public) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subsidy http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subsidy A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
philwelch 17y ago
This is a rehash of the old "no free lunch" argument. The difference is, most of what you see in the news media is opinion, hype, and repetition, and instead of paying 100 people to produce that full time, you can have 100,000 people generate it for free, select the top 100, and get better quality content. Does anyone honestly think that the "breaking news" cycle of TV news conveys any more information than you'd get searching on the relevant Twitter hashtag? Those of us who actually want good journalism are a niche market. We aren't well-served by most of the media and we won't be well-served from most of the internet, but there is a niche market selling to us. The Economist meets that market, and the NY Times aspires to. But most news has turned into the type of tabloid news that, frankly, can be produced at much lower price and annoyance by sites like Huffington Post.

i would agree if the article said that everything "free" does actually get paid for in some form (especially with respect to business dealings). but a "subsidy" and to "subsidize" has a specific meaning that isn't as universally applicable as the article tries to make it.

chinmi 17y ago
Then what is this specific meaning that the author fails to understand? I think it's pretty clear what he means by it.
- noodle 17y ago
  i understand what he's saying just fine, and i would understand it if he used "taxed" or something similar instead. i'm probably just being too picky about semantics here, but i'm taking issue with the actual redefinition of a specific economic term on a well respected business site. n) subsidy (a grant paid by a government to an enterprise that benefits the public) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subsidy http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subsidy A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

philwelch 17y ago

This is a rehash of the old "no free lunch" argument. The difference is, most of what you see in the news media is opinion, hype, and repetition, and instead of paying 100 people to produce that full time, you can have 100,000 people generate it for free, select the top 100, and get better quality content. Does anyone honestly think that the "breaking news" cycle of TV news conveys any more information than you'd get searching on the relevant Twitter hashtag? Those of us who actually want good journalism are a niche market. We aren't well-served by most of the media and we won't be well-served from most of the internet, but there is a niche market selling to us. The Economist meets that market, and the NY Times aspires to. But most news has turned into the type of tabloid news that, frankly, can be produced at much lower price and annoyance by sites like Huffington Post.