Do they really think being dishonest and manipulative won't backfire?
It's one thing to argue that we should consider unpriced externalities subsidies -- I'd even agree -- but it's quite another to use this alternative proposed definition/classifcation in order to intentionally cultivate a misrepresentation of the underlying facts.
People notice shit like this and don't take kindly to being misled.
There’s a clear point where Fat Tony goes off the rails: depending on your view, it’s either right at the start (if you believe it’s not right to steal bread to feed your starving family) or at the point where he spontaneously switches from bread to cigarettes.
I’m curious which part of my comment you think plays that role.
It was just a joke, but note that an analogy can die by a thousand cuts. Fat Tony's argument is extremely weak at every step (family => "large family", bread => cigarettes, give => sell).
But turning around and trying to frame externalities as subsidies is intellectually dishonest - or outright dishonest. A lot like how people said that New York "subsidized" Amazon's NYC offices with $3 billion dollars. Many people thought that their tax dollars were being taken and given to Amazon, when in reality this was the government agreeing to give Amazon a favorable tax rate for a set amount of time.
When you're right, there's no need to stretch the truth.
Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond:
> Amazon would have used city services without paying for them. Who pays for these services? The people, with their tax dollars..
No, Amazon still would have paid taxes - an estimated $25 billion in taxes over the next 5 years. This is the same erroneous thinking as people who think that they're gaming the system by buying stuff on Steam summer sales. You're not actually getting any money, the company is generating greater sales by offering customers a better deal.
> A partial truth is often the best lie.
But not when people are smart enough to see that your truth is incomplete. And while some people may fall for the conflation of externalities with subsidies, people with power and influence are less likely to do so and when they spot this ruse they're going to be even more adverse to whatever point you were trying to make because you've demonstrated as willingness to tell mistruths.
In my experience, economists don't usually conflate subsidies with negative externalities any more than the conflate positive externalities with taxation.
"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'.
> Could you find one economist that would say that an unpriced externality is not a subsidy?
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’s not an analogy at all, let alone a tortured one. Polluters are allowed to dump their trash on my (and everyone else’s) property without paying for it.
Now, if you object to it being called a subsidy, fine. (Although I’d like to know which step in my story stops qualifying as one.) But “a tortured analogy”? No way.
Then why are you talking about a garbage company? Your whole comment is building an analogy.
>Although I’d like to know which step in my story stops qualifying as one.
This is where it stops qualifying:
>Instead of taking the land, the government just declares that it’s legal for the garbage company to dump trash on other people’s land, and the owners just have to deal with it. This is quite different in the details from the original subsidy, but the overall effect is essentially the same.
The government saying "it's legal to do X" and all companies in any industry and any individual (what we're talking about is CO2 emissions) are allowed to do it, it's not a subsidy. It's just behavior with an externality that the government doesn't tax.
I’m talking about a garbage company because they’re an example of a polluter that can’t just dump their pollution wherever they feel like, and their pollution is much more visible. It’s not an analogy, it’s an example. Polluters aren’t analogous to companies dumping trash on your property, they are companies dumping trash on your property.
But it is tortured because the numbers are made up. Yes, there is very strong scientific consensus global warming is bad, and getting worse, but pinpointing an exact number and calling it a "subsidy" implies they know a lot more about the future than they actually do. It's untruthful and plays into the hands of those screaming "fake news!" who try to deny climate change.
"Your logic is right, but I doubt the exact number you used." is very far from saying an analogy is "tortured". It's an agreement that the analogy is correct.
The only reason the paper authors called it a subsidy is because people sadly don’t care about externalities nearly as much as subsidies.