Re:Solar and Wind Power So Cheap They’re Outgrowing Subsidies
by roenxi on Thursday September 19, 2019 @07:35PM
(#21021809)
That is an excellent analogy, but in this case it is like going from 'the joke is so funny its literally killing me' (as in I'm laughing too hard) to prosecuting the joke-teller for murder. Or possibly if a clown kills someone not prosecuting that clown because "obviously that clown is literally killing someone but literally doesn't mean literally".
There are a range of actions that are appropriate to take when dealing with an unwanted subsidy. If we redefine what 'subsidy' means then the range of appropriate actions changes and we have to talk about what the new actions are. It would be far easier to use the right word, so word and action line up without the need for analogies.
Re:Solar and Wind Power So Cheap They’re Outgrowing Subsidies
by shkkmo on Friday September 20, 2019 @07:56AM
(#21025620)
> If we redefine what 'subsidy' means then the range of appropriate actions changes and we have to talk about what the new actions are. It would be far easier to use the right word, so word and action line up without the need for analogies.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Can you give a concrete example? What is the confusion that is added by the term 'implicit subsidies'?
There is value in clarifying what is meant be a specific usage of 'subsidy', (which the linked paper does in the first sentence of its summary). There is value to calling people out for not doing this clarification when they use the word in its less standard meaning.
However, there is no value in saying that a fairly widespread usage of the word "subsidy" is incorrect.
It's like trying to pretend that "literally" doesn't figuratively have the same meaning as "figuratively". That boat has sailed and all we can do now is distinguish be between literal and figurative uses of "literally".