Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by streb-lo on Monday July 20, 2020 @02:45PM (#23900665)

I didn't read the linked IMF paper but the summary seems to directly support the claim:

>The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by HillRat on Monday July 20, 2020 @03:22PM (#23900996)

I assume the parent poster takes issue with the definition of “subsidy” in the paper, which is probably better called “unpriced externalities” in the context. (It’s still IMO a subsidy, but it’s not what we intuitively think of as such, and thus the data point is rather misleading when quoted in the press.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by streb-lo on Monday July 20, 2020 @03:35PM (#23901109)

Fair enough point.

I would argue that you can't really take issue with calling it a subsidy unless you're willing to take issue with the unpriced externalities.

If a government refuses to price them in it's effectively the same as directly subsidizing the present generations at expense of future ones.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by jquery on Monday July 20, 2020 @07:12PM (#23902856)

I agree, however to ensure everyone knows what is being talked about, it should be called unpriced externalities, not “subsidies”. Overloading the word like that, without indicating that is what is happening, is begging for misunderstandings.

[ Parent | on HN ]