I think many people are scared of the word subsidy because of the negative connotations it has relating to government use. It's important to remember that bitshares are not coins, they're shares in a company. A company subsidizing a product is vastly different from a government subsidizing an industry. If done intelligently, it is exactly what makes or breaks the market. The companies or blockchains that are not able to subsidize and thus direct their capital with intelligence, will simply have to burn it to subsidize the recording of its existence (like bitcoin).
I don't think the difference is as large as you are claiming. It isn't "vastly different". The subsidizing is a form of wealth redistribution in both situations. In theory, they should work the same. I can't really see a difference at the motivation level. As a citizen, you vote and have interest in your country's currency. As a stockholder, you vote and have interest in your company's value (shares).
You whole approach seems to repeating how great this new metaphor is and how great it will be to spend all this new found money. yuck
Government subsidies are democratically decided, and thus are used to enrich individual humans and the gatekeepers of the democratic process.
Company subsidies are decided by the capital itself, and is thus used to seek as much profit as possible.
We are still democratically decided, it is just weighted by stake. The result is the same, you vote what is in your interest as do others. The subsidies are wealth redistribution. In theory, you vote for a government that is pro-subsidy (which is both sides) in a way that you find optimal. It is the same thing in both systems. Don't kid yourself. The differences are a lot smaller than you claim. Large stakeholders have more voting power so they'll be more against the subsidies, but for a lot of people it is the same system.
The subsidies impact large shareholders to a higher degree, just like taxes (subsidies to government) impact the wealthy to higher degree than others.
So in our system the wealthy could use their stake to redistribute money to themselves via delegates.
In a normal democratic system, the poor could vote to redistribute the money of the wealthy. (and wealthy redistribute to themselves through other means)
This is probably the largest difference IMO.