Too great attention to the use of language is a distraction from the essential and easily becomes mere pedantry; but to pay too little is to risk being deceived or manipulated by those who use language wrongly. Words, Aristotle said, should not bear more precision than possible; but neither should they bear less than possible.
Words have connotations as well as denotations, and one way of insinuating an untruth into someone’s mind is to disconnect the two, so that the denotation and the connotation are at variance and even opposite. An excellent example of this is in the use of the word austerity as applied to certain government economic policies. Frequently one reads, for example, that the difficulties of countries such as Britain and France in the matter of responding to the Covid-19 epidemic were caused by previous government austerity, that is to say, failure to spend more. But irrespective of whether, had the governments spent more (and France already devotes a greater proportion of its GDP to healthcare than the great majority of countries at the same economic level), the epidemic would have been more easily mastered, their policies in restricting their expenditure cannot be called austerity, because they still spent more than their income: as, in fact, they had done almost continually for forty years.
Supposing I were to say, “This year I’m going in for austerity. Last year I spent ten per cent more than my income, but this year I am going to spend only five per cent more,” you would think I were uttering a sub-Wildean paradox. But if I were to say only, “This year I’m going in for austerity,” you would think I were going to wear a hair shirt and subsist on locusts and honey. To say that the British and French governments have exercised austerity is to mean the first and imply the second, which is clearly dishonest: though we should note that the proper term, reduction of the deficit, is neutral as to whether it is economically wise or unwise. After all, I can borrow equally to start a business or drink champagne for breakfast.
Theodore Dalrymple, “Controlling Thought”, New English Review, 2020-06-09.
Update, 9 December: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Please do have a look around at some of my other posts you may find of interest. I send out a daily summary of posts here through my Substack – https://substack.com/@nicholasrusson that you can subscribe to if you’d like to be informed of new posts in the future.
[…] GOVERNMENT MATH ISN’T REAL MATH: QotD: Austerity versus “austerity”. […]
Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » GOVERNMENT MATH ISN’T REAL MATH: QotD: Austerity versus “austerity”. — December 9, 2025 @ 03:07
“Austerity” for them usually means “Spending more than last year, but not as much more as certain groups want.”
I note that almost every government employs the same budgeting system as the US, where there’s an automatic increase in budget for most departments, supposedly to account for inflation.
Which is caused by that same government making more money, but they don’t talk about that. Except to say that because the government can make money, they should make more of it.
Comment by M — December 9, 2025 @ 06:26
“Austerity” can be as simple as reducing by a tiny amount the rate of increase in a department’s budget — they’ll still spend more than last year, but it won’t quite be as much more as originally intended. This, in the view of every government-lover is the worst possible thing that could happen.
Comment by Nicholas — December 9, 2025 @ 10:47