Language Day at Pun Salad: Loaded, Redefined, and Dirty

  • Donald J. Boudreaux looks at The Loaded Language of Protectionism. His first unfortunate example is "Trade Deficit":

    The most obvious, commonly used confusing term is “trade deficit.” “Deficit” inherently sounds bad. Everyone instinctively resists being in any kind of “deficit.” But those of us who understand the technical definition of “trade deficit” know that this “deficit” is merely the result of an accounting convention by which inflows into a country of money are counted as “positive” while outflows of money are counted as “negative.”

    Yet as many economists, including the Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, have pointed out, if the convention were instead (as it could be) to count as a positive the monetary value of imports – and as a negative the monetary value of exports – then so-called “trade deficits” would instead be “trade surpluses.”

    The words “trade surpluses,” alas, are more difficult to demagogue than are the words “trade deficits.”

    Alas, indeed! Don also examines "concessions", "dumping", "'Made in' labels"; and also the misleading collectivization of individual economic decisions into a single "America". Something Don has been talking about (at least) since 2013.

  • It's time for those retrospectives! In the WSJ, Gerard Baker takes A Look Back at the Words We Redefined in 2025. (WSJ gifted link)

    Number One on Gerard's hit list:

    Affordability. Insufficient sensitivity to the cost of living proved costly for leaders from Marie Antoinette to Joe Biden. Last year, “affordability” was ignored by Democrats and amplified by Republicans. The Biden administration’s insouciance towards inflation helped elect Donald Trump, who pledged in his inaugural address to “rapidly bring down costs and prices.” Now that prices have continued to increase, “affordability” is a “Democratic con job.” While the word’s meaning might have changed, polling suggests voters’ views about the underlying reality haven’t. Poor Queen Marie could have advised Mr. Trump that when you’re building a new ballroom for the executive mansion it’s unwise to dismiss popular concerns about the cost of everyday staples.

    Also shifting in meaning: "Socialism", "Redistricting", "Pardon", "Famine", and the various terms used to scare us about the "Climate Crisis".

  • And then after the Bad, we have the Ugly, as described by Jeff Jacoby: The potty-mouthing of American life doesn't signal 'authenticity.' It signals decay..

    PRESIDENT TRUMP was back in Pennsylvania last week to tout his economic record, but one of the lines that drew attention had nothing to do with jobs or inflation. He revived a crude slur he used in 2018, when he called several poor nations "s**thole countries" during a White House meeting with lawmakers. At the time, the president denied having used such language, but at the rally on Tuesday he boasted of it. The contrast was striking: A vulgarity that dominated the national conversation seven years ago generated little more than a ripple today.

    A day earlier, another elected official's vulgarity was in the news. According to an investigation made public last week, Representative Nancy Mace, a South Carolina Republican now running for governor, erupted in a profanity-laced tirade at TSA officers in Charleston's airport in October. She called them "f***ing idiots" who were "f***ing incompetent," snapped that she was "sick of your s**t," and proclaimed herself a "f***ing representative." The details are tawdry, but what's more telling is how unexceptional the whole episode feels. Members of Congress hurling obscenities at public employees (or at a constituent) used to be unthinkable. In 2025, it's just one more bit of political color.

    Unlike Jeff, Pun Salad does not always bowdlerize quotes. (Why, when it's f***ing obvious what the word is? What's the point?)

    Pun Salad looked at a local potty-mouth, Representative Ellen Read last month. Things seem worse across the Salmon Falls River, as reported by the Bangor Daily News: Swearing is having a moment with Democrats on Maine’s campaign trail. (archive.today link)

Also of note:
  • A useful reminder. And it's coming from Jim Geraghty: Trump’s Appalling Reiner Reaction Is a Sign of Something Deeply Wrong. (I quoted the "Trump's appalling Reiner reaction" in full yesterday, so won't repeat it here.) Jim summarizes (accurately):

    The president of the United States is a hateful raging lunatic with all the empathy of Jeffrey Dahmer.

    And goes on to explain:

    I’ll let you decide whether the term psychopath or sociopath better describes the president’s actions. On some level, we always knew the president was a nut of some kind, obsessed with grievances; vindictive and prone to posting late-night tirades on social media; uninterested in details; erratic, impulsive, spiteful. (“But he fights!”) You can run a company that enjoyed a wildly lucrative role conducting financial transactions among criminals, terrorist groups, and hostile states, and this president will pardon you, believing anything he’s told about how Joe Biden prosecuted him because he hated crypto. Or you can run a massive cocaine smuggling operation while being president of a South American country, and this president will pardon you, too, because he’ll believe anything he’s told about how your successful prosecution was a witch hunt.

    This president cannot discern moral right and wrong through a person’s actions, like a normal human being. Donald Trump’s entire worldview of whether someone is a good person or a bad person depends entirely on whether that person offers praise or criticism of Trump. This is the person who runs the executive branch of the U.S. government, and this is a formula for disaster. This is, I suspect, a factor in why the Trump administration is so friendly to the likes of Xi Jinping and endlessly patient with Vladimir Putin, while sneering with contempt about leaders of European democracies. Trump does not see anything inherently morally objectionable about a brutal autocrat with a long history of egregious human-rights abuses, but he will never forget or forgive a European leader who ever uttered a critical word in Le Monde.

    And there's more at the link.

  • And my own cynical observation… The WSJ news item is grimly headlined: The War on Poverty Failed This West Virginia County—and They’re No Longer Waiting for Help. (WSJ gifted link)

    Carolyn Owens was 9 years old when her family became one of the first in America to get food stamps.

    Her father could no longer work in the coal mines that pock the mountains here after an injury. He’d wait at the local government office to collect food coupons, part of a program launched by John F. Kennedy in 1961 to help alleviate the shocking poverty he witnessed campaigning across Appalachia.

    Owens would walk home from school to find peanut-butter sandwiches with a sliver of banana waiting for her and her 10 brothers and sisters. “Those sandwiches were like ice cream for us,” said Owens, now 73.

    In the decades since, the federal government has poured more than $3.6 billion into trying to ease the hardship in McDowell County, according to estimates from the Economic Innovation Group, using current dollars. That doesn’t include the roughly $13 billion more in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments.

    It hasn’t worked.

    Here's the cynicism: the "War on Poverty" is being "fought" by bureaucrats up and down the funding chain. As the article notes, for over 60 years.

    And what would happen if the "war" was actually won?

    It would mean those bureaucrats would lose their jobs.

    It's not in their interest to win the "War on Poverty". Instead, their continued employment depends on ensuring poor people remain dependent on them.

    And they've been remarkably successful at that.