❤ Like, save, or discuss any passage — read this issue on the site →
It was essential for citizens to renounce any form of labor action or assertion of their economic rights that hindered the flow of capitalist production. Lord Robert Chalmers, former permanent secretary to the British Treasury and one of the representatives of the English delegation, stated it plainly: “Work hard, live hard, save hard.” … This motto translated into clear policies: cuts to government budgets, primarily those that funded social services like health insurance and unemployment benefits, along with wage cuts and higher taxes on basic goods.
Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism, 7
My reflection Austerity, defined as a strict or self-denying act or condition, was adopted as an economic policy in the early 1920s. In economic terms, austerity refers to government policies to reduce budget deficits during periods of financial crisis. This most commonly involves significant cuts to government spending, tax increases, or a combination of both, with the goal of stabilizing public finances. Austerity is controversial because, while supporters argue it is necessary to restore economic stability and prevent unsustainable debt, critics warn that it often increases hardship for ordinary people and can worsen economic downturns by suppressing demand. This is one of its most memorable mottos among advocates of austerity as an economic policy: "Work hard, live hard, save hard." On the surface, it means tough love: do your job, and don't expect anyone else to save you. Economists such as John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek debated its merits throughout the 20th century, and government austerity measures after major crises, like the Great Depression and the 2008 global financial crash, often caused dramatic impacts. A notable example is the austerity program enforced in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2015, which reduced public services and was associated with an estimated 120,000 excess deaths, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. Similarly, in Greece during the Eurozone crisis, harsh austerity measures resulted in unemployment soaring to over 27 percent by 2013 and a shrinking GDP, as reported by the European Commission. While the corporatists and capitalists are breaking the treasuries of the community and stealing and enriching themselves, the only advice they have for the working class is: be tough in the face of adversity, and they themselves fortified and enriched themselves. This rings true here in the U.S., where, in 2023, Elon Musk and his cronies took a chainsaw to the bureaucracy, saying they would destroy it and cut it in half. He became a trillionaire in a few months because people like these capitalists are not to be mistaken for people who care about capitalism in its purest and most moral sense. They only care about capitalism when it serves their ambition to become the first trillionaire in the world.
When it comes to fair competition and making the market free, as a father of capitalism advocated for, exactly what they're saying is: “Capitalism for me, and you have to work hard with the capital that is making me a trillionaire.” I'm not using Elon Musk as a punchline, but I do think it's important to question the motivations and actions of influential figures who benefit most from our economic system. Rather than directing frustration at individuals, perhaps we should critically examine the broader structures and incentives that allow such disparities to persist. For readers who want to engage critically, this can mean asking questions about who sets economic policies, whose interests they serve, and seeking out diverse sources of information about policy debates. Getting involved in local discussions, supporting transparency in public spending, or advocating for policies that address inequality are all practical ways individuals can start challenging and reshaping the structures that support these imbalances. Small actions, such as attending community meetings or contacting representatives, can add up to meaningful change over time.
Sit with this before moving on:
Whose virtue, whose bill? When a moral instruction ("work hard," "save hard") is issued from a position of power to a population with no power, is it still a virtue — or has it quietly become an order dressed as advice? Where else have you seen this happen?
The invisible half of the sentence. Every austerity slogan has an unspoken second clause. "Work hard, live hard, save hard" — so that what happens? Fill in the blank as the policy's actual authors would, not as they said it publicly.
Symmetry test. If ordinary citizens were told to "live hard" and "save hard," what was capital told to do in 1920? Was there an equivalent sacrifice demanded of finance, or did discipline flow in one direction only? What does that asymmetry tell you about who austerity protects?
Trace it forward. Chalmers' triad is a hundred years old. Find one policy statement from the last five years — IMF conditionality, a domestic budget speech, a central bank statement — that uses the same rhetorical move: personal-virtue language applied to a structural, involuntary transfer of cost. What's changed? What hasn't?
The test of a real sacrifice. A sacrifice implies something is actually given up by the one asked to bear it, in service of a shared good. Reread the Brussels policies (wage cuts, benefit cuts, regressive taxes) — was anything given up by those who designed them? If not, is "sacrifice" the right word, or is it doing propaganda work?
Thank you for reading. I appreciate your comments discussions let me know your opinion!