Uncharted Territory


RSS     Archives


今週のEconomistはトランプが大統領になることで内向きで排外主義的なナショナリズムがますます世界中で力をつけることを懸念している社説を書いていました。“civic nationalism”と“ethnic nationalism”とを対比させアメリカだけではなく欧州やロシア、中国での“ethnic nationalism”の広がりに警鐘を鳴らしています。

Trump’s world
The new nationalism
With his call to put “America First”, Donald Trump is the latest recruit to a dangerous nationalism

Nov 19th 2016 | From the print edition

Nationalism is a slippery concept, which is why politicians find it so easy to manipulate. At its best, it unites the country around common values to accomplish things that people could never manage alone. This “civic nationalism” is conciliatory and forward-looking—the nationalism of the Peace Corps, say, or Canada’s inclusive patriotism or German support for the home team as hosts of the 2006 World Cup. Civic nationalism appeals to universal values, such as freedom and equality. It contrasts with “ethnic nationalism”, which is zero-sum, aggressive and nostalgic and which draws on race or history to set the nation apart. In its darkest hour in the first half of the 20th century ethnic nationalism led to war.


Global politics
League of nationalists
All around the world, nationalists are gaining ground. Why?

Nov 19th 2016 | BEIJING, BUDAPEST, CAIRO, DELHI, ISTANBUL, MARGATE AND PARIS | From the print edition

AFTER the sans culottes rose up against Louis XVI in 1789 they drew up a declaration of the universal rights of man and of the citizen. Napoleon’s Grande Armée marched not just for the glory of France but for liberty, equality and fraternity. By contrast, the nationalism born with the unification of Germany decades later harked back to Blut und Boden—blood and soil—a romantic and exclusive belief in race and tradition as the wellspring of national belonging. The German legions were fighting for their Volk and against the world.


It is troubling, then, how many countries are shifting from the universal, civic nationalism towards the blood-and-soil, ethnic sort. As positive patriotism warps into negative nationalism, solidarity is mutating into distrust of minorities, who are present in growing numbers (see chart 1). A benign love of one’s country—the spirit that impels Americans to salute the Stars and Stripes, Nigerians to cheer the Super Eagles and Britons to buy Duchess of Cambridge teacups—is being replaced by an urge to look on the world with mistrust.


But youngsters seem to find these changes less frightening. Although just 37% of French people believe that “globalisation is a force for good”, 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds do. The new nationalists are riding high on promises to close borders and restore societies to a past homogeneity. But if the next generation holds out, the future may once more be cosmopolitan.

ただBut if the next generation holds out, the future may once more be cosmopolitan.なのかは疑問です。今若い人たちはグローバル化で成功を収めるチャンスがありますが、その後、年を取り自分にはチャンスがないことを悟った人たちが相変わらずcosmopolitanであるとは思えないからです。

Economistの表紙には太鼓や笛を持ったトランプとプーチン、UKIPのファラージが描かれていますがArchibald Willardという画家によるThe Spirit of '76 (previously known as Yankee Doodle)という作品が元になっているようです。

Willard's most famous work is The Spirit of '76 (previously known as Yankee Doodle), which was exhibited and widely seen at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1876. The original is displayed in Abbot Hall, Marblehead, Massachusetts. Several later variations painted by Willard have been exhibited around the country (including in the United States Department of State). Of note, he used his father, Samuel Willard, as the model for the middle character of the painting.[6] Willard developed the painting from a sketch, which included three men dancing and singing. He also made several other works of art, including The Blue Girl, Pluck, and others not as recognized.

この絵はYankee Doodleとして知られていたそうですが、米国独立戦争時の歌のようです。聞いたことがあると思ったら「アルプス一万尺」、日米で全然違う扱いで驚いています。

ヤンキードゥードゥル(Yankee Doodle)は、アメリカ合衆国の民謡で、独立戦争時の愛国歌である。1978年にはコネチカット州の州歌に採用された[1]。

Yankee Doodle
a popular 18th-century marching song which has become almost a national song in the US. It was first sung by British soldiers to make fun of Americans during the American Revolution, but then became popular with George Washington's soldiers. 'Yankee' probably comes from 'Janke', the Dutch for 'Johnny' and a common name in early New York. 'Doodle' is an old-fashioned English word meaning a stupid person. The song begins:

Yankee Doodle came to town,
Riding on a pony;
He stuck a feather in his cap
And called it macaroni.



現在の経済大国・軍事大国のイメージとは違い、アメリカが自由の国として輝いていた時代がありました。 貧しいながらも人々の生活を支えていたのは、勤勉な労働と、先の暮らしは豊かになれる、という希望。 そこにはいつの時代も「アメリカの歌―フォークソング」がありました。 アメリカで生まれた歌の数々は今も世界中にその歌声を響かせています。アメリカの歌がなかったら今の音楽シーンがどうなっていたのか、想像もつかないことでしょう。 ジャズ、ゴスペル、ロック、ラップ、ヒップホップ・・。アメリカはその多様な歌声をどこから手に入れたのでしょうか。どんな勇気と犠牲の元に、歌を世界に旅立たせたのでしょうか。 アメリカの歌の原型となった数々のフォークソングの由来を明かし、歴史的背景を解き明かしながら、アメリカがたどったもう一つの歴史に迫ります。



英語メディアはObituary(訃報)を大切にしています。Economistも毎週必ず一人取り上げています。今週は紙おむつを発明したValerie Hunter Gordonさんと一緒に田部井淳子さんが取り上げられていました。女性問題に光を当てているようです。数十年前は欧米も日本も「女性は家庭を守るべき」という価値観が根強かった中での苦労は今以上に大変だったことでしょう。

Climb every mountain
Obituary: Valerie Hunter Gordon and Junko Tabei died on October 16th and 20th respectively
These pioneers of women’s freedom from domestic drudgery were 94 and 77

Nov 5th 2016 | From the print edition

Far away in Japan, a decade later, Junko Tabei was wrestling with similar problems of mountains and male expectations. She wanted to be a climber: if possible, conquering the highest mountains in every country in the world. A school trip up Mount Asahi, to a strange volcanic region of bleak rocks and hot springs, had made her determined to do nothing else. But women in Japan, much like Mrs Hunter Gordon in leafy Camberley, were expected to spend their lives looking after houses and children. Mrs Tabei rejected that. Why should the men who ruled the world smother women’s dreams in domesticity? Doubtless because they wanted to keep them at their beck and call—and not standing on some distant peak with an ice-pick raised triumphant in the air. 



In 2012, Tabei told the Japan Times she was proud of how her ascent was viewed.
"Back in 1970s Japan, it was still widely considered that men were the ones to work outside and women would stay at home.
"Even women who had jobs - they were asked just to serve tea. So it was unthinkable for them to be promoted in their workplaces."


雑誌PeopleもMeet PEOPLE’s 25 Women Changing the Worldと女性にフォーカスを当てていました。果敢に挑戦している女性を取り上げてクリントンに間接的にでもエールを送っていると見るのは穿ちすぎでしょうか? 

Meet PEOPLE’s 25 Women Changing the World
From Queen Rania of Jordan to one of NASA’s most brilliant minds, these fearless females are shaping our future


Keep your fingers crossed


cross your fingers
to hope that your plans will be successful (sometimes putting one finger across another as a sign of hoping for good luck)
I'm crossing my fingers that my proposal will be accepted.
Keep your fingers crossed!


The presidential election
America’s best hope
Why we would cast our hypothetical vote for Hillary Clinton

Nov 5th 2016 | From the print edition


In one sense Mrs Clinton is revolutionary. She would be America’s first female president in the 240 years since independence. This is not a clinching reason to vote for her. But it would be a genuine achievement. In every other sense, however, Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. An inability to sound as if she is offering an overnight transformation is one of the things that makes her a bad campaigner. Presidential nominees are now expected to inspire. Mrs Clinton would have been better-suited to the first half-century of presidential campaigns, when the candidates did not even give public speeches.

However, a prosaic style combined with gradualism and hard work could make for a more successful presidency than her critics allow. In foreign policy, where the president’s power is greatest, Mrs Clinton would look out from the Resolute desk at a world that has inherited some of the risks of the cold war but not its stability. China’s rise and Russia’s decline call for both flexibility and toughness. International institutions, such as the UN, are weak; terrorism is transnational.

サンダースやトランプ、第3の政党候補であるリバタリアン党のゲーリー・ジョンソンや緑の党のジル・ スタインなどに惹かれるのは何か新しいことをしてくれるかもという期待感があり、クリントンは逆に退屈に思えるのでしょう。Economistはコツコツタイプのクリントンの実績を評価しています。

Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. An inability to sound as if she is offering an overnight transformation is one of the things that makes her a bad campaigner.

ワシントン政治の機能不全からpolitical revivalを求めたくなる気持ちを理解しつつも、だからといってトランプ支持に回るのはnarcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrongと退けています。

The harder question is how Mrs Clinton would govern at home. It is surely no coincidence that voters whose political consciousness dawned in the years between the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton and the tawdriness of Mr Trump have such a low opinion of their political system. Over the past two decades political deadlock and mud-slinging have become normalised. Recent sessions of Congress have shut the government down, flirted with a sovereign default and enacted little substantive legislation. Even those conservatives inclined to mistake inaction for limited government are fed up.

The best that can be said of Mr Trump is that his candidacy is a symptom of the popular desire for a political revival. Every outrage and every broken taboo is taken as evidence that he would break the system in order that, overseen by a properly conservative Supreme Court, those who come after him might put something better in its place.

This presidential election matters more than most because of the sheer recklessness of that scheme. It draws upon the belief that the complexity of Washington is smoke and mirrors designed to bamboozle the ordinary citizen; and that the more you know, the less you can be trusted. To hope that any good can come from Mr Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.






The other side of Warren Buffett
Don’t Buff it up
An investing hero is not a model for how to reform America’s economy

Aug 13th 2016 | From the print edition

If the intensity of Mr Buffett’s interventions has risen over time, so has the seriousness with which they are taken. This partly reflects his financial clout. Berkshire Hathaway, his investment vehicle, is worth $363 billion and is the world’s sixth-most-valuable firm. He is at least 20 times richer than Mr Trump. It also reflects Mr Buffett’s popularity: 40,000 people attended Berkshire’s annual meeting in April, compared to 5,000 two decades ago. Since the death of Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, Mr Buffett has become the lone hero of big business in America. He stands for the promise of a nostalgic, fairer kind of capitalism.

But Mr Buffett is not as saintly as he makes out. He has to act in his own interests, and he does so legally, but if all companies followed his example America would be worse off. An example is his oft-expressed sympathy for workers. In 2013 Berkshire partnered with 3G, a Brazilian buy-out firm renowned for swinging the axe at acquired firms. Since 3G engineered the merger of Kraft and Heinz (Berkshire owns 27% of the combined firm) last year, staff numbers have dropped by a tenth.

Last year a hedge-funder, Daniel Loeb, attacked what he called a disconnect between Mr Buffett’s words and his actions. “He thinks we should all pay more taxes but he loves avoiding them,” he said. Mr Loeb was right: Berkshire’s tax payments have shrunk relative to its profits. Last year the actual cash it paid to the taxman was equivalent to 13% of its pre-tax profits—this is probably the fairest measure of its burden—making it one of the lightest taxpayers among big firms (see chart).


Stop Coddling the Super-Rich


Such inconsistencies are inevitable in a long and vigorous business life. But there is another problem with Mr Buffett: his fondness for oligopolies. After being disappointed by returns from textiles in the 1960s and 1970s, and then by shoe manufacturing and airlines, he concluded his firm should invest in “franchises” that are protected from competition, not in mere “businesses”. In the 1980s and 1990s he bet on dominant global brands such as Gillette and Coca-Cola (as well as Omaha’s biggest furniture store, with two-thirds of the market). Today Berkshire spans micro-monopolies such as a caravan firm and a prison-guard uniform maker, and large businesses with oligopolistic positions such as utilities, railways and consumer goods.


But he is far from a model for how capitalism should be transformed. He is a careful, largely ethical accumulator of capital invested in traditional businesses, preferably with oligopolistic qualities, whereas what America needs right now is more risk-taking, lower prices, higher investment and much more competition. You won’t find much at all about these ideas in Mr Buffett’s shareholder letters.

この批判はEconomistの信条である自由経済に反するものだからでしょう。what America needs right now is more risk-taking, lower prices, higher investment and much more competitionと締めのところで書いています。

EconomistのSpecial Report

2週間前のSpecial Reportになってしまいましたが、人工知能についての特集は読み応えがありましたね。全体像をみせてくれるまとめ方はさすがです。Economistは人工知能がもたらす負の側面に意識がいきがちだが、恩恵も十分あるという立場です。

Artificial intelligence
March of the machines
What history tells us about the future of artificial intelligence—and how society should respond

Jun 25th 2016 | From the print edition
EXPERTS warn that “the substitution of machinery for human labour” may “render the population redundant”. They worry that “the discovery of this mighty power” has come “before we knew how to employ it rightly”. Such fears are expressed today by those who worry that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) could destroy millions of jobs and pose a “Terminator”-style threat to humanity. But these are in fact the words of commentators discussing mechanisation and steam power two centuries ago. Back then the controversy over the dangers posed by machines was known as the “machinery question”. Now a very similar debate is under way.

2016.7.1(金) The Economist




(原題The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies)



Special Reportの導入部分で取り上げるトピックを書いてくれています。

Artificial intelligence
The return of the machinery question
After many false starts, artificial intelligence has taken off. Will it cause mass unemployment or even destroy mankind? History can provide some helpful clues, says Tom Standage

Jun 25th 2016 | From the print edition

What will that mean? This special report will examine the rise of this new technology, explore its potential impact on jobs, education and policy, and consider its ethical and regulatory implications. Along the way it will consider the lessons that can be learned from the original response to the machinery question. AI excites fear and enthusiasm in equal measure, and raises a lot of questions. Yet it is worth remembering that many of those questions have been asked, and answered, before.


This special report will examine the rise of this new technology, (新技術の台頭の検討)
explore its potential impact on jobs, (職業への将来的な影響)
education and policy, (教育や政策)
and consider its ethical and regulatory implications.(倫理や規制面での問題)


Education and policy
Re-educating Rita
Artificial intelligence will have implications for policymakers in education, welfare and geopolitics

Jun 25th 2016 | From the print edition

Even outside the AI community, there is a broad consensus that technological progress, and artificial intelligence in particular, will require big changes in the way education is delivered, just as the Industrial Revolution did in the 19th century. As factory jobs overtook agricultural ones, literacy and numeracy became much more important. Employers realised that more educated workers were more productive, but were reluctant to train them themselves because they might defect to another employer. That prompted the introduction of universal state education on a factory model, with schools supplying workers with the right qualifications to work in factories. Industrialisation thus transformed both the need for education and offered a model for providing it. The rise of artificial intelligence could well do the same again, making it necessary to transform educational practices and, with adaptive learning, offering a way of doing so.

“The old system will have to be very seriously revised,” says Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University. Since 1945, he points out, educational systems have encouraged specialisation, so students learn more and more about less and less. But as knowledge becomes obsolete more quickly, the most important thing will be learning to relearn, rather than learning how to do one thing very well. Mr Mokyr thinks that education currently treats people too much like clay—“shape it, then bake it, and that’s the way it stays”—rather than like putty, which can be reshaped. In future, as more tasks become susceptible to automation, the tasks where human skills are most valuable will constantly shift. “You need to keep learning your entire life—that’s been obvious for a long time,” says Mr Ng. “What you learn in college isn’t enough to keep you going for the next 40 years.”
「古いシステムの変革は真剣に取り組む必要がでてくるでしょう」とNorthwestern 大学のJel Mokyrは語る。1945年以来、教育システムは専門化を促してきたので、学生は多くのことを学んでいくが分野はどんどん絞られていく。しかし知識が簡単に廃れるようになってくると一番重要になってくるのが学び直せるようになることで、ひとつのことに精通することではない。Mokyr氏の考えでは現在の教育は人々を粘土のように扱っている。「こねて、窯に入れれば、形が保たれるようになります」。パテのように作り直すことがないのです。将来多くの作業が自動化されるようになるので、人間のスキルが最も価値のある作業は常に変わっていくことでしょう。「生涯学び続ける必要があります。長期的に明白なものとなっています。」Ng氏は語る。「大学で学んだことだけで今後40年間やっていくには不十分なのです」。