The Wall Street Journal
WSJ:
The Journal.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2025
8/19/2025 4:28:00 PMShare This Episode
Is American Capitalism in Retreat?
「アメリカの資本主義は後退しているのか?
The Trump administration has made big moves to intervene in critical industries – from computer chips to rare earth minerals to steel. WSJ’s chief economics commentator, Grep Ip, says that these efforts could suggest the U.S. might be moving away from free market capitalism and towards what he calls state capitalism, American-style. Now, Greg is wondering if the U.S. economic system is starting to look more like China’s, and if President Trump is imitating the Chinese Communist Party by extending political control ever deeper into the economy. Jessica Mendoza hosts.
- American capitalism /əˈmɛrɪkən ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm/ アメリカの資本主義。自由市場や企業活動を重視する経済システム。
- in retreat /ɪn rɪˈtrit/ 後退している、勢いを失っている。比喩的に政策や思想が弱まることも示す。
- intervene in critical industries /ˌɪntərˈvin ɪn ˈkrɪtɪkəl ˈɪndəstriz/ 重要産業に介入する。政府が経済活動に直接関与すること。
- computer chips /kəmˈpjutər ʧɪps/ 半導体、コンピュータチップ。
- rare earth minerals /rɛr ɜrθ ˈmɪnərəlz/ レアアース鉱物。電子機器やハイテク産業に必要な希少金属。
- steel /stiːl/ 鉄鋼産業。
- state capitalism /steɪt ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm/ 国家資本主義。国家が市場や産業に強く関与する資本主義形態。
- economic system /ˌɛkəˈnɑːmɪk ˈsɪstəm/ 経済システム、経済体制。
- extending political control /ɪkˈstɛndɪŋ pəˈlɪtɪkəl kənˈtroʊl/ 政治的統制を拡大する。政府が経済や産業への影響力を強めること。
Jessica Mendoza: In the United States, the economic system is usually described with one word: capitalism.
Greg Ip: Historically, the United States was about as close to pure capitalism as you can get.
Jessica Mendoza: Greg Ip is the Wall Street Journal's chief economics commentator. He says that for the past decade or so, the country has been second-guessing its commitment to free markets.
- economic system /ˌɛkəˈnɑːmɪk ˈsɪstəm/ 経済システム、経済体制。
- capitalism /ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm/ 資本主義。私的所有・自由市場・競争を基盤とする経済体制。
- historically /hɪˈstɔrɪkli/ 歴史的に、過去の事例から見て。
- pure capitalism /pjʊr ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm/ 純粋な資本主義。政府介入がほとんどない市場経済。
- as close as you can get /æz kloʊs æz ju kæn ɡɛt/ ~に最も近い、理想に近い状態である。
- second-guessing /ˈsɛkəndˌɡɛsɪŋ/ 再考する、疑問視する。ここでは「自由市場へのコミットメントを見直す」ニュアンス。
- commitment to free markets /kəˈmɪtmənt tə fri ˈmɑrkɪts/ 自由市場へのコミットメント、自由市場経済を守る姿勢・約束。
Greg Ip: The United States, I believe in the last 10 or 15 years, has migrated away from the pure free market model. There's bipartisan disillusionment with the free market capitalism model that we had sought to pursue for so many years. There's a view, for example, that the unquestioned embrace of free trade led to the offshoring of very good manufacturing jobs, that it left the US behind in sort of critical areas, like semiconductors and so forth, where it didn't invest in the future.
- migrated away from /maɪˈɡreɪtɪd əˈweɪ frəm/ ~から離れる、移行する。ここでは「自由市場モデルから離れた」の意味。
- pure free market model /pjʊr fri ˈmɑrkɪt ˈmɑdl/ 純粋な自由市場モデル。政府介入が最小限の経済モデル。
- bipartisan disillusionment /ˌbaɪˈpɑrtɪzən ˌdɪsɪˈluːʒənmənt/ 超党派的な失望感。共和党・民主党双方に共通する失望。
- sought to pursue /sɔːt tə pərˈsuː/ 追求しようとしてきた。seek の過去形・過去分詞形。
- unquestioned embrace /ʌnˈkwɛstʃənd ɪmˈbreɪs/ 無条件の受け入れ。疑いなく受け入れること。
- free trade /fri treɪd/ 自由貿易。関税や規制を最小化した国際貿易。
- offshoring /ˈɔfˌʃɔrɪŋ/ 海外移転。企業がコスト削減のため生産拠点を海外に移すこと。
- critical areas /ˈkrɪtɪkəl ˈɛriəz/ 重要分野。戦略的に必要な技術や産業分野。
- semiconductors /ˌsɛmɪkənˈdʌktərz/ 半導体。電子機器や先端技術の基幹部品。
- didn't invest in the future /ˈdɪdnt ɪnˈvɛst ɪn ðə ˈfjutʃər/ 将来に投資しなかった。技術開発や産業育成に資源を割かなかった。
Jessica Mendoza: And recently, Greg says, that view has been gaining traction. The government, especially under Trump, has been taking a greater and greater role in directing the economy from weighing in on a tech CEO's job to taking a stake in a steel company and a rare earth mineral company to striking deals with computer chip manufacturers. And Greg says there's a name for all this: state capitalism.
- gaining traction /ˈɡeɪnɪŋ ˈtrækʃən/ 勢いを増している、支持や関心が高まっている。
- taking a greater role /ˈteɪkɪŋ ə ˈɡreɪtər roʊl/ 重要な役割を果たす、影響力を強める。
- directing the economy /dəˈrɛktɪŋ ði ɪˈkɑnəmi/ 経済を指導・管理する。政策・政府の介入を示す。
- weighing in on /ˈweɪɪŋ ɪn ɑn/ ~に意見を述べる、関与する。
- taking a stake /ˈteɪkɪŋ ə steɪk/ 株式を取得する、出資する。
- striking deals with /ˈstraɪkɪŋ diːlz wɪð/ ~との取引を結ぶ、契約を結ぶ。
- computer chip manufacturers /kəmˈpjutər ʧɪp ˌmænjʊˈfæktʃərərz/ コンピュータチップ製造企業。
- state capitalism /steɪt ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm/ 国家資本主義。政府が市場や企業に積極的に関与する資本主義形態。
- weigh in on [something] /ˈweɪɪŋ ɪn ɑn/ 意見を述べる、議論に参加する
- weigh [something] /weɪ/ 熟考する、比較検討する
Greg Ip: I would say state capitalism is a model of capitalism where most of the means of production remain in private hands and private shareholders, but the state takes a very strong role in deciding what those private companies can do. And that role goes beyond just, say, setting tax rates or even broad regulations, but actually getting involved in the decisions by private companies about where to invest and what to emphasize.
Jessica Mendoza: For many years, the country most associated with state capitalism has been China.
Greg Ip: 25 years ago as China liberalized, the conventional wisdom was that eventually its economy would look like the US economy. But what we've seen in the last year is moves under both the Biden administration and especially under the Trump administration that are starting to make the US economy look more like China's.
Jessica Mendoza: Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Jessica Mendoza. It's Tuesday, August 19th. Coming up on the show, has the US abandoned free market capitalism?
One way to think about economic systems is that they exist on a spectrum. There's socialism on one end and free market capitalism on the other.
- exist on a spectrum /ɪɡˈzɪst ɑn ə ˈspɛktrəm/ スペクトラム(連続体)上に存在する。段階的・連続的に変化する状態を示す。
- socialism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ 社会主義。生産手段の共有や政府による分配を重視する経済体制。
- free market capitalism /fri ˈmɑrkɪt ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm/ 自由市場資本主義。市場メカニズムや私的所有を重視する経済体制。
- on one end / on the other /ɑn wʌn ɛnd/ / /ɑn ði ˈʌðər/ 片方の端 / もう一方の端(対比や範囲を示す表現)
Greg Ip: It's a continuum. There really is literally no true free market laissez-faire country in the world. We have government-owned airports and utilities and so forth. So there's no country that is truly free market. And honestly, there aren't really any countries that are truly socialist any longer with the possible exception of North Korea.
- continuum /kənˈtɪnjuəm/ 連続体、段階的に変化する範囲。経済・政治体制などを連続的に捉える概念。
- literally /ˈlɪtərəli/ 文字通り、実際に。強調表現としても使われる。
- true free market laissez-faire country /tru fri ˈmɑrkɪt ˌleɪseɪ ˈfɛr ˈkʌntri/ 完全自由市場国家。政府介入のない理想的な自由市場経済を持つ国。
- government-owned airports and utilities /ˈɡʌvərnmənt oʊnd ˈɛrˌpɔrts ənd juːˈtɪlətiz/ 政府所有の空港や公共事業施設。政府が運営するインフラやサービス。
- so forth /soʊ fɔrθ/ ~などその他、…といった類。前に挙げた例の延長を示す。
- truly free market /ˈtruːli fri ˈmɑrkɪt/ 完全に自由市場。政府介入がない状態。
- honestly /ˈɑnɪstli/ 正直に言えば、率直に言うと。
- possible exception /ˈpɑsəbəl ɪkˈsɛpʃən/ 例外としてあり得るもの。
- any longer /ˈɛni ˈlɔŋgər/ もはや…ではない。現在の状況を強調する表現。
laissez-faire(レッセフェール): /ˌleɪseɪ ˈfɛr/
「自由放任主義」
政府の経済への干渉を最小限にし、市場の自由な動きに任せる経済思想・政策のこと。
フランス語で「放っておけ」という意味から来ている。
laissez-faire capitalism /ˌleɪseɪ ˈfɛr ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm/自由放任主義資本主義。
Jessica Mendoza: And the US has flirted with government intervention and private business in the past, starting in the mid-20th century under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
- flirt with /flɜrt wɪð/(比喩的に)~を試みる、手を出してみる、軽く関与する。完全な採用ではないが一時的・部分的に関与するニュアンス。
Greg Ip: Well, historically for the United States, the federal government was almost a non-presence. Apart from the post office, it did very little regulation, right? And that begins to change under FDR, where you have a large expansion of the state along with the New Deal and a lot of new guarantees, things like deposit insurance, things like housing assistance.
- large expansion of the state /lɑrdʒ ɪkˈspænʃən ʌv ðə steɪt/ 国家規模の大幅な拡大。政府の役割や介入が増えること。
- New Deal /nu diːl/ ニューディール政策。FDRが実施した経済復興・社会保障プログラム。
- deposit insurance /dɪˈpɑzɪt ɪnˈʃʊrəns/ 預金保険。銀行預金を保障する制度。
- housing assistance /ˈhaʊzɪŋ əˈsɪstəns/ 住宅支援。低所得者向けの住宅補助や支援政策。
Speaker 3: We have, through various federal agencies, saved debtors and creditors alike in many other fields of enterprise, such as loans on farm mortgages and home mortgages.
Greg Ip: And then in the second World War, because of the urgency of building up munitions and weapons to fight the second World War, the federal government creates the War Productions Board, which essentially dictates to companies like Ford and North American Aviation, "You must build the following things For us to fight the war."
- munitions /mjuːˈnɪʃənz/ 軍需品全般、弾薬・兵器 戦争準備・大量生産・政府向け
- weapons /ˈwɛpənz/ 武器 個別の武器、戦闘用装備全般
- arsenal /ˈɑrsənəl/ 武器庫、兵器の蓄え 保管・蓄積のニュアンス、量が多い
- ammunition /ˌæmjʊˈnɪʃən/ 弾薬(銃・砲用) 個別使用の弾薬、戦闘用
Speaker 4: America speeds production through increased output in old plants, through new and expanded plants from coast to coast. America builds (inaudible).
Greg Ip: So that was, in some sense, pure state capitalism.
Jessica Mendoza: The government did something similar in the 1950s during the Korean War. It passed a law called the Defense Production Act, which allowed the president to declare an emergency and order companies to manufacture needed products. More recently, during the 2008 financial crisis, the US government intervened again, bailing out banks and car companies.
- bailing out /ˈbeɪlɪŋ aʊt/ (銀行・企業などを)救済する、破綻を防ぐために支援する。
Speaker 5: Bailing out Wall Street is the only way to save Main Street, so says the president.
Jessica Mendoza: And then, of course, there was the COVID-19 pandemic, when the government provided billions to struggling businesses.
Speaker 6: Last month I asked Congress to pass the Paycheck Protection Program, giving small businesses emergency economic relief.
Greg Ip: But this of course was because if they hadn't stepped in, something terrible would've happened to the economy. What's happening today is different from those things.
Jessica Mendoza: Greg says that the recent moves from the government go beyond responding to a temporary emergency. Instead, they're proactively intervening in private companies. The current push towards state capitalism started during Joe Biden's presidency. He wanted to give some sectors a boost, like the semiconductor industry. In 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS Act and gave billions of dollars for companies to manufacture in the US. He was also interested in boosting the clean energy industry.
Greg Ip: He thought that the climate, global warming was something the US had to proactively address, and he wanted to create jobs out of that effort. And so he passed Inflation Reduction Act, which created a variety of incentives to invest in clean energy, clean power, nuclear, geothermal, all those sorts of things. There was a $400 billion fund set up using existing authorities to lend money to renewable energy companies. So I think even under President Biden, you saw this movement away from that classic free market model to being more open to the idea that intervention was appropriate in some areas. What we've seen under Trump is an acceleration of all of that.
Jessica Mendoza: Since Trump's been in office, what are some of the most obvious or biggest examples of him really taking this idea of state capitalism to the next level?
Greg Ip: There's the Nippon Steel takeover of US Steel.
Jessica Mendoza: Nippon Steel is a Japanese steel company that had put in the bid to acquire US Steel, an American company based in Pittsburgh. Their bid was contentious because there were national security concerns about foreign ownership in such a critical industry. Eventually, President Donald Trump approved the deal, but with some conditions.
- put in the bid /pʊt ɪn ðə bɪd/ 入札する、買収・契約のための申し込みを行う。
- acquire /əˈkwaɪər/ 買収する、取得する。
- contentious /kənˈtɛnʃəs/ 論争の的となる、争いを招く。
- national security concerns /ˈnæʃənəl sɪˈkjʊrəti kənˈsɜrnz/ 国家安全保障上の懸念。重要産業や機密に関するリスク。
- foreign ownership /ˈfɔrən ˈoʊnərʃɪp/ 外国資本による所有、外国人または外国企業による所有権。
- critical industry /ˈkrɪtɪkəl ˈɪndəstri/ 重要産業。国家経済・安全保障に不可欠な産業。
- approve the deal /əˈpruv ðə dil/ 取引を承認する、契約を正式に認める。
- with some conditions /wɪð səm kənˈdɪʃənz/ いくつかの条件付きで。契約や承認に制約や条項が付くことを示す。
Greg Ip: And when Trump came in, he actually okayed the takeover, but he made it conditional on US Steel handing over a so-called golden share to the US Treasury. Now, exactly what form this share will take is unclear, but the idea is that major decisions that US Steel makes, the US gets to have a say in those, possibly even a veto. What I think is interesting given the conversation we're having is that China does exactly the same thing. President Xi Jinping requires private companies to hand over a golden share. They even use exactly the same term, by the way, a golden share to the Chinese Communist Party, so that even these nominally private companies must in some sense defer to the priorities of the state in their key decisions.
- defer to/dɪˈfɜr tə/~に従う、~に意見を譲る、権威・優先事項を尊重する。
Jessica Mendoza: Last month, the US government took a stake in another company, MP Materials. It's a company based in Nevada that extracts and refines rare earth minerals, which are critical to making everything from batteries to fighter jets. And the most recent examples of Trump's inroads into state capitalism are in the chip industry. Last week, he announced a deal with Nvidia and advanced micro devices that would give the US government a 15% cut of certain chip sales to China. Also this month, Trump said the CEO of Intel should resign. Administration officials are now discussing taking a stake in the chip maker, according to people briefed on the talks.
Greg Ip: Now, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad idea. Intel is a pretty important company and there might be some value to having some government money, make sure that they continue to have a presence and be a healthy presence in the United States.
Jessica Mendoza: But Greg says what is unusual here is that Intel and these other chip makers aren't companies that are failing.
Greg Ip: It's not like Nvidia is going to fail if the United States doesn't-
Jessica Mendoza: It's the most valuable company in the world.
Greg Ip: Intel is a little bit shakier ground, but it too isn't exactly a basket case yet. So what you're seeing is an affirmative type of intervention where the government isn't just acting as the investor of last resort, but a first resort in some cases.
- shaky ground / shakier ground /ˈʃeɪki ɡraʊnd/ 不安定な立場、危うい状況。「~ier」で「より不安定」。
- basket case /ˈbæskɪt keɪs/ (口語)重症患者 → 転じて「完全にダメな人・組織」。経済文脈では「お手上げ状態の企業/経済」。
- affirmative type of intervention /əˈfɜrmətɪv taɪp əv ˌɪntərˈvɛnʃən/ 積極的な介入。affirmative は「前向きの、是認的な」。
- investor of last resort /ɪnˈvɛstər əv læst rɪˈzɔrt/ 「最後の貸し手・投資家」。通常は中央銀行や政府が金融危機の際に支える役割。
- first resort /fɜrst rɪˈzɔrt/ 「最初の手段」。last resort(最後の手段)の対比として使われている。
Jessica Mendoza: Why now? Why is state capitalism gaining traction in this moment?
Greg Ip: Well, as I mentioned earlier, I think partly it's because of disillusionment with free market capitalism in the sense that we let China get too far ahead, we let certain things slip away. So the US is focusing its state capitalism efforts on strategic sectors, places where the US simply cannot allow itself to be behind. And so the case for semiconductors is almost self-evident because they're ubiquitous in all high-end applications, whether it's artificial intelligence, satellites, missiles, but I think it's specific to Trump as well. He has a very aggressive, robust view of executive power. He is asserting powers that presidents have in the past. He's very obsessed with getting paid. The government should get paid to be the... like countries that sell to the US should pay for the privilege, they should invest in the United States, and he as a president gets to say where that investment goes. That's kind of a mindset that's somewhat unique to Trump. And so I'm not sure that we'd be in this position now but for Trump.
- disillusionment /ˌdɪsɪˈluːʒənmənt/ 幻滅、失望。ここでは「自由市場資本主義への幻滅」。
- let ~ slip away /slɪp əˈweɪ/ ~を失う、手放す。重要な機会や優位を逃す意味。
- state capitalism /steɪt ˈkæpɪtəlɪzəm/ 国家資本主義。政府が民間経済に積極的に関与する仕組み。
- ubiquitous /juːˈbɪkwɪtəs/ 至るところに存在する、遍在する。半導体があらゆる分野で使われることを指す。
- robust view /roʊˈbʌst vjuː/ 力強い見解。ここでは「強硬な見方」。
- executive power /ɪɡˈzɛkjətɪv ˈpaʊər/ 行政権、大統領権限。
- assert (powers) /əˈsɜːrt/ (権限を)主張する、行使する。
- obsessed with /əbˈsɛst wɪð/ ~に取りつかれている、こだわる。
- pay for the privilege /peɪ fər ðə ˈprɪvəlɪdʒ/ 特権のために代償を払う。ここでは「米国市場にアクセスするには支払うべきだ」という意味。
- mindset /ˈmaɪndsɛt/ 考え方、思考様式。ここでは「トランプ特有の発想」。
- but for ~ /bət fɔr/ ~がなければ、~でなかったら。条件節的な表現。
Jessica Mendoza: Coming up, we'll hear from Greg about the potential pitfalls of state capitalism.
To understand the advantages and disadvantages of state capitalism, Greg and I talked about China, a country where for decades the Chinese Communist Party has directed the way the economy was run.
Greg Ip: China was as about as close to pure socialism as you could get. But certainly since 1979, China has moved steadily away from the pure socialist model where yes, some of the key enterprises remain in state hands, but private shareholders own pieces of them, and the most dynamic and fastest growing companies in China are primarily private.
- pure socialism /pjʊr ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ 純粋な社会主義。すべてを国家が所有・管理する体制。
- as close to ~ as you could get /æz kloʊs tuː ... æz ju kʊd ɡɛt/ ~に限りなく近い。誇張的に「ほぼ~だ」というニュアンス。
It was as close to perfect as you could get.
それは限りなく完璧に近かった。
- since 1979 /sɪns ˌnaɪntiːn sɛv(ə)n ˈnaɪn/ 1979年以来。改革開放の開始年を指す。
- steadily /ˈstɛdɪli/ 着実に、徐々に。
- socialist model /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪst ˈmɑːdl/ 社会主義モデル。国家主導の経済体制。
- remain in state hands /rɪˈmeɪn ɪn steɪt hændz/ 国有のままである。国家の管理下にある。
- private shareholders /ˈpraɪvət ˈʃɛərˌhoʊldərz/ 民間株主。国ではなく個人や企業による株式保有者。
- own pieces of (a company) /oʊn ˈpiːsɪz ʌv .../ (会社の)一部を所有する。株式保有を比喩的に表現。
- dynamic /daɪˈnæmɪk/ 活発な、エネルギッシュな、変化に富む。
- primarily private /praɪˈmɛrəli ˈpraɪvət/ 主として民間の。大部分が私企業であること。
Jessica Mendoza: Though China doesn't call its system state capitalism.
Greg Ip: So the Chinese call it socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Jessica Mendoza: How has that worked for China?
Greg Ip: Well, if you were to ask the Chinese, they would say it's worked really well. Their economy has grown extremely fast since 1979 when these reforms began. And even though in the initial part of industrialization, China's model was mostly about catching up and copying the west, there are now areas where it basically is as good, if not ahead of the west, for example, electric vehicles and drones and certain military applications. So the Chinese would say that that wouldn't have happened if they had not used all the levers of the state, such as subsidized capital, subsidized loans, state ownership, government preferences. The Chinese would say all that has worked extremely well for them. China has gone from essentially a very poor country to a economic superpower whose only true peer is the United States.
- if you were to ask ~ /ɪf juː wɜːr tə æsk/ 「もし~に聞いたとしたら」仮定的な表現。
- as good, if not ahead of /æz ɡʊd ɪf nɑːt əˈhɛd əv/ 「同等か、むしろそれ以上」
- military applications /ˈmɪlɪˌtɛri ˌæpləˈkeɪʃənz/ 「軍事用途」
- levers of the state /ˈlɛvərz əv ðə steɪt/ 「国家の仕組み・テコ」※政策や制度を比喩的に「レバー」と表現
- subsidized capital/loans /ˈsʌbsɪdaɪzd ˈkæpɪtl/ ・ /ˈsʌbsɪdaɪzd loʊnz/ 「補助金付きの資本/融資」
- government preferences /ˈɡʌvərnmənt ˈprɛfərənsɪz/ 「政府の優遇策」
- economic superpower /ˌɛkəˈnɑːmɪk ˈsuːpərˌpaʊər/ 「経済大国」
- true peer /truː pɪr/ 「真の対等な存在」
Jessica Mendoza: Greg says there's an idea that the US government could and maybe should mimic some of this and have a more active role in the decision making that happens in private companies. And for some, that's a compelling argument.
- compelling argument/kəmˈpɛlɪŋ ˈɑːrɡjəmənt/「説得力のある主張」
Greg Ip: Some people say in the Chinese system is that they're very decisive, right? They say, "We want to build a steel factory. We're just going to go out and build that steel factory. We want to build high speed rail. We're going to go out and build that high speed rail." All these government funds shower money on electric vehicle companies and next thing you know, China leads the world in electric vehicles, right? So there's a lot of folks in our system who say, "Why can't we do that?" And they sort of see America bogged down in all of its legalistic objections, right? You can't even build a highway without 10 groups coming out of the woodwork and suing to stop it because it infringes on their quality of life. And so you can see why some folks like Trump's forcefulness and his assertion of broad executive power as just what this country needs to break out of its funk.
- decisive /dɪˈsaɪsɪv/ 「決断力のある、断固とした」
- shower money on /ˈʃaʊər ˈmʌni ɑːn/ 「資金を大量に投じる、ばらまく」
- bogged down (in/with) /bɑːɡd daʊn/ 「動きが取れなくなる、足を取られる」
bogged down はもともと「泥に足を取られる」 → 「進めない、停滞する」 - legalistic objections /ˌliːɡəˈlɪstɪk əbˈdʒɛkʃənz/ 「形式的・法律的な異議申し立て」
- come out of the woodwork /kʌm aʊt əv ðə ˈwʊdwɜːrk/ (比喩)「どこからともなく大勢現れる」
- infringe on /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ ɑːn/ 「(権利などを)侵害する」
- quality of life /ˈkwɑːləti əv laɪf/ 「生活の質」
- forcefulness /ˈfɔːrsf(ə)lnəs/ 「強引さ、力強さ」
- assertion of power /əˈsɜːrʃən əv ˈpaʊər/ 「権力の主張・行使」
- break out of its funk /breɪk aʊt əv ɪts fʌŋk/ 「停滞(ふさぎ込んだ状態)から抜け出す」
funk:憂うつ・落ち込み・不調 be in a funk = 「気分がふさいでいる」「停滞している」
恐怖・臆病(古い意味、今はあまり使われない) in a blue funk = 「ひどく怯えて」
ファンク音楽(別ジャンルの意味)
Jessica Mendoza: Are there any disadvantages to state capitalism? Is China also experiencing problems with its version of this?
Greg Ip: If you actually delve into the numbers, you discover that the areas where it has grown fastest are those areas where the state was least involved. And in fact, China's growth always accelerated when the state tended to retreat from particular parts of the economy. And so in some sense, China owes its growth not to the involvement of the state, but the retreat of the state that allowed the natural entrepreneurial vigor of the Chinese people to come to the fore. So you can make the case that China grew fast in spite of, not because of state capitalism. And today we can also see that notwithstanding some of the amazing success stories such as electric vehicles, there's also staggering waste out there, massive over capacity in industry after industry, such as steel, to the point that many Chinese companies are losing money. So what I would say is that while China in some sense epitomizes the state capitalism model, you want to think twice before thinking that it's all roses.
- delve into /dɛlv ˈɪntuː/ ~を掘り下げて調べる、詳しく調査する
- accelerate /əkˈsɛləˌreɪt/ 加速する、勢いを増す
- retreat (from) /rɪˈtriːt/ 退く、撤退する
- entrepreneurial vigor /ˌɑːntrəprəˈnɜːriəl ˈvɪɡər/ 起業家的活力、企業家精神の力強さ
- come to the fore /kʌm tə ðə fɔːr/ 前面に出る、表面化する、目立つようになる
- in spite of /ɪn spaɪt əv/ ~にもかかわらず
- notwithstanding /ˌnɑːtwɪðˈstændɪŋ/ ~にもかかわらず(ややフォーマル)
- staggering /ˈstæɡərɪŋ/ 驚異的な、途方もない、圧倒的な
- overcapacity /ˌoʊvərkəˈpæsɪti/ 生産過剰、供給過多
- epitomize /ɪˈpɪtəˌmaɪz/ ~の典型例である、~を象徴する
- it’s all roses /ɪts ɔːl ˈroʊzɪz/ すべてが順調、すべてがバラ色(※慣用句)
Jessica Mendoza: Greg says that another issue with state capitalism is that it's also about political control. He points to an incident in 2020 when a major Chinese tech CEO criticized the Chinese government.
Greg Ip: Jack Ma, who was the co-founder of Alibaba, spoke out against financial regulation and Xi Jinping retaliated. He canceled an IPO, investigated the company and made it clear who's boss here, right? In the US context, you do worry that the more the government involves itself in private sector decisions, the more this becomes a way of not just advancing a particular vision of the economy, but advancing the political interests of the people in charge. We've already seen Trump use the power of the federal government to punish media companies, law firms, and even banks that he believes have opposed him politically. And you do worry that a president or an executive unbounded by legal and constitutional constraints on his actions within the economy could push it further in that direction.
- unbounded by /ʌnˈbaʊndɪd baɪ/ ~に縛られていない、制限されていない
- constraint /kənˈstreɪnt/ 制約、制限
- constitutional constraints /ˌkɑːnstəˈtuːʃənl kənˈstreɪnts/ 憲法による制約
- push (something) in that direction /pʊʃ ɪn ðæt dəˈrɛkʃən/ (物事を)その方向へ押し進める
Jessica Mendoza: That's another thing that Greg is looking out for as state capitalism continues, the legal grounds for what's going on. When Biden announced subsidies for chips and clean energy companies, he did so under authorization from Congress.
Greg Ip: What Biden was doing was that he first passed the laws that authorized this extension of government resources to private sector. Trump is acting without a legal basis for much of what he's doing. The investments that he's insisting Europe and Japan and South Korea make in the United States, there's no legal framework that governs that. The 15% he's asking for on chip sales from AMD and Nvidia, not only is there no law authorizing that, but in form, those look like export taxes and the US Constitution forbids export taxes. So that's an important difference between the way Biden went about it and the way Trump is going about it.
- extension of government resources /ɪkˈstɛnʃən əv ˈɡʌvərnmənt rɪˈsɔːrsɪz/ 政府資源の拡大、政府支援の範囲拡大
- without a legal basis /wɪˈðaʊt ə ˈliːɡəl ˈbeɪsɪs/ 法的根拠なしに
- investments … make in the US /ɪnˈvɛstmənts meɪk ɪn ði juːˈɛs/ アメリカに対して行う投資
- legal framework /ˈliːɡəl ˈfreɪmˌwɜːrk/ 法的枠組み
- in form /ɪn fɔːrm/ 形式上、形としては
- export taxes /ˈɛkspɔːrt ˈtæksɪz/ 輸出税
Jessica Mendoza: What kind of problems do you maybe see that causing down the line?
Greg Ip: I mean, we're a nation of laws. The US Constitution says the Constitution and the laws of the supreme law of the land, right? And Article Two says the duty of the president is to faithfully execute those laws. It's not to essentially decide for himself what the laws are. And I think that that model has worked very well for the United States. It's worked democratically and it's worked economically, right? The Constitution says that the government may not deprive people of liberty or property without due process, right? Due process implies there needs to be some kind of legislative code that determines how these things are action. It's not just the president sitting down with a CEO and saying, "Give me 15% of the company or else."
Jessica Mendoza: Right, waving a wand.
- waving a wand = 「魔法の杖を振る」
「簡単に、魔法のように問題を解決する」
Greg Ip: And I think that's the kind of thing all folks involved today have to keep in mind, the private sector, the Congress, the president and the courts, is that the system we've had has worked very well for over 200 years and it's worked well by ensuring that no part of that government essentially exceeds the limits that we sort of put in place. The US definitely hasn't gone as far as China has gone, right? We still don't have many state-owned enterprises, almost none for that matter. But I think that in its DNA, the United States still is uncomfortable with state ownership and still sees itself as free market. But it's clear that because we have migrated away from that model and that we have a president and we have had presidents who are less enamored of that model, that it's not pure free market capitalism any longer. So that's why I say it's state capitalism, but with American characteristics.
- essentially exceeds the limits /ɪˈsɛnʃəli ɪkˈsiːdz ðə ˈlɪmɪts/ 本質的に限界を超える
- state-owned enterprises (SOEs) /steɪt oʊnd ˈɛntərpraɪzɪz/ 国有企業
- in its DNA /ɪn ɪts ˌdiːˈɛnˈeɪ/ (組織・文化などの)根本的な性質として、体質として
- uncomfortable with /ʌnˈkʌmfərtəbl wɪð/ ~に対して居心地が悪い、抵抗感がある
- migrated away from /ˈmaɪɡreɪtɪd əˈweɪ frəm/ ~から離れてきた、移行した
- enamored of /ɪˈnæmərd ʌv/ ~に魅力を感じる、夢中である
- state capitalism with American characteristics /steɪt ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm wɪð əˈmɛrɪkən ˌkærɪktərɪstɪks/ アメリカ的特色を持つ国家資本主義
Jessica Mendoza: Before we go, we're working on an episode about 401ks and want to hear from you. Do you know what your plan has invested in? Are you excited or worried about the potential to invest in new kinds of things like private equity? How do you view your 401k these days, a retirement fund or a rainy day fund? Let us know. Send us a voice message to thejournal@wsj.com. That's thejournal@wsj.com. That's all for today, Tuesday, August 19th. Additional reporting in this episode by Amrith Ramkumar, Lauren Thomas and Robbie Whelan. The Journal is a co-production of Spotify and the Wall Street Journal. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.