2025年2月22日（土）に第23回The Decipher（旧: Economist Reading Club）を開催しました。
今回のテーマは、テック大企業が米国を支配するかどうか。『America, tech oligarchy?』（The Economist）を取り上げました。
The Decipherとは？
英国の高級紙『The Economist』などの記事を読み解き、英語を使いながら世界のトレンドを知るためのクラブ。2023年5月にスタートし、以前はEconomist Reading Clubという名前でした。東京都小平市の「勉強カフェ」で定期的に開催中（頻度は1-2回／月）。
狙い
- Improve English reading, comprehension and speaking skills
- Foster critical thinking through analysis of the article
- Deepen understanding of current affairs
内容
- Analysis:
- What’s the main argument?
- What do you think “tech oligarchy” is?
- What’s the tone?
- What’s missing?
- Is this fact or opinion? Spot one fact and one opinion.
- Wrap-Up & Reflection
Findings
*この勉強会では英語で要約したりコメントしたりしています。英語の文章力を向上させるため、このセクションは英語で記録します
Key argument: The Economist argues that America is not tech oligarchy.
Purpose: To explore where America is headed under President Trump with tech billionaires like Elon Musk.
Evidence/Reason: The Economist has three reasons for it. First, tech titans’ contribution to American GDP is far smaller, compared to oligarchic countries like Russia and Hungary. Secondly, their markets such as online shopping and cars are so competitive that they cannot become as powerful as John D. Rockefeller who controlled American economy through the dominance of oil. Third, big tech’s businesses like space development, social media and AI, overlap, making them hard to coordinate like Russian oligarchs.
Strength of the argument: The analysis of tech titans’ contribution to America’s economy sounds compelling. The Economist creates a method to calculate how much big tech dominates the America’s GDP. The results are surprisingly small: “Amazon, Meta and Tesla account for 1.8% of American GDP”. Then the newspaper compares those data with other countries, illustrating their economic power is far smaller in the US than those of their counterparts. This broader perspective makes its argument strong.
Weakness of the argument: This analysis, however, becomes less convincing when it comes to Rockefeller. The Economist claims that Rockefeller “struggled to have his voice heard” in Washington. Then it says Rockefeller had “near-total control” over oil, suggesting that he held “the American economy to ransom”. This undermines the article’s coherence. Why did such a wealthy person struggle in real politics? By understating him that way, does the article imply that he was not an oligarch? Or America’s political system has been defended against oligarchs in the past and will be so in the next four years?
Additional perspectives to consider:
- NPR interviews Jeffrey Winters, a political scientist and expert in oligarchy, about the American oligarchy. He explains what is an oligarch and what is significant about today’s oligarchs. In essence, he says today’s America is tech oligarchy. He points out that oligarchy is not new in the country, but what is new is “its visibility”. He also thinks history is replaying itself.
- Wikipedia helps to clarify the context of America’s oligarchy.
Conclusion:
The Economist’s argument against America being a tech oligarchy offers valuable GDP analysis, but falters through its contradictory portrayal of Rockefeller’s historical influence. Their framework fails to reconcile how someone could simultaneously control a key industry yet struggle politically. Professor Winters’ research suggests oligarchic power in America isn’t absent but evolving with greater visibility than before. As President Trump develops relationships with tech figures like Mr Musk, we must look beyond market concentration to understand how they use their power to influence politics. Without addressing these factors, The Economist’s reassurances remain provocative but unconvincing.
