シャドーイング練習: Why the UK's Economy is Awful - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

各モードは全画面の練習ルームで開きます。

204 文

文が短すぎたり長すぎる場合は、Editをタップして調整してください。

This is London.

It has 215,700 millionaires, 516 centimillionaires, and 45 billionaires.

London is very, very rich.

But the rest of the UK?

Not so much.

In fact, citizens of the once proud United Kingdom have less disposable income than the poorest five US states

and the average OECD country.

And if you remove London and the southeast from the equation, the UK's GDP per capita drops 14%.

Life expectancy in parts of Blackpool are lower than in Rwanda,

and entire cities and towns that once thrived now rank among the poorest in Western Europe.

The UK has gone from from the greatest kingdom on earth to squalor.

How did it get here?

This is the UK, the divided kingdom.

Our story starts in 1979.

Margaret Thatcher is elected prime minister with the goal of controlling inflation.

In the lead up to her election, inflation had spiraled out of control.

100 pounds in 1970 was worth over 300 by 1979.

But what caused this?

First, the 1970s were rocked by two massive oil shocks.

When OPEC doubled and then tripled oil prices, everything from gas to groceries got more expensive overnight.

At the same time, wages kept rising as powerful trade unions demanded more pay to keep up with the rising prices,

creating a vicious cycle of rising prices leading to rising wages, leading to rising prices, and so on.

to this, loose monetary and fiscal policies leading to tons of money floating in the economy, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Guided by Chancellor Jeffrey Howe and hardline monetarists like Keith Joseph and Alan Walters, Thatcher had made inflation enemy number one.

To fight it, her strategy was simple.

First, reduce the money supply.

Thatcher's government set out to strangle money supply, cutting sterling M3 growth from 12% a year to just 6% by 1984.

Second, interest rates.

In June 1979, she increased rates from 12% to 14%, then again to 17% in November, the highest in the history of Britain.

The idea was simple enough, make borrowing expensive, slow down credit, and choke off inflation.

Although this helped stamp down inflation, a stronger pound made British exports uncompetitive abroad, while sky-high borrowing costs crippled businesses at home.

Manufacturers couldn't invest, couldn't expand, and in many cases, couldn't even keep the lights on.

And the third thing was government spending.

The Thatcher government aimed to cut public sector borrowing requirement from 4.7% of GDP in 1979 to just 1.5% by 1983.

Concurrently, while in the middle of a recession, they did the unthinkable.

They raised taxes.

But Britain was already in trouble.

More than 2 million people were out of work and every month another 100,000 were joining the unemployment lines.

It was so shocking that 364 economists signed a letter to the Times saying the policy had no basis in economic theory.

So the question was, did it work?

Well, yeah.

Although extreme, inflation decreased from 13% in 1979 to 5% by 1983. But at what cost?

High interest rates, a strong pound, and spending cuts crushed manufacturing towns across the United Kingdom.

Britain's industrial base was gutted and regional inequality began to take shape.

Meanwhile, London was living a very different story.

Predominantly a service-based economy, London, unlike much of the UK, was able to hold on.

By the mid-1980s, joblessness in Northern England, Scotland, and Wales all pushed past 15%, while the Southeast and London stayed under 10%.

But why was this the case?

Enter the Big Bang re-regulation package.

Thatcher had a vision of transforming London into a financial superpower through deregulation.

Fixed commissions and exchange controls were scrapped, the single capacity rule ended, foreign ownership welcomed, and electronic trading unleashed.

The result?

International banks poured in 450 million pounds into the city, 1500 new millionaires were minted,

and London cemented itself as the world's dominant financial center.

On paper, the UK looked like it had gone through a renaissance.

At the end of Thatcher's first year in office, GDP was around 1 trillion Great Britain pounds, but when she left in 1990,

it was 1.4 trillion GBP.

GDP per capita also rose from 15.5 thousand to 19.9 thousand by 1990.

Britain was richer.

But this data doesn't show the whole picture.

During this same period of time, the Gini coefficient, a measure for inequality, increased from 25 to 35.

Meaning, while GDP per capita rose by 30%, inequality rose by 40.

So although Britain was richer, it was becoming more unequal.

This was partly due to the extreme cost of Thatcher's policies on Britain's industrial base.

For example, in 1979, manufacturing accounted for nearly 30% of the UK's GDP, and by 1990 it fell to 16%.

Concurrently, manufacturing employment fell by nearly 40% from 1979 to 1993.

So yes, GDP rose, GDP per capita increased, but if you didn't live in London, it wasn't so obvious.

The services industry grew but other industries declined as the UK wanted to rejig its economy.

Another way to examine the impact of shifting industries is the relationship between direct and indirect jobs created.

Basically, if you open a factory selling widgets, you might hire 100 people directly, but to make your widgets you need steel, electricity, and distributors, and more.

Your factory therefore might support an additional 300 indirect jobs, giving a ratio of 1 direct job to every 3 indirect jobs.

If we look at banking, the total is around 200 indirect jobs per 100 direct jobs, a ratio of 1 to 2.

But if we look at iron manufacturing, the total is over 900 indirect jobs per 100 direct jobs, a ratio of 1 to 9.

In fact, if we look at the financial services industry broadly, the ratio is around 1 to 3.6,

which sounds great, but when you compare it to other industries like utilities, durable manufacturing and non-durable manufacturing?

It isn't.

And this is one of the reasons that service-based industries lead to higher GDP

but increase inequality as earnings become more concentrated among a smaller group of individuals.

But this isn't simply about job creation, it's also about wages and benefits.

Manufacturing jobs tended to be characterized by formal employment agreements with strong benefits, retirement plans, paid holidays, insurance, and sick leave.

Alternatives for the majority low-skilled manufacturing workforce did not have these characteristics.

As such, studies show that the shift away from manufacturing led to an increase in inequality.

And as a reminder, the UK's industrial base is deeply regionalized.

So although there might be jobs and wage growth in the South, pockets that historically relied on out-of-favor industries became hollowed out.

And today, not a single region in the UK north of London has a GDP per capita higher than the UK average.

Let that sink in.

That means that every region in the UK, excluding London and the southeast, is poorer than the average of the UK.

Real quick, over 96% of you aren't subscribed, so if you've been watching for a while, join the 4%.

It's free and helps the channel.

Now back to the video.

As cities become poorer, people begin to move to wealthier ones in search of greener pastures.

It's only natural.

In fact, this phenomenon is studied the world over.

As such, as London began to grow, many economists believe that there would be a significant migration to the big city from other parts of the United Kingdom.

But they were wrong.

Even though people in the UK move between regions at a higher rate than other G7 countries, London is the exception.

In fact, Britons move away from London more than they move to London.

London is one of the only cities in the UK with a negative internal mobility rate.

But how does that make any sense?

100

Especially when you take into account that median household incomes in London are 14% higher than the UK.

101

Isn't it obvious to move?

102

Well, not if you take into account living cost.

103

When you factor in housing, household incomes are only 1% higher in London.

104

So unless you are on the top quartile of earners, it absolutely makes no sense to move.

105

Housing in London is nearly two times greater than the UK average, and when you take into consideration what you get for your dollar, it's even more expensive.

106

It's no surprise then that London has a major homelessness problem.

107

But it's not like anything seen in the Western world.

108

Homelessness advocates counted over 13,000 rough sleepers in London in 2024, a 10% increase from the year prior,

109

and a 63% increase from a decade ago.

110

Overall, 2% of Londoners are considered homeless.

111

Compare that to New York at 0.8%, Toronto at 0.5%, Paris at 0.3%, Berlin at 0.3%, and Amsterdam at 0.2%.

112

London is in a league of its own.

113

One of the reasons for housing struggles is the right-to-buy scheme that Margaret Thatcher introduced in 1980.

114

The idea was to privatize social housing by allowing tenants who

115

lived in these homes to purchase them at a discount from the government.

116

And these discounts were steep.

117

Initially 33% for houses and 50% for flats, which was later raised to 70%.

118

Now many conservative-minded folks might say this sounds like a good idea, but I assure you it is absolutely not.

119

The government was basically allowing people to buy properties at steep discounts to market value without any promise of ensuring

120

that housing stock would remain affordable.

121

This policy would economically benefit the current generation at the expense of future generations.

122

And not only that, local authorities had to offer mortgages with no deposit.

123

So do the math.

124

If you bought a property for 0% down at a 70% discount, then sold it for market value a few years later,

125

untaxed might I add, you would be laughing to the bank.

126

The problem was particularly acute in London.

127

In 1980, London had around 715,000 of these homes, representing nearly 30% of the entire housing stock in the city.

128

But today, only 390,000 of these homes remain, and social housing now comprises around 10% of housing stock,

129

a decrease of 61%.

130

percent.

131

Furthermore, across the UK, it is estimated that at least 40% of right-to-buy homes are now rented at market rates.

132

But there are more reasons than just this for London's skyrocketing housing prices.

133

For one, there are no legal restrictions for foreign nationals to purchase property in London, meaning millionaires and billionaires from abroad have no barrier to buying in London.

134

And they take advantage of this.

135

Roughly 27% of total residential property sales in London in Q1 of 24 were to foreign buyers.

136

Now you might be asking, what does it look like in other major cities like New York?

137

While London is at 27%, New York is at 0.3%.

138

That's a 90 times difference.

139

And it gets worse, over 20% of new rental properties in London have at least one foreign shareholder, doubling from 2016.

140

One of the reasons for this is the UK's non-DOM tax status, which has basically been abolished.

141

This enabled UK residents who claimed their permanent home was abroad to avoid paying UK tax on foreign income and capital gains.

142

Now some might think this is a smart policy, but it is deeply short-sighted.

143

Yes, these people bring money from abroad and spend it locally, but they also compete with the local population on scarce resources like housing.

144

Now if you have a handful of these people, it's really not an issue.

145

But if you have 83,000 of them, you have a major problem.

146

Countries around the world love the idea of rich people spending their money in their country.

147

But it always leads to housing dislocations.

148

Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, and others all fell trapped to this.

149

Moreover, these rich individuals don't contribute in the same way to the economy.

150

They aren't going to take care of the sick and old.

151

They aren't opening new businesses locally and employing people locally.

152

They aren't working at all.

153

They simply buy luxury homes and cars, eat out, and sleep.

154

Yes, they contribute a little to the economy, but they are nothing more than a way to pad stats.

155

All of this at the expense of local people.

156

But housing is only one piece of the puzzle.

157

The deeper issue is where Britain puts its money, and for decades, the answer was simple.

158

London.

159

When most people visit London, they complain about the tube and the poor infrastructure.

160

Clearly, these people haven't been to other parts of the country.

161

If you look at transport investment in the UK, London takes the cake.

162

The city gets nearly £1,200 per person.

163

Compare that to the Northeast at just £430 and the East Midlands at £350.

164

Even the Southeast, the closest region, barely gets half what London gets.

165

To put it in perspective, if the North had been funded at the same per-person rate as London, it would have seen an extra £140 billion of investment.

166

That's the equivalent of building seven Elizabeth lines.

167

To make matters worse, Burton underspends on transport compared to its peers.

168

OECD data shows that the UK put just 0.3% of GDP a year into roads between 1995 and 2020.

169

Compare this to Italy at 0.4%, Germany and the US at 0.5%, and France at over 0.6%.

170

The tragedy is that this underinvestment makes Britain's cities less productive.

171

With weak road and rail lengths, cities outside London have far less effective size.

172

Fewer people can commute in, fewer jobs are connected, less growth is possible.

173

A unique data point that encapsulates the problem is

174

that the UK is pretty much the only place in Western Europe where city size does not correlate strongly to economic productivity.

175

The poor infrastructure is a critical driver of this, and it's not just transport, the same neglect shows up in R&D.

176

R&D expenditure is heavily concentrated in higher productivity, higher income locations, ergo London.

177

In 2016, the government spent just £21 per person on R&D in the north of England and 14 pounds in the Midlands.

178

In London, it was 60 pounds.

179

This creates a reinforcing loop.

180

More R&D means London firms grow faster, which tracks more private capital, which funds even more R&D.

181

Moreover, Britain is the outlier.

182

Germany's poorer regions, the smaller bubbles on the scrap, receive more public R&D support.

183

In the UK, it's the opposite.

184

The outcome is obvious.

185

The places that need support the most are left with scraps, and Britain's R&D policy ends up deepening inequality instead of fixing it.

186

Now, there is merit to prioritizing government R&D investment into areas where there is business R&D investment, but that isn't even what the UK is doing.

187

In fact, areas like London receive more government R&D support relative to the amount of business R&D in the region, whilst the rest of the UK receives less.

188

Put simply, businesses outside of London are being deprioritized in favor of those in London.

189

Just another reason the UK revolves around London and the quality of life is deteriorating.

190

The United Kingdom is a shell of its former self.

191

What once was a prosperous country has become a mostly vestigial nation with a single thriving city.

192

Tony Blair once promised that the kaleidoscope has been shaken.

193

The pieces are in flux.

194

Soon they will settle again.

195

Before they do, let us reorder this world around us.

196

But two decades later, the only thing reordered has been the United Kingdom around London.

197

The tragedy is that Britain still has the ingredients for prosperity.

198

But until they can spread opportunity beyond London, that promise will remain broken.

199

So yes, Britain still has money, they still have power, and they still have prestige,

200

but it is concentrated in a few square miles along the Thames.

201

For everyone else, the empire is gone, the factories are gone, and the future is shrinking.

202

London sits and eats Michelin star food, while the rest of the UK eats scraps in the alleyways like stray cats.

203

Thank you for watching.

204

Subscribe to 2in20 for more on economics and politics.

アプリをダウンロード

流暢に話すために必要なすべて

AI発音採点文ごとに採点

IPA練習すべての音をマスター

単語学習自分の単語帳を作る

単語ゲーム遊びながら覚える

QRをスキャン

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同じチャンネル

FOR YOU

このレッスンの語彙とスピーキングのポイント

このB2レベルのスピーキングレッスンは、動画「Why the UK's Economy is Awful」を教材にしています。繰り返し出てくる語は次のとおりです：London, housing, Gdp。この動画には、シャドーイング用の文が204文、単語が2600語あります。音声の長さは17:25です。話す速さは1分あたり約149語で安定しており、シャドーイングしやすいペースです。英語の頻出3,000語に含まれる単語は81%だけなので、語彙は難しめです。

この動画の重要語彙

動画の中で特に難しい単語15語を、発音と意味つきで紹介します。

単語	発音	意味
inequality 名詞	/ˌɪn.ɪˈkwɑ.lɪ.ti/	不平等
inflation 名詞	/ɪnˈfleɪ.ʃən/	インフレ, インフレーション
southeast 名詞	/sawˈθɪjst/	南東, 東南
millionaire 名詞	/ˌmɪl.i.əˈnɛə(ɹ)/	大富豪, 百万長者
scrap 名詞	/ˈskɹæp/	欠片, 断片
concentrate 動詞	/ˈkɑn.sən.tɹeɪt/	集中させる
homelessness 名詞	/ˈhəʊm.ləs.nəs/	ホームレス
durable 形容詞	/ˈdʊɹəbəl/	固い, 強い
billionaire 名詞	/ˌbɪl.jəˈnɛɚ/	億万長者, ビリオネア
economist 名詞	/iˈkɑ.nə.mɪst/	経済学者, エコノミスト
steep 形容詞	/stiːp/	険しい, 急
tragedy 名詞	/ˈtɹæd͡ʒ.ɪ.di/	悲劇
productivity 名詞	/ˌpɹɒdʌkˈtɪvəti/	生産性
moreover 副詞	/mɔːˈɹəʊ.və/	その上に, さらに
decrease 動詞	/dɪˈkɹiːs/	減少する, 減る

動画に出てくる句動詞

単語	意味
slow down 動詞	遅らせる

この動画の文法

話し手がよく使っている文型を、動画の実際の表現とともに紹介します。

文型	動画での表現
受動態 be + 過去分詞 — 誰がするかより、何が起きるかに焦点を当てる	is elected · were rocked · was gutted
現在完了形 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去の出来事が今も関係している	has gone · has basically been abolished · haven't been
関係詞節 who / which + 節 — 人や物について情報を加える	flats, which was · status, which has

注意したい発音

話し手はaren't, isn't, couldn'tなど、短縮形や弱形を17回使っています。聞こえたとおりの短い形で発音しましょう。

「th」の音: southeast /sawˈθɪjst/, thrive /θɹajv/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/
「sh」と「zh」の音: inflation /ɪnˈfleɪ.ʃən/, abolish /əˈbɑl.ɪʃ/, shareholder /ˈʃɛəˌhəʊl.də(ɹ)/, restriction /ɹɪˈstɹɪkʃən/, vicious /ˈvɪʃəs/
長い単語（アクセントの位置に注意）: inequality /ˌɪn.ɪˈkwɑ.lɪ.ti/, millionaire /ˌmɪl.i.əˈnɛə(ɹ)/, economist /iˈkɑ.nə.mɪst/, productivity /ˌpɹɒdʌkˈtɪvəti/, characterize /ˈkɛɹəktəɹaɪz/

日本語話者が苦手な音：

/r/ と /l/ の区別 — /l/ は舌先を歯茎につけ、/r/ はどこにもつけない: millionaire /ˌmɪl.i.əˈnɛə(ɹ)/, durable /ˈdʊɹəbəl/, starling /ˈstɑɹlɪŋ/, shareholder /ˈʃɛəˌhəʊl.də(ɹ)/, predominantly /pɹɪˈdɒmɪnəntli/
/v/ — /b/ にならないように、上の歯を下唇に当てる: productivity /ˌpɹɒdʌkˈtɪvəti/, moreover /mɔːˈɹəʊ.və/, thrive /θɹajv/, vicious /ˈvɪʃəs/, divide /dɪˈvaɪd/
/f/ — 「フ」ではなく、上の歯と下唇で出す: inflation /ɪnˈfleɪ.ʃən/, workforce /ˈwɝk.foɹs/, float /fləʊt/, transform /tɹænsˈfɔɹm/, fixing /ˈfɪksɪŋ/

この動画での練習方法

まず声を出さずに動画を最後まで聞き、知らない単語をメモします。
通常の速度で一文ずつシャドーイングし、話し手のリズムに合うまで繰り返します。
自分の声を録音して元の音声と比べます。inequality, inflation, southeastなどの単語に特に注意しましょう。

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由

シャドーイング（Shadowing）は、もともとプロの通訳者養成プログラムで開発された言語学習法で、多言語習得者として知られるDr. Alexander Arguelles によって広く普及されました。方法はシンプルですが非常に効果的：ネイティブスピーカーの英語を聞きながら、1〜2秒の遅延で声に出してすぐに繰り返す——まるで「影（shadow）」のように話者を追いかけます。文法ドリルや受動的なリスニングと異なり、シャドーイングは脳と口の筋肉が同時にリアルタイムで英語を処理・再現することを強制します。研究により、発音精度、抑揚、リズム、連音、リスニング力、そして会話の流暢さが大幅に向上することが確認されています。IELTSスピーキング対策や自然な英語コミュニケーションを目指す方に特におすすめです。

シャドーイングのやり方: ステップ別の完全ガイドを読む →

シャドーイング練習: Why the UK's Economy is Awful - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

アプリをダウンロード

同じチャンネル

How Erdogan Is Destroying Turkey’s Future

How Greed is Destroying FIFA

Why Plastic Surgery Is Destroying Korea

Why Living In Australia Is Impossible

おすすめ動画

Fall of Britain: Why Britain Is Collapsing Into a TRAP? ( And cant Escape) Economic case study

The Inflation Problem... It's Worse Than You Think

Labor's near record poll plunge | 9 News Australia

Contemporary Topics 2 Unit 9 PUBLIC HEALTH Global epidemic

The Crown: Wilson's Devaluation Speech

Vietnam’s Insane Economic Boom Explained

Why France’s Economy Is Stalling

#DragonsDen Investor Deborah Meaden: How can the #FutureofBritain make us rich, happy, and healthy?

Kemi Badenoch: “Everybody is an opponent” | Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg

Why Being Poor Is Expensive

What 50% Unemployment Will Actually Do to the Economy

The End Game of U.K Economics