쉐도잉 연습: Amartya Sen interview (1999) - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

Mark Yassin is the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics.

He was given the award for "restoring an ethical dimension to

the discussion of economic problems." His writings have revolutionized the theory of development by focusing on the importance of freedom over wealth.

In his new book, "Development as Freedom," he allows economics to address the social basis of the well -being of the individual.

I am pleased to have him on this broadcast as we

always are to have someone here who brings piercing insight into issues

that are part of not only the discussion in the United States, but the world.

Welcome.

Thank you very much.

This notion of how you feel about markets.

and democracy, and how you feel about growth economics, working best in an economic environment that is,

in a political environment that's a democracy, or a political environment that is a totalitarian.

Stay.

Yes, well I think what I'd like to think of in this context is to go with behind the institutions and

The main approach, which actually the book also does pursue,

is that the very basic thing which leads to social change and progress is ultimately individual freedom.

But individual freedom, of course, is also conditional on certain social opportunities being available, political opportunities, economic opportunities.

And my claim is that the freedoms of different kinds complement each other, just as I was mentioning in the case of the rise.

a communal riot, so people didn't have economic freedom, had to go into hostile area and got killed.

So economic freedom gives you more liberty there also.

Similarly, I think political freedom gives voice.

democracy, civil rights, open media, public discussion like we are having now, gives voice to the people who are deprived.

And you make the point.

Well taken, it seems, that at a time of a famine,

A democracy is more likely to put a break on a famine than a totalitarian state.

It's not only more likely, that's radically so.

There has never been a famine in a democratic country, even very poor ones, like Zimbabwe, Botswana, India.

India continues to have famine, right up to independence, which is the last one that occurred, which I saw as a child I was mentioning.

But if you look at the famines today, they're all in countries that are totalitarian.

Well, if you think of North Korea, Sudan, if you think of the past, the biggest famine in record history, China, 58, 61, 30 million people dead.

Soviet Union in the 1930s, military dictatorship, one kind or another,

Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Angola, one after another.

And it happens because in a democracy the protest, the public voice would not allow and tolerate.

Yeah, I would say that there are two things.

You may be very lucky and may have no democracy and still have no famine.

But if a famine were to develop, democracy provides a guarantee for stopping it because famines are extremely easy to stop.

And this was one of my earlier works.

I did a book.

published in 1981 called Poverty and Famines, showing why famines occur because of really decline on the fortunes of a very small group of people,

maybe millions, but still proportionately very small.

And you can very easily stop it, even without getting any kind of assistance from abroad.

And if a government has an incentive to do it, it can always stop a famine extremely easily.

So that led to the second part.

How can it do it if it has an incentive?

Well, if it doesn't have an incentive, then it couldn't do it.

But what I was saying that if it did have an incentive to do it, then it can carry it out very easily.

So the economic analysis led me to the political one, and it was quite clear that in a democracy, if you have to fight another election,

and not like being criticized by opposition parties, and not like being hoisted up by newspapers and the media,

you would actually do something about preventing famines and that's extremely easy to do.

And that's why, you know, even though China was in many ways doing better than India right from the beginning, from the middle of the century,

nevertheless, India was much better able to stop famine than China

because when the famine occurred

and about 10 million people were dying in China each year through that period after the Great Leap Forward failed,

there was no criticism of the government.

People didn't even know that people were dying in such numbers.

We now know from demographic statistics of the Chinese themselves.

Another aspect of this, obviously, which you have talked about, and written about is whether you look at Singapore as one example, Yes.

economic growth and a different political structure.

And then you look at some democracies likewise in Africa, where the most progressive economic growth is taking place in a democratic establishment.

So what rule do we bring out of that?

I think those who have studied these kind of issues like Robert Barrow, my old colleague from Harvard and others,

Przorsky, Limogier and others, find that actually as far as economic growth is concerned, there is no connection one way or the other very much about democracy.

It's much more concerned with the friendliness of the economic climate rather than harshness of the political climate.

development in terms of human security, then I think democracy has a role.

I mean, one good example would be that East Asian, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Southeast Asia,

they were all doing terribly well, and people somehow didn't miss democracy at that time when everything seemed to be going up and up together.

and the absence of a democracy were badly felt.

And naturally in South Korea and Indonesia, these became the big moments of democratic movement, and not surprisingly at all.

Explain this to me and you will understand this much better.

And I've never quite understood the reasons why.

Here in this United States, we have a booming stock market We're creating enormous wealth for certain

percentage of people The notion is that the rising tide raises all boats,

Yet we have a growing disparity between wealthy and poor.

An income inequality.

How is that possible.

Charlie, can I go beyond that?

Yes.

There is not only income inequality, that could be bad enough.

But I think that's not where the real problem is.

The real problem is the inequality of basic freedom to live in a way that you would like to live.

And that includes living long, living a life without illnesses, living in a peaceful, happy surrounding, and so on.

And if you think about that, you see the lack of health care in the United States, the lack of insurance about health care, despite the richness of the country,

I mean it's coming back to the political discussion right now, it's actually a little scandalous.

You know, whether 43 million people not having medical insurance, whether that's an exaggeration or not, certainly a very large number of people are.

And sometimes it's our good, but in fact it doesn't make any difference.

But if you look at the mortality differences between different regions of the country, and between different classes, and and between different races.

African Americans, for example, as a group, have a lower chance of reaching any kind of age beyond 15 than the Chinese

or the Indians in Kerala or Sri Lankans and so on.

And why is that?

Well, I think to some extent, lack of medical insurance plays a part.

Educational failure plays a part.

And sometimes it's thought that this is all connected with violence.

And indeed, that some violence is high and that's also a social malaise.

And family structure and lots of other things.

Actually, in the book I study and go beyond that, even if you take beyond the age of 35, then death from violence is no longer a factor.

And look at women, you see similar deprivation.

And the overall impact is just radically...

different from what the picture on income comparison would look like.

That is, if you take the African American, It's quite often said African Americans are relatively deprived compared with American whites.

100

But they're not absolutely deprived, nor are they relatively deprived compared to the third world.

101

Now that's true in terms of income.

102

They may have income 30, 40 times, the Chinese or the Indian.

103

On the other hand, The life expectancy of African Americans in this city, in New York, or in San Francisco,

104

or in Washington, is several years lower than that in India or Pakistan on an average. And

105

if you took those - The life expectancy in the inner

106

city of New York in many cases is lower than that of - African American, I'm talking about.

107

Male African American.

108

Yeah.

109

And the male African American rates are very low, like 58 years.

110

that's dramatically low in comparison with income.

111

And you have to ask the question, what's gone wrong?

112

And I think here, it's not just a question of having a democracy, but also what kind of issues could be forcefully practiced.

113

That's why I'm so delighted that to some extent this issue is returning back into American electoral politics.

114

Because without that, you won't have any change, really.

115

Because I think the - I thought that in the discussion of both Gore and Bradley,

116

at least it's...

117

You're right, it is.

118

Senator Bradley is trying to raise...

119

Senator Bradley is trying to raise this as an issue...

120

I'm meeting at one occasion, I must say, I greatly admire him.

121

I think it's wonderful if he can bring those issues into the story.

122

But you know, each area, it's peculiar.

123

In Europe, you could not have survived with the kind of healthcare situation.

124

No government would have the chance of winning an election.

125

Mr. All right, but that's what I want to get at too, because for a second, if you look at the economics and the reality of healthcare and those kinds of numbers,

126

rather than income equality, it's much more dramatic and blatant and powerful. as a condition.

127

Yeah.

128

Why do you think, even though you're expertise in your scholarly work is economics and not politics.

129

Why do you think the body politic allows that in this country?

130

I would like to believe, naively, that we are a good people who care about our neighbors.

131

Well, I think that's an extremely interesting question, and you're quite right.

132

As an economist, I hesitate to speak on it.

133

But I must say, political analysis of it.

134

requires to go much deeper into this because there are peculiar arbitrariness.

135

In America, you can get by without health insurance being a political issue in the way you can't in Europe.

136

In Europe, you can get by with double -digit unemployment levels, which no US government could have survived on.

137

In India, you cannot to have a famine, but you can survive with a regular undernourishment of a kind which is very peculiarly strong.

138

You could get away with it, and you change it.

139

You could get away in India on gender inequality.

140

It wasn't politicized, but thanks to the feminist movements and others now, and a general political change,

141

women's inequality has become a big politicized issue.

142

So I think it's a question of really

143

the opportunity of the political leadership and the vision of the political leadership to see some of these issues.

144

And I think if the medical care issue is strongly politicised, I think you'd get the kind of response that you would get in Europe.

145

And that's why I remain ultimately very hopeful on that.

146

But you can't really do a certain change without at the same time affecting public opinion and public discussion.

147

MR. And then you can get to the interesting debate on how to do something about it.

148

And therefore, honorable people can differ.

149

over how to treat the illness, but once they've got to make a commitment that there ought to be, It's unacceptable.

150

- Yes.

151

in terms of healthcare, in terms of education, in terms of children's nutrition, in terms of all those things, that affect - Yes, absolutely.

152

And I think there's no substitute to having active public discussion.

153

I mean, so far as my book is trying to do anything, it's trying to draw public attention to certain things which we do know on the basis of economic, political, social analysis.

154

And its bearing and development is interpreted here very widely.

155

It applies to America, it applies to Europe, as well as to India and China and Africa and Latin America.

156

discussion, which is really the main thing

157

that the book is trying to present in terms of identifying the various kinds of unfreedom.

158

It could be political unfreedom, it could be social opportunity unfreedom, and so on.

159

MR. Development as freedom.

160

There are many people I know.

161

who I respect and admire for their achievements, who believe that Freedom and free markets are one and the same thing.

162

I think that's just nonsense.

163

I mean, free markets are quite an important contribution to development.

164

I mean, even somebody like Karl Marx in the capital thought

165

that the American Civil Wars was the most important event of his time, on grounds that it got people out of slavery into a market economy,

166

into a great economy.

167

And yet, you need to supplement the market economy by so many other things, democracy, democracy.

168

public expenditure.

169

Great guru of market economy, Adam Smith, goes on and on on the need for public education, need for poverty relief, in fact.

170

So I think in many ways one has to place the market economy - Thank you.

171

as one institutional aspect of a multi -institutional world.

172

And anyone who wants to identify free market with freedom is as mistaken as someone who would take the view

173

that you can dispense with market in the pursuit of freedom.

174

You need to see it in a much wider context.

175

I fear asking this, but I'm tempted to anyway, and generally I follow temptation.

176

What's the best idea you ever had?

177

Thank you.

178

Oh, good God.

179

I don't know.

180

I think probably some of the ideas that I would be more pleasantly, rather more technical than easy to discuss.

181

I mentioned that the novella was connected with social choice theory.

182

There were issues of aggregation and so on, and there were these.

183

Kenneth Arrow had an impossibility theorem showing why you cannot and your decision leads to inconsistencies.

184

And really the hard work to a great extent was how you can broaden the informational input into the social analysis.

185

I think to some extent that has played a part in all these things.

186

The need to have a much wider informational structure to know much more, not just one small thing,

187

not just income, but also how people's lives go, their health care, their educational arraignment, these turn out to be quite crucial in both the technical

188

mathematical problems in dealing with impossibility as well as in terms

189

of public discussion problems in making a change in the world in which we actually live.

190

These ideas and others are discussed in this book, Development is Freedom, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics.

191

Thank you for joining us.

192

See you next time.

193

Bye.

📺 같은 채널

Christopher Hitchens interview (1996)

University StudentsWorking Adults

Bernardo Bertolucci interview (1994)

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

✨ 추천 영상

16 문장

이 비디오로 말하기 연습을 해야 하는 이유는?

아마르티아 센의 1999년 인터뷰는 경제학과 사회 정의에 대한 깊이 있는 통찰을 제공합니다. 이 비디오를 통해 영어 회화 연습을 하는 것은 단순히 언어 능력을 향상시키는 것 이상입니다. 그는 개인의 자유와 사회적 기회가 어떻게 서로 연결되는지를 설명하며, 언어적 맥락에서 더욱 깊이 있는 주제를 탐구할 수 있는 기회를 제공합니다. 이러한 내용을 통해 여러분은 정치 및 경제적 이슈에 대한 영어 표현을 자연스럽게 익힐 수 있습니다. 또한, 센의 목소리와 억양을 따라하는 “영어 쉐도잉” 기법을 통해 발음을 교정하고 자신감을 키울 수 있습니다.

문맥에서의 문법 및 표현

“If you think of…” - 이 표현은 가정법을 사용하여 의견을 제시할 때 유용합니다. 예: "If you think of North Korea..."
“It's not only... but also...” - 강조하는 구조로 두 가지 사실을 연결할 때 자주 사용됩니다. 예: "It's not only more likely, that's radically so."
“can always stop a famine extremely easily” - 가능성을 설명하는 표현으로, ‘can’과 ‘always’를 조합하여 강한 확신을 나타냅니다.

이러한 구조들은 영어 회화 연습 시 자주 사용되는 문법적 요소들로, 여러분이 다양한 맥락에서 자신을 표현할 때 도움을 줄 것입니다.

일반적인 발음 함정

아마르티아 센의 발음에서 주목해야 할 점 중 하나는 “famine”과 같은 단어입니다. 이 단어는 종종 [fæmɪn]으로 발음되며, 음절의 강세를 주의해야 합니다. 또한 ‘democracy’와 같은 단어는 [dɪˈmɑkrəsi]로 발음되어, 어두 발음에 유의해야 합니다. 이러한 영어 발음 교정은 “shadow speak”를 통해 연습할 수 있으며, 이를 통해 여러분의 말하기 능력을 개선할 수 있습니다.

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	was given · are deprived · being criticized
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	people who are · independence, which is · those who have
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	have revolutionized · has never been · have talked

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: Amartya Sen interview (1999) - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

Christopher Hitchens interview (1996)

Bernardo Bertolucci interview (1994)

What is the Capability Approach to development?

ENGLISH SPEECH | AKASH BANERJEE: India’s Path (English Subtitles)

Cornel West: How Intellectuals Betrayed the Poor | Big Think

Peter Singer | It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire (8/8) | Oxford Union

The uncomfortable truth | Yuval Noah Harari

Anna Lembke on Pleasure, Pain, and Recovery in a Dopamine-Driven World

The Liberalism to Fascism Pipeline (Neoliberalism Explained)

Aung San Suu Kyi: Nobel Peace Prize Lecture

Health is all about people – it’s time to invest in social participation!

Daniel Johnson | Islam Is Not A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union

Eco 155: Principles of Macroeconomics Class 1

Malcolm X: "Democracy Is Hypocrisy" – Speech on Police Brutality & Justice

이 비디오로 말하기 연습을 해야 하는 이유는?

문맥에서의 문법 및 표현

일반적인 발음 함정

이 영상의 문법

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법