The newsletter snippets from Monocle, Semafor, Bloomberg, ArtNews, Newsweek, CNBC, Rest of World and the Economist from September 14-17, 2025, offer a view of the contemporary world weaving together threads of political intrigue, economic maneuvering, technological disruption, and cultural introspection. From Norway's oil-fueled affluence and ethical investment dilemmas to Albania's audacious appointment of an AI "minister," and from the art market's "vibe-cession" to Africa's gerontocratic leadership amid environmental crises, these fragments reveal a planet grappling with abundance and scarcity, innovation and backlash, unity and fracture.

Analytically, they underscore interrelations between cultural narratives of progress and the harsh realities of inequality, where economic policies intersect with social ethics, and political power plays out against technological frontiers. Exploratively, they invite us to consider how these dynamics echo historical patterns of empire, extraction, and reinvention, drawing on interdisciplinary insights from economics, political science, literature, and anthropology.

The fragments assembled in your file sketch a culture-political map of a world in which old certainties — about wealth, expertise, belonging, and the limits of technological sovereignty — are materializing as new fault-lines. The pieces move between sovereign-fund ethics in Oslo, juridical reckonings in Brasília, algorithmic publics in Tirana and Damascus, the democratization (and disinformation) of audiovisual production, and the predatory infrastructures of platform gambling in the Philippines. Taken together they invite an argument in three registers: (1) how concentrated wealth and its institutional forms reconfigure political moralities; (2) how “automation of the state” and new techno-bureaucracies unsettle accountability and public voice; and (3) how cultural economies (luxury, design, media) interlock with these political-economic transformations to produce both friction and new narratives of legitimacy.

The curated snippets, thus, offer a kaleidoscopic view of a world grappling with profound contradictions. From the moral quandaries of Norway’s immense wealth to the democratic fragility in Brazil and the United States, and from the seductive promise of AI governance in Albania to the grim realities of drone warfare, these fragments paint a picture of a globalized yet deeply fractured world.

The Norwegian case (the wealth fund under parliamentary pressure to divest from companies linked to the Gaza war) dramatizes a long-standing paradox: abundance does not remove politics; it intensifies the moral and geopolitical stakes of investment choices. The newsletter points to the fund’s €1.7tn war chest and the parliamentary friction around ethical rules and the independence of the fund’s ethics council.

Two analytical moves clarify why this matters. First, fiscal abundance creates choice-pathologies: with larger discretionary resources, debates shift from scarcity to purpose — what to do with surplus — and this invites competing visions of the national project (welfare expansion, green transition, tax cuts). Second, sovereign capital becomes a foreign-policy instrument: decisions to divest carry diplomatic consequences and invite retaliatory economic politics (the newsletter notes US complaints and potential retaliatory tariffs).

This fits a longer literature on concentration of capital and political agency. Piketty’s account of capital’s political dynamics — how accumulated capital reshapes distributions of power and policy space — helps us read Norway’s dilemma as the domestic face of a global process in which capital’s weight creates governance questions that are as moral as they are economic (Piketty, 2014). At the same time, the debate over politicising investment rules echoes longstanding questions about technocratic insulation versus democratic control of public wealth: who should decide the ethics of state capital — experts or elected representatives?

In short: Norway shows that the “sovereign investor” is now a site where domestic social bargains and international geopolitics collide, and it forces us to rethink the classical separation between finance, foreign policy and democratic legitimacy (see also the newsletter’s comparative note that many other large funds are less constrained by domestic politics).

Norway's political struggles over its €1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund epitomize the "resource curse," a concept exhaustively explored by Terry Lynn Karl in The Paradox of Plenty (1997). Karl argues that vast natural resource wealth, paradoxically, often leads to negative economic and political outcomes, including corruption, authoritarianism, and a lack of economic diversification. While Norway has astutely avoided many of these pitfalls through its savvy fiscal rules and democratic institutions, the snippet reveals the inherent tensions in managing such abundance. The debate over spending—pitting proponents of social welfare and green initiatives against advocates for tax cuts and business incentives—is a classic struggle between social democratic and neoliberal ideologies.

However, the ethical dimension of the fund's investments, particularly in companies linked to the war in Gaza, raises deeper questions about the moral obligations of wealth. This dilemma resonates with Michael Sandel's critique of market triumphalism in What Money Can't Buy (2012), where he argues for a public discourse on the moral limits of markets. The pressure on Norway to divest from certain companies highlights the growing demand for ethical considerations in global finance, a stark contrast to the apolitical, profit-driven mandates of sovereign wealth funds in authoritarian states like China and Abu Dhabi. The Norwegian case thus becomes a litmus test for the capacity of a liberal democracy to align its economic power with its ethical values, even at the risk of foreign political pressure and economic retaliation.

A central motif in the snippets is the double-edged sword of resource wealth, exemplified by Norway's sovereign wealth fund, valued at €1.7 trillion from North Sea oil and gas. Lars Bevanger's piece portrays a nation "defined by how to use its abundance," with a fiscal rule limiting annual spending to 3% of returns—yielding over €50 billion atop GDP—yet fostering debates between prudent welfare expansion and tax cuts. This "politics of plenty" breeds complacency, as echoed in economist Martin Bech Holte's book Landet som ble for rikt (The Country That Became Too Rich), highlighting affluence's potential to stifle innovation. Economically, this resonates with the "resource curse" or Dutch disease, where commodity booms crowd out other sectors, leading to dependency and inequality (Auty, 1993). Politically, the fund's investments in Israeli companies amid Gaza conflicts invite scrutiny from coalition partners demanding divestment, risking politicization that could expose Norway to foreign pressures, such as Trump-era tariffs on salmon.

Interrelating this with global patterns, Norway's dilemma mirrors petrostates like those in the Gulf, but with a democratic twist: unlike the apolitical Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Norway's fund faces public moral imperatives. This ties into Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, where he argues that unchecked wealth accumulation exacerbates inequality unless redistributed ethically: "When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth... the past devours the future" (Piketty, 2014, p. 571). Socially, it implies a cultural shift toward "moral capitalism," where citizens demand alignment with values, as seen in the snippets' nod to broad agreement on ethical investments. Comparatively, the Dangote Refinery's gasoline exports from Nigeria signal Africa's push for energy independence, yet underscore similar tensions: economic empowerment through resource processing clashes with environmental risks, evoking Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart (1958), where colonial extraction disrupts indigenous economies, foreshadowing postcolonial dependencies.

The item on Albania’s avatar-minister Diella — an AI virtual assistant elevated to oversee procurement — is at once comic and deeply unnerving: a literal personification of the promise that automation can purge corruption and deliver efficiency. But the newsletter’s skeptical framing (how would we vote such an agent out? what about hallucinations and opacity?) is exactly the right set of worries.

Kate Crawford’s critique in Atlas of AI (2021) is a direct foil to technocratic optimism: Crawford shows how AI systems are entangled with extractive supply chains, labor exploitation, and opaque governance regimes; they are not neutral, and their deployment in public administration often replicates, rather than cures, existing power asymmetries (Crawford, 2021). Diella is a metaphor for a wider political tendency — outsourcing juridical and discretionary judgment to computational systems in the name of objectivity — that risks eroding accountability precisely where democratic oversight is most required.

This is also an instance of what Ulrich Beck termed the “risk society”: modern institutions attempt to transform risk through technical fixes, but such fixes redistribute uncertainty rather than eliminate it (Beck, 1992). An AI minister may shift forms of malfeasance rather than remove them; it also creates a novel locus of political contestation (who audits the model, who writes its objective function, what data-biases are embedded?). The newsletter’s provocation — that Diella “should bring out your inner Luddite” — is a populist articulation of these deeper epistemic anxieties.

Technological themes permeate the snippets, from Albania's AI "minister" Diella—promoted to oversee public procurement to combat corruption—to Anthropic's AI job warnings and Tesla's Elon Musk pay package debates. Albania's innovation, as Andrew Mueller notes, risks rendering government "less accessible, less accountable," amplifying AI's whims and hallucinations. Politically, this embodies a shift toward technocratic governance, potentially eroding democratic oversight, as critiqued in Shoshana Zuboff's The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019), where she warns of "instrumentarian power" that "knows and shapes human behavior toward others' ends" (Zuboff, 2019, p. 376). Socially, it intersects with job displacement fears: Anthropic's report reveals 75% of companies delegating full tasks to AI, intensifying automation anxieties in a world where, as per the snippets, US adults increasingly use GLP-1 drugs to curb "food noise," hinting at broader human augmentation trends.

Associatively, these connect to global rivalries, such as US-China tech tensions over TikTok and Nvidia probes, where Beijing asserts algorithmic control amid trade talks. This evokes Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), positing cultural fault lines, but updated for digital empires: economic leverage (e.g., China's eSIM probes delaying iPhone launches) becomes a proxy for geopolitical dominance. Culturally, Albania's AI minister parallels dystopian literature like George Orwell's 1984 (1949), where surveillance supplants human judgment, yet offers hope in resisting nepotism. Interdisciplinarily, research by Brynjolfsson et al. (2018) in Artificial Intelligence and the Modern Productivity Paradox highlights AI's productivity gains but warns of unequal distribution, mirroring the snippets' Syria tech reboot, where startups like Quizat fuel post-war recovery amid returning diaspora— a social renaissance akin to Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition (1958), emphasizing action in rebuilding polities.

Albania's appointment of an AI-powered virtual assistant, Diella, as a "minister" overseeing public procurement is a fascinating, if unsettling, experiment in algorithmic governance. The rationale—that an AI, being "un-temptable," can rise above corruption and nepotism—speaks to a deep-seated distrust in human politicians. However, as the snippet astutely points out, this move raises profound questions about accountability, transparency, and the very nature of democratic representation. This development is a real-world manifestation of the concerns raised by Shoshana Zuboff in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019), where she warns of a new form of power that seeks to predict and modify human behavior for profit and control.

The "whim and hallucination" of AI, as mentioned in the article, is a direct reference to the problem of algorithmic bias and opacity, a topic explored in depth by Cathy O'Neil in Weapons of Math Destruction (2016). O'Neil demonstrates how seemingly neutral algorithms can perpetuate and even amplify existing social inequalities. The question of "how would we vote them out?" poignantly captures the democratic deficit at the heart of algorithmic governance. While the idea of a balloon with a face drawn on it being an improvement over some human politicians is a witty jab, it belies a serious concern: the outsourcing of political decision-making to unaccountable and potentially flawed technological systems.

The coverage of Jair Bolsonaro’s conviction and Lula’s political repositioning reads as a meditation on institutional resilience and the geopolitics of judicial enforcement. The newsletter highlights the symbolic and practical significance of convicting an ex-president for coup plotting — a rare instance of democratic institutions disciplining a would-be authoritarian — and it foregrounds the immediate international tensions this produces (US tariffs, visa restrictions, and sanction threats).

Two linked reflections follow. First, such judicial outcomes are double-edged: they can shore up institutional legitimacy (a salutary rule-of-law signal) while also provoking external political interference (the newsletter recounts the Trump administration’s punitive measures). Second, they reconfigure domestic political identity: Lula’s invocation of sovereignty and the phrase “Brazil belongs to Brazilians” shows how legal action can be re-framed as defense against foreign pressure, turning accountability into a rallying cry.

For comparative political theory, think of these dynamics in light of scholarship on democratic backsliding and accountability (e.g., the work of Levitsky and Ziblatt on how norms and institutions constrain executive overreach). The newsletter’s account suggests that courts can be (and in this case were) decisive. Yet the externalities — tariff diplomacy, sanctions — also reveal the thin line between international lawfare and domestic sovereignty contests.

The conviction of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup stands in stark contrast to the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding Donald Trump in the United States. This divergence offers a compelling case study in democratic resilience and decay, a central theme in Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's How Democracies Die (2018). The authors argue that democracies are often dismantled not by violent coups, but by the gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions at the hands of elected leaders. While Brazil's judiciary has, in this instance, held a powerful figure accountable, the muted response from the right and the looming threat of a congressional amnesty suggest that the underlying populist forces that brought Bolsonaro to power remain potent.

The parallel with the United States is striking. The snippet's mention of Trump's attempts to bully Brazil into dropping the case against Bolsonaro underscores the transnational nature of contemporary right-wing populism, a phenomenon analyzed by Jan-Werner Müller in What Is Populism? (2016). Müller identifies populism's anti-pluralist and anti-elitist tendencies as key threats to democratic institutions. The article's highlighting of Trump's use of sanctions once reserved for human rights abusers against a Brazilian Supreme Court justice is a chilling example of how democratic norms can be weaponized for political ends. The divergent paths of Brazil and the United States in holding their former leaders accountable will have profound implications for the future of democracy in the Americas and beyond.

Collect

Politically, the snippets reveal fragmentations: Brazil's conviction of Jair Bolsonaro for coup plotting contrasts US failures, bolstering Lula's sovereignty narrative amid Trump tariffs. This evokes Francis Fukuyama's Political Order and Political Decay (2014), warning of institutional erosion: "Democracies decay when elites fail to respond to changing circumstances" (Fukuyama, 2014, p. 457). Socially, Africa's gerontocracy—Malawi's 85-year-old Peter Mutharika, Cameroon's 92-year-old Paul Biya—widens generational rifts in the world's youngest continent, risking unrest amid wildfires burning 7.3% of land, far exceeding Europe/US rates. Economically, JP Morgan's "new energy security age" report interrelates with OPEC's vindication on oil investments, challenging green transitions as per the IEA.

In Syria's tech quest, post-war optimism via apps like Quizat connects to Joseph Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) on creative destruction, where innovation rebuilds amid ruins. Globally, Trump's UK visit with tech CEOs, amid protests, highlights economic diplomacy's cultural undercurrents, echoing Edward Said's Orientalism (1978) in power asymmetries.

Thus, these snippets portray a world where economic plenty breeds ethical strife, technology amplifies human vulnerabilities, culture reckons with histories, and politics fragments alliances. Their interrelations suggest a polycrisis, as per Adam Tooze's Crashed (2018), demanding interdisciplinary responses to forge resilient futures.

Several cultural and media items (from the Mandarin Oriental’s global branding and new luxury openings, to designer comebacks and the viral AI-generated “bunnies” video) point to a bifurcated cultural economy: luxury and curated experience at one pole, hyper-viral, platformized content at the other.

The piece on the “future of AI entertainment” (the rabbit clip that went viral) is instructive: low-cost generative tools collapse production barriers and redistribute creative capacity outward, producing both democratizing effects (more creators) and epistemic instability (deepfakes, authenticity crises). The newsletter treats this ambivalently — celebratory about new creative affordances, anxious about the authenticity debates it spawns.

This dual movement — the entrenchment of curated luxury and the proliferation of platformized content — can be usefully read through Bourdieu’s account of cultural capital and distinction: luxury houses and heritage brands reproduce symbolic scarcity and status even as new forms of attention (viral videos) manufacture mass cultural value that is ephemeral and scalable (Bourdieu, 1984). The coexistence of slow prestige economies (Mandarin Oriental, artisan designers) and fast attention economies (AI-generated clips; TikTok virality) is one of the structural tensions of our moment.

The snippets on the luxury market, design, and the art world offer a window into the cultural anxieties and aspirations of our time. The slowdown in the luxury market and the return to founder-led brands suggest a weariness with the mass-produced, hyper-commodified culture of late capitalism, a critique central to the work of Jean Baudrillard, particularly in The Consumer Society (1970). The desire for authenticity and "fresh ideas" reflects a search for meaning beyond the endless cycle of consumption.

The discussion at the London Design Awards, with its emphasis on inclusivity and lifelong learning, speaks to a growing recognition of the social and ethical responsibilities of design. Sinéad Burke's call to "think about who isn’t yet included in your work" is a powerful reminder of the need to challenge the exclusionary norms that are often embedded in the built environment. This sentiment echoes the principles of critical pedagogy, as articulated by thinkers like Paulo Freire, and the call for a more socially conscious and politically engaged form of design. Norman Foster's advice to "stay a student" and embrace failure is a testament to the importance of humility and intellectual curiosity in a world of constant change.

The controversies in the art world, from the discovery of unethically sourced human remains to the removal of a photograph depicting a formerly enslaved person from a national park, highlight the ongoing struggle over historical memory and cultural representation. These debates are not merely about aesthetics; they are about power, identity, and the politics of who gets to tell the story of the past. The joint project at Sotterley Plantation, where descendants of both the enslaved and their owners work together, offers a powerful model for historical reconciliation, a process that, as Paul Ricoeur argues in Memory, History, Forgetting (2004), requires a difficult but necessary engagement with the traumas of the past.

Arguably the most ethically acute piece in the collection is the reporting on online gambling’s lethal effects in the Philippines: suicides, debt accumulation, and an industry that effectively taxes the poor by monetizing hope (small bets advertised as pathways out of precarity). The newsletter’s reporting — names, numbers, and the description of how almost half the working-age population are registered on betting apps — frames this as a public-health crisis.

This is precisely the register in which contemporary scholarship argues we should place gambling: not as an individual pathology alone but as a structural harm created by commercial strategy, regulatory gaps, and socio-economic precarity. The public-health framing is supported by recent reviews that call for population-level policy responses rather than solely clinical treatment models (Wardle et al., 2019). In policy terms, the question is how to regulate extractive attention economies that monetize poverty and embed themselves in popular culture (sports sponsorships, celebrity endorsements). The Philippine example makes visible what happens when regulatory institutions lag behind platform innovation.

Culturally, the snippets grapple with memory and commodification, from the University of Tasmania's mishandling of 177 human remains—apologized for after families' pain—to the art market's "vibe-cession," where gallery closures belie seven-figure deals. The Tasmanian case exposes colonial legacies in museums, socially implicating restitution debates, as explored in Dan Hicks' The Brutish Museums (2020), which calls for decolonizing institutions: "The museum is a technology of empire" (Hicks, 2020, p. 23). Politically, it intersects with shared histories, like descendants of slaves and owners collaborating at Maryland's Sotterley Plantation, evoking Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me (2015), where racial reconciliation demands confronting "the Dream" of American innocence.

Economically, the art world's malaise—despite Leonard Lauder's $400 million trove featuring Klimt's Portrait of Elisabeth Lederer—reflects broader consumer shifts, as in Thailand's Decorum retail expansion amid fierce competition. This ties to Pierre Bourdieu's Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1984), where cultural capital drives consumption: "Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier" (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 6). Interrelating with politics, Robert Redford's death at 89 prompts reflections on Hollywood's environmentalism, paralleling Norway's green initiatives. In fashion, designers' return to founder-led brands amid luxury slowdowns suggests a cultural backlash against conglomerates, akin to Naomi Klein's No Logo (1999), critiquing branded globalization.

If we step back, the newsletter’s disparate vignettes are actually moments on a single map:

• State capital (Norway’s fund) and private platform capital (the gambling apps, AI firms) are both forms of concentrated economic power that produce new governance questions about legitimacy and democratisation. The same public culture that fetishizes luxury goods (design festivals, Mandarin Oriental branding) also produces consumer audiences for platform spectacles and extractive digital services.

• Algorithmic decision-making (Diella) and judicial enforcement (Brazil’s courts) are two different institutional responses to the crisis of governance. One delegates to models; the other re-empowers courts to enforce rules. Both are subject to foreign geopolitical pressures; both reflect how modern polities search for stabilising mechanisms in a volatile world.

• Cultural legitimacy — whether conferred by design prizes, viral attention, or narratives of national sovereignty — matters as much as material redistribution. Bourdieu’s and Piketty’s insights help us see how symbolic systems and material inequalities reproduce one another (Bourdieu, 1984; Piketty, 2014).

The article on drone warfare, contrasting NATO's struggles with Ukraine's successes, highlights the rapid evolution of military technology and its geopolitical implications. The development of cheap, effective interceptor drones and AI-guided missile systems signals a shift away from expensive, traditional military hardware. This trend is a key aspect of what P.W. Singer explores in Wired for War (2009), where he examines the robotics revolution in modern warfare and its ethical and strategic consequences. The fact that a Ukrainian drone interceptor factory is slated to open in the UK underscores the diffusion of military technology and the emergence of new centers of innovation.

This development is also intertwined with the broader geopolitical competition between the United States and its rivals. The snippet on Denmark's decision to purchase European air-defense systems over American ones, in response to Trump's threats, is a clear indication of a desire for greater strategic autonomy in Europe. This move reflects a growing unease with reliance on the United States, a theme explored by Walter Russell Mead in The Arc of a Covenant (2022), where he analyzes the historical and cultural underpinnings of American foreign policy. The race to develop and control key technologies, from drones to AI chips, is becoming a central arena of geopolitical competition, with profound implications for global security and alliances.

1. Treat sovereign funds as political actors subject to normative contestation. Debate about ethical mandates cannot be reduced to “apolitical” technocracy; it should be institutionalised precisely so democratic contestation (not ad-hoc politicisation) shapes the rules.

2. Build robust frameworks for algorithmic public accountability before we assign core democratic functions to black-box systems. Auditing, contestability, and human fallback lines must be codified; otherwise, “automation of the state” will hollow out civic recourse even as it promises efficiency.

3. Reframe platform harms as public-health and regulatory problems: the Philippine gambling tragedies show how poor regulatory foresight plus aggressive marketing equals systemic harm. Population-level interventions (limits on advertising, safer product design, enforced age verification, financial transaction monitoring, and support services) are policy priorities.

4. See cultural production and political legitimacy as mutually constitutive: luxury branding and curated cultural capital are not merely aesthetic; they participate in social reproduction that intersects with economic policymaking and geopolitics (from tourism and state soft power to fiscal policy).

The fragments are most compelling when read as evidentiary moments of the same epochal negotiation: who governs capital, how we make public decisions in the age of algorithmic administration, and how culture and economy together re-shape social possibility. The normative task ahead is to refuse false separations — between ethics and market, between human judgement and automation, between culture and policy — and to design institutions that are accountable, distributed, and attuned to the material asymmetries that make today’s “innovations” also vectors of harm.

The newsletter snippets, taken together, reveal a world teetering on the edge of multiple crises, yet also brimming with possibilities for change. The paradox of plenty, the fragility of democracy, the double-edged sword of technology, and the search for meaning in a hyper-commodified world are not isolated phenomena; they are deeply interconnected threads in the complex tapestry of our contemporary global condition. To navigate this fractured landscape, we need not only technological innovation and economic growth, but also a renewed commitment to ethical reflection, democratic deliberation, and historical understanding.

The challenges are immense, but as the diverse voices in these snippets suggest, so too is the human capacity for creativity, resilience, and the pursuit of a more just and sustainable future.

Subscribe

Achebe, C. (1958). Things fall apart. William Heinemann.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.

Auty, R. M. (1993). Sustaining development in mineral economies: The resource curse thesis. Routledge.

Baudrillard, J. (1970). The consumer society: Myths and structures. Sage Publications.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. In A. Agrawal, J. Gans, & A. Goldfarb (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 23-57). University of Chicago Press.

Coates, T. (2015). Between the world and me. Spiegel & Grau.

Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Hicks, D. (2020). The brutish museums: The Benin bronzes, colonial violence and cultural restitution. Pluto Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster.

Karl, T. L. (1997). The paradox of plenty: Oil booms and petro-states. University of California Press.

Klein, N. (1999). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Picador.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.

Mead, W. R. (2022). The arc of a covenant: The United States, Israel, and the future of the Jewish people. Alfred A. Knopf.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press.

O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Belknap Press.

Ricoeur, P. (2004). Memory, history, forgetting. University of Chicago Press.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can't buy: The moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Penguin Books.

Tooze, A. (2018). Crashed: How a decade of financial crises changed the world. Viking.

Wardle, H., Reith, G., Langham, E., & Rogers, R. D. (2019). Gambling and public health: We need policy action to prevent harm. BMJ, 365, l1807. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1807

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

Share

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Gemini, Google, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Grok, xAI, tools (September 22, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (September 22, 2025).]

[Support the Open Culture Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs/tip.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (September 22, 2025). Global Paradoxes: The Politics of Plenty, the Peril of AI Governance, and the Price of Culture. Open Culture.