The newsletter snippets from Monocle, ARTNews, Semafor, Bloomberg, CNBC, the Economist and New York Times from October 30-November 5, 2025, offer a kaleidoscopic view of the world in November 2025, capturing a moment of precarious equilibrium amid geopolitical truces, economic recalibrations, and cultural reinventions. From Argentine President Javier Milei’s midterm triumph amid fiscal austerity to the fragile US-China trade truce, these fragments reflect a global landscape where optimism flickers against entrenched dysfunctions. As an academic blog writer attuned to scholarly literature and worldly narratives, I see these as echoes of broader historical cycles—boom-bust economies, soft power spectacles, and the perennial tension between innovation and inequality. Drawing on non-fiction like Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014), which warns of widening wealth gaps exacerbating social volatility, and literary works such as Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967), where Macondo’s false starts mirror Argentina’s reformist cycles, this commentary explores the different dimensions of these snippets, their interrelations, and resonant philosophical ideas.

In the fragmented landscape of global affairs as depicted in the November 2025 newsletters, we witness a world simultaneously drawing closer together and pulling further apart. The juxtaposition of technological convergence and geopolitical divergence presents what economist Dani Rodrik might call a “trilemma” of our time: the difficulty of simultaneously pursuing unfettered globalization, national sovereignty, and democratic governance (Rodrik, 2011). The trade truce between Trump and Xi Jinping, temporary as it is, illuminates this tension—where economic self-interest momentarily overcomes ideological confrontation, only to be circumscribed by Xi’s carefully enumerated “red lines” regarding Taiwan, human rights, and political systems.

This delicate balance reflects what political scientist John Ikenberry (2018) has termed “the end of liberal international order,” where competing visions of governance vie for supremacy amid the ruins of post-Cold War consensus. When U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismisses China’s economy as being in “recession/depression,” while simultaneously negotiating tariff reductions, we confront what philosopher Slavoj Žižek might identify as the fundamental contradictions of late capitalism in its global phase—where economic interdependence persists despite political estrangement (Žižek, 2020).

The late autumn of 2025 presents a moment of peculiar geopolitical choreography, wherein the dance between cooperation and competition performs what international relations scholars might term “managed rivalry” (Mearsheimer, 2014). The Trump-Xi summit in South Korea—described by Trump himself as rating “a 12 out of 10”—exemplifies what Graham Allison (2017) identifies as navigating the “Thucydides Trap,” that dangerous passage when an established power confronts a rising one. Yet the newsletter accounts reveal something more textured than simple binaries of conflict or cooperation.

Xi Jinping’s strategic acumen emerges clearly in the negotiation dynamics. By threatening China’s near-monopoly on rare earth elements—what Farrell and Newman (2019) term “weaponized interdependence”—Beijing demonstrated that networks of economic exchange have become “chokepoints” that can be leveraged for geopolitical advantage. The Bloomberg analysis astutely notes that “Xi seemed to grasp what Trump needed: a deal that he could sell as a victory at home” (Bloomberg, November 4, 2025). This echoes Kissinger’s (2011) observation in On China that Chinese strategic culture emphasizes shi (勢)—the strategic configuration of power—over brute force.

The agreement itself—a one-year tariff truce, resumed soybean purchases, suspended rare earth controls—represents what Semafor describes as “tactics without a strategy” on the American side. Jonathan Czin of Brookings characterizes China as having “successfully orchestrated a game of Whac-A-Mole,” forcing Washington to pivot chaotically between soybeans, rare earths, and TikTok while avoiding substantive structural issues (Semafor, October 30, 2025). This resonates with the analysis in Pettis and Klein’s (2020) Trade Wars Are Class Wars, which argues that trade conflicts reflect deeper contradictions in domestic political economies rather than genuinely international disputes.

What emerges is a portrait of what we might call “performative diplomacy”—agreements crafted for domestic political consumption rather than durable resolution. As The Economist (October 30, 2025) succinctly observes, we should “expect the outcome of the Trump-Xi talks to be a truce—not a treaty.” This formulation echoes Carl von Clausewitz’s famous dictum that war is politics by other means; here, we witness trade as theatre by other means.

The technology sector’s capital expenditure binge—$78 billion in a single quarter across Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft, representing an 89% year-over-year increase—presents what we might call the “AI sublime,” borrowing from Kant’s (1790/2000) notion of the sublime as that which exceeds comprehension and produces both terror and exhilaration. Bloomberg’s report (October 31, 2025) captures the vertigo: “Big Tech’s AI ambitions are coming with an equally massive price tag... rattling investors wary of an AI bubble.”

Kate Crawford (2021), in Atlas of AI, reminds us that artificial intelligence is “neither artificial nor intelligent” but rather “made from natural resources, fuel, human labor, infrastructures, logistics, histories, and classifications” (p. 8). The data center buildouts consuming these billions represent material transformation—vast server farms requiring enormous energy inputs, cooling systems, and rare minerals. Microsoft’s admission that its record $34.9 billion outlay still hasn’t met surging demand suggests not merely investment but something approaching what David Harvey (2001) calls “spatial fix”—capitalism’s tendency to resolve crises of overaccumulation through geographic expansion and built environment transformation.

The OpenAI-Amazon deal—$38 billion over seven years—exemplifies this dynamic while simultaneously revealing AI companies’ precarious economics. As CNBC notes (November 4, 2025), “Despite running a loss, the artificial-intelligence startup has now committed to spending some $1.5 trillion in recent computing agreements.” This recalls the dot-com era’s “land grab” mentality, when Amazon itself burned cash to establish market dominance. Schumpeter’s (1942) “creative destruction” comes to mind, yet one wonders whether the destruction might precede the creation.

The counterpoint arrives in the market’s response to Palantir—shares falling 8% despite strong earnings, as Michael Burry shorts the stock and investors question “lofty valuations” (Bloomberg, November 4, 2025). Burry’s cryptic warning—”Sometimes, we see bubbles. Sometimes, there is something to do about it. Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play”—channels both WarGames (1983) and the lessons of 2008. Shiller’s (2015) concept of “narrative economics” seems apropos: the story we tell ourselves about AI’s transformative power may be driving valuations beyond fundamental justification.

Philosophically, the AI development race raises profound questions about technological determinism versus human agency. Langdon Winner (1980) argued that “artifacts have politics”—technologies embody values and power relations. The newsletter mentions autonomous weapons and asks “at what point we give software the power to kill” (Semafor, October 30, 2025). This evokes Günther Anders’ (1956/2016) concept of the “Promethean gap”—our inability to imagine the consequences of our technological creations. The drone warfare points system in Ukraine—”Wound a Russian soldier? Eight points”—represents what Chamayou (2015) calls “manhunting,” warfare reduced to algorithmic calculation, stripped of moral weight.

Perhaps the most compelling economic narrative in these newsletters is what I would characterize as the “Great Acceleration” of AI investment. The staggering capital expenditures by tech giants—Microsoft’s $34.9 billion outlay, Alphabet’s planned $93 billion for 2025—evoke Marx’s observation that “all that is solid melts into air” (Marx & Engels, 1848/2018, p. 2). Yet rather than dissolving existing power structures, this AI investment is concentrating wealth and market power in unprecedented ways. The valuation of Harvey, an AI legal startup, at $8 billion despite being only months old, suggests we may be witnessing not merely a technological revolution but a financial one whose foundations appear increasingly precarious.

This dynamic resonates with Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis, which posits that “success breeds a disregard of the possibility of failure” (Minsky, 1992, p. 4). When Michael Burry cryptically warns that “sometimes, the only winning move is not to play,” he channels not just his famous short against the housing bubble but perhaps a deeper intuition about the sustainability of the AI valuation boom. As the Nikkei reaches a record high while mainland Chinese markets falter in the wake of the Trump-Xi meeting, we see the uneven geographical consequences of technological capitalism—a dynamic that geographer David Harvey has long described as “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey, 2005).

Hurricane Melissa’s devastation crystallizes what Rob Nixon (2011) terms “slow violence”—the “violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction” (p. 2). The Caribbean islands, contributing minimally to global emissions yet suffering catastrophically, embody what Whyte (2020) calls “colonial déjà vu”—how climate change replicates historical patterns of exploitation and dispossession. The New York Times (October 29, 2025) notes that “those least responsible for climate change are often the most vulnerable to its fallout,” a formulation that reads as understatement approaching irony.

What strikes forcefully in the newsletter accounts is the financial dimension of climate vulnerability. Jamaica, the Bahamas, and other island nations carry debts “nearly equal to their entire economies,” largely from previous hurricane reconstruction (NYT, October 29, 2025). This debt burden impedes resilience investments, creating what we might call a “climate trap”—disaster necessitates borrowing, which constrains adaptation, ensuring greater vulnerability to the next disaster. This dynamic exemplifies what Bonilla (2020) analyzes in Non-Sovereign Futures: how Caribbean territories remain subordinated through debt relations, a form of “coloniality” persisting after formal colonialism.

The contrast with energy sector dynamics proves instructive. Saudi Aramco reports surprise profits—$28 billion quarterly—as OPEC+ strategically manages supply. Meanwhile, the ADIPEC conference in Abu Dhabi sees Sultan Al Jaber, who presided over COP28’s historic commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels,” now emphasizing that “the long-term outlook shows demand growth for every form of energy” (Semafor Gulf, November 4, 2025). This apparent contradiction embodies what Andreas Malm (2016) calls “fossil capital”—the deep entanglement of carbon-based energy with capitalist accumulation that resists disentanglement despite mounting climate evidence.

The Semafor Energy newsletter (November 4, 2025) captures this tension: “A curious bit of backsliding happened in Abu Dhabi this week.” Where sustainability dominated ADIPEC 2024, the 2025 conference pivoted toward AI data centers and energy demand growth. Lord John Browne, former BP CEO, observes: “The conference was dominated by the American viewpoint, which is that there is no such thing as the energy transition.” This suggests not merely policy disagreement but competing ontologies—different fundamental understandings of reality itself.

Klein’s (2014) concept of “disaster capitalism” illuminates another dimension: how crisis becomes opportunity for private profit. Singapore’s new aviation fuel levy, requiring passengers to subsidize sustainable aviation fuel costing “two to five times as much as regular jet fuel” (Bloomberg Singapore, November 1, 2025), privatizes environmental costs while socializing risks. The individual consumer pays for systemic transformation that should arguably burden the fossil fuel industry that created the crisis.

The COP30 discussions reveal adaptation increasingly displacing mitigation as the primary focus—a grim acknowledgment that warming beyond 1.5°C is “now inevitable” (Semafor, October 30, 2025). This shift from prevention to accommodation marks what might be called “climate realism” or, more cynically, “climate fatalism.” It recalls Gramsci’s (1971) formulation: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear” (p. 276).

Economically, the snippets underscore a world grappling with interdependence and fragility. The US-China trade truce, hailed by Trump as a “12” on a scale of 10, halves fentanyl tariffs and pauses rare-earth controls, yet it falls short of resolving core rivalries (Bloomberg, October 30, 2025). This echoes the precarious detentes in Joseph Nye’s The Future of Power (2011), where soft power (e.g., Xi’s nautical metaphors for steady relations) intersects with hard economic leverage. Nye argues that “power today is distributed like a three-dimensional chessboard” (p. 10), with trade as the middle board—here, the truce buys time but risks unraveling over AI chips or Taiwan, illustrating how economic pacts mask deeper hegemonic struggles.

China’s manufacturing slump, with the PMI dipping to 49 amid shrinking orders, highlights domestic vulnerabilities amplified by global barriers (Bloomberg, October 31, 2025). This interrelates with Hong Kong developer New World’s debt swap, offering haircuts on perpetual bonds to avert restructuring (Bloomberg, November 3, 2025), and Bitcoin’s 20% plunge as holders offload $45 billion (Bloomberg, November 5, 2025). These signal a broader speculative unwind, akin to Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy (1986), where euphoria leads to fragility: “Stability—or tranquility—in a world with a cyclical past and capitalist financial institutions is destabilizing” (p. 237). The AI spending spree by Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft—$78 billion in capex—rattles investors fearing a bubble (Bloomberg, October 31, 2025), connecting to Mariana Mazzucato’s The Entrepreneurial State (2013), which critiques how public risks subsidize private gains in tech, potentially exacerbating inequality as valuations soar while manufacturing falters.

Interrelations emerge in how these economic threads weave into global supply chains: Nvidia’s South Korean deals for AI chips (Bloomberg, October 31, 2025) counter China’s export woes, while Singapore’s sustainable aviation fuel levy (Bloomberg, November 1, 2025) imposes green costs on trade-dependent economies, raising ticket prices by S$3–16. This policy-economic nexus evokes Elinor Ostrom’s polycentric governance in Governing the Commons (1990), where localized solutions like Singapore’s centralized SAF buyer address global commons like climate, but at the expense of affordability for the masses.

Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York City mayor represents what political scientists would term a “critical juncture”—a moment when normal political rules seem suspended and new trajectories become possible. The 34-year-old democratic socialist’s victory in America’s financial capital carries symbolic weight exceeding mere local governance. As one newsletter observes, “The city that gave the world Donald Trump appears poised to elect a democratic socialist” (NYT, November 4, 2025).

Mamdani’s platform—universal childcare, free buses, rent freezes, city-owned grocery stores—would seem unremarkable in Scandinavia but registers as “wildly ambitious—radical, even” in the American context (The Economist, October 31, 2025). This says much about the Overton window in U.S. politics. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) argue in How Democracies Die that democratic norms erode gradually through institutional manipulation; Mamdani’s victory might represent a countertendency—popular mobilization pushing the boundaries of acceptable politics leftward.

Yet the electoral landscape simultaneously displays authoritarian tendencies. Tanzania’s President Samia Suluhu Hassan declares victory with a “North Korean-style 98% share,” security forces kill “hundreds” of protesters, and The Economist (November 1, 2025) notes this “marks the latest sign of democratic erosion across the continent.” The juxtaposition is instructive: democratic deepening in one location coincides with democratic hollowing in another, suggesting no teleological progression toward liberal democracy à la Fukuyama (1992).

The Dutch elections provide a third data point—far-right leader Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom loses eleven seats after attempting “stridently anti-Islam” policies (NYT, October 30, 2025). This might suggest populist overreach generates backlash, yet Wilders’ party still ties as the largest group in parliament. Mudde’s (2019) analysis of populism as “an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’” (p. 7) illuminates these dynamics: populist success depends on sustaining that antagonism without bearing responsibility for governance.

Prince Andrew’s stripping of royal title—becoming “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” following sexual abuse allegations—demonstrates how patriarchal institutions face reckoning, however belated. The palace’s statement that “censures are deemed necessary” despite Andrew’s continued denials (NYT, October 30, 2025) suggests reputational management superseding justice. This recalls Fraser’s (2013) analysis of how neoliberalism co-opts feminism into “lean-in” careerism while structural inequalities persist.

The U.S. government shutdown—reaching historic lengths at 36 days—exemplifies what Mann (2013) calls “gridlock” in contemporary American governance. The immediate impacts are severe: food stamp funding expires, air traffic controllers work without pay, crucial economic data goes uncollected. But the deeper significance lies in what Roubini (2022) identifies as the “delegitimation” of institutions—when government ceases functioning, faith in democratic governance itself erodes.

Meanwhile, in the city that epitomizes global finance, Zohran Mamdani’s election represents a fascinating paradox. A democratic socialist ascending to lead the “capital of global capitalism” (as described in the newsletter) suggests what political theorist Nancy Fraser might call a “crisis of legitimation” within neoliberal governance (Fraser, 2017). Mamdani’s platform—universal childcare, free public transportation, rent freezes—represents not merely progressive policy but a fundamental reimagining of the social contract in an age of extreme inequality. His victory despite the concentrated opposition of New York’s business elite echoes Jane Jacobs’ prescient warning that “cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody” (Jacobs, 1961/1992, p. 42).

The simultaneous concern over the U.S. federal government shutdown’s duration—now the longest in history—reveals a profound institutional crisis. As air traffic controllers work without pay while policymakers operate with “flawed or missing data,” we witness what sociologist James Scott has termed “the failure of high modernist social engineering” where centralized bureaucratic systems crumble under their own complexity (Scott, 1998).

Subscribe

The Elon Musk compensation saga—$1 trillion in Tesla stock contingent on performance milestones—crystallizes contemporary debates about inequality and corporate governance. California’s Calpers fund calls the package “many orders of magnitude larger than any CEO from comparable companies” (Bloomberg, October 30, 2025). Yet as Jack Ewing notes in his analysis, “Many analysts expect the plan to pass because Musk is allowed to vote his own shares” (NYT, November 4, 2025). This highlights what might be called “autocratic capitalism”—where concentrated ownership enables executives to essentially determine their own compensation.

Thomas Piketty’s (2014) central thesis in Capital in the Twenty-First Century—that return on capital (r) exceeds economic growth (g), concentrating wealth—finds vivid illustration here. Musk’s potential $1 trillion pay would exceed the GDP of most nations. Professor Randall Peterson’s observation that “the graveyards are filled with indispensable men” (NYT, November 4, 2025) cuts through the cult of personality, yet Tesla’s board chair Robyn Denholm warns shareholders that rejecting the package risks Musk quitting entirely. This dependency reveals not merely individual genius but structural fragility—when a single person’s satisfaction determines a $500 billion company’s trajectory, something fundamental has broken.

The broader pattern of CEO compensation divorced from worker wages reflects what Lazonick (2014) calls “profits without prosperity”—corporations prioritizing shareholder value and executive enrichment over productive investment or wage growth. When JUST Capital surveys show investors believing AI profits should be “shared with employees and customers” while actual distribution overwhelmingly favors shareholders (Semafor Tech, October 30, 2025), we see the gap between stated values and material reality.

The gig economy faces AI disruption of its own. Uber offers drivers “Digital Tasks”—uploading photos and audio to train self-driving systems—paying workers to potentially automate themselves out of jobs (Semafor, October 30, 2025). This recalls Marx’s (1867/1976) concept of the “reserve army of labor,” yet here labor actively participates in creating its own redundancy. The irony would be comic were the implications less severe. Srnicek (2017) argues in Platform Capitalism that gig platforms extract value through data collection as much as service provision; AI represents the logical endpoint where platforms eliminate human labor entirely.

Italy’s female caregivers suffering “Italy syndrome”—depression and insomnia from around-the-clock elder care while separated from families—exemplifies what Hochschild (2000) calls “global care chains,” where women from poorer countries provide emotional labor in wealthier nations, creating care deficits in their countries of origin. The newsletter notes these workers “often develop depression and insomnia” (NYT, October 29, 2025), yet this individual pathology reflects structural exploitation—what Fisher (2009) terms “capitalist realism,” the widespread sense that alternative arrangements are impossible.

Tipping culture in Egypt—where even hospital nurses “request money for performing basic tasks like bringing their patients water”—shows how informal payments supplement inadequate formal wages (NYT, November 3, 2025). As inflation climbs, these expectations become unbearable for ordinary Egyptians. This recalls Polanyi’s (1944) argument in The Great Transformation that markets disembedded from social relations generate intolerable pressures, eventually provoking countermovement. The question becomes whether such countermovements assume progressive or reactionary forms.

Socially, the snippets reveal mandates born of frustration and sacrifice. Milei’s landslide, despite austerity’s pain, suggests Argentines’ tolerance for reform to escape boom-bust cycles (Monocle, October 30, 2025), paralleling Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (2007), where crises enable radical libertarianism: “Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change” (p. 6). Yet, as markets question durability, this interrelates with US elections where Zohran Mamdani’s socialist win as NYC mayor on universal childcare and rent freezes defies Trump’s “communist” label (The New York Times, November 4, 2025; Bloomberg, November 5, 2025). Mamdani’s platform addresses deepening inequality, resonating with Piketty’s (2014) r > g formula, where capital returns outpace growth, entrenching divides—here, pocketbook issues rally Democrats post-Trump’s midterm losses.

Policy-wise, Trump’s Venezuela options—from seizing oil fields to ousting Maduro—highlight militarized economic policy (The New York Times, November 4, 2025), echoing Edward Luttwak’s Turbo-Capitalism (1999), which critiques how globalization’s winners weaponize policy against losers. This connects to environmental policies like Singapore’s Jurong Island green pivot (Bloomberg, November 1, 2025), where a petrochemical hub tests low-carbon tech amid 50% of national emissions, illustrating Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1992): “In advanced modernity the social production of wealth is systematically accompanied by the social production of risks” (p. 19). Socially, these shifts burden the vulnerable—e.g., Xiaomi worker Wang Peizhi’s death from overwork (Bloomberg, November 3, 2025), a microcosm of Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation (1944), where market embedding in society erodes human protections.

Interrelations abound: Economic slumps fuel social unrest, prompting policies like Hong Kong’s crypto easing (Bloomberg, November 3, 2025) to attract capital, yet risking fraud as seen in Cambodia’s Prince Group probe (Bloomberg, November 5, 2025). Philosophically, this evokes Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition (1958), where action in the public realm—truces, elections—counters economic determinism, but only if mandates mature beyond theatrics.

India’s women’s cricket World Cup victory—watched by an estimated 40,000 in Mumbai’s stadium and millions nationally—represents what Stuart Hall (1996) might call a “conjunctural” moment, where sport becomes a site for contesting gender relations. The New York Times (November 3, 2025) frames this as potentially “chipping away at restrictive expectations of women’s roles” in a country where female labor force participation remains among the world’s lowest.

The transformation from semi-professional play (where team captain Harmanpreet Kaur “juggled a day job as a railway clerk”) to premier league salaries approaching $500,000 illustrates sports’ commodification. Yet this commercialization simultaneously creates female role models and economic opportunities. Bourdieu’s (1979/1984) concept of “cultural capital” illuminates this dynamic—cricket success converts into social prestige that may gradually shift habitus, those durable dispositions structuring perception and action.

The contrast with Rosalía’s new album “Lux”—lyrics in 13 languages, accompanied by the London Symphony Orchestra—suggests culture’s globalization operates differently across domains. Where cricket’s women’s game gains recognition by entering existing commercial structures, Rosalía’s musical experimentation (”monumental,” per The Guardian) represents what Appadurai (1996) calls “disjuncture” in global cultural flows—hybridization rather than homogenization.

Margaret Atwood’s new memoir reveals how dystopian fiction emerges from lived experience. She conceived The Handmaid’s Tale while in West Berlin in 1984, “separated from another autocracy by only a wall” (The Economist, November 2, 2025). This resonates with Jameson’s (1991) argument that postmodern culture struggles to imagine alternatives to capitalism; Atwood’s dystopias function as “cognitive mapping,” making systemic contradictions legible through narrative.

The art market’s contradictions surface in several accounts. Jacques Louis-David’s bicentenary exhibition at the Louvre celebrates a painter who “brought painting thrillingly to a crossroads with politics” (Semafor, October 30, 2025), yet David’s career—shifting from court painter to revolutionary to Napoleonic “First Painter to the Emperor”—embodies artistic opportunism as much as principle. Meanwhile, German museums deploy “grumpy guides” who berate visitors to make art accessible through confrontation rather than reverence. This anti-elitist strategy reflects what Bourdieu (1979/1984) analyzes as museums’ traditional function in reproducing class distinctions through cultural competence.

The “Bird Theory” TikTok test—where partners pointing out birds measure relationship connectedness—represents digital culture’s tendency toward quantification of intimacy. Illouz (2007) argues that capitalism’s rationalization extends into emotional life, producing what she calls “emotional capitalism.” A viral test reducing relationship quality to responsiveness about avian encounters exemplifies this logic taken to absurdity.

Culturally, the snippets blend heritage with modernity. Cairo’s Grand Egyptian Museum, a $1bn spectacle of soft power (Monocle, November 4, 2025), reframes Egypt from crisis to civilization, akin to Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), where museums construct narratives: “The Orient is the stage on which the whole East is confined” (p. 63). This interrelates with Dubai Design Week’s maturation (Monocle, November 4, 2025), merging vernacular wisdom with global ambition, echoing Homi Bhabha’s hybridity in The Location of Culture (1994).

Art theft at the Louvre (ARTnews, October 30, 2025) and MFA’s repatriation of enslaved potter David Drake’s works (ARTnews, October 30, 2025) highlight cultural restitution, connecting to Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958), where colonial disruptions demand reclamation. Neanderthal art queries (ARTnews, October 30, 2025) probe human creativity, resonant with Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens (2014): “Fiction has enabled us not merely to imagine things, but to do so collectively” (p. 25).

These cultural threads interlink with economic ones: Tokyo’s T-Site bookshop as a communal haven (Monocle, November 5, 2025) resists algorithmic flattening, evoking Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953), where books preserve depth amid novelty addiction. Policy-wise, Tribeca Festival Lisboa’s transatlantic dialogue (Monocle, October 31, 2025) fosters cultural soft power, countering economic isolationism.

Sudan’s catastrophe—the fall of El Fasher to Rapid Support Forces, reports of massacres, famine conditions—exposes the selectivity of international concern. Declan Walsh notes that while Darfur generated celebrity activism and policy attention two decades ago, today’s atrocities receive muted response: “There has been complete unwillingness to acknowledge” UAE support for forces accused of genocide (NYT, November 2, 2025).

This silence regarding Emirati involvement illuminates geopolitical priorities. The UAE remains a close U.S. ally receiving advanced military equipment; Microsoft just announced $15 billion in AI infrastructure investment there. Acknowledging UAE’s role in Sudanese genocide would complicate these relationships. What Chomsky and Herman (1988) call “worthy” versus “unworthy” victims—where geopolitical interests determine which suffering receives attention—operates here with brutal clarity.

The comparison Walsh draws between responses to Darfur then and now deserves emphasis. George Clooney’s activism, massive Washington protests, and President Bush making it a policy priority contrast sharply with today’s “limited outrage... largely limited to policy circles” (NYT, November 2, 2025). This shift reflects what Moeller (1999) terms “compassion fatigue”—repeated exposure to distant suffering generates emotional numbing—but also changing geopolitical calculus. In the mid-2000s, Darfur could be framed as humanitarian crisis requiring Western intervention; today, great power competition renders such interventions suspect or irrelevant.

Gaza’s “shaky ceasefire” faces tests as Israel accuses Hamas of violations and conducts strikes killing “more than 100 people” according to Palestinian officials (The Economist, October 30, 2025). The pattern—ceasefire, violation accusations, military response, renewed ceasefire—has repeated throughout the conflict. Butler (2009) argues that certain lives are deemed “grievable” while others are not; the disparity in how Israeli versus Palestinian casualties are reported and mourned reflects this differential valuation. Trump’s assertion that “nothing is going to jeopardise” the ceasefire (The Economist) suggests U.S. policy prioritizes stability over justice or accountability.

Ukraine’s “gamification” of war—point systems for drone operators with rewards for enemy casualties—represents what Baudrillard (1991) might call “simulation” replacing reality. The Ukrainian official defends this as “keeping troops energized after three and a half years of war” (NYT, November 2, 2025), yet reducing warfare to video game mechanics raises profound ethical questions. Scarry (1985) argues in The Body in Pain that warfare’s essential content is “injuring”—the material destruction of human bodies. Gamification aestheticizes this violence, creating psychological distance that may be necessary for soldiers’ functioning but troubling in its moral implications.

Amid these human dramas, the newsletters’ coverage of environmental initiatives reveals both promise and peril. Singapore’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Corporation, with its passenger levy system, represents an attempt to internalize the externalities of air travel—a policy approach advocated by economists since Pigou (1920). Yet the modest target of 1% SAF usage by 2026 (rising to 5% by 2030) stands in stark contrast to the scale of the climate challenge described in recent IPCC reports (IPCC, 2023). This cautious approach reflects what philosopher Bruno Latour calls the “paradox of the moderns”—our simultaneous desire for technological progress and environmental preservation, without confronting the fundamental changes to lifestyles and production systems that true sustainability requires (Latour, 2017).

The transformation of Jurong Island from “oil and ambition” to green industrial laboratory presents a fascinating case study in what Andrew Nikiforuk (2021) has called “energy transitions without justice,” where environmental solutions are implemented without addressing the underlying inequities of industrial systems. The island’s paradox—generating a quarter of Singapore’s manufacturing output while responsible for half its carbon emissions—epitomizes the difficult choices facing industrial societies attempting to reconcile economic growth with ecological limits.

The private credit sector’s warnings—TCW’s CEO expressing nervousness, Davidson Kempner’s CIO citing a “race to the bottom” in covenants (Bloomberg, November 5, 2025)—echo pre-2008 concerns about underpriced risk. Private credit has ballooned to $1.7 trillion, offering yield-hungry investors returns unavailable in traditional markets. Yet this growth depends on precisely the weak investor protections these executives critique. Minsky’s (1992) “financial instability hypothesis” suggests stability breeds instability—as periods without crisis lengthen, actors take increasing risks, sowing seeds of the next crisis.

New World Development’s debt restructuring—offering bondholders “haircuts of as much as 50% on perpetual bonds” (Bloomberg, November 3, 2025)—and China Vanke’s deepening troubles signal distress in China’s property sector. Once accounting for roughly 30% of Chinese GDP, real estate’s decline threatens financial contagion. Rogoff and Reinhart (2009) demonstrate in This Time Is Different that banking crises typically follow property bubbles; whether Beijing can manage a “soft landing” remains the $14 trillion question.

Bitcoin’s volatility—falling below $100,000 as “long-time holders have offloaded around 400,000 Bitcoin... an exodus of about $45 billion” (Bloomberg, November 5, 2025)—suggests cryptocurrency’s status as speculative asset rather than stable store of value. Markus Thielen’s warning that the unwind “could last well into next spring” with “$85,000 is my maximum downside target” illustrates crypto’s fundamental instability. Despite enthusiasts’ rhetoric about decentralized alternatives to fiat currency, Bitcoin’s price remains tethered to traditional market dynamics and regulatory developments.

The Supreme Court case on Trump’s tariffs—whether emergency powers authorize sweeping trade levies—will determine not merely trade policy but executive authority’s scope (Bloomberg, November 3, 2025). Plaintiffs argue these represent “breathtaking assertion of power” exceeding statutory authorization. This recalls Schmitt’s (1922/2005) concept of sovereignty: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” Trump’s emergency declarations to justify tariffs claim precisely this exceptional authority—the power to suspend normal legal constraints when identifying threats. Whether the Court accepts this logic has profound implications for constitutional governance.

Exploratively, these snippets interrelate as a global tapestry: Economic truces stabilize social mandates (Milei, Mamdani), while cultural spectacles (museums, design weeks) invest in narrative resilience amid policy risks (tariffs, green levies). This mirrors Immanuel Kant’s perpetual peace in Perpetual Peace (1795), where commerce fosters interdependence, yet red lines (China’s on Taiwan) perpetuate conflict. Associatively, the AI bubble and Bitcoin unwind recall John Maynard Keynes’s animal spirits in The General Theory (1936), irrational exuberance driving cycles.

In sum, these snippets illuminate a world in flux, where economic daring must wed pragmatic policy to avert social evaporation. As García Márquez (1967) reminds us through Macondo’s mirages, “The world was so recent that many things lacked names” (p. 1)—a call to name, and thus navigate, our interlinked challenges.

Subscribe

These newsletter fragments, read together, compose a portrait of what Tooze (2022) calls “polycrisis”—not multiple separate crises but interconnected challenges that interact and amplify. The U.S.-China trade war intersects with climate policy through rare earth minerals essential for renewable energy. AI development drives enormous energy demand, complicating decarbonization. Inequality fuels populism, which undermines democratic institutions needed to address collective challenges.

Gramsci’s concept of “interregnum”—the crisis where “the old is dying and the new cannot be born”—captures this moment’s character (1971, p. 276). The post-World War II liberal international order frays without a clear successor. Climate crisis demands coordination yet great power competition fragments cooperation. Technology promises productivity gains yet threatens employment. Democracy spreads in some locations while contracting in others.

What Frankfurt School theorists called “contradictions of capitalism” appear in sharp relief. Habermas (1973) identified “legitimation crisis”—capitalism’s inability to generate meanings and motivations supporting its continuation—and “rationality crisis”—the system producing problems it cannot solve without abandoning core principles. The government shutdown preventing basic functions while debate centers on tax cuts for the wealthy exemplifies legitimation crisis. Climate change demanding transformation of fossil fuel dependence yet energy companies recording record profits exemplifies rationality crisis.

Yet the newsletters also hint at countervailing forces. India’s women cricketers achieving recognition suggests gender relations’ malleability. Mamdani’s New York victory demonstrates left politics’ possibility in capitalism’s heartland. China’s manufacturing, whatever its issues, has created the solar panel production capacity making renewable energy economically viable. The Dutch voters’ rebuke of anti-Islam extremism suggests populism’s limits.

Bloch’s (1986) concept of “concrete utopia”—the “Not-Yet” latent in present conditions—seems relevant. Rather than abstract utopian schemes, Bloch sought possibilities already emergent, requiring recognition and cultivation. The question becomes which “Not-Yets” these conjunctural moments harbor: democratic deepening or authoritarian consolidation, ecological transformation or climate catastrophe, technological empowerment or algorithmic domination?

Williams’ (1977) distinction between “dominant,” “residual,” and “emergent” cultural forms offers analytical purchase. Dominant forms—neoliberal capitalism, fossil fuel energy, patriarchal relations—show strain yet persist. Residual forms—democratic socialism, artisanal production, indigenous knowledge—remain available as resources. Emergent forms—AI capitalism, climate authoritarianism, platform cooperation—contest definition and direction. Political struggle consists in determining which emergent forms crystallize.

The polycrisis ultimately poses the question Horkheimer articulated in 1937: whether critical theory can contribute to human emancipation or merely describe domination. These newsletters document profound structural challenges—ecological crisis, democratic erosion, technological disruption, grotesque inequality. Yet they also record human agency: workers organizing, citizens mobilizing, communities resisting. The outcome remains radically open, depending on collective action whose possibility these very accounts demonstrate.

These newsletters, taken together, paint, thus, a portrait of what political theorist Antonio Gramsci (1971) famously described as an “interregnum”—a period where “the old is dying and the new cannot be born,” creating a space where “a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” The simultaneous emergence of AI-driven economic transformation, geopolitical realignment, and ecological crisis creates what sociologist Ulrich Beck (1992) termed a “risk society,” where progress itself generates unprecedented forms of insecurity.

The most profound insight may come from an unexpected quarter: Margaret Atwood’s forthcoming memoir “Book of Lives,” which chronicles how her rural, nomadic childhood shaped her literary imagination. In an era of algorithmic governance and AI creativity, Atwood’s reflection that “poetry breaks a subject open, fiction grows from the break” (as quoted in The Economist) offers a powerful counterpoint to technological determinism. It reminds us that human creativity, born of lived experience and historical consciousness, remains irreplaceable even in an age of machine intelligence.

As we navigate this interregnum, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between “positive” and “negative” liberty becomes increasingly relevant. Are we building systems that merely free us from constraints (negative liberty), or ones that enable human flourishing and self-determination (positive liberty)? (Berlin, 1958). The answer to this question may determine whether our technological abundance translates into genuine human progress.

Share

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

Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Anders, G. (2016). On the obsolescence of humankind (C. J. Müller, Trans.). Modernism Lab at Yale University. (Original work published 1956)

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

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

Baudrillard, J. (1991). The Gulf War did not take place (P. Patton, Trans.). Indiana University Press.

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

Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. Oxford University Press.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.

Bloch, E. (1986). The principle of hope (N. Plaice, S. Plaice, & P. Knight, Trans.). MIT Press.

Bonilla, Y. (2020). Non-sovereign futures: French Caribbean politics in the wake of disenchantment. University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)

Bradbury, R. (1953). Fahrenheit 451. Ballantine Books.

Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? Verso.

Chamayou, G. (2015). A theory of the drone (J. Lloyd, Trans.). The New Press.

Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.

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

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42-79.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? Zero Books.

Fraser, N. (2013). How feminism became capitalism’s handmaiden—and how to reclaim it. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal

Fraser, N. (2017). Roepke lecture in economic geography—From exploitative to expropriative: The new frontiers of capital accumulation and the reconfiguration of the capitalist world order. Economic Geography, 93(1), 1-14.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Free Press.

García Márquez, G. (1967). One hundred years of solitude (G. Rabassa, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Trans.). International Publishers.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.

Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

Hall, S. (1996). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In D. Morley & K.-H. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 262-275). Routledge.

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.

Harvey, D. (2001). Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Routledge.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (2000). Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In W. Hutton & A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 130-146). Jonathan Cape.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7-23.

Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Polity Press.

IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jacobs, J. (1961/1992). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.

Kant, I. (1795). Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. (Original work published 1795).

Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment (P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790)

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Macmillan.

Kissinger, H. (2011). On China. Penguin Press.

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books.

Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster.

Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Polity Press.

Lazonick, W. (2014). Profits without prosperity. Harvard Business Review, 92(9), 46-55.

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

Luttwak, E. N. (1999). Turbo-capitalism: Winners and losers in the global economy. HarperCollins.

Malm, A. (2016). Fossil capital: The rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. Verso.

Mann, T. E. (2013). Admit it, political scientists: Politics is more broken than ever. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/admit-it-political-scientists-politics-is-more-broken-than-ever/276142/

Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1) (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work published 1867)

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848/2018). The communist manifesto. Penguin Classics.

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The tragedy of great power politics (Updated ed.). W. W. Norton.

Minsky, H. P. (1986). Stabilizing an unstable economy. Yale University Press.

Minsky, H. P. (1992). The financial instability hypothesis. In P. Arestis & M. C. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of radical political economy (pp. 115-122). Edward Elgar.

Moeller, S. D. (1999). Compassion fatigue: How the media sell disease, famine, war and death. Routledge.

Mudde, C. (2019). The far right today. Polity Press.

Nikiforuk, A. (2021). Energy of slaves: Oil and the Canadian dream. Greystone Books.

Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Harvard University Press.

Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. PublicAffairs.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

Pettis, M., & Klein, M. C. (2020). Trade wars are class wars: How rising inequality distorts the global economy and threatens international peace. Yale University Press.

Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. Macmillan.

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

Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. W.W. Norton & Company.

Rogoff, K. S., & Reinhart, C. M. (2009). This time is different: Eight centuries of financial folly. Princeton University Press.

Roubini, N. (2022). Megathreats: Ten dangerous trends that imperil our future, and how to survive them. Little, Brown and Company.

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

Scarry, E. (1985). The body in pain: The making and unmaking of the world. Oxford University Press.

Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1922)

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

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.

Shiller, R. J. (2015). Irrational exuberance (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.

Tooze, A. (2022, September 2). Welcome to the world of the polycrisis. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/498398e7-11b1-494b-9cd3-6d669dc3de33

Whyte, K. P. (2020). Too late for indigenous climate justice: Ecological and relational tipping points. WIREs Climate Change, 11(1), e603.

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford University Press.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.

Žižek, S. (2020). Pandemic!: COVID-19 shakes the world. OR Books.

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (November 7, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (November 7, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (November 7, 2025). The Currents of Global Disorder: Economic Turbulence, Social Shifts, and Narrative Investments. Open Access Blog.

The Currents of Global Disorder: Economic Turbulence, Social Shifts, and Narrative Investments

From the Open Access Blog.

Share Dialog