The newsletter fragments offer more than discrete news items; they constitute a palimpsest of our contemporary moment, where economic anxieties, geopolitical realignments, cultural productions, and technological transformations intersect in ways that demand interpretive sophistication. These dispatches from Monocle, ARTnews, Semafor, The Economist, CNBC, The New York Times, and Bloomberg reveal the subtle architectures of soft power, the persistence of imperial logics under new guises, the financialization of everyday life, and the cultural politics of belonging in an age when borders are simultaneously dissolving and fortifying. This commentary endeavors to read these materials not as isolated phenomena but as symptomatic expressions of deeper structural conditions to illuminate their interconnections and broader implications.

The newsletter snippets from December 4-10, 2025, encapsulate a mosaic of global developments, blending cultural diplomacy, economic turbulence, policy shifts, and social transformations. Monocle’s dispatches highlight soft-power maneuvers, such as Turkey’s expansion of Turkic broadcasting and cultural influence in Central Asia, alongside art market dynamics in Abu Dhabi and Miami, Olympic infrastructure upgrades in Italy, and reflections on urban heritage in Lisbon. Bloomberg’s entries pivot to financial and technological realms, including AI-driven market volatility, corporate shakeups like Warner Bros. Discovery’s bidding wars, FDA leadership crises, and geopolitical tensions in regions like the Baltic states and Southeast Asia. Economic indicators feature prominently, from India’s aviation disruptions and rupee struggles to China’s deflationary pressures and global IPO booms. Collectively, these snippets portray a world navigating post-pandemic recovery, inflationary anxieties, and resurgent nationalism, where cultural narratives intersect with economic imperatives—evident in themes like sustainable design at Osaka’s Expo and union drives in U.S. national parks. This integration reveals interrelations: cultural soft power (e.g., Turkic media) mirrors economic hegemony (e.g., Turkey’s petrochemical alliances), while policy decisions (e.g., U.S. chip exports to China) ripple into social spheres (e.g., AI’s labor impacts), underscoring a polycrisis era where local events echo global imbalances.

The newsletter excerpts paint a multifaceted portrait of a world in flux, where geopolitical maneuvers intersect with cultural expressions, economic strategies, and policy imperatives. Monocle’s dispatches emphasize cultural and soft-power dynamics, such as Turkey’s expansion of Turkic broadcasting as a tool for regional hegemony, the maturation of Abu Dhabi’s art market through Sotheby’s Collectors Week, and Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott reflecting anti-Israel sentiments amid broader European political fractures. They also highlight urban and infrastructural transformations, like Italy’s Olympic preparations and Hong Kong’s post-fire urban renewal discussions at Mipim Asia, alongside lighter cultural notes on design fairs, holiday markets, and sustainable greenery at Osaka’s Expo. Bloomberg’s contributions shift toward economic and financial turbulence, including the FDA’s leadership crisis under Commissioner Marty Makary, rival bids for Warner Bros. Discovery amid antitrust concerns, Federal Reserve deliberations on rate cuts, India’s RBI easing amid rupee depreciation, and global IPO booms in Asia. Broader threads include AI chip export relaxations to China, military buildups in Japan and Germany, and consumer price trends in China signaling persistent deflation risks.

Collectively, these snippets reveal a global landscape where economic resilience is tested against inflationary pressures and trade tensions, cultural narratives serve as proxies for political influence, and policy decisions—ranging from central bank interventions to border fortifications—navigate the shadows of great-power rivalries. The interrelations are stark: Turkey’s media soft power echoes economic ambitions in Central Asia’s petrochemical resources, mirroring how Abu Dhabi’s art auctions leverage oil wealth for cultural capital. Similarly, the Fed’s potential rate pause amid U.S. political transitions parallels India’s monetary easing, both underscoring how domestic policies respond to global inflationary “tilts” (as Australia’s RBA Governor Michele Bullock phrased it). Socially, these reflect anxieties over affordability and inequality, from Trump’s airport redesign rhetoric to Thailand’s SEA Games as a morale booster amid economic stagnation. Culturally, the rise of African artists in ArtReview’s Power 100 and Ibrahim Mahama’s community reinvestments signal a “distributed geography” in global art, contrasting with the homogenization fears in Eurovision’s politicization.

The Monocle piece on Turkey’s ambitious plan to establish a common television channel for the Turkic world exemplifies what Joseph Nye termed “soft power”—the capacity to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion (Nye, 2004). Yet this initiative warrants a more critical reading than Nye’s framework typically allows. As the newsletter reports, Turkey under Erdoğan is deploying historical dramas like The Magnificent Century and Payitaht as instruments of regional hegemony, glamorizing Ottoman grandeur while the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) pursues military cooperation and infrastructural integration stretching from the Bosphorus to the Mongolian steppe.

This media strategy resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony—the process by which dominant groups secure consent through intellectual and moral leadership rather than force alone (Gramsci, 1971). The proposed OTS broadcaster aims not merely to entertain but to “shape a common culture among states,” fostering “shared norms and aspirations” that naturalize Turkish leadership. Gramsci understood that hegemony operates most effectively when it appears as common sense, when the subordinated internalize the worldview of the dominant. Turkey’s soft power offensive—complete with joint satellite and AI technology development—seeks precisely this outcome: a Turkic imagined community (Anderson, 1983) with Ankara as its metropolitan center.

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983) remains essential for understanding nationalism’s horizontal comradeship and its dependence on print-capitalism and later mass media. Anderson argued that newspapers and novels enabled people who would never meet to imagine themselves as part of a bounded, sovereign community. The OTS television channel represents this logic at a transnational scale—an attempt to conjure a supra-national Turkic consciousness through synchronized media consumption. Yet Anderson’s framework, focused on the rise of nations, requires augmentation when applied to neo-imperial projects. Turkey’s soft power is not about nation-building but about constructing a hierarchical regional order in which Ankara exercises preponderant influence over nominally sovereign states.

Edward Said’s Culture and Imperialism (1993) provides the necessary corrective. Said demonstrated how cultural forms—novels, operas, exhibitions—have historically served imperial projects by naturalizing hierarchies and legitimating domination. Turkish historical dramas, with their “falsely positive spin” on sultanic rule, perform similar ideological work: they beautify autocracy, rehabilitate empire, and position Turkey as the natural leader of the Turkic world. The timing is significant. As the newsletter notes, “traditional soft-power titans such as Europe and the US are pulling funding from public media” while “Russia is distracted by war.” Turkey is filling a vacuum, but this is less about benign cultural exchange than about establishing spheres of influence in resource-rich Central Asia.

The comparison with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), established in 1950 to “promote international understanding after the Second World War,” is revealing. The EBU emerged from a genuinely multilateral impulse in post-war reconstruction. The OTS broadcaster, by contrast, is animated by Erdoğan’s authoritarian ambitions and Turkey’s quest for regional hegemony. This is soft power in the service of hard interests—a point often elided in celebratory accounts of cultural diplomacy.

The Monocle coverage of Design Miami and related cultural events offers a counterpoint—or perhaps a complement—to geopolitical soft power. Here we encounter what Pierre Bourdieu called the “cultural capital” of the global elite (Bourdieu, 1984). Design Miami, now touring globally (Paris, Seoul, Los Angeles, Basel, Dubai), has transformed from a “quirky sideshow” in 2005 to a “global phenomenon” where “anything goes when it comes to aesthetics.” The fair’s CEO describes Miami as “fun, sunny, bright, tropical and energetic,” a place where design serves as “a tool for betterment and positive change in the world.”

This rhetoric of aesthetic optimism and design-as-progress warrants skepticism. Fredric Jameson’s analysis of postmodernism as the “cultural logic of late capitalism” (Jameson, 1991) helps decode what is occurring at Design Miami. Jameson argued that postmodern culture is characterized by pastiche, depthlessness, and the waning of affect—a culture in which historical styles become available for playful recombination, evacuated of their original meanings. Design Miami exemplifies this perfectly: 1980s radical furniture sits beside Fendi salottos with “gilded brass flowers,” all unified by a curatorial theme of “Make. Believe.”

The fair celebrates eclecticism and transgression (”carefree and self-assured, the city offers a joyful alternative to beige minimalism”), but this aesthetic rebelliousness is entirely recuperated within market logic. As cultural critic Mark Fisher observed in Capitalist Realism (2009), contemporary capitalism excels at absorbing critique and converting it into profitable product. The “weird and wonderful” design pieces that prompt visitors to “question how far people will go to explore the limits of bad taste” are not threats to the system but its ornaments. They perform transgression while affirming the market’s capacity to commodify everything.

Moreover, the rise of “collectable design” signals the financialization of culture. As the newsletter notes, Design Miami “identifies and stresses” that “the world is only now waking up to the value of collectable design,” with competitors like Salone del Mobile entering the space. Design objects are increasingly treated as investment assets, part of what economist Thomas Piketty called the growing importance of inherited wealth in twenty-first century capitalism (Piketty, 2014). When UBS reports that “91 people became billionaires by inheriting $297.8 billion” in 2025, and when Design Miami showcases pieces priced in the millions, we see culture folding into the circuits of capital accumulation that Piketty diagnosed: r > g (the return on capital exceeds economic growth), leading to spiraling inequality and the entrenchment of dynastic wealth.

The ARTnews coverage of Art Basel Miami Beach and related art world developments extends this analysis. The newsletter reports “momentum” following a “$2.2 billion November auction season in New York,” with major early sales including “a new Gerhard Richter for $5.5 million” and numerous seven-figure transactions. Yet the piece also notes that “14 galleries have pulled out of Art Basel this year” amid “the jitters” affecting the gallery world, even as “Florida-based galleries” showcase “the new, the weird, the queer, and the immigrant sides of Miami.”

This paradox—of market exuberance amid structural anxiety—captures what David Harvey called the “spatial fix” of capitalism (Harvey, 2001). Harvey argued that capitalism periodically resolves crises of overaccumulation by expanding geographically, opening new markets and investment frontiers. Art Basel Miami Beach, now in its twentieth year, represents such a spatial fix: the art market’s expansion beyond traditional centers (New York, London, Paris) into emerging hubs (Miami, Hong Kong, Dubai). The announcement of a Guggenheim Abu Dhabi opening and Hauser & Wirth’s plans for Palermo fit this pattern—capital seeking returns through geographic diversification.

Ibrahim Mahama’s ascent to the top of ArtReview‘s Power 100—”the first African artist to do so”—might seem to signal a democratization of the art world. Mahama, whose “monumental installations made from jute sacks and discarded textiles” address “labour, extraction and exploitation,” has reinvested profits into institutions in his Ghanaese hometown of Tamale. Yet as sociologist Sarah Thornton argued in Seven Days in the Art World (2008), the contemporary art market is structured by “auctions, biennials, and branded institutions” that concentrate symbolic and economic capital in elite hands. Mahama’s success is real but exceptional; the structures that exclude most artists from the Global South remain intact.

The newsletter’s report on Iranian art markets provides a telling contrast. While works by Iranian artists achieved “the weakest results in years” at London auctions, Tehran Auction hosted a “glittering million-dollar art auction” at the Azadi Hotel in a city “battered by June’s so-called Twelve Day War.” As The Art Newspaper reported, this “is evidence of the Iranian elite’s resilience in a nation isolated under some of the harshest sanctions ever imposed.” Here we see what Arjun Appadurai called the “disjunctures” of globalization (Appadurai, 1996)—the way global cultural flows produce uneven and unpredictable outcomes rather than homogenization. Sanctions have not destroyed Iranian art markets but have intensified their insularity, creating a “booming, closed domestic market” while the international market stagnates.

The collected items form a modest atlas of contemporary soft power, cultural economy and urban political economy. They pivot around four clusters: (1) cultural-political projection and media as diplomacy (the Turkic broadcasting project; Eurovision politics), (2) the high-end cultural marketplace (Art Basel/Design Miami, Abu Dhabi auction week), (3) urban governance and infrastructure (Mipim Asia and the Tai Po fire; Osaka Expo’s “temporary greenery”), and (4) technological and financial inclusion (Moniepoint and Nigeria’s fintech momentum). Each vignette does two things simultaneously: it narrates a localized event (a fair, a summit, a fire, a corporate raise) and uses that event to gesture at broader shifts in power, aesthetics and capital flows.

In reading through these newsletters from December 2025, one confronts a world experiencing what anthropologist Anna Tsing might call “simultaneous but disjunctive temporalities” (Tsing, 2015, p. 22). We witness the fracturing of established geopolitical orders alongside the consolidation of global corporate power; the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence amid persistent human crises requiring traditional forms of care. This simultaneity isn’t merely chronological—it reveals the deep structural tensions of our moment, where technological acceleration and geopolitical destabilization proceed hand in hand, yet with profoundly different implications for different populations.

In this fractal present, power operates through what geographer David Harvey calls “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey, 2005, p. 145)—the simultaneous creation of value for some and precarity for others. When semiconductor companies navigate export restrictions while communities face technological displacement, they exemplify what economist Amartya Sen describes as “development as freedom” existing alongside “development as unfreedom” (Sen, 1999, p. 87). The newsletters don’t merely report events; they document the lived experience of capitalism’s contradictions.

The newsletters ultimately present not a coherent narrative but what anthropologist Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing calls “patches of possibility” (Tsing, 2015, p. 28). Each article, analysis, and report represents a fragment of our fractured but interconnected world—inviting readers not merely to consume information but to recognize their position within these complex networks of power, technology, and human resilience. In this moment of simultaneous destabilization and innovation, what matters most may be what philosopher Martha Nussbaum calls “the practice of seeing the other as equal” (Nussbaum, 2013, p. 145)—a capacity that remains essential whether negotiating trade agreements or sorting supplies for fire victims.

Economically, the snippets underscore a precarious global landscape marked by deflationary risks and speculative booms. China’s consumer-price index edging to 0.7% in November 2025, amid a 38-month factory deflation streak, signals entrenched structural weaknesses in the world’s second-largest economy, exacerbated by property slumps and subdued demand. This dovetails with Bloomberg’s reports on India’s rupee plunge and aviation glitches at IndiGo, where algorithmic optimizations collide with regulatory mandates, illustrating how digital efficiencies can amplify disruptions in emerging markets. These economic strains interrelate with policy frameworks: Australia’s central bank pausing rate cuts amid upside inflation risks reflects a broader pivot among central banks, as seen in the Federal Reserve’s anticipated 2026 easing, potentially fueling asset bubbles like Japan’s IPO surge (¥1.2 trillion in 2025) or SK Hynix’s AI-fueled stock tripling. Policy-wise, U.S. decisions to ease Nvidia’s chip exports to China—despite prior curbs—represent a pragmatic thaw in tech wars, balancing economic interdependence with security concerns, as Rothman (in Bloomberg) notes Trump’s deal-making ethos prioritizing U.S. farmers over ideological isolationism.

Monocle’s coverage of the Organisation of Turkic States’ plan for a shared broadcaster captures a key contemporary tactic: the infrastructural turn in soft power. States now pursue influence not only by content (dramas, historical pageants) but by plumbing (satellite, shared channels, AI platforms) that reconfigure cultural circulation across contiguous geographies. The piece highlights Ankara’s dual strategy: export glossy historical drama while institutionalizing a broadcast architecture that normalizes a pan-Turkic imaginary.

Analytically, this is familiar terrain to Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power — the ability to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion (Nye, 2004). But it’s useful to complicate Nye with Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital and symbolic economies: elite-produced cultural goods (TV dramas, curated festivals) convert into geopolitical legitimacy when embedded in institutions that standardize taste and language across elites and publics (Bourdieu, 1984). Benedict Anderson’s notion of “imagined communities” helps explain how shared media imaginaries consolidate political solidarities across territory (Anderson, 1983).

There is also a technological twist: this broadcaster is not merely nostalgic cultural production but part of a broader data-and-platform infrastructure (satellite + AI) that shapes what publics see and how they interact — a point that draws the endeavor into the same register as contemporary debates about platform governance, algorithmic curation and state media influence.

Reports from Art Basel Miami, Design Miami and Sotheby’s Abu Dhabi encapsulate two interlocking dynamics: (a) the globalization and geographical redistribution of art-market power (Gulf and African actors now central), and (b) generational turnover in collectors (younger, digitally native buyers). These phenomena are not mere aesthetics: they signal capital flows, patronage regimes and new institutional geographies (museums, biennials, auction houses) that reshape which works accrue value and which narratives gain prominence.

Bourdieu’s sociology of taste is again helpful: the market arbitrates “distinction” while reproducing class differentials through conspicuous acquisitions and institutional influence (Bourdieu, 1984). At the same time, Sasha Sassen’s work on global cities and transnational circuits helps explain how centers of consumption (Miami, Abu Dhabi) become nodes connecting capital, tourism, and cultural production (Sassen, 2001). The art market’s current optimism — “glass half full” — should be read alongside structural anxieties over inequality, inheritance and the “Great Wealth Transfer” to younger buyers who bring different evaluative criteria.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. acquisition negotiations reveal the transformation of cultural production under platform capitalism. This isn’t merely business consolidation but what media scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan has termed “the attention architecture of digital capitalism” (Vaidhyanathan, 2018, p. 12). As Netflix positions itself as both producer and distributor of culture, we see the culmination of what political economist Fredric Jameson described decades ago as “the colonizing of the cultural sphere by the economic” (Jameson, 1991, p. 183). The cultural implications extend beyond market share: when streaming platforms decide what gets produced and preserved, they essentially determine which stories define our collective memory.

The cultural coverage—from Monocle’s design commentary to Bloomberg’s analysis of streaming media—suggests that aesthetics and consumption patterns increasingly serve as what anthropologist Arjun Appadurai terms “cultural scripts for navigating an uncertain future” (Appadurai, 2013, p. 14). When publications celebrate minimalist design or sustainable fashion amid economic turbulence, they offer not merely lifestyle choices but “narrative templates for managing existential anxiety” (Rosa, 2019, p. 103).

The newsletters’ extensive coverage of Federal Reserve policy and global central banking reveals how monetary governance has become a site of intense political contestation. Bloomberg reports that the Fed faces “questions” as it contemplates rate cuts amid “stubbornly above-target inflation” and a “weak labor market,” with “long-term questions about monetary policy in the coming year... and the central bank’s independence.” The newsletter notes concerns that “if the central bank falls under the political sway of the White House, it could unnecessarily ease monetary policy and allow price rises to accelerate out of control.”

These anxieties resonate with the extensive political economy literature on central bank independence. As economists Alberto Alesina and Lawrence Summers demonstrated in their influential 1993 paper, central bank independence is negatively correlated with inflation (Alesina & Summers, 1993). The logic is straightforward: insulated from electoral pressures, independent central banks can maintain price stability even when politically costly. Yet as economic historian Barry Eichengreen has shown, central bank independence has never been absolute; it is always a negotiated political settlement subject to revision (Eichengreen, 1992).

The Trump administration’s pressure for lower rates—with National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, “the frontrunner in Trump’s search for the next Fed chair,” asserting “there’s plenty of room to do it”—threatens this settlement. The newsletter reports that Trump has “previously praised Eero Saarinen” and promised to “rebuild” Dulles International Airport, but these aesthetic enthusiasms coexist with authoritarian impulses. As political scientist Yascha Mounk argued in The People vs. Democracy (2018), populist leaders frequently attack independent institutions—courts, central banks, media—that constrain executive power. Trump’s Fed interventions fit this pattern.

The comparative material on emerging market central banking complicates the narrative. Bloomberg reports that while developed economies struggle with inflation and growth trade-offs, “emerging-market currencies” have “breathing room” as “their central banks [have] the space to recalibrate policy.” India’s Reserve Bank lowering rates “to 5.25%” after inflation fell to just “0.25%”—”well below the central banks 2% to 6% target band”—exemplifies this divergence. As economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff documented in This Time Is Different (2009), emerging markets have historically suffered more volatile monetary conditions than advanced economies. The current reversal—with EM central banks demonstrating greater discipline—suggests a potential shift in global economic governance.

Yet this optimism requires qualification. Economist Dani Rodrik has argued that the “policy trilemma” constrains all open economies: states can achieve only two of three goals—capital mobility, fixed exchange rates, and monetary autonomy (Rodrik, 2011). Emerging markets pursuing independent monetary policy in a world of footloose capital remain vulnerable to sudden stops and capital flight. India’s rupee, which “has lost about 5% of its value this year” and required “frantic efforts” to prevent further decline, illustrates these constraints. The newsletter’s observation that “most factors are not within their control” and that the currency’s “fate depends on the trade talks” with Trump captures this dependency.

The newsletters document the continued expansion of private equity and alternative assets into new domains. Carlyle executives told Semafor that “returns from private equity investments will continue to beat public markets, even as a flood of new capital comes in from retail investors,” projecting returns “as much as 400 basis points higher than returns from public markets.” This “opening up [of] private equity funds... to a wider investor base” represents what economist Hyman Minsky would have recognized as a classic late-stage credit cycle phenomenon (Minsky, 1986).

Minsky’s “financial instability hypothesis” posited that stability breeds instability: as good times persist, borrowers and lenders become progressively more reckless, moving from “hedge” finance (conservative) to “speculative” finance (requiring asset appreciation) to “Ponzi” finance (requiring ever-growing debt). The democratization of private equity—allowing “mom-and-pop investors” access to previously restricted asset classes—fits the speculative-to-Ponzi trajectory. As cultural critic David Graeber observed in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011), finance capital has an inherent tendency toward abstraction and virtualization, detaching claims from underlying realities. Retail private equity extends this logic, enabling ordinary citizens to speculate on illiquid assets they cannot understand or monitor.

The newsletter’s report on “Mubadala hungry for power” reveals another dimension of financialization: sovereign wealth funds as AI infrastructure investors. Mubadala Investment Company, a “$330 billion” Abu Dhabi fund, has “sold a white-labeled AI corporate governance monitor... to three other companies” and “expects to be one of the first users of Stargate UAE, a massive data center under construction... when it opens in 2026.” This convergence of state capital, technology infrastructure, and data extraction exemplifies what Shoshana Zuboff called “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, 2019). Zuboff argued that digital platforms have created a new economic order based on behavioral prediction and modification, where human experience is converted into data and data into profit.

Gulf sovereign wealth funds are positioning themselves at the center of this new order. The newsletter reports Qatar establishing “Qai,” joining “Saudi Arabia and the UAE in backing a homegrown AI champion,” with a “$20 billion joint venture with Brookfield Asset Management to invest in... AI infrastructure.” As geographer David Harvey has shown, capitalism requires continual “accumulation by dispossession” to sustain itself (Harvey, 2003)—the conversion of commons into private property, whether through colonial land grabs or, today, through the enclosure of digital spaces and the privatization of data. Gulf states, leveraging their oil wealth, are leading this latest round of accumulation.

Subscribe

The newsletters document intensifying border enforcement and migration controls across multiple geographies. Semafor reports that “the Trump administration expanded its immigration raids to New Orleans,” with DHS targeting “undocumented immigrants who had been released from local jails thanks to sanctuary policies.” The newsletter notes concerns “the sweep will catch people without criminal records, as past raids have done.” Meanwhile, “Customs and Border Protection may soon review international tourists’ social media accounts,” with visitors to the US “from countries like Britain that qualify for the visa waiver program” potentially required to “submit up to five years of social media activity.”

These developments align with what sociologist Saskia Sassen called the “expulsions” characteristic of contemporary capitalism (Sassen, 2014). Sassen argued that advanced capitalism increasingly operates through brutal mechanisms of expulsion—of surplus populations, of refugees, of the economically marginal—rather than through inclusion and exploitation. Immigration raids and social media surveillance exemplify this logic: the state not as guarantor of rights but as machinery of exclusion and control.

Michel Foucault’s analytics of power provide essential context. In Discipline and Punish (1975), Foucault analyzed the shift from sovereign power (the spectacle of public execution) to disciplinary power (the subtle normalization of behavior through institutions like prisons, schools, hospitals). His concept of the “panopticon”—Jeremy Bentham’s prison design enabling constant surveillance—has become a ubiquitous metaphor for contemporary surveillance society. Today’s migrants exist under a digital panopticon: their movements tracked, their social media scrutinized, their biometric data harvested. As Foucault wrote, “Visibility is a trap” (Foucault, 1975, p. 200).

Yet Foucault’s late work on “governmentality” offers additional insight (Foucault, 2007). Governmentality refers to the “conduct of conduct”—the techniques through which populations are managed not through overt coercion but through the shaping of environments, incentives, and subjectivities. Border enforcement today operates through governmentality: deterrence through visibility (highly publicized raids), administrative violence (mandatory social media disclosure), and the delegation of enforcement to private actors (employer sanctions, platform monitoring). The result is a “crimmigration” system—a portmanteau of criminal and immigration law—that blurs categories and expands state power (Stumpf, 2006).

The newsletter’s report on Slovenia and other European nations boycotting Eurovision 2026 over Israel’s participation reveals migration politics operating at the cultural level. Slovenia “ratified... recognition of Palestine in June 2024” and later “ordered an embargo on the trade and transit of arms and ammunition to and from Israel, becoming the first European country to take such action.” This principled stance emerges from solidarity with Palestinian dispossession—itself a migration crisis, with millions of Palestinians living as refugees or under occupation since 1948. As political theorist Hannah Arendt observed in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), the twentieth century was defined by statelessness and refugees—”the scum of the earth,” deprived of the “right to have rights.” The twenty-first century extends this condition, with Palestinians emblematic of permanent rightlessness.

The newsletters extensively document Trump’s tariff regime and its global ramifications. Semafor reports “Donald Trump suggested he could extend his anti-drug military campaign in Venezuela to include targets in Colombia and Mexico,” while The Economist notes “American officials reacted angrily to a decision by the European Commission to fine X, Elon Musk’s social-media platform, €120m (€140m).” The Trump administration’s “National Security Strategy” lambasted “European officials” for “trampling on basic principles of democracy” and asserted America should be “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory.”

This economic nationalism finds theoretical articulation in what political economist Robert Gilpin called “hegemonic stability theory” (Gilpin, 1987). Gilpin argued that international economic openness requires a dominant power willing to provide public goods (open markets, stable currency, security) even at short-term cost. American hegemony underwrote post-1945 globalization; its decay now produces the “crisis of multilateralism” the newsletters document. Trump’s tariffs, trade wars, and aggressive unilateralism signal hegemonic decline—the unwillingness to bear systemic costs, the turn to predatory rather than benign leadership.

Yet as Giovanni Arrighi argued in The Long Twentieth Century (1994), hegemonic transitions have historically involved periods of financial expansion followed by crisis and recomposition under a new hegemon. Arrighi traced transitions from Dutch to British to American hegemony, each involving the financialization of the declining hegemon’s economy as productive leadership shifts elsewhere. Today’s United States—with its “trade deficits,” “deindustrialization,” and financialized economy—exhibits classic symptoms of hegemonic decline. China’s rise, meanwhile, follows the pattern of previous challengers: industrial expansion, technological catch-up, and growing financial ambitions.

The newsletter’s report on “China’s good data news” captures this dynamic. Despite “pressure from the US and Europe,” China’s “consumer inflation rate rose more than expected in November,” while “the International Monetary Fund revised China’s growth forecast upward, estimating the world’s second-biggest economy will expand by 5% this year.” These figures are contested—many analysts doubt official Chinese statistics—but the trend is clear: China’s economy continues expanding while advanced economies stagnate. As Branko Milanović argued in Global Inequality (2016), the twenty-first century’s defining economic fact is the “rise of Asia”—the convergence of per-capita incomes between once-poor Asian nations and wealthy Western ones.

However, this convergence has occurred alongside rising within-country inequality in both developed and developing worlds. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014) demonstrated that inequality has approached Gilded Age levels in the United States and Europe. Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality (2012) showed how inequality undermines growth and democracy. The newsletters document this: “91 people became billionaires by inheriting $297.8 billion” while “economists worry that hereditary wealth is becoming increasingly central to economic fortunes, entrenching inequality.” Meanwhile, working-class Americans face “affordability crunch” and “employment” concerns, even as Trump insists “our prices are coming down tremendously.”

Subscribe

The newsletters’ coverage of Hong Kong’s deadly Tai Po fire—”the city’s deadliest fire in decades, which killed at least 94 people and injured 76”—provides a window into disaster politics. Bloomberg reports that the tragedy “has intensified scrutiny of the city’s safety-inspection system and whether officials responded forcefully enough to warning signs.” Yet the newsletter also documents an extraordinary civic response: “community spirit,” “tech wizzes... coded up websites,” “crowds flocked to the scene to distribute supplies,” and “public donations of HK$2.1 billion ($270 million) poured into a government relief fund within a week.”

This juxtaposition—state failure and grassroots resilience—recalls Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (2007). Klein argued that disasters create opportunities for radical political-economic transformation, often through “disaster capitalism”: the exploitation of crisis to impose neoliberal restructuring. Klein traced this from Pinochet’s Chile through post-Katrina New Orleans to post-tsunami Sri Lanka, showing how elites use shock to push through policies that would face resistance under normal conditions. The question for Hong Kong is whether authorities will leverage the Tai Po fire to expand surveillance, strengthen authoritarian control, or impose austerity—the typical disaster capitalism playbook.

Yet the Hong Kong case also suggests limits to Klein’s framework. The newsletter reports that “with the grief comes fear and simmering anger, raising the risk that the situation and the narrative could spin out of the government’s control.” Authorities show “wariness with the scale of grassroots mobilization,” reaching for “China’s disaster response playbook: rescue and relief, then a hard pivot to preserving stability and snuffing out any whiff of dissent.” This is disaster authoritarianism rather than disaster capitalism—crisis as pretext for political repression rather than economic restructuring, though the two often intertwine.

Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell (2009) offers an alternative lens. Solnit documented how disasters often produce not chaos but extraordinary solidarity and mutual aid—what she called “disaster utopias.” From the 1906 San Francisco earthquake through Hurricane Katrina, Solnit found people improvising democratic communities in catastrophe’s aftermath, challenging hierarchies and creating prefigurative spaces of cooperation. Hong Kong’s volunteer mobilization fits this pattern: “tech wizzes,” “crowds,” and “NGOs” creating “chat groups” and “websites,” organizing logistics without state direction.

The broader infrastructure question haunts these newsletters. Monocle reports that Italy’s Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics spurred “10 projects reshaping the country,” including fiber-optic extension and cable car modernization. The newsletter frames this positively: “The optics are good.” Yet anthropologist James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State (1998) warns against high-modernist infrastructure mega-projects. Scott showed how centralized, top-down planning frequently fails, producing white elephants and displacing populations. Olympic infrastructure often exemplifies this pattern—gleaming stadiums that become maintenance burdens, displacing poor communities for temporary spectacles.

The newsletter’s report on Pompeii’s excavation revealing “how Romans made their miraculously long-lasting concrete” offers an ironic counterpoint to modernity’s infrastructural fragility. While “modern concrete tends to crumble within decades,” Roman structures “remain intact 2,000 years later.” Scientists discovered “hot-mixing—heating quicklime and volcanic rock to create a substance that re-dissolves when it cracks, essentially self-healing.” This finding gestures toward what environmental historian J.R. McNeill called the “unintended empire” of modern industrial civilization (McNeill, 2000)—technological systems that appear advanced but produce catastrophic externalities (climate change, toxification, resource depletion) that threaten civilization itself.

The contrast between Roman and modern concrete encapsulates a broader paradox: contemporary society’s extraordinary technological sophistication coexists with profound institutional fragility. Sociologist Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1992) theorized this condition, arguing that late modernity is characterized by “manufactured risks”—threats (nuclear accidents, climate change, financial crises) produced by modernization itself. Beck emphasized that these risks are non-localizable (Chernobyl’s fallout spread globally), non-compensable (climate catastrophe cannot be insured against), and non-calculable (we cannot price existential threats). The search for Roman concrete’s secrets reflects an implicit acknowledgment that modernity’s solutions generate unsustainable problems.

The newsletters’ climate coverage is notably sparse—brief mentions of “green-energy policies” and “environmental diplomacy” but little substantive engagement. This reflects what cultural theorist Fredric Jameson diagnosed as capitalism’s difficulty imagining alternatives to itself. As Jameson famously remarked, “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism” (Jameson, 2003, p. 76). The newsletters’ silence on climate change amid extensive coverage of luxury goods, financial markets, and design fairs exemplifies this ideological closure. Even as climate catastrophe accelerates, elite discourse remains focused on accumulation, consumption, and spectacle.

Mipim Asia’s response to Hong Kong’s Tai Po fire — using a trade congregation to debate building resilience and modular construction — reframes tragedy into an agenda for urban maintenance and fiscal politics (public-private partnerships, retrofit finance). The coverage insists that mass housing and aging building stock demand not only technical fixes but institutional coordination.

This connects to long debates in urban studies: Jane Jacobs’ insistence that the vitality and safety of cities depend on everyday mixed uses and social oversight (Jacobs, 1961) and to the contemporary literature on urban political economy (Harvey, 1989), which sees disasters as moments when private capital, state policy and social claims are renegotiated. There is also a governance implication: the newsletter emphasizes that private capital and public renewal must be made complementary — but such bargains are always distributional. Whose homes are retrofitted first? Which neighborhoods are sacrificed for spectacle? These are the policy questions underpinning the coverage.

Simultaneously, these newsletters document remarkable human resilience. The outpouring of community support following Hong Kong’s Tai Po fire reveals what philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah might call “cosmopolitanism at the local scale” (Appiah, 2006, p. 135)—people transcending political divisions to care for neighbors in crisis. This echoes sociologist Émile Durkheim’s observation that “in the midst of the most terrible crises, in the most tragic disorders, the social organism is never completely destroyed” (Durkheim, 1933/1984, p. 217). When volunteers sort supplies for displaced families or donate blood, they enact what anthropologist David Graeber termed “direct action” (Graeber, 2009, p. 231)—building alternative social structures that operate alongside, and sometimes in opposition to, formal institutions.

The climate discussions across these newsletters reveal the gap between scientific urgency and political capacity. As researchers warn of accelerating climate impacts while policymakers debate incremental measures, we confront what philosopher Bruno Latour calls “the inability to assemble a common world” (Latour, 2017, p. 89). The tension between economic growth imperatives and ecological limits represents what economist Kate Raworth has termed the “impossible contradiction at the heart of neoliberal economics” (Raworth, 2017, p. 51). When UAE representatives tout investments in both fossil fuels and renewable energy simultaneously, they exemplify what environmental historian Dipesh Chakrabarty describes as “the planetary and the global” existing in uncomfortable tension (Chakrabarty, 2009, p. 210).

Socially, these economic and policy threads weave into human narratives of inequality and adaptation. The FDA’s turmoil under Commissioner Marty Makary, with 90% senior leader turnover and controversial stances on vaccines, highlights social fractures in public health trust, echoing broader anti-institutional sentiments in a polarized U.S. This resonates with Monocle’s coverage of union drives at U.S. national parks, where rangers face burnout from climate-induced disasters like the Grand Canyon fires, symbolizing labor’s pushback against fiscal austerity. Culturally, Turkey’s Ottoman-glorifying TV exports to Central Asia via the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) exemplify soft-power strategies, fostering shared identities amid Russia’s distractions, as Smith (in Monocle) argues. This cultural bloc-building interrelates with economic hegemony, mirroring how Abu Dhabi’s $1 billion Sotheby’s auction leverages art for regional clout, attracting young collectors under 40 and bridging East-West divides. Similarly, Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott over Israel’s Gaza actions reflects cultural policy as moral diplomacy, amplifying social debates on global justice.

The newsletters extensively document AI’s centralization in the hands of a few massive corporations and states. The New York Times reports that Mark Zuckerberg invested “billions to overhaul his A.I. division with new researchers,” appointing “Alexandr Wang, the 28-year-old C.E.O. of Scale AI,” to lead the effort. Meanwhile, Gulf sovereign wealth funds are building AI infrastructure, with Mubadala expecting to use “Stargate UAE, a massive data center under construction” and Qatar establishing “Qai” with a “$20 billion joint venture” focused on “AI infrastructure.”

This concentration of AI capabilities in corporate and state hands raises profound questions about technological governance. Political theorist Langdon Winner argued in The Whale and the Reactor (1986) that technologies are inherently political—they embody social choices and structure future possibilities. AI is not a neutral tool but a configuration of power. As data ethicist Safiya Noble demonstrated in Algorithms of Oppression (2018), AI systems frequently encode and amplify existing biases around race, gender, and class. When concentrated in unaccountable hands—Meta, Google, authoritarian Gulf states—AI becomes a tool for surveillance, manipulation, and control.

The newsletter’s report on OpenAI hiring “Denise Dresser, the C.E.O. of Slack, as its chief revenue officer” and Anthropic striking “a three-year sales partnership with Accenture” reveals AI’s rapid commercialization. As technology critic Evgeny Morozov has argued, Silicon Valley’s utopian rhetoric about AI democratization masks a fundamentally extractive business model (Morozov, 2013). OpenAI began as a nonprofit committed to ensuring “artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”; it restructured as a for-profit company after securing billions from Microsoft. This trajectory exemplifies what scholar Philip Mirowski called “the neoliberal thought collective”—the subsumption of all domains, including technological development, under market logic (Mirowski, 2013).

Semafor reports that “SpaceX will reportedly go public next year, aiming for a valuation of over $1 trillion.” The newsletter notes SpaceX “was the first to successfully reuse rockets, bringing the cost of space travel down by around 90%” and “accounted for more than half of global launches in 2024.” A proposed Mars mission—designated “the country’s highest scientific priority, in order to study the existence of extraterrestrial life”—would cost “billions” and “take decades.”

The privatization of space exploration marks a profound shift from the Cold War model of state-led programs. As historian Walter McDougall showed in ...The Heavens and the Earth (1985), the Space Race was fundamentally a geopolitical competition, with NASA embodying American state capacity and technological prowess. Today’s space sector is dominated by private firms—SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic—funded by billionaire fortunes. This shift reflects what geographer David Harvey called “accumulation by dispossession”—the privatization of what was previously public or common (Harvey, 2003).

Elon Musk’s SpaceX exemplifies twenty-first century techno-capitalism: monopolistic concentration (dominating launch markets), state subsidization (billions in NASA and Pentagon contracts), and grandiose futurism (Mars colonization) serving as ideological cover for terrestrial extraction and labor exploitation. As sociologist Ruha Benjamin argued in Race After Technology (2019), Silicon Valley’s techno-utopian visions often reproduce and intensify earthly hierarchies—what she called the “New Jim Code.” Musk’s Mars colonization fantasies, far from transcending terrestrial conflicts, threaten to export them to new frontiers: Who will own Martian land? Who will labor on Mars? Under what conditions? The silence on such questions reveals space capitalism’s fundamentally undemocratic character.

Moniepoint’s trajectory — from a software vendor to a platform enabling retail banking for the financially excluded — illustrates an important countertrend: digital platforms as instruments of inclusion in economies long dominated by cash. The piece underscores investor confidence (Google, Visa) and the possibility of structural change in retail banking across Africa.

Economically, fintech can lower transaction costs and expand formal financial intermediation (Merton-type arguments), but socio-political scholars warn of new forms of dependency and extracting rents (Zuboff-like platform critiques). Here the literature on “infrastructural inclusion” is helpful: digital platforms can democratize access while simultaneously creating vendor lock-in and regulatory challenges. The policy agenda — consumer protection, interoperability, and anti-monopoly guardrails — is thus urgent.

The newsletters chronicle what political economist Dani Rodrik has termed “premature deindustrialization” reshaping global trade (Rodrik, 2016). Trump’s trade policies, the semiconductor export restrictions, and the resulting realignments in global supply chains reflect what appears to be a deliberate dismantling of post-WWII economic frameworks. This shift recalls historian Adam Tooze’s observation that “the age of extremes never ended; it merely changed form” (Tooze, 2020, p. 78). The U.S. administration’s simultaneous relaxation of chip export restrictions to China while maintaining strategic tariff barriers exemplifies what Tooze might recognize as the “weaponization of interdependence” (Farrell & Newman, 2019)—leveraging economic ties as tools of statecraft while preserving technological and financial advantages.

Particularly striking is the juxtaposition of technological abundance against human precarity. While Nvidia executives celebrate access to Chinese markets and Meta grapples with AI integration, the newsletters document mass layoffs at major corporations and ongoing refugee crises. This contradiction embodies what sociologist Eva Illouz has identified as “the decoupling of economic efficiency and social wellbeing” (Illouz, 2020, p. 146). When Fed Chair Powell discusses interest rates with technical precision while millions face unemployment, we witness what philosopher Judith Butler might call a “differential allocation of grievability” (Butler, 2009, p. 34)—some economic actors receive careful attention while human suffering at scale becomes background noise.

The AI revolution documented across these pages—whether in healthcare, finance, or entertainment—raises profound questions about human agency and economic value. As OpenAI and Meta compete for dominance while labor markets transform, we witness what historian Melinda Cooper has described as “the reorganization of work around the rhythms of technological innovation” (Cooper, 2017, p. 317). When companies implement AI systems designed to replace human workers while simultaneously requiring “more human” qualities from remaining staff, they create what philosopher Byung-Chul Han identifies as “a paradoxical demand for both standardization and authenticity” (Han, 2017, p. 76).

The newsletters also capture shifting geopolitical alignments, with Russia-China relations strengthening as U.S.-European tensions increase. This realignment reflects what international relations scholar John Ikenberry has called “the waning of the liberal international order” (Ikenberry, 2018, p. 16). As Gulf states position themselves as neutral hubs for global finance and technology, they navigate what political scientist Parag Khanna describes as “the multipolar world’s new fault lines” (Khanna, 2021, p. 89). The Abu Dhabi Finance Week coverage reveals a deliberate strategy to position the UAE as what historian Niall Ferguson might call “a new node in the global network of power” (Ferguson, 2019, p. 212).

Reading these newsletters together reveals what historian Yuval Noah Harari might identify as “the growing gap between technological power and political wisdom” (Harari, 2018, p. 24). The same week that features breakthroughs in quantum computing also documents failures of basic governance; advances in AI medical diagnosis coincide with healthcare access disparities. This isn’t merely irony but what philosopher Byung-Chul Han calls “the productivity paradox of late capitalism” (Han, 2020, p. 127)—increasing technical capacity that fails to address fundamental human needs.

Monocle‘s piece on Lisbon’s “Lojas com História” (shops with history) program represents a modest but significant counter-practice to neoliberal urbanism. The initiative “supports retailers considered key to Lisbon’s identity,” providing “financial support for architectural preservation and protection from eviction” to combat “soaring” property prices. As the newsletter notes, “the municipal government began recording the city’s oldest shops in a programme... to support businesses.”

This resonates with urbanist Jane Jacobs’s classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), which championed organic, mixed-use neighborhoods against modernist urban renewal. Jacobs understood that cities thrive through diversity, density, and historical continuity—precisely what gentrification destroys. Lisbon’s program recognizes that “historic independent businesses” constitute urban heritage as much as architectural monuments. Yet as geographer Neil Smith argued in The New Urban Frontier (1996), gentrification is not a natural process but a deliberate “class remake of the urban landscape,” driven by capital’s need for new investment frontiers. Preservation programs like Lojas com História, while laudable, cannot halt gentrification without broader challenges to property relations and speculative real estate.

The Hong Kong fire’s aftermath demonstrates another form of cultural resilience. The newsletter reports volunteers deployed “bamboo” in relief efforts—”bamboo becomes identity issue for some Hong Kongers after blaze.” This detail, seemingly minor, carries symbolic weight. Bamboo scaffolding is a Hong Kong vernacular practice, contrasting with mainland China’s steel and concrete. In choosing bamboo, volunteers asserted a distinctively Hong Kong identity against Beijing’s homogenization. As anthropologist James Clifford argued in The Predicament of Culture (1988), cultures are never pure or static but emerge through creative appropriation and articulation. Hong Kong’s “bamboo identity” exemplifies this: a traditional material deployed to express contemporary political difference.

Ibrahim Mahama’s work, described as “monumental installations made from jute sacks and discarded textiles, materials tied to Ghana’s cocoa trade, stitched by large teams into vast quilt-like surfaces,” represents art’s critical potential. Mahama’s installations “confront themes of labour, extraction and exploitation” while his reinvestment of profits into Ghanaese cultural institutions (Red Clay Studio, Savannah Centre for Contemporary Art) models alternative artistic economies. This practice aligns with what theorist Nicolas Bourriaud called “relational aesthetics”—art creating social forms and collective experiences rather than autonomous objects (Bourriaud, 2002).

Yet Mahama’s market success also illustrates art’s ambivalent position. His work critiques extraction yet circulates through extractive institutions—galleries, fairs, auctions taking 50% commissions. Cultural theorist Andrea Fraser’s concept of “critique from within” is apt here (Fraser, 2005): artists necessarily operate inside the systems they critique, producing an ambivalence Fraser considers constitutive of contemporary art. Mahama’s installations indict capitalism’s brutality while his ArtReview ranking reflects his integration into elite cultural circuits. This contradiction is not personal failure but structural condition.

The Guerrilla Girls project documented by Petah Coyne and Kathy Grove at Galerie Lelong exemplifies feminist art activism. Since 1985, the Guerrilla Girls have “called attention to the disparities between men and women artists, white artists and artists of color” using “wry posters filled with statistics.” Their anonymous, masked interventions—each member adopting “the name of a historical woman artist or writer as her alias”—challenge art world patriarchy while maintaining collective anonymy. This practice draws on feminist consciousness-raising and guerrilla theater, making visible the gendered structures that institutional discourse naturalizes.

As art historian Griselda Pollock argued in Differencing the Canon (1999), art history’s canon is not a neutral repository of greatness but an ideological construct that systematically excludes women and artists of color. The Guerrilla Girls’ data-driven provocations—”Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum?”—force confrontation with this exclusion. Yet here too, recuperation threatens: the Guerrilla Girls have been canonized, their once-radical interventions now museum-worthy. As Walter Benjamin warned in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1936), capitalism excels at aestheticizing politics, converting critique into commodity. The challenge is maintaining art’s critical edge within institutions committed to its neutralization.

Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott (and its earlier diplomatic gestures toward Palestine) is an example of performative foreign policy: cultural withdrawal functions as a sanction and a symbolic alignment with a normative position. Cultural events (Eurovision) thus become arenas for moral claim-making and diplomatic signaling.

From a theoretical perspective this resonates with Judith Butler’s and other theorists’ work on performativity: withdrawing from a shared stage constitutes a speech act with political consequences. It also raises institutional questions for bodies like the EBU — can a nominally apolitical cultural event remain insulated from geopolitics? The answer, increasingly, is no.

Taken together, the snippets map a world in which cultural instruments (television, fairs, festivals) and infrastructural levers (satellite channels, modular construction, fintech rails) are bound up with capital flows and geopolitical repositioning. The soft-power playbook (media + festivals) is synchronized with market expansion (art fairs, auctions) and urban governance choices (retrofitting, modular builds). In short: culture is not separate from political economy; it is one of its operating systems.

These newsletters collectively document what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman would recognize as “liquid modernity’s” accelerating pace (Bauman, 2000, p. 2). Institutions that once provided stability—governments, corporations, international bodies—increasingly function as temporary assemblages, rearranging in response to crises while maintaining the appearance of continuity. When Fed officials debate interest rates while political appointees reshape agency leadership, they reveal what political theorist Wendy Brown calls “the hollowing out of democratic institutions” (Brown, 2015, p. 34).

Perhaps most significant is how these newsletters capture what historian Reinhart Koselleck termed “the space of experience” colliding with “the horizon of expectation” (Koselleck, 2004, p. 255). Readers encounter accounts of communities rebuilding after disasters alongside reports of climate scientists warning of increasingly severe weather events; stories of technological breakthroughs juxtaposed with analyses of growing inequality. This simultaneity creates what philosopher Walter Benjamin might recognize as “dialectical images” (Benjamin, 1940/2003, p. 462)—moments where past, present, and future collapse into illuminating configurations.

Interrelations abound: Economic globalization fuels cultural hybridization, as in Design Miami’s “Make. Believe” theme celebrating Miami’s uninhibited aesthetics, yet it also exacerbates social divides, seen in Albright College’s enrollment crisis leading to slashed majors like economics—ironic amid booming markets. Policy responses, like Germany’s €52 billion military procurement or Japan’s Ryukyu island fortifications, tie into social anxieties over borders, as Baltic mayors like Narva’s Katri Raik voice fears of Russian aggression. These snippets collectively imply a world where economic optimism (e.g., MercadoLibre’s $35 billion India pledge) clashes with social precarity (e.g., Thailand’s gold trading boom as a hedge against uncertainty), demanding policies that transcend silos.

This polycrisis evokes Joseph Schumpeter’s (1942) concept of “creative destruction,” where economic innovations like AI chips disrupt markets but spawn social upheavals, as in Nvidia’s China exports potentially accelerating Beijing’s self-reliance (Rothman in Bloomberg). Schumpeter’s thesis in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy resonates: “The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic... illustrates the same process of industrial mutation... that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within” (p. 83), mirroring how IndiGo’s tech glitch cascades into labor roster chaos, destroying old efficiencies while birthing regulatory reforms.

The FDA’s dissent and vaccine skepticism align with Ulrich Beck’s (1992) “risk society,” where modern institutions falter amid manufactured uncertainties. In Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Beck argues that “risks... are becoming the motor of the self-politicization of modernity” (p. 232), akin to Makary’s fringe endorsements eroding public trust, interrelating with cultural narratives like Slovenia’s boycott, which politicizes entertainment as resistance.

Policy interrelations recall Graham Allison’s (2017) Destined for War, warning of Thucydides’ Trap in U.S.-China tensions: “When a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one, the most likely outcome is war” (p. vii). U.S. chip concessions to China, amid Baltic fortifications, embody this trap’s economic facade, where trade deals (e.g., Trump’s Xi negotiations) avert escalation but sustain rivalries, much like Turkey’s OTS media union fostering Turkic solidarity against Russian influence.

Monocle’s art and design foci echo Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) Distinction, where cultural capital legitimizes economic power: “Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier” (p. 6), as Abu Dhabi’s auctions and Miami’s fairs classify Gulf elites as global tastemakers, interrelating with social mobility in narratives like Ibrahim Mahama topping ArtReview’s Power 100, redistributing profits to Tamale’s institutions.

World literature amplifies these: Orhan Pamuk’s (2004) Snow explores Turkish identity’s fractures, paralleling Erdoğan’s Ottoman dramas as cultural propaganda: “The West is no longer a dream for us... it’s a nightmare” (p. 145), linking to Central Asia’s Latin alphabet shift from Cyrillic. Non-fiction like Naomi Klein’s (2014) This Changes Everything critiques climate-capitalism ties, as in U.S. park union drives amid fires: “Climate change... demands collective action on an unprecedented scale” (p. 464), interrelating with Osaka Expo’s sustainable greenery push.

Hannah Arendt’s (1958) The Human Condition critiques modernity’s commodification: “The victory of animal laborans would end... in the dead calm of a last, eternal peace” (p. 322), warning against AI’s labor displacements (e.g., OpenAI’s time savings) and economic squeezes like China’s deflation, urging policies for human flourishing amid interrelations.

Economically, the snippets underscore a precarious balance between growth imperatives and deflationary drags, with interrelations amplifying global vulnerabilities. China’s CPI acceleration to 0.7% in November, driven by food costs yet undermined by factory-gate deflation at -2.2%, illustrates the “great income squeeze” (as Bloomberg frames it) where weak demand perpetuates a cycle of price cuts, echoing Joseph Schumpeter’s notion of creative destruction in capitalism (Schumpeter, 1942). This connects to India’s RBI rate cut to 5.25%, aimed at stoking inflation amid rupee weakness, revealing how emerging markets grapple with currency interventions that inadvertently fuel speculative IPO booms—Japan and India raised record sums, with Meesho’s 60% debut surge exemplifying “undermonetized franchises” ripe for exploitation. Policy-wise, these moves intersect with U.S. Fed deliberations, where a potential 25-basis-point cut amid dissent risks signaling an “extended hold” or hike, as traders forecast rates at 3.17-3.21% by end-2026. This policy fragmentation, with hawks clashing against doves in a “lame duck” Fed under Powell, mirrors philosophical debates on institutional independence, akin to Hannah Arendt’s warnings on bureaucratic erosion in The Origins of Totalitarianism (Arendt, 1951), where she notes, “The trouble with the professors was not so much their cowardice as their inability to think” (p. 474)—a resonant critique of the FDA’s turmoil under Makary, whose flirtations with fringe theories (e.g., lab-engineered diseases) politicize science, eroding trust in regulatory bodies overseeing $3.9 trillion in products.

Socially, the interrelations highlight how economic policies exacerbate inequalities, fostering cultural backlashes. Thailand’s SEA Games, amid border clashes with Cambodia, serve as a “sporting chance to lift spirits” in a year marred by disasters and royal loss, evoking Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital in Distinction (Bourdieu, 1984), where sports unify fractured societies but mask underlying economic woes. Similarly, Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott, aligning with its arms embargo on Israel, reflects a social pivot toward moral diplomacy, intersecting with cultural shifts like Ghanaian artist Ibrahim Mahama topping ArtReview’s Power 100 by reinvesting profits in Tamale’s institutions—a “new phase in globalization” that decentralizes art from Eurocentric hubs, as per Homi Bhabha’s hybridity in The Location of Culture (Bhabha, 1994). This cultural redistribution parallels economic ones, such as Abu Dhabi’s $1 billion Sotheby’s event targeting under-40 collectors, leveraging Gulf funds to bridge East-West divides, much like Edward Said’s Orientalism critiques how such exchanges perpetuate power imbalances (Said, 1978).

Policy implications weave through these, with military escalations in Japan and Germany—Japan fortifying Ryukyu islands near Taiwan, Germany approving €52 billion in procurements—responding to Russian and Chinese threats, interrelating with U.S. chip export easings to China. This détente, allowing Nvidia’s H200 sales, signals Trump’s pragmatic trade recalibration, but risks accelerating Beijing’s semiconductor self-reliance, as per Rothman’s analysis. Philosophically, it evokes John Maynard Keynes’ warnings in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Keynes, 1919) on punitive policies breeding resentment: “If we aim deliberately at the impoverishment of Central Europe, vengeance, I dare predict, will not limp” (p. 168)—a parallel to how U.S. tariffs might spur retaliatory rare-earth controls. Culturally, Turkey’s OTS broadcaster, glamourizing Ottoman history, interrelates with these as soft-power hegemony, akin to Joseph Nye’s Soft Power (Nye, 2004), where media shapes “shared norms” across vast regions, potentially countering Russian distractions in Ukraine.

These interrelations suggest a world where economic policies fuel social fragmentations, cultural narratives legitimize power grabs, and policy vacillations amplify uncertainties. Reflectively, they evoke Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Kundera, 1984), where lightness signifies fleeting freedoms amid oppressive structures—much like Galperin’s “paradise” in Uruguay or Lisbon’s heritage shops resisting eviction. Yet, as Arendt might caution, such lightness risks complacency in facing totalitarian undercurrents, from FDA politicization to border militarizations.

Thus, these snippets associatively map a polycrisis, where economic booms (e.g., Asian IPOs) coexist with deflationary perils, cultural decentralizations challenge Western dominance, and policies teeter between cooperation and confrontation. Scholarly lenses reveal not isolated events but a tapestry of interdependencies, urging a balanced, empathetic response to global complexities.

These newsletter dispatches, read together, reveal our contemporary moment’s fundamental tensions: between globalization’s promise of connection and its production of inequality; between democratic aspirations and authoritarian resurgence; between technological utopianism and extractive reality; between cultural vitality and its commodification. Synthesizing these materials through scholarly frameworks—from Gramsci’s hegemony to Piketty’s inequality, from Foucault’s governmentality to Klein’s disaster capitalism—illuminates structures and dynamics that remain obscured in conventional journalism.

What emerges is a world system in transition, characterized by American hegemonic decline, Chinese ascent, regional powers (Turkey, Gulf states) expanding influence, and intensifying contradictions around finance, migration, technology, and climate. The culture industries document and participate in these shifts, producing the “structure of feeling” (Williams, 1977) that makes this conjuncture livable for elite classes even as precarity intensifies for the majority.

Yet the newsletters also document practices of resilience and resistance: Hong Kong’s volunteer mobilization, Lisbon’s heritage preservation, Mahama’s institutional building, the Guerrilla Girls’ feminist intervention. These suggest possibilities for alternative futures—what geographer Erik Swyngedouw called “agonistic pluralism” (Swyngedouw, 2009), the contentious democratic negotiation of collective life against capitalism’s authoritarian imperatives.

The task of critical scholarship, as Stuart Hall argued, is not neutral observation but partisan intervention—identifying domination’s mechanisms while amplifying emancipatory alternatives (Hall, 1992). These newsletters, symptomatically read, provide materials for such work. They reveal not only what is but glimmers of what might be: economies oriented toward need rather than accumulation, cultures of solidarity rather than spectacle, democracies of participation rather than plutocracy. The struggle to realize such possibilities defines our conjuncture. These brief dispatches, properly interpreted, contribute to that struggle by making visible the power relations we must confront and transform.

As we approach 2026, these newsletters suggest we inhabit what philosopher Giorgio Agamben might call “a permanent state of exception” (Agamben, 2005, p. 31)—where crisis becomes normalized while structural solutions remain elusive. Yet within this landscape, moments of genuine human connection persist: volunteers organizing disaster relief, families maintaining cultural traditions across generations, communities finding ways to care for one another despite institutional failures. These fragments of resilience offer what literary scholar Saidiya Hartman terms “ways of inhabiting the world differently” (Hartman, 2019, p. 9).

These snippets, through their economic volatilities and cultural assertions, reflect a world in Arendtian “dark times,” where interconnections demand reflective policy—lest creative destruction devolve into mere destruction.

Share

Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. University of Chicago Press.

Alesina, A., & Summers, L. H. (1993). Central bank independence and macroeconomic performance: Some comparative evidence. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 25(2), 151-162.

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

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

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

Appadurai, A. (2013). The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. Verso Books.

Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. W.W. Norton & Company.

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

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

Arrighi, G. (1994). The long twentieth century: Money, power, and the origins of our times. Verso.

Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space (M. Jolas, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1958)

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.

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

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity Press.

Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Illuminations (pp. 217-251). Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (2003). Selected writings: Volume 4, 1938-1940 (H. Eiland & M. W. Jennings, Eds.). Belknap Press. (Original work published 1940)

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

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

Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational aesthetics. Les Presses du Réel.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

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

Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197-222.

Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Harvard University Press.

Cooper, M. (2017). Family values: Between neoliberalism and the new social conservatism. Zone Books.

Durkheim, É. (1984). The division of labor in society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1933)

Eichengreen, B. (1992). Golden fetters: The gold standard and the Great Depression, 1919-1939. Oxford University Press.

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

Ferguson, N. (2019). The square and the tower: Networks and power, from the Freemasons to Facebook. Penguin Books.

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

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78. Palgrave Macmillan.

Fraser, A. (2005). From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique. Artforum, 44(1), 278-283.

Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.

Graeber, D. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. AK Press.

Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The first 5,000 years. Melville House.

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

Hall, S. (1992). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In L. Grossberg et al. (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 277-294). Routledge.

Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Verso Books.

Han, B.-C. (2020). The burnout society. MIT Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Spiegel & Grau.

Hartman, S. (2019). Wayward lives, beautiful experiments: Intimate histories of social upheaval. W.W. Norton & Company.

Harvey, D. (1989). The urban experience. Johns Hopkins University Press.

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

Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press.

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

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

Illouz, E. (2020). The emotional life of capitalism. Polity Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.

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

Jameson, F. (2003). Future city. New Left Review, 21, 65-79.

Keynes, J. M. (1919). The economic consequences of the peace. Macmillan.

Khanna, P. (2021). The future is Asian: Commerce, conflict, and culture in the 21st century. Simon & Schuster.

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.

Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time (K. Tribe, Trans.). Columbia University Press.

Kundera, M. (1984). The unbearable lightness of being. Harper & Row.

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

McDougall, W. A. (1985). ...The heavens and the earth: A political history of the space age. Basic Books.

McNeill, J. R. (2000). Something new under the sun: An environmental history of the twentieth-century world. W. W. Norton.

Milanović, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.

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

Mirowski, P. (2013). Never let a serious crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. Verso.

Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.

Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. Harvard University Press.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice. Belknap Press.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Pamuk, O. (2004). Snow. Vintage International. (Original work published 2002)

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

Pollock, G. (1999). Differencing the canon: Feminist desire and the writing of art’s histories. Routledge.

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

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

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

Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21(1), 1-33.

Rosa, H. (2019). The unbearable lightness of being: A critical theory of resonance. Columbia University Press.

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

Said, E. W. (1993). Culture and imperialism. Knopf.

Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press.

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.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Anchor Books.

Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge.

Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. Viking.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. W. W. Norton.

Stumpf, J. (2006). The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. American University Law Review, 56(2), 367-419.

Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The antinomies of the postpolitical city: In search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 601-620.

Thornton, S. (2008). Seven days in the art world. W. W. Norton.

Tooze, A. (2020). Shutdown: How COVID shook the world’s economy. Viking.

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press.

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.

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

Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press.

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

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Comet, Perplexity, Qwen, Alibaba, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Grok, xAI, tools (December 12, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (December 12, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (December 12, 2025). The Fractal Present: Soft Power, Extractive Technology, and Human Resilience in Late Capitalism’s Crosscurrents. Open Economics Blog.

The newsletter fragments offer more than discrete news items; they constitute a palimpsest of our contemporary moment, where economic anxieties, geopolitical realignments, cultural productions, and technological transformations intersect in ways that demand interpretive sophistication. These dispatches from Monocle, ARTnews, Semafor, The Economist, CNBC, The New York Times, and Bloomberg reveal the subtle architectures of soft power, the persistence of imperial logics under new guises, the financialization of everyday life, and the cultural politics of belonging in an age when borders are simultaneously dissolving and fortifying. This commentary endeavors to read these materials not as isolated phenomena but as symptomatic expressions of deeper structural conditions to illuminate their interconnections and broader implications.

The newsletter snippets from December 4-10, 2025, encapsulate a mosaic of global developments, blending cultural diplomacy, economic turbulence, policy shifts, and social transformations. Monocle’s dispatches highlight soft-power maneuvers, such as Turkey’s expansion of Turkic broadcasting and cultural influence in Central Asia, alongside art market dynamics in Abu Dhabi and Miami, Olympic infrastructure upgrades in Italy, and reflections on urban heritage in Lisbon. Bloomberg’s entries pivot to financial and technological realms, including AI-driven market volatility, corporate shakeups like Warner Bros. Discovery’s bidding wars, FDA leadership crises, and geopolitical tensions in regions like the Baltic states and Southeast Asia. Economic indicators feature prominently, from India’s aviation disruptions and rupee struggles to China’s deflationary pressures and global IPO booms. Collectively, these snippets portray a world navigating post-pandemic recovery, inflationary anxieties, and resurgent nationalism, where cultural narratives intersect with economic imperatives—evident in themes like sustainable design at Osaka’s Expo and union drives in U.S. national parks. This integration reveals interrelations: cultural soft power (e.g., Turkic media) mirrors economic hegemony (e.g., Turkey’s petrochemical alliances), while policy decisions (e.g., U.S. chip exports to China) ripple into social spheres (e.g., AI’s labor impacts), underscoring a polycrisis era where local events echo global imbalances.

The newsletter excerpts paint a multifaceted portrait of a world in flux, where geopolitical maneuvers intersect with cultural expressions, economic strategies, and policy imperatives. Monocle’s dispatches emphasize cultural and soft-power dynamics, such as Turkey’s expansion of Turkic broadcasting as a tool for regional hegemony, the maturation of Abu Dhabi’s art market through Sotheby’s Collectors Week, and Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott reflecting anti-Israel sentiments amid broader European political fractures. They also highlight urban and infrastructural transformations, like Italy’s Olympic preparations and Hong Kong’s post-fire urban renewal discussions at Mipim Asia, alongside lighter cultural notes on design fairs, holiday markets, and sustainable greenery at Osaka’s Expo. Bloomberg’s contributions shift toward economic and financial turbulence, including the FDA’s leadership crisis under Commissioner Marty Makary, rival bids for Warner Bros. Discovery amid antitrust concerns, Federal Reserve deliberations on rate cuts, India’s RBI easing amid rupee depreciation, and global IPO booms in Asia. Broader threads include AI chip export relaxations to China, military buildups in Japan and Germany, and consumer price trends in China signaling persistent deflation risks.

Collectively, these snippets reveal a global landscape where economic resilience is tested against inflationary pressures and trade tensions, cultural narratives serve as proxies for political influence, and policy decisions—ranging from central bank interventions to border fortifications—navigate the shadows of great-power rivalries. The interrelations are stark: Turkey’s media soft power echoes economic ambitions in Central Asia’s petrochemical resources, mirroring how Abu Dhabi’s art auctions leverage oil wealth for cultural capital. Similarly, the Fed’s potential rate pause amid U.S. political transitions parallels India’s monetary easing, both underscoring how domestic policies respond to global inflationary “tilts” (as Australia’s RBA Governor Michele Bullock phrased it). Socially, these reflect anxieties over affordability and inequality, from Trump’s airport redesign rhetoric to Thailand’s SEA Games as a morale booster amid economic stagnation. Culturally, the rise of African artists in ArtReview’s Power 100 and Ibrahim Mahama’s community reinvestments signal a “distributed geography” in global art, contrasting with the homogenization fears in Eurovision’s politicization.

The Monocle piece on Turkey’s ambitious plan to establish a common television channel for the Turkic world exemplifies what Joseph Nye termed “soft power”—the capacity to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion (Nye, 2004). Yet this initiative warrants a more critical reading than Nye’s framework typically allows. As the newsletter reports, Turkey under Erdoğan is deploying historical dramas like The Magnificent Century and Payitaht as instruments of regional hegemony, glamorizing Ottoman grandeur while the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) pursues military cooperation and infrastructural integration stretching from the Bosphorus to the Mongolian steppe.

This media strategy resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony—the process by which dominant groups secure consent through intellectual and moral leadership rather than force alone (Gramsci, 1971). The proposed OTS broadcaster aims not merely to entertain but to “shape a common culture among states,” fostering “shared norms and aspirations” that naturalize Turkish leadership. Gramsci understood that hegemony operates most effectively when it appears as common sense, when the subordinated internalize the worldview of the dominant. Turkey’s soft power offensive—complete with joint satellite and AI technology development—seeks precisely this outcome: a Turkic imagined community (Anderson, 1983) with Ankara as its metropolitan center.

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983) remains essential for understanding nationalism’s horizontal comradeship and its dependence on print-capitalism and later mass media. Anderson argued that newspapers and novels enabled people who would never meet to imagine themselves as part of a bounded, sovereign community. The OTS television channel represents this logic at a transnational scale—an attempt to conjure a supra-national Turkic consciousness through synchronized media consumption. Yet Anderson’s framework, focused on the rise of nations, requires augmentation when applied to neo-imperial projects. Turkey’s soft power is not about nation-building but about constructing a hierarchical regional order in which Ankara exercises preponderant influence over nominally sovereign states.

Edward Said’s Culture and Imperialism (1993) provides the necessary corrective. Said demonstrated how cultural forms—novels, operas, exhibitions—have historically served imperial projects by naturalizing hierarchies and legitimating domination. Turkish historical dramas, with their “falsely positive spin” on sultanic rule, perform similar ideological work: they beautify autocracy, rehabilitate empire, and position Turkey as the natural leader of the Turkic world. The timing is significant. As the newsletter notes, “traditional soft-power titans such as Europe and the US are pulling funding from public media” while “Russia is distracted by war.” Turkey is filling a vacuum, but this is less about benign cultural exchange than about establishing spheres of influence in resource-rich Central Asia.

The comparison with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), established in 1950 to “promote international understanding after the Second World War,” is revealing. The EBU emerged from a genuinely multilateral impulse in post-war reconstruction. The OTS broadcaster, by contrast, is animated by Erdoğan’s authoritarian ambitions and Turkey’s quest for regional hegemony. This is soft power in the service of hard interests—a point often elided in celebratory accounts of cultural diplomacy.

The Monocle coverage of Design Miami and related cultural events offers a counterpoint—or perhaps a complement—to geopolitical soft power. Here we encounter what Pierre Bourdieu called the “cultural capital” of the global elite (Bourdieu, 1984). Design Miami, now touring globally (Paris, Seoul, Los Angeles, Basel, Dubai), has transformed from a “quirky sideshow” in 2005 to a “global phenomenon” where “anything goes when it comes to aesthetics.” The fair’s CEO describes Miami as “fun, sunny, bright, tropical and energetic,” a place where design serves as “a tool for betterment and positive change in the world.”

This rhetoric of aesthetic optimism and design-as-progress warrants skepticism. Fredric Jameson’s analysis of postmodernism as the “cultural logic of late capitalism” (Jameson, 1991) helps decode what is occurring at Design Miami. Jameson argued that postmodern culture is characterized by pastiche, depthlessness, and the waning of affect—a culture in which historical styles become available for playful recombination, evacuated of their original meanings. Design Miami exemplifies this perfectly: 1980s radical furniture sits beside Fendi salottos with “gilded brass flowers,” all unified by a curatorial theme of “Make. Believe.”

The fair celebrates eclecticism and transgression (”carefree and self-assured, the city offers a joyful alternative to beige minimalism”), but this aesthetic rebelliousness is entirely recuperated within market logic. As cultural critic Mark Fisher observed in Capitalist Realism (2009), contemporary capitalism excels at absorbing critique and converting it into profitable product. The “weird and wonderful” design pieces that prompt visitors to “question how far people will go to explore the limits of bad taste” are not threats to the system but its ornaments. They perform transgression while affirming the market’s capacity to commodify everything.

Moreover, the rise of “collectable design” signals the financialization of culture. As the newsletter notes, Design Miami “identifies and stresses” that “the world is only now waking up to the value of collectable design,” with competitors like Salone del Mobile entering the space. Design objects are increasingly treated as investment assets, part of what economist Thomas Piketty called the growing importance of inherited wealth in twenty-first century capitalism (Piketty, 2014). When UBS reports that “91 people became billionaires by inheriting $297.8 billion” in 2025, and when Design Miami showcases pieces priced in the millions, we see culture folding into the circuits of capital accumulation that Piketty diagnosed: r > g (the return on capital exceeds economic growth), leading to spiraling inequality and the entrenchment of dynastic wealth.

The ARTnews coverage of Art Basel Miami Beach and related art world developments extends this analysis. The newsletter reports “momentum” following a “$2.2 billion November auction season in New York,” with major early sales including “a new Gerhard Richter for $5.5 million” and numerous seven-figure transactions. Yet the piece also notes that “14 galleries have pulled out of Art Basel this year” amid “the jitters” affecting the gallery world, even as “Florida-based galleries” showcase “the new, the weird, the queer, and the immigrant sides of Miami.”

This paradox—of market exuberance amid structural anxiety—captures what David Harvey called the “spatial fix” of capitalism (Harvey, 2001). Harvey argued that capitalism periodically resolves crises of overaccumulation by expanding geographically, opening new markets and investment frontiers. Art Basel Miami Beach, now in its twentieth year, represents such a spatial fix: the art market’s expansion beyond traditional centers (New York, London, Paris) into emerging hubs (Miami, Hong Kong, Dubai). The announcement of a Guggenheim Abu Dhabi opening and Hauser & Wirth’s plans for Palermo fit this pattern—capital seeking returns through geographic diversification.

Ibrahim Mahama’s ascent to the top of ArtReview‘s Power 100—”the first African artist to do so”—might seem to signal a democratization of the art world. Mahama, whose “monumental installations made from jute sacks and discarded textiles” address “labour, extraction and exploitation,” has reinvested profits into institutions in his Ghanaese hometown of Tamale. Yet as sociologist Sarah Thornton argued in Seven Days in the Art World (2008), the contemporary art market is structured by “auctions, biennials, and branded institutions” that concentrate symbolic and economic capital in elite hands. Mahama’s success is real but exceptional; the structures that exclude most artists from the Global South remain intact.

The newsletter’s report on Iranian art markets provides a telling contrast. While works by Iranian artists achieved “the weakest results in years” at London auctions, Tehran Auction hosted a “glittering million-dollar art auction” at the Azadi Hotel in a city “battered by June’s so-called Twelve Day War.” As The Art Newspaper reported, this “is evidence of the Iranian elite’s resilience in a nation isolated under some of the harshest sanctions ever imposed.” Here we see what Arjun Appadurai called the “disjunctures” of globalization (Appadurai, 1996)—the way global cultural flows produce uneven and unpredictable outcomes rather than homogenization. Sanctions have not destroyed Iranian art markets but have intensified their insularity, creating a “booming, closed domestic market” while the international market stagnates.

The collected items form a modest atlas of contemporary soft power, cultural economy and urban political economy. They pivot around four clusters: (1) cultural-political projection and media as diplomacy (the Turkic broadcasting project; Eurovision politics), (2) the high-end cultural marketplace (Art Basel/Design Miami, Abu Dhabi auction week), (3) urban governance and infrastructure (Mipim Asia and the Tai Po fire; Osaka Expo’s “temporary greenery”), and (4) technological and financial inclusion (Moniepoint and Nigeria’s fintech momentum). Each vignette does two things simultaneously: it narrates a localized event (a fair, a summit, a fire, a corporate raise) and uses that event to gesture at broader shifts in power, aesthetics and capital flows.

In reading through these newsletters from December 2025, one confronts a world experiencing what anthropologist Anna Tsing might call “simultaneous but disjunctive temporalities” (Tsing, 2015, p. 22). We witness the fracturing of established geopolitical orders alongside the consolidation of global corporate power; the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence amid persistent human crises requiring traditional forms of care. This simultaneity isn’t merely chronological—it reveals the deep structural tensions of our moment, where technological acceleration and geopolitical destabilization proceed hand in hand, yet with profoundly different implications for different populations.

In this fractal present, power operates through what geographer David Harvey calls “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey, 2005, p. 145)—the simultaneous creation of value for some and precarity for others. When semiconductor companies navigate export restrictions while communities face technological displacement, they exemplify what economist Amartya Sen describes as “development as freedom” existing alongside “development as unfreedom” (Sen, 1999, p. 87). The newsletters don’t merely report events; they document the lived experience of capitalism’s contradictions.

The newsletters ultimately present not a coherent narrative but what anthropologist Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing calls “patches of possibility” (Tsing, 2015, p. 28). Each article, analysis, and report represents a fragment of our fractured but interconnected world—inviting readers not merely to consume information but to recognize their position within these complex networks of power, technology, and human resilience. In this moment of simultaneous destabilization and innovation, what matters most may be what philosopher Martha Nussbaum calls “the practice of seeing the other as equal” (Nussbaum, 2013, p. 145)—a capacity that remains essential whether negotiating trade agreements or sorting supplies for fire victims.

Economically, the snippets underscore a precarious global landscape marked by deflationary risks and speculative booms. China’s consumer-price index edging to 0.7% in November 2025, amid a 38-month factory deflation streak, signals entrenched structural weaknesses in the world’s second-largest economy, exacerbated by property slumps and subdued demand. This dovetails with Bloomberg’s reports on India’s rupee plunge and aviation glitches at IndiGo, where algorithmic optimizations collide with regulatory mandates, illustrating how digital efficiencies can amplify disruptions in emerging markets. These economic strains interrelate with policy frameworks: Australia’s central bank pausing rate cuts amid upside inflation risks reflects a broader pivot among central banks, as seen in the Federal Reserve’s anticipated 2026 easing, potentially fueling asset bubbles like Japan’s IPO surge (¥1.2 trillion in 2025) or SK Hynix’s AI-fueled stock tripling. Policy-wise, U.S. decisions to ease Nvidia’s chip exports to China—despite prior curbs—represent a pragmatic thaw in tech wars, balancing economic interdependence with security concerns, as Rothman (in Bloomberg) notes Trump’s deal-making ethos prioritizing U.S. farmers over ideological isolationism.

Monocle’s coverage of the Organisation of Turkic States’ plan for a shared broadcaster captures a key contemporary tactic: the infrastructural turn in soft power. States now pursue influence not only by content (dramas, historical pageants) but by plumbing (satellite, shared channels, AI platforms) that reconfigure cultural circulation across contiguous geographies. The piece highlights Ankara’s dual strategy: export glossy historical drama while institutionalizing a broadcast architecture that normalizes a pan-Turkic imaginary.

Analytically, this is familiar terrain to Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power — the ability to shape preferences through attraction rather than coercion (Nye, 2004). But it’s useful to complicate Nye with Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital and symbolic economies: elite-produced cultural goods (TV dramas, curated festivals) convert into geopolitical legitimacy when embedded in institutions that standardize taste and language across elites and publics (Bourdieu, 1984). Benedict Anderson’s notion of “imagined communities” helps explain how shared media imaginaries consolidate political solidarities across territory (Anderson, 1983).

There is also a technological twist: this broadcaster is not merely nostalgic cultural production but part of a broader data-and-platform infrastructure (satellite + AI) that shapes what publics see and how they interact — a point that draws the endeavor into the same register as contemporary debates about platform governance, algorithmic curation and state media influence.

Reports from Art Basel Miami, Design Miami and Sotheby’s Abu Dhabi encapsulate two interlocking dynamics: (a) the globalization and geographical redistribution of art-market power (Gulf and African actors now central), and (b) generational turnover in collectors (younger, digitally native buyers). These phenomena are not mere aesthetics: they signal capital flows, patronage regimes and new institutional geographies (museums, biennials, auction houses) that reshape which works accrue value and which narratives gain prominence.

Bourdieu’s sociology of taste is again helpful: the market arbitrates “distinction” while reproducing class differentials through conspicuous acquisitions and institutional influence (Bourdieu, 1984). At the same time, Sasha Sassen’s work on global cities and transnational circuits helps explain how centers of consumption (Miami, Abu Dhabi) become nodes connecting capital, tourism, and cultural production (Sassen, 2001). The art market’s current optimism — “glass half full” — should be read alongside structural anxieties over inequality, inheritance and the “Great Wealth Transfer” to younger buyers who bring different evaluative criteria.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. acquisition negotiations reveal the transformation of cultural production under platform capitalism. This isn’t merely business consolidation but what media scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan has termed “the attention architecture of digital capitalism” (Vaidhyanathan, 2018, p. 12). As Netflix positions itself as both producer and distributor of culture, we see the culmination of what political economist Fredric Jameson described decades ago as “the colonizing of the cultural sphere by the economic” (Jameson, 1991, p. 183). The cultural implications extend beyond market share: when streaming platforms decide what gets produced and preserved, they essentially determine which stories define our collective memory.

The cultural coverage—from Monocle’s design commentary to Bloomberg’s analysis of streaming media—suggests that aesthetics and consumption patterns increasingly serve as what anthropologist Arjun Appadurai terms “cultural scripts for navigating an uncertain future” (Appadurai, 2013, p. 14). When publications celebrate minimalist design or sustainable fashion amid economic turbulence, they offer not merely lifestyle choices but “narrative templates for managing existential anxiety” (Rosa, 2019, p. 103).

The newsletters’ extensive coverage of Federal Reserve policy and global central banking reveals how monetary governance has become a site of intense political contestation. Bloomberg reports that the Fed faces “questions” as it contemplates rate cuts amid “stubbornly above-target inflation” and a “weak labor market,” with “long-term questions about monetary policy in the coming year... and the central bank’s independence.” The newsletter notes concerns that “if the central bank falls under the political sway of the White House, it could unnecessarily ease monetary policy and allow price rises to accelerate out of control.”

These anxieties resonate with the extensive political economy literature on central bank independence. As economists Alberto Alesina and Lawrence Summers demonstrated in their influential 1993 paper, central bank independence is negatively correlated with inflation (Alesina & Summers, 1993). The logic is straightforward: insulated from electoral pressures, independent central banks can maintain price stability even when politically costly. Yet as economic historian Barry Eichengreen has shown, central bank independence has never been absolute; it is always a negotiated political settlement subject to revision (Eichengreen, 1992).

The Trump administration’s pressure for lower rates—with National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, “the frontrunner in Trump’s search for the next Fed chair,” asserting “there’s plenty of room to do it”—threatens this settlement. The newsletter reports that Trump has “previously praised Eero Saarinen” and promised to “rebuild” Dulles International Airport, but these aesthetic enthusiasms coexist with authoritarian impulses. As political scientist Yascha Mounk argued in The People vs. Democracy (2018), populist leaders frequently attack independent institutions—courts, central banks, media—that constrain executive power. Trump’s Fed interventions fit this pattern.

The comparative material on emerging market central banking complicates the narrative. Bloomberg reports that while developed economies struggle with inflation and growth trade-offs, “emerging-market currencies” have “breathing room” as “their central banks [have] the space to recalibrate policy.” India’s Reserve Bank lowering rates “to 5.25%” after inflation fell to just “0.25%”—”well below the central banks 2% to 6% target band”—exemplifies this divergence. As economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff documented in This Time Is Different (2009), emerging markets have historically suffered more volatile monetary conditions than advanced economies. The current reversal—with EM central banks demonstrating greater discipline—suggests a potential shift in global economic governance.

Yet this optimism requires qualification. Economist Dani Rodrik has argued that the “policy trilemma” constrains all open economies: states can achieve only two of three goals—capital mobility, fixed exchange rates, and monetary autonomy (Rodrik, 2011). Emerging markets pursuing independent monetary policy in a world of footloose capital remain vulnerable to sudden stops and capital flight. India’s rupee, which “has lost about 5% of its value this year” and required “frantic efforts” to prevent further decline, illustrates these constraints. The newsletter’s observation that “most factors are not within their control” and that the currency’s “fate depends on the trade talks” with Trump captures this dependency.

The newsletters document the continued expansion of private equity and alternative assets into new domains. Carlyle executives told Semafor that “returns from private equity investments will continue to beat public markets, even as a flood of new capital comes in from retail investors,” projecting returns “as much as 400 basis points higher than returns from public markets.” This “opening up [of] private equity funds... to a wider investor base” represents what economist Hyman Minsky would have recognized as a classic late-stage credit cycle phenomenon (Minsky, 1986).

Minsky’s “financial instability hypothesis” posited that stability breeds instability: as good times persist, borrowers and lenders become progressively more reckless, moving from “hedge” finance (conservative) to “speculative” finance (requiring asset appreciation) to “Ponzi” finance (requiring ever-growing debt). The democratization of private equity—allowing “mom-and-pop investors” access to previously restricted asset classes—fits the speculative-to-Ponzi trajectory. As cultural critic David Graeber observed in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011), finance capital has an inherent tendency toward abstraction and virtualization, detaching claims from underlying realities. Retail private equity extends this logic, enabling ordinary citizens to speculate on illiquid assets they cannot understand or monitor.

The newsletter’s report on “Mubadala hungry for power” reveals another dimension of financialization: sovereign wealth funds as AI infrastructure investors. Mubadala Investment Company, a “$330 billion” Abu Dhabi fund, has “sold a white-labeled AI corporate governance monitor... to three other companies” and “expects to be one of the first users of Stargate UAE, a massive data center under construction... when it opens in 2026.” This convergence of state capital, technology infrastructure, and data extraction exemplifies what Shoshana Zuboff called “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, 2019). Zuboff argued that digital platforms have created a new economic order based on behavioral prediction and modification, where human experience is converted into data and data into profit.

Gulf sovereign wealth funds are positioning themselves at the center of this new order. The newsletter reports Qatar establishing “Qai,” joining “Saudi Arabia and the UAE in backing a homegrown AI champion,” with a “$20 billion joint venture with Brookfield Asset Management to invest in... AI infrastructure.” As geographer David Harvey has shown, capitalism requires continual “accumulation by dispossession” to sustain itself (Harvey, 2003)—the conversion of commons into private property, whether through colonial land grabs or, today, through the enclosure of digital spaces and the privatization of data. Gulf states, leveraging their oil wealth, are leading this latest round of accumulation.

Subscribe

The newsletters document intensifying border enforcement and migration controls across multiple geographies. Semafor reports that “the Trump administration expanded its immigration raids to New Orleans,” with DHS targeting “undocumented immigrants who had been released from local jails thanks to sanctuary policies.” The newsletter notes concerns “the sweep will catch people without criminal records, as past raids have done.” Meanwhile, “Customs and Border Protection may soon review international tourists’ social media accounts,” with visitors to the US “from countries like Britain that qualify for the visa waiver program” potentially required to “submit up to five years of social media activity.”

These developments align with what sociologist Saskia Sassen called the “expulsions” characteristic of contemporary capitalism (Sassen, 2014). Sassen argued that advanced capitalism increasingly operates through brutal mechanisms of expulsion—of surplus populations, of refugees, of the economically marginal—rather than through inclusion and exploitation. Immigration raids and social media surveillance exemplify this logic: the state not as guarantor of rights but as machinery of exclusion and control.

Michel Foucault’s analytics of power provide essential context. In Discipline and Punish (1975), Foucault analyzed the shift from sovereign power (the spectacle of public execution) to disciplinary power (the subtle normalization of behavior through institutions like prisons, schools, hospitals). His concept of the “panopticon”—Jeremy Bentham’s prison design enabling constant surveillance—has become a ubiquitous metaphor for contemporary surveillance society. Today’s migrants exist under a digital panopticon: their movements tracked, their social media scrutinized, their biometric data harvested. As Foucault wrote, “Visibility is a trap” (Foucault, 1975, p. 200).

Yet Foucault’s late work on “governmentality” offers additional insight (Foucault, 2007). Governmentality refers to the “conduct of conduct”—the techniques through which populations are managed not through overt coercion but through the shaping of environments, incentives, and subjectivities. Border enforcement today operates through governmentality: deterrence through visibility (highly publicized raids), administrative violence (mandatory social media disclosure), and the delegation of enforcement to private actors (employer sanctions, platform monitoring). The result is a “crimmigration” system—a portmanteau of criminal and immigration law—that blurs categories and expands state power (Stumpf, 2006).

The newsletter’s report on Slovenia and other European nations boycotting Eurovision 2026 over Israel’s participation reveals migration politics operating at the cultural level. Slovenia “ratified... recognition of Palestine in June 2024” and later “ordered an embargo on the trade and transit of arms and ammunition to and from Israel, becoming the first European country to take such action.” This principled stance emerges from solidarity with Palestinian dispossession—itself a migration crisis, with millions of Palestinians living as refugees or under occupation since 1948. As political theorist Hannah Arendt observed in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), the twentieth century was defined by statelessness and refugees—”the scum of the earth,” deprived of the “right to have rights.” The twenty-first century extends this condition, with Palestinians emblematic of permanent rightlessness.

The newsletters extensively document Trump’s tariff regime and its global ramifications. Semafor reports “Donald Trump suggested he could extend his anti-drug military campaign in Venezuela to include targets in Colombia and Mexico,” while The Economist notes “American officials reacted angrily to a decision by the European Commission to fine X, Elon Musk’s social-media platform, €120m (€140m).” The Trump administration’s “National Security Strategy” lambasted “European officials” for “trampling on basic principles of democracy” and asserted America should be “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory.”

This economic nationalism finds theoretical articulation in what political economist Robert Gilpin called “hegemonic stability theory” (Gilpin, 1987). Gilpin argued that international economic openness requires a dominant power willing to provide public goods (open markets, stable currency, security) even at short-term cost. American hegemony underwrote post-1945 globalization; its decay now produces the “crisis of multilateralism” the newsletters document. Trump’s tariffs, trade wars, and aggressive unilateralism signal hegemonic decline—the unwillingness to bear systemic costs, the turn to predatory rather than benign leadership.

Yet as Giovanni Arrighi argued in The Long Twentieth Century (1994), hegemonic transitions have historically involved periods of financial expansion followed by crisis and recomposition under a new hegemon. Arrighi traced transitions from Dutch to British to American hegemony, each involving the financialization of the declining hegemon’s economy as productive leadership shifts elsewhere. Today’s United States—with its “trade deficits,” “deindustrialization,” and financialized economy—exhibits classic symptoms of hegemonic decline. China’s rise, meanwhile, follows the pattern of previous challengers: industrial expansion, technological catch-up, and growing financial ambitions.

The newsletter’s report on “China’s good data news” captures this dynamic. Despite “pressure from the US and Europe,” China’s “consumer inflation rate rose more than expected in November,” while “the International Monetary Fund revised China’s growth forecast upward, estimating the world’s second-biggest economy will expand by 5% this year.” These figures are contested—many analysts doubt official Chinese statistics—but the trend is clear: China’s economy continues expanding while advanced economies stagnate. As Branko Milanović argued in Global Inequality (2016), the twenty-first century’s defining economic fact is the “rise of Asia”—the convergence of per-capita incomes between once-poor Asian nations and wealthy Western ones.

However, this convergence has occurred alongside rising within-country inequality in both developed and developing worlds. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014) demonstrated that inequality has approached Gilded Age levels in the United States and Europe. Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality (2012) showed how inequality undermines growth and democracy. The newsletters document this: “91 people became billionaires by inheriting $297.8 billion” while “economists worry that hereditary wealth is becoming increasingly central to economic fortunes, entrenching inequality.” Meanwhile, working-class Americans face “affordability crunch” and “employment” concerns, even as Trump insists “our prices are coming down tremendously.”

Subscribe

The newsletters’ coverage of Hong Kong’s deadly Tai Po fire—”the city’s deadliest fire in decades, which killed at least 94 people and injured 76”—provides a window into disaster politics. Bloomberg reports that the tragedy “has intensified scrutiny of the city’s safety-inspection system and whether officials responded forcefully enough to warning signs.” Yet the newsletter also documents an extraordinary civic response: “community spirit,” “tech wizzes... coded up websites,” “crowds flocked to the scene to distribute supplies,” and “public donations of HK$2.1 billion ($270 million) poured into a government relief fund within a week.”

This juxtaposition—state failure and grassroots resilience—recalls Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (2007). Klein argued that disasters create opportunities for radical political-economic transformation, often through “disaster capitalism”: the exploitation of crisis to impose neoliberal restructuring. Klein traced this from Pinochet’s Chile through post-Katrina New Orleans to post-tsunami Sri Lanka, showing how elites use shock to push through policies that would face resistance under normal conditions. The question for Hong Kong is whether authorities will leverage the Tai Po fire to expand surveillance, strengthen authoritarian control, or impose austerity—the typical disaster capitalism playbook.

Yet the Hong Kong case also suggests limits to Klein’s framework. The newsletter reports that “with the grief comes fear and simmering anger, raising the risk that the situation and the narrative could spin out of the government’s control.” Authorities show “wariness with the scale of grassroots mobilization,” reaching for “China’s disaster response playbook: rescue and relief, then a hard pivot to preserving stability and snuffing out any whiff of dissent.” This is disaster authoritarianism rather than disaster capitalism—crisis as pretext for political repression rather than economic restructuring, though the two often intertwine.

Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell (2009) offers an alternative lens. Solnit documented how disasters often produce not chaos but extraordinary solidarity and mutual aid—what she called “disaster utopias.” From the 1906 San Francisco earthquake through Hurricane Katrina, Solnit found people improvising democratic communities in catastrophe’s aftermath, challenging hierarchies and creating prefigurative spaces of cooperation. Hong Kong’s volunteer mobilization fits this pattern: “tech wizzes,” “crowds,” and “NGOs” creating “chat groups” and “websites,” organizing logistics without state direction.

The broader infrastructure question haunts these newsletters. Monocle reports that Italy’s Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics spurred “10 projects reshaping the country,” including fiber-optic extension and cable car modernization. The newsletter frames this positively: “The optics are good.” Yet anthropologist James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State (1998) warns against high-modernist infrastructure mega-projects. Scott showed how centralized, top-down planning frequently fails, producing white elephants and displacing populations. Olympic infrastructure often exemplifies this pattern—gleaming stadiums that become maintenance burdens, displacing poor communities for temporary spectacles.

The newsletter’s report on Pompeii’s excavation revealing “how Romans made their miraculously long-lasting concrete” offers an ironic counterpoint to modernity’s infrastructural fragility. While “modern concrete tends to crumble within decades,” Roman structures “remain intact 2,000 years later.” Scientists discovered “hot-mixing—heating quicklime and volcanic rock to create a substance that re-dissolves when it cracks, essentially self-healing.” This finding gestures toward what environmental historian J.R. McNeill called the “unintended empire” of modern industrial civilization (McNeill, 2000)—technological systems that appear advanced but produce catastrophic externalities (climate change, toxification, resource depletion) that threaten civilization itself.

The contrast between Roman and modern concrete encapsulates a broader paradox: contemporary society’s extraordinary technological sophistication coexists with profound institutional fragility. Sociologist Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1992) theorized this condition, arguing that late modernity is characterized by “manufactured risks”—threats (nuclear accidents, climate change, financial crises) produced by modernization itself. Beck emphasized that these risks are non-localizable (Chernobyl’s fallout spread globally), non-compensable (climate catastrophe cannot be insured against), and non-calculable (we cannot price existential threats). The search for Roman concrete’s secrets reflects an implicit acknowledgment that modernity’s solutions generate unsustainable problems.

The newsletters’ climate coverage is notably sparse—brief mentions of “green-energy policies” and “environmental diplomacy” but little substantive engagement. This reflects what cultural theorist Fredric Jameson diagnosed as capitalism’s difficulty imagining alternatives to itself. As Jameson famously remarked, “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism” (Jameson, 2003, p. 76). The newsletters’ silence on climate change amid extensive coverage of luxury goods, financial markets, and design fairs exemplifies this ideological closure. Even as climate catastrophe accelerates, elite discourse remains focused on accumulation, consumption, and spectacle.

Mipim Asia’s response to Hong Kong’s Tai Po fire — using a trade congregation to debate building resilience and modular construction — reframes tragedy into an agenda for urban maintenance and fiscal politics (public-private partnerships, retrofit finance). The coverage insists that mass housing and aging building stock demand not only technical fixes but institutional coordination.

This connects to long debates in urban studies: Jane Jacobs’ insistence that the vitality and safety of cities depend on everyday mixed uses and social oversight (Jacobs, 1961) and to the contemporary literature on urban political economy (Harvey, 1989), which sees disasters as moments when private capital, state policy and social claims are renegotiated. There is also a governance implication: the newsletter emphasizes that private capital and public renewal must be made complementary — but such bargains are always distributional. Whose homes are retrofitted first? Which neighborhoods are sacrificed for spectacle? These are the policy questions underpinning the coverage.

Simultaneously, these newsletters document remarkable human resilience. The outpouring of community support following Hong Kong’s Tai Po fire reveals what philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah might call “cosmopolitanism at the local scale” (Appiah, 2006, p. 135)—people transcending political divisions to care for neighbors in crisis. This echoes sociologist Émile Durkheim’s observation that “in the midst of the most terrible crises, in the most tragic disorders, the social organism is never completely destroyed” (Durkheim, 1933/1984, p. 217). When volunteers sort supplies for displaced families or donate blood, they enact what anthropologist David Graeber termed “direct action” (Graeber, 2009, p. 231)—building alternative social structures that operate alongside, and sometimes in opposition to, formal institutions.

The climate discussions across these newsletters reveal the gap between scientific urgency and political capacity. As researchers warn of accelerating climate impacts while policymakers debate incremental measures, we confront what philosopher Bruno Latour calls “the inability to assemble a common world” (Latour, 2017, p. 89). The tension between economic growth imperatives and ecological limits represents what economist Kate Raworth has termed the “impossible contradiction at the heart of neoliberal economics” (Raworth, 2017, p. 51). When UAE representatives tout investments in both fossil fuels and renewable energy simultaneously, they exemplify what environmental historian Dipesh Chakrabarty describes as “the planetary and the global” existing in uncomfortable tension (Chakrabarty, 2009, p. 210).

Socially, these economic and policy threads weave into human narratives of inequality and adaptation. The FDA’s turmoil under Commissioner Marty Makary, with 90% senior leader turnover and controversial stances on vaccines, highlights social fractures in public health trust, echoing broader anti-institutional sentiments in a polarized U.S. This resonates with Monocle’s coverage of union drives at U.S. national parks, where rangers face burnout from climate-induced disasters like the Grand Canyon fires, symbolizing labor’s pushback against fiscal austerity. Culturally, Turkey’s Ottoman-glorifying TV exports to Central Asia via the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS) exemplify soft-power strategies, fostering shared identities amid Russia’s distractions, as Smith (in Monocle) argues. This cultural bloc-building interrelates with economic hegemony, mirroring how Abu Dhabi’s $1 billion Sotheby’s auction leverages art for regional clout, attracting young collectors under 40 and bridging East-West divides. Similarly, Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott over Israel’s Gaza actions reflects cultural policy as moral diplomacy, amplifying social debates on global justice.

The newsletters extensively document AI’s centralization in the hands of a few massive corporations and states. The New York Times reports that Mark Zuckerberg invested “billions to overhaul his A.I. division with new researchers,” appointing “Alexandr Wang, the 28-year-old C.E.O. of Scale AI,” to lead the effort. Meanwhile, Gulf sovereign wealth funds are building AI infrastructure, with Mubadala expecting to use “Stargate UAE, a massive data center under construction” and Qatar establishing “Qai” with a “$20 billion joint venture” focused on “AI infrastructure.”

This concentration of AI capabilities in corporate and state hands raises profound questions about technological governance. Political theorist Langdon Winner argued in The Whale and the Reactor (1986) that technologies are inherently political—they embody social choices and structure future possibilities. AI is not a neutral tool but a configuration of power. As data ethicist Safiya Noble demonstrated in Algorithms of Oppression (2018), AI systems frequently encode and amplify existing biases around race, gender, and class. When concentrated in unaccountable hands—Meta, Google, authoritarian Gulf states—AI becomes a tool for surveillance, manipulation, and control.

The newsletter’s report on OpenAI hiring “Denise Dresser, the C.E.O. of Slack, as its chief revenue officer” and Anthropic striking “a three-year sales partnership with Accenture” reveals AI’s rapid commercialization. As technology critic Evgeny Morozov has argued, Silicon Valley’s utopian rhetoric about AI democratization masks a fundamentally extractive business model (Morozov, 2013). OpenAI began as a nonprofit committed to ensuring “artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”; it restructured as a for-profit company after securing billions from Microsoft. This trajectory exemplifies what scholar Philip Mirowski called “the neoliberal thought collective”—the subsumption of all domains, including technological development, under market logic (Mirowski, 2013).

Semafor reports that “SpaceX will reportedly go public next year, aiming for a valuation of over $1 trillion.” The newsletter notes SpaceX “was the first to successfully reuse rockets, bringing the cost of space travel down by around 90%” and “accounted for more than half of global launches in 2024.” A proposed Mars mission—designated “the country’s highest scientific priority, in order to study the existence of extraterrestrial life”—would cost “billions” and “take decades.”

The privatization of space exploration marks a profound shift from the Cold War model of state-led programs. As historian Walter McDougall showed in ...The Heavens and the Earth (1985), the Space Race was fundamentally a geopolitical competition, with NASA embodying American state capacity and technological prowess. Today’s space sector is dominated by private firms—SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic—funded by billionaire fortunes. This shift reflects what geographer David Harvey called “accumulation by dispossession”—the privatization of what was previously public or common (Harvey, 2003).

Elon Musk’s SpaceX exemplifies twenty-first century techno-capitalism: monopolistic concentration (dominating launch markets), state subsidization (billions in NASA and Pentagon contracts), and grandiose futurism (Mars colonization) serving as ideological cover for terrestrial extraction and labor exploitation. As sociologist Ruha Benjamin argued in Race After Technology (2019), Silicon Valley’s techno-utopian visions often reproduce and intensify earthly hierarchies—what she called the “New Jim Code.” Musk’s Mars colonization fantasies, far from transcending terrestrial conflicts, threaten to export them to new frontiers: Who will own Martian land? Who will labor on Mars? Under what conditions? The silence on such questions reveals space capitalism’s fundamentally undemocratic character.

Moniepoint’s trajectory — from a software vendor to a platform enabling retail banking for the financially excluded — illustrates an important countertrend: digital platforms as instruments of inclusion in economies long dominated by cash. The piece underscores investor confidence (Google, Visa) and the possibility of structural change in retail banking across Africa.

Economically, fintech can lower transaction costs and expand formal financial intermediation (Merton-type arguments), but socio-political scholars warn of new forms of dependency and extracting rents (Zuboff-like platform critiques). Here the literature on “infrastructural inclusion” is helpful: digital platforms can democratize access while simultaneously creating vendor lock-in and regulatory challenges. The policy agenda — consumer protection, interoperability, and anti-monopoly guardrails — is thus urgent.

The newsletters chronicle what political economist Dani Rodrik has termed “premature deindustrialization” reshaping global trade (Rodrik, 2016). Trump’s trade policies, the semiconductor export restrictions, and the resulting realignments in global supply chains reflect what appears to be a deliberate dismantling of post-WWII economic frameworks. This shift recalls historian Adam Tooze’s observation that “the age of extremes never ended; it merely changed form” (Tooze, 2020, p. 78). The U.S. administration’s simultaneous relaxation of chip export restrictions to China while maintaining strategic tariff barriers exemplifies what Tooze might recognize as the “weaponization of interdependence” (Farrell & Newman, 2019)—leveraging economic ties as tools of statecraft while preserving technological and financial advantages.

Particularly striking is the juxtaposition of technological abundance against human precarity. While Nvidia executives celebrate access to Chinese markets and Meta grapples with AI integration, the newsletters document mass layoffs at major corporations and ongoing refugee crises. This contradiction embodies what sociologist Eva Illouz has identified as “the decoupling of economic efficiency and social wellbeing” (Illouz, 2020, p. 146). When Fed Chair Powell discusses interest rates with technical precision while millions face unemployment, we witness what philosopher Judith Butler might call a “differential allocation of grievability” (Butler, 2009, p. 34)—some economic actors receive careful attention while human suffering at scale becomes background noise.

The AI revolution documented across these pages—whether in healthcare, finance, or entertainment—raises profound questions about human agency and economic value. As OpenAI and Meta compete for dominance while labor markets transform, we witness what historian Melinda Cooper has described as “the reorganization of work around the rhythms of technological innovation” (Cooper, 2017, p. 317). When companies implement AI systems designed to replace human workers while simultaneously requiring “more human” qualities from remaining staff, they create what philosopher Byung-Chul Han identifies as “a paradoxical demand for both standardization and authenticity” (Han, 2017, p. 76).

The newsletters also capture shifting geopolitical alignments, with Russia-China relations strengthening as U.S.-European tensions increase. This realignment reflects what international relations scholar John Ikenberry has called “the waning of the liberal international order” (Ikenberry, 2018, p. 16). As Gulf states position themselves as neutral hubs for global finance and technology, they navigate what political scientist Parag Khanna describes as “the multipolar world’s new fault lines” (Khanna, 2021, p. 89). The Abu Dhabi Finance Week coverage reveals a deliberate strategy to position the UAE as what historian Niall Ferguson might call “a new node in the global network of power” (Ferguson, 2019, p. 212).

Reading these newsletters together reveals what historian Yuval Noah Harari might identify as “the growing gap between technological power and political wisdom” (Harari, 2018, p. 24). The same week that features breakthroughs in quantum computing also documents failures of basic governance; advances in AI medical diagnosis coincide with healthcare access disparities. This isn’t merely irony but what philosopher Byung-Chul Han calls “the productivity paradox of late capitalism” (Han, 2020, p. 127)—increasing technical capacity that fails to address fundamental human needs.

Monocle‘s piece on Lisbon’s “Lojas com História” (shops with history) program represents a modest but significant counter-practice to neoliberal urbanism. The initiative “supports retailers considered key to Lisbon’s identity,” providing “financial support for architectural preservation and protection from eviction” to combat “soaring” property prices. As the newsletter notes, “the municipal government began recording the city’s oldest shops in a programme... to support businesses.”

This resonates with urbanist Jane Jacobs’s classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), which championed organic, mixed-use neighborhoods against modernist urban renewal. Jacobs understood that cities thrive through diversity, density, and historical continuity—precisely what gentrification destroys. Lisbon’s program recognizes that “historic independent businesses” constitute urban heritage as much as architectural monuments. Yet as geographer Neil Smith argued in The New Urban Frontier (1996), gentrification is not a natural process but a deliberate “class remake of the urban landscape,” driven by capital’s need for new investment frontiers. Preservation programs like Lojas com História, while laudable, cannot halt gentrification without broader challenges to property relations and speculative real estate.

The Hong Kong fire’s aftermath demonstrates another form of cultural resilience. The newsletter reports volunteers deployed “bamboo” in relief efforts—”bamboo becomes identity issue for some Hong Kongers after blaze.” This detail, seemingly minor, carries symbolic weight. Bamboo scaffolding is a Hong Kong vernacular practice, contrasting with mainland China’s steel and concrete. In choosing bamboo, volunteers asserted a distinctively Hong Kong identity against Beijing’s homogenization. As anthropologist James Clifford argued in The Predicament of Culture (1988), cultures are never pure or static but emerge through creative appropriation and articulation. Hong Kong’s “bamboo identity” exemplifies this: a traditional material deployed to express contemporary political difference.

Ibrahim Mahama’s work, described as “monumental installations made from jute sacks and discarded textiles, materials tied to Ghana’s cocoa trade, stitched by large teams into vast quilt-like surfaces,” represents art’s critical potential. Mahama’s installations “confront themes of labour, extraction and exploitation” while his reinvestment of profits into Ghanaese cultural institutions (Red Clay Studio, Savannah Centre for Contemporary Art) models alternative artistic economies. This practice aligns with what theorist Nicolas Bourriaud called “relational aesthetics”—art creating social forms and collective experiences rather than autonomous objects (Bourriaud, 2002).

Yet Mahama’s market success also illustrates art’s ambivalent position. His work critiques extraction yet circulates through extractive institutions—galleries, fairs, auctions taking 50% commissions. Cultural theorist Andrea Fraser’s concept of “critique from within” is apt here (Fraser, 2005): artists necessarily operate inside the systems they critique, producing an ambivalence Fraser considers constitutive of contemporary art. Mahama’s installations indict capitalism’s brutality while his ArtReview ranking reflects his integration into elite cultural circuits. This contradiction is not personal failure but structural condition.

The Guerrilla Girls project documented by Petah Coyne and Kathy Grove at Galerie Lelong exemplifies feminist art activism. Since 1985, the Guerrilla Girls have “called attention to the disparities between men and women artists, white artists and artists of color” using “wry posters filled with statistics.” Their anonymous, masked interventions—each member adopting “the name of a historical woman artist or writer as her alias”—challenge art world patriarchy while maintaining collective anonymy. This practice draws on feminist consciousness-raising and guerrilla theater, making visible the gendered structures that institutional discourse naturalizes.

As art historian Griselda Pollock argued in Differencing the Canon (1999), art history’s canon is not a neutral repository of greatness but an ideological construct that systematically excludes women and artists of color. The Guerrilla Girls’ data-driven provocations—”Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum?”—force confrontation with this exclusion. Yet here too, recuperation threatens: the Guerrilla Girls have been canonized, their once-radical interventions now museum-worthy. As Walter Benjamin warned in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1936), capitalism excels at aestheticizing politics, converting critique into commodity. The challenge is maintaining art’s critical edge within institutions committed to its neutralization.

Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott (and its earlier diplomatic gestures toward Palestine) is an example of performative foreign policy: cultural withdrawal functions as a sanction and a symbolic alignment with a normative position. Cultural events (Eurovision) thus become arenas for moral claim-making and diplomatic signaling.

From a theoretical perspective this resonates with Judith Butler’s and other theorists’ work on performativity: withdrawing from a shared stage constitutes a speech act with political consequences. It also raises institutional questions for bodies like the EBU — can a nominally apolitical cultural event remain insulated from geopolitics? The answer, increasingly, is no.

Taken together, the snippets map a world in which cultural instruments (television, fairs, festivals) and infrastructural levers (satellite channels, modular construction, fintech rails) are bound up with capital flows and geopolitical repositioning. The soft-power playbook (media + festivals) is synchronized with market expansion (art fairs, auctions) and urban governance choices (retrofitting, modular builds). In short: culture is not separate from political economy; it is one of its operating systems.

These newsletters collectively document what sociologist Zygmunt Bauman would recognize as “liquid modernity’s” accelerating pace (Bauman, 2000, p. 2). Institutions that once provided stability—governments, corporations, international bodies—increasingly function as temporary assemblages, rearranging in response to crises while maintaining the appearance of continuity. When Fed officials debate interest rates while political appointees reshape agency leadership, they reveal what political theorist Wendy Brown calls “the hollowing out of democratic institutions” (Brown, 2015, p. 34).

Perhaps most significant is how these newsletters capture what historian Reinhart Koselleck termed “the space of experience” colliding with “the horizon of expectation” (Koselleck, 2004, p. 255). Readers encounter accounts of communities rebuilding after disasters alongside reports of climate scientists warning of increasingly severe weather events; stories of technological breakthroughs juxtaposed with analyses of growing inequality. This simultaneity creates what philosopher Walter Benjamin might recognize as “dialectical images” (Benjamin, 1940/2003, p. 462)—moments where past, present, and future collapse into illuminating configurations.

Interrelations abound: Economic globalization fuels cultural hybridization, as in Design Miami’s “Make. Believe” theme celebrating Miami’s uninhibited aesthetics, yet it also exacerbates social divides, seen in Albright College’s enrollment crisis leading to slashed majors like economics—ironic amid booming markets. Policy responses, like Germany’s €52 billion military procurement or Japan’s Ryukyu island fortifications, tie into social anxieties over borders, as Baltic mayors like Narva’s Katri Raik voice fears of Russian aggression. These snippets collectively imply a world where economic optimism (e.g., MercadoLibre’s $35 billion India pledge) clashes with social precarity (e.g., Thailand’s gold trading boom as a hedge against uncertainty), demanding policies that transcend silos.

This polycrisis evokes Joseph Schumpeter’s (1942) concept of “creative destruction,” where economic innovations like AI chips disrupt markets but spawn social upheavals, as in Nvidia’s China exports potentially accelerating Beijing’s self-reliance (Rothman in Bloomberg). Schumpeter’s thesis in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy resonates: “The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic... illustrates the same process of industrial mutation... that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within” (p. 83), mirroring how IndiGo’s tech glitch cascades into labor roster chaos, destroying old efficiencies while birthing regulatory reforms.

The FDA’s dissent and vaccine skepticism align with Ulrich Beck’s (1992) “risk society,” where modern institutions falter amid manufactured uncertainties. In Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Beck argues that “risks... are becoming the motor of the self-politicization of modernity” (p. 232), akin to Makary’s fringe endorsements eroding public trust, interrelating with cultural narratives like Slovenia’s boycott, which politicizes entertainment as resistance.

Policy interrelations recall Graham Allison’s (2017) Destined for War, warning of Thucydides’ Trap in U.S.-China tensions: “When a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one, the most likely outcome is war” (p. vii). U.S. chip concessions to China, amid Baltic fortifications, embody this trap’s economic facade, where trade deals (e.g., Trump’s Xi negotiations) avert escalation but sustain rivalries, much like Turkey’s OTS media union fostering Turkic solidarity against Russian influence.

Monocle’s art and design foci echo Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) Distinction, where cultural capital legitimizes economic power: “Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier” (p. 6), as Abu Dhabi’s auctions and Miami’s fairs classify Gulf elites as global tastemakers, interrelating with social mobility in narratives like Ibrahim Mahama topping ArtReview’s Power 100, redistributing profits to Tamale’s institutions.

World literature amplifies these: Orhan Pamuk’s (2004) Snow explores Turkish identity’s fractures, paralleling Erdoğan’s Ottoman dramas as cultural propaganda: “The West is no longer a dream for us... it’s a nightmare” (p. 145), linking to Central Asia’s Latin alphabet shift from Cyrillic. Non-fiction like Naomi Klein’s (2014) This Changes Everything critiques climate-capitalism ties, as in U.S. park union drives amid fires: “Climate change... demands collective action on an unprecedented scale” (p. 464), interrelating with Osaka Expo’s sustainable greenery push.

Hannah Arendt’s (1958) The Human Condition critiques modernity’s commodification: “The victory of animal laborans would end... in the dead calm of a last, eternal peace” (p. 322), warning against AI’s labor displacements (e.g., OpenAI’s time savings) and economic squeezes like China’s deflation, urging policies for human flourishing amid interrelations.

Economically, the snippets underscore a precarious balance between growth imperatives and deflationary drags, with interrelations amplifying global vulnerabilities. China’s CPI acceleration to 0.7% in November, driven by food costs yet undermined by factory-gate deflation at -2.2%, illustrates the “great income squeeze” (as Bloomberg frames it) where weak demand perpetuates a cycle of price cuts, echoing Joseph Schumpeter’s notion of creative destruction in capitalism (Schumpeter, 1942). This connects to India’s RBI rate cut to 5.25%, aimed at stoking inflation amid rupee weakness, revealing how emerging markets grapple with currency interventions that inadvertently fuel speculative IPO booms—Japan and India raised record sums, with Meesho’s 60% debut surge exemplifying “undermonetized franchises” ripe for exploitation. Policy-wise, these moves intersect with U.S. Fed deliberations, where a potential 25-basis-point cut amid dissent risks signaling an “extended hold” or hike, as traders forecast rates at 3.17-3.21% by end-2026. This policy fragmentation, with hawks clashing against doves in a “lame duck” Fed under Powell, mirrors philosophical debates on institutional independence, akin to Hannah Arendt’s warnings on bureaucratic erosion in The Origins of Totalitarianism (Arendt, 1951), where she notes, “The trouble with the professors was not so much their cowardice as their inability to think” (p. 474)—a resonant critique of the FDA’s turmoil under Makary, whose flirtations with fringe theories (e.g., lab-engineered diseases) politicize science, eroding trust in regulatory bodies overseeing $3.9 trillion in products.

Socially, the interrelations highlight how economic policies exacerbate inequalities, fostering cultural backlashes. Thailand’s SEA Games, amid border clashes with Cambodia, serve as a “sporting chance to lift spirits” in a year marred by disasters and royal loss, evoking Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital in Distinction (Bourdieu, 1984), where sports unify fractured societies but mask underlying economic woes. Similarly, Slovenia’s Eurovision boycott, aligning with its arms embargo on Israel, reflects a social pivot toward moral diplomacy, intersecting with cultural shifts like Ghanaian artist Ibrahim Mahama topping ArtReview’s Power 100 by reinvesting profits in Tamale’s institutions—a “new phase in globalization” that decentralizes art from Eurocentric hubs, as per Homi Bhabha’s hybridity in The Location of Culture (Bhabha, 1994). This cultural redistribution parallels economic ones, such as Abu Dhabi’s $1 billion Sotheby’s event targeting under-40 collectors, leveraging Gulf funds to bridge East-West divides, much like Edward Said’s Orientalism critiques how such exchanges perpetuate power imbalances (Said, 1978).

Policy implications weave through these, with military escalations in Japan and Germany—Japan fortifying Ryukyu islands near Taiwan, Germany approving €52 billion in procurements—responding to Russian and Chinese threats, interrelating with U.S. chip export easings to China. This détente, allowing Nvidia’s H200 sales, signals Trump’s pragmatic trade recalibration, but risks accelerating Beijing’s semiconductor self-reliance, as per Rothman’s analysis. Philosophically, it evokes John Maynard Keynes’ warnings in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Keynes, 1919) on punitive policies breeding resentment: “If we aim deliberately at the impoverishment of Central Europe, vengeance, I dare predict, will not limp” (p. 168)—a parallel to how U.S. tariffs might spur retaliatory rare-earth controls. Culturally, Turkey’s OTS broadcaster, glamourizing Ottoman history, interrelates with these as soft-power hegemony, akin to Joseph Nye’s Soft Power (Nye, 2004), where media shapes “shared norms” across vast regions, potentially countering Russian distractions in Ukraine.

These interrelations suggest a world where economic policies fuel social fragmentations, cultural narratives legitimize power grabs, and policy vacillations amplify uncertainties. Reflectively, they evoke Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Kundera, 1984), where lightness signifies fleeting freedoms amid oppressive structures—much like Galperin’s “paradise” in Uruguay or Lisbon’s heritage shops resisting eviction. Yet, as Arendt might caution, such lightness risks complacency in facing totalitarian undercurrents, from FDA politicization to border militarizations.

Thus, these snippets associatively map a polycrisis, where economic booms (e.g., Asian IPOs) coexist with deflationary perils, cultural decentralizations challenge Western dominance, and policies teeter between cooperation and confrontation. Scholarly lenses reveal not isolated events but a tapestry of interdependencies, urging a balanced, empathetic response to global complexities.

These newsletter dispatches, read together, reveal our contemporary moment’s fundamental tensions: between globalization’s promise of connection and its production of inequality; between democratic aspirations and authoritarian resurgence; between technological utopianism and extractive reality; between cultural vitality and its commodification. Synthesizing these materials through scholarly frameworks—from Gramsci’s hegemony to Piketty’s inequality, from Foucault’s governmentality to Klein’s disaster capitalism—illuminates structures and dynamics that remain obscured in conventional journalism.

What emerges is a world system in transition, characterized by American hegemonic decline, Chinese ascent, regional powers (Turkey, Gulf states) expanding influence, and intensifying contradictions around finance, migration, technology, and climate. The culture industries document and participate in these shifts, producing the “structure of feeling” (Williams, 1977) that makes this conjuncture livable for elite classes even as precarity intensifies for the majority.

Yet the newsletters also document practices of resilience and resistance: Hong Kong’s volunteer mobilization, Lisbon’s heritage preservation, Mahama’s institutional building, the Guerrilla Girls’ feminist intervention. These suggest possibilities for alternative futures—what geographer Erik Swyngedouw called “agonistic pluralism” (Swyngedouw, 2009), the contentious democratic negotiation of collective life against capitalism’s authoritarian imperatives.

The task of critical scholarship, as Stuart Hall argued, is not neutral observation but partisan intervention—identifying domination’s mechanisms while amplifying emancipatory alternatives (Hall, 1992). These newsletters, symptomatically read, provide materials for such work. They reveal not only what is but glimmers of what might be: economies oriented toward need rather than accumulation, cultures of solidarity rather than spectacle, democracies of participation rather than plutocracy. The struggle to realize such possibilities defines our conjuncture. These brief dispatches, properly interpreted, contribute to that struggle by making visible the power relations we must confront and transform.

As we approach 2026, these newsletters suggest we inhabit what philosopher Giorgio Agamben might call “a permanent state of exception” (Agamben, 2005, p. 31)—where crisis becomes normalized while structural solutions remain elusive. Yet within this landscape, moments of genuine human connection persist: volunteers organizing disaster relief, families maintaining cultural traditions across generations, communities finding ways to care for one another despite institutional failures. These fragments of resilience offer what literary scholar Saidiya Hartman terms “ways of inhabiting the world differently” (Hartman, 2019, p. 9).

These snippets, through their economic volatilities and cultural assertions, reflect a world in Arendtian “dark times,” where interconnections demand reflective policy—lest creative destruction devolve into mere destruction.

Share

Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. University of Chicago Press.

Alesina, A., & Summers, L. H. (1993). Central bank independence and macroeconomic performance: Some comparative evidence. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 25(2), 151-162.

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

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

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

Appadurai, A. (2013). The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. Verso Books.

Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. W.W. Norton & Company.

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

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

Arrighi, G. (1994). The long twentieth century: Money, power, and the origins of our times. Verso.

Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space (M. Jolas, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1958)

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press.

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

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity Press.

Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Illuminations (pp. 217-251). Schocken Books.

Benjamin, W. (2003). Selected writings: Volume 4, 1938-1940 (H. Eiland & M. W. Jennings, Eds.). Belknap Press. (Original work published 1940)

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

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

Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational aesthetics. Les Presses du Réel.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

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

Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197-222.

Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Harvard University Press.

Cooper, M. (2017). Family values: Between neoliberalism and the new social conservatism. Zone Books.

Durkheim, É. (1984). The division of labor in society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1933)

Eichengreen, B. (1992). Golden fetters: The gold standard and the Great Depression, 1919-1939. Oxford University Press.

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

Ferguson, N. (2019). The square and the tower: Networks and power, from the Freemasons to Facebook. Penguin Books.

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

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78. Palgrave Macmillan.

Fraser, A. (2005). From the critique of institutions to an institution of critique. Artforum, 44(1), 278-283.

Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.

Graeber, D. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. AK Press.

Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The first 5,000 years. Melville House.

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

Hall, S. (1992). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In L. Grossberg et al. (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 277-294). Routledge.

Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Verso Books.

Han, B.-C. (2020). The burnout society. MIT Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Spiegel & Grau.

Hartman, S. (2019). Wayward lives, beautiful experiments: Intimate histories of social upheaval. W.W. Norton & Company.

Harvey, D. (1989). The urban experience. Johns Hopkins University Press.

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

Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press.

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

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

Illouz, E. (2020). The emotional life of capitalism. Polity Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.

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

Jameson, F. (2003). Future city. New Left Review, 21, 65-79.

Keynes, J. M. (1919). The economic consequences of the peace. Macmillan.

Khanna, P. (2021). The future is Asian: Commerce, conflict, and culture in the 21st century. Simon & Schuster.

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.

Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time (K. Tribe, Trans.). Columbia University Press.

Kundera, M. (1984). The unbearable lightness of being. Harper & Row.

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

McDougall, W. A. (1985). ...The heavens and the earth: A political history of the space age. Basic Books.

McNeill, J. R. (2000). Something new under the sun: An environmental history of the twentieth-century world. W. W. Norton.

Milanović, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.

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

Mirowski, P. (2013). Never let a serious crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. Verso.

Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.

Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. Harvard University Press.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice. Belknap Press.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Pamuk, O. (2004). Snow. Vintage International. (Original work published 2002)

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

Pollock, G. (1999). Differencing the canon: Feminist desire and the writing of art’s histories. Routledge.

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

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

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

Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21(1), 1-33.

Rosa, H. (2019). The unbearable lightness of being: A critical theory of resonance. Columbia University Press.

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

Said, E. W. (1993). Culture and imperialism. Knopf.

Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press.

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.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Anchor Books.

Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge.

Solnit, R. (2009). A paradise built in hell: The extraordinary communities that arise in disaster. Viking.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. W. W. Norton.

Stumpf, J. (2006). The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. American University Law Review, 56(2), 367-419.

Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The antinomies of the postpolitical city: In search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 601-620.

Thornton, S. (2008). Seven days in the art world. W. W. Norton.

Tooze, A. (2020). Shutdown: How COVID shook the world’s economy. Viking.

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press.

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.

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

Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press.

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

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Comet, Perplexity, Qwen, Alibaba, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Grok, xAI, tools (December 12, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (December 12, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (December 12, 2025). The Fractal Present: Soft Power, Extractive Technology, and Human Resilience in Late Capitalism’s Crosscurrents. Open Economics Blog.