The newsletter compilation, spanning snippets from Monocle, ARTnews, Newsweek, Bloomberg, Semafor, Goldman Sachs, the New York Times and Economist from September 25-28, 2025, presents a view of the global landscape—a world where geopolitical maneuvers in the Gulf intersect with art market speculations in Milan, energy sovereignty debates in Europe echo economic experiments in Argentina, and technological disruptions from AI ripple through industries from fashion to disaster response. This eclectic mix, reminiscent of the “rojak” metaphor invoked in one snippet (a Javanese salad of disparate elements unified by spice), invites a causal exploration of how economic pressures, social transformations, and theoretical underpinnings interweave. These snippets reveal a causal chain: waning U.S. hegemony fosters regional hedging (e.g., Gulf-Pakistan pacts), which in turn amplifies economic diversification efforts, cultural rebranding, and technological adaptations, all amid financial volatilities that underscore global inequalities.
The newsletters are not a mere collection of dispatches; these are a palimpsest of our fractured present, a textual landscape where the tectonic plates of geopolitics, economics, and culture grind against one another, revealing the deep fissures and nascent formations of a new world order. Its pages chronicle a moment of profound transition, one defined by the retreat of the American security umbrella, the weaponization of economic interdependence, and the desperate, often contradictory, search for new forms of sovereignty—be it energy, digital, or national. This commentary will explore these interwoven themes, drawing on a rich tapestry of scholarly and literary thought to illuminate their deeper implications.
The concatenation of events reveals what Giovanni Arrighi (1994) termed a period of “systemic chaos”—moments when hegemonic structures undergo fundamental reconfiguration, producing simultaneous crises across military-strategic, financial, technological, and cultural domains. The Saudi-Pakistani defense pact, positioned explicitly as response to perceived American unreliability, instantiates what Katzenstein (2005) analyzed as “regional powers” engaging in “hedging strategies” during hegemonic transition. Yet this framing, while analytically useful, obscures a deeper transformation: the disaggregation of what Mann (1986) called the “four sources of social power”—ideological, economic, military, and political—which in the American century had been uniquely bundled.
The juxtaposition of the Gulf seeking “nuclear shield” perception through Pakistani partnership alongside reports of American financial backstops for Argentina ($20 billion) exposes a fundamental contradiction in contemporary geopolitics. As Milanovic (2019) observed in Capitalism, Alone, the United States increasingly exercises financial power through selective bailouts and sanctions while its security guarantees become conditional and transactional. The Pakistani arrangement represents what Nexon and Wright (2007) termed “hegemonic rivalry” operating through proxy relationships rather than direct confrontation—a return to Cold War logics but without the ideological coherence that structured that earlier period.
The newsletter excerpts — from the hurried Saudi–Pakistan defence pact to Meta’s renewed hardware push, from Typhoon Ragasa to Ropac’s Milan gamble — do not add up to an accidental miscellany. Read together they register a system-wide condition: institutions (states, markets, platforms, cultural intermediaries) are simultaneously hedging and doubling down in response to heightened uncertainty. That combination — hedging where authority is perceived as failing, concentration where rents can still be captured — is the organising intuition behind the commentary below.
The lead snippet on Gulf states’ pivot toward Pakistan amid faltering U.S. security guarantees exemplifies a causal shift in international alliances, driven by perceived American unreliability post-Gaza conflicts. Riyadh’s defense pact with nuclear-armed Islamabad, described as a “nuclear shield” to deter Israel, signals a diversification of security bets—a theoretical move aligning with offensive realism, where states maximize power in an anarchic system (Mearsheimer, 2001). As Hasan Alhasan notes, this pact addresses a “deterrence deficit,” but its implications extend socially: it reassures Saudi citizens while subtly pressuring Washington, potentially exacerbating U.S.-Gulf tensions. Financially, such pacts could stabilize oil markets by reducing regional volatility, yet they risk inflating defense budgets, diverting funds from social welfare in oil-dependent economies.
This hedging resonates with Joseph Nye’s concept of “soft power” decline, where U.S. cultural and diplomatic influence wanes, prompting alternatives (Nye, 2004). In world literature, it echoes the imperial fragmentation in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958), where colonial assurances crumble, leading to indigenous realignments: “The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion... Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one” (Achebe, 1958, p. 176). Causally, this Gulf shift interrelates with snippets on Russia’s airspace violations and China’s Pacific expansions, illustrating a multipolar world where middle powers like Turkey (quadrupling renewables) or Indonesia (Bluebird’s mobility empire) exploit vacuums. Scholarly research, such as Gholz and Press’s analysis of energy security, warns that such realignments could spike global oil prices by 20-30% amid disruptions (Gholz & Press, 2001).
At the heart of the geopolitical narrative is a stark reality: the end of the unipolar moment. The lead article, “Gulf states put their trust in Pakistan as US security guarantees falter,” is a masterful case study in strategic hedging. The hurried Saudi-Pakistani defence pact, with its implicit nuclear overtones, is not an act of alliance but a declaration of vulnerability. It is a direct response to what political economist Dani Rodrik has termed the “political trilemma of the world economy”—the incompatibility of deep economic globalization, national sovereignty, and democratic politics (Rodrik, 2011). In this instance, the Gulf states, having long outsourced their security sovereignty to the United States, find that pillar crumbling under the weight of American political retrenchment and perceived unreliability over Gaza. Their solution is not to embrace a new global order but to retreat into a more fragmented, bilateral one, seeking a “nuclear shield” through a partner whose own strategic posture is defined by its rivalry with India. This move echoes the logic of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, where the Melians’ faith in justice was shattered by the Athenians’ cold assertion of power: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (Thucydides, ca. 400 BCE/1972, p. 402). The Gulf states, once comfortably under the American pax, are now forced to become their own Melians, scrambling for any shield they can find.
The report that Saudi Arabia rushed a defence pact with Pakistan in the wake of an Israeli strike in Doha — a pact that, on paper, treats an attack on Saudi Arabia as an attack on Pakistan — is less theatrical than structural: it is an asymmetric hedge that substitutes perception for full capability by leveraging Pakistan’s standing as a nuclear power.
Theoretically, this move is classical balancing: weaker or medium powers seek external partners to offset threats (Walt, 1987). But it also displays the logic Kenneth Waltz described when nuclear weapons change incentives for states to rely on “extended deterrence” rather than direct proliferation (Waltz, 1979). Riyadh’s pact is therefore a hybrid: it signals the possibility of nuclear protection without triggering immediate proliferation — yet it changes the regional risk calculus by making deterrence partly reputational and partly transactional. Practically, such pacts lower the threshold for escalation because they expand the institutional actors whose security claims now have to be accounted for — and that is the point the newsletter emphasises: Gulf states are diversifying guarantors as US credibility frays.
Causal implications and risks: hedging may be stabilizing in the short run (it reduces incentives for immediate armament among Gulf states) but destabilizing in the medium run because it externalizes nuclear risk into complex alliance chains (Schelling’s logic of entanglement applies). For political economy, this lowers transaction costs for security-seeking elites who can signal strength domestically without the domestic fiscal and political costs of a domestic bomb. For international institutions, the proliferation of such bilateral pacts creates ambiguity that complicates crisis management.
The extensive coverage of AI infrastructure investments—Nvidia’s $100 billion commitment to OpenAI, the Stargate Project’s $500 billion plan—must be read against Marx’s (1867/1976) analysis of fixed capital in Grundrisse: “The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production” (p. 706). Yet these data centers reveal something more troubling than technological sublimity. The newsletter notes they will draw power “more than half...from fossil fuels,” exposing what Andreas Malm (2016) in Fossil Capital identified as capitalism’s persistent metabolic rift—its structural inability to decouple accumulation from carbon combustion despite technological sophistication.
The stated energy requirements—data centers consuming “multiple gigawatts of power,” with OpenAI committing to “at least 10 gigawatts’ worth”—reveal what Parks and Starosielski (2015) called the “cloud’s” fundamentally terrestrial, material nature. The newsletter’s technical discussion of why renewables cannot yet provide “constant, stable flow” connects to Smil’s (2010) work on energy transitions, which demonstrates that no energy system transition has occurred in less than 50-70 years. The AI boom thus represents not creative destruction but what Parenti (2011) termed “catastrophic convergence”—the collision of climate crisis, resource depletion, and technological escalation.
Consider this passage’s implications: “To continuously produce just a single gigawatt, a renewable-energy plant would need around 12.5 million solar panels—enough to cover nearly 5,000 football fields.” This reveals the spatial politics of energy transition. As Bridge et al. (2013) argued, renewable energy is more spatially extensive than fossil fuels, creating new territorial conflicts. The turn to nuclear power—”they’ll need another seven or eight years to do it”—exemplifies what Beck (1992) called the “risk society,” wherein technocratic solutions to environmental crises generate new, incalculable hazards.
Typhoon Ragasa’s coverage in the newsletter shows how acute climatic shocks tax institutions of prediction (the Hong Kong Observatory), logistics (airport closure, flights), insurers, and local firms — in short, the entire socio-economic ecology. The newsletter notes the difficult tradeoff between overwarning and underwarning and the relatively fortunate insurance exposure compared with previous mega-storms.
Three linked observations arise. First, the epistemic problem: as storms intensify and rapid intensification becomes more common, forecasters face harder threshold decisions. This is both a scientific issue (ensemble forecasting, model resolution) and a social one (how citizens react to probabilistic warnings). Second, the fiscal–insurance problem: repeated extreme events shift the burden from public emergency response to private insurers and corporations, creating potential for uneven recovery and market concentration (insurers may withdraw or reprice risk). Third, the political economy of adaptation: infrastructure and adaptation capacity are not evenly distributed — the newsletter shows how airports, insurers, and corporate asset managers (e.g., airlines moving aircraft) bear and reallocate risk in real time.
This cluster of problems sits comfortably in the literature on climate adaptation and disaster capitalism: institutional preparedness matters, but so does distributional policy (Klein, 2014). For social theory, the HKO’s credibility becomes a public good whose erosion has high reputational externalities in a densely networked economy.
The Argentina crisis narrative—electoral setback followed by U.S. Treasury commitment of $20 billion swap line—exemplifies what Streeck (2014) analyzed as the “buying time” strategies of late neoliberalism. Treasury Secretary Bessent’s statement that Argentina represents “a bridge” until “key midterm elections” reveals sovereign lending as direct political intervention. This echoes Eichengreen’s (2011) historical analysis showing how international financial institutions have consistently operated as mechanisms of political discipline rather than neutral economic management.
Yet the newsletters also note the U.S. “is ready to buy up the country’s dollar bonds,” which suggests something more than discipline—what Eichengreen and Hausmann (1999) termed “original sin,” the structural inability of peripheral economies to borrow in their own currencies. Argentina’s dependence on dollar-denominated debt creates what Bordo and Meissner (2016) called “chronic fragility,” requiring repeated international interventions. Milei’s “chainsaw” approach—praised for achieving “the first budget surplus in decades”—must be read against Blyth’s (2013) Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, which demonstrates that fiscal consolidation during economic downturns consistently produces political instability and deeper recessions.
The structural parallel between this Argentine bailout and the newsletter’s discussion of Javier Milei being Trump’s “ideological ally” who receives support denied to others illuminates what Brown (2015) identified as neoliberalism’s production of a specific “political rationality” that reconfigures sovereignty itself. The conditionality implicit in U.S. support—dependent on October’s “positive outcome”—represents what Foucault (1978/2008) termed “governmentality,” the extension of market rationality into the domain of political rule.
Argentina’s slashed poverty rate under Javier Milei’s “anarcho-capitalist” reforms—from 53% to 32%—highlights a causal link between austerity and short-term gains, but at social costs like electoral backlash. Financially, U.S. support (a $20 billion swap line) props up Milei’s agenda, interrelating with Trump’s tariffs on pharma and trucks, which aim to reshore manufacturing but risk global supply chain inflation. This protectionism, as seen in Mexico’s retaliatory probes against Chinese imports, cascades into a trade war spiral, potentially contracting global GDP by 1-2% per IMF models (International Monetary Fund, 2023).
Theoretically, Milei’s chainsaw approach evokes David Harvey’s critique of neoliberalism as a “political economic project” that restores class power through deregulation, often at the expense of the vulnerable (Harvey, 2005, p. 19). Socially, it mirrors the inequality spikes in post-Thatcher Britain, where welfare cuts widened gaps, as chronicled in Ken Loach’s film I, Daniel Blake (2016), portraying bureaucratic dehumanization. Interrelating with energy snippets, Argentina’s reforms causally align with Europe’s green sovereignty push: Hannah Lucinda Smith’s piece on wind power underscores how renewables foster energy independence, reducing reliance on fossil autocrats like Putin. Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything (2014) associates this with “climate capitalism,” where green tech booms (e.g., Turkey’s turbine exports) but risks exacerbating divides if not equitably distributed: “The real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope of building a much more enlightened economic system” (Klein, 2014, p. 464). Financially, Ørsted’s €800 million rescue signals investor wariness, yet Brookfield’s $3 billion Google deal bets on renewables’ cost-effectiveness, potentially yielding 8-10% returns amid AI-driven demand (Adomait, as cited in the newsletter).
The newsletters note the US negotiating a $20bn swap line and bond purchases for Argentina — a large, politically salient intervention that stabilises markets before midterms.
Two interpretive frames: first, geopolitics of finance — state actors use financial lifelines as strategic signalling, and such interventions alter domestic politics by imposing stabilization that benefits incumbent policy agendas. Second, the economics of time-inconsistency: the lifeline may buy time, but without credible institutional reform it can become another episode in recurrent crisis dynamics (Reinhart & Rogoff, 2009). The newsletter emphasises precisely this: market calm is one thing; translating that into electoral legitimacy is another.
This quest for sovereignty is mirrored in the European energy sector, as detailed in Hannah Lucinda Smith’s piece, “Winds of change: Europe needs to take its green energy sovereignty seriously.” Here, the vulnerability is not military but industrial and technological. Europe’s ambitious green transition is revealed to be built on a foundation of Chinese-manufactured wind turbines, creating a new form of dependency that is as geopolitically fraught as its old reliance on Russian gas. This is a perfect illustration of what political theorist Quinn Slobodian describes in Globalists as the neoliberal project’s core aim: to “encase” the market from democratic politics, often by building supranational institutions that protect capital (Slobodian, 2018). Yet, the newsletter shows this project in crisis. The very global supply chains that were meant to ensure efficiency and lower costs have become vectors of strategic vulnerability. Europe’s realization that its “green future” is contingent on the goodwill of a strategic competitor forces a re-embrace of the nation-state as the primary unit of economic security—a move that would have been anathema to the architects of the European project just a decade prior. The call for a “sovereign energy security” is thus a tacit admission that the dream of a borderless, frictionless global market has given way to a world of “weaponized interdependence,” where control over critical nodes in a network can be used as a tool of coercion (Farrell & Newman, 2019).
AI’s pervasive threads—Meta’s glasses, Pony.ai‘s robotaxis, China’s robot factories—reveal causal interrelations with energy and economy: Nvidia’s sustainability head notes AI’s gas reliance, yet renewables could stabilize emissions. Socially, this widens divides, as GSMA’s Badrinath predicts Africa’s AI “data boom” but laments 75% disconnection. Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019) warns of AI’s extractive logic: “It is no longer enough to automate information flows about us; the goal now is to automate us” (Zuboff, 2019, p. 138), associating with TikTok’s $14 billion U.S. carve-out amid privacy fears.
Interdisciplinary, this echoes Harari’s Homo Deus (2016), where algorithms reshape humanity, causally linking to South Korea’s tattoo legalization—a social thaw amid tech-driven norms. Financially, Generate Capital’s consolidation play bets on solar fragmentation, potentially yielding efficiencies but risking monopolies.
Therefore, these snippets causally depict a world in flux: geopolitical vacuums spur economic experiments, cultural financialization, and tech adaptations, all interrelating through inequality’s lens. As Achebe’s fractured clans warn, without equitable bridges, fragmentation deepens. Future research might explore these via agent-based models (Epstein, 1999), simulating interplays for policy insights.
Perhaps the most chilling and resonant thread running through the newsletter is the theme of the spectacle of power and its discontents. The newsletters are replete with images of performance: Jimmy Kimmel’s defiant return to television, Nicolas Sarkozy leaving the courthouse, the launch of a perfume in Lisbon, and most disturbingly, Justin Sun’s “cross-country victory tour” with Donald Trump. Sun’s story is a postmodern parable of our age. A crypto billionaire, once barred from the US, returns not as a penitent but as a triumphant guest of the president, his legitimacy purchased with $90 million in Trump family memecoins. His self-aggrandizing comparison of his blockchain network to Spider-Man—“We are essentially guarding world peace. But we don’t talk about it”—is a grotesque inversion of the heroic ideal. It is the ultimate expression of what Guy Debord diagnosed in The Society of the Spectacle: a world where “all that once was directly lived has become mere representation” (Debord, 1967/1994, p. 12). Sun’s reality is a curated social media feed, his power a function of his proximity to a president whose own political identity is a perpetual media performance. This blurring of the lines between finance, politics, and celebrity culture creates a system where accountability is impossible, and the only currency that matters is attention and access.
The snippets on the Consortium and MBA pipelines show how regulatory and political changes reshape access to elite programmes: schools have withdrawn from a diversity-focused consortium, citing “regulatory compliance,” which in practice narrows pipelines for underrepresented groups.
This is a political economy of credentials: elites regulate the channels through which talent is filtered, often in response to external political pressure. From a sociological viewpoint (e.g., on institutions that reproduce elites), this is a moment where political contestation cascades into educational gatekeeping — with long-run effects on social mobility and the composition of managerial classes. It is also an observation in institutional path dependence (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012): once gatekeepers close ranks, the costs for redistribution rise.
The TikTok narrative—spanning multiple newsletter entries describing shifting valuations ($40 billion to $14 billion), complex ownership structures (ByteDance retaining minority stake, MGX and Oracle acquiring control), and political machinations—exemplifies what Plantin et al. (2018) termed “infrastructure studies’” core insight: platforms are not merely technical systems but “relational” entities whose value and meaning shift according to political-economic context.
The involvement of MGX, “the Abu Dhabi-based investment firm,” in acquiring TikTok reveals what Haberly and Wójcik (2022) analyzed as sovereign wealth funds operating as “patient capital” that can absorb risks Western financial institutions cannot. Yet this patience serves strategic purposes. As Clark and Monk (2017) demonstrated, sovereign wealth funds function as instruments of geopolitical positioning, not merely investment vehicles. MGX’s TikTok stake extends UAE influence into American digital infrastructure—a reversal of traditional core-periphery technological flows.
The valuation collapse from $40 billion to $14 billion despite user growth (100 million to 183 million monthly active U.S. users) illustrates what Srnicek (2017) called the “platform paradox”: network effects create value that platforms cannot fully capture or monetize. The Trump administration’s forced divestiture operates as what Cohen (2019) termed “digital enclosure”—the state claiming sovereignty over data flows within territorial boundaries. This directly contradicts decades of internet governance rhetoric celebrating borderless information flows.
The newsletters note that “some analysts had pegged it at closer to $30 billion to $40 billion” while “Snap collected about $5.4 billion in sales last year. Its market capitalization: $14 billion.” This comparison reveals that TikTok’s valuation at parity with Snap—despite TikTok’s substantially larger user base and engagement—represents political rather than economic pricing. As Zuboff (2019) argued in The Surveillance Capitalism, platform valuations reflect anticipated extraction of “behavioral surplus,” but when political authority intervenes to constrain extraction, valuations compress dramatically.
Bloomberg’s sceptical account of Meta’s latest AI/Ray-Ban glasses — an argument that the hardware does not fit the writer’s existing device ecosystem and therefore is unattractive — is a useful prompt for diagnosing platform strategy. The newsletter frames the launch as a massive long-term bet by Meta ($50bn+ into metaverse/AR/AI), while consumer adoption remains uneven.
Two theoretical lenses help: Shoshana Zuboff’s analysis of surveillance capitalism locates the motive force (data capture, personalised advertising) while Nick Srnicek’s account of platform capitalism explains strategy (ecosystem lock-in and cross-subsidisation) (Zuboff, 2019; Srnicek, 2017). The newsletter’s anecdote — the writer’s attachment to Apple/Amazon/Microsoft ecosystems and lack of a corresponding “halo” for Meta — maps exactly onto Srnicek’s thesis: a platform succeeds when network effects produce complementarities that make switching costly. Until Meta supplies genuine cross-ecosystem advantages (i.e., utility that cannot be replicated by existing devices), AR remains a peripheral good for many consumers.
Economic and social implications: heavy corporate investment into speculative hardware creates two simultaneous effects. On the supply side, it re-allocates R&D capital (and labour) toward unproven platforms; on the demand side, it amplifies inequality in digital affordances — adopters get new capabilities, non-adopters fall further behind in attention economies (Klein’s thesis about unequal exposure to climate risks has an analogue here: technological transitions are distributive). For regulators and scholars, Meta’s move is a case study in platform-driven industrial policy without public oversight (Zuboff, 2019).
The Comey indictment narrative—occurring despite “concerns within the Justice Department over the case,” with “other Trump officials...publicly praised the charges” even as “Halligan, who has never prosecuted a federal case, secured two charges”—reads as what Agamben (2005) termed the “state of exception” normalizing itself. The newsletter presents this as “one-way-ticket” justice: “Trump has gotten his way, securing a federal indictment of James Comey...despite concerns.” The instrumentalization of prosecutorial power reveals what Balkin and Levinson (2001) analyzed as “constitutional rot”—the gradual decomposition of democratic norms through technically legal actions.
Simultaneously, the reports on Sarkozy’s conviction “for receiving illegal campaign funding from the late Libyan dictator, Muammar Qaddafi” with the observation that “Sarkozy follows a long Gallic tradition of political improprieties.” This juxtaposition—American prosecution of political opponents alongside French prosecution of actual corruption—illuminates what Shklar (1964) called “legalism,” the variable relationship between law and justice across political cultures. The newsletter notes “the electorate should look on the bright side: in France, the law does eventually catch up with you,” suggesting prosecutorial independence France maintains that America increasingly lacks.
The art world’s Milan buzz, with Thaddaeus Ropac’s gallery opening amid VAT cuts, reflects a financial pivot: Italy’s market, pegged at $381-425 million, eyes €1.5 billion growth via tax reforms, causally attracting ultra-wealthy non-doms fleeing UK policies. Socially, this influx could revitalize cities but inflate inequalities, as seen in gentrification critiques. Theoretically, Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello’s The New Spirit of Capitalism (2005) frames art’s commodification as capitalism’s absorption of critique: galleries like Ropac’s become “hubs” for speculation, where Baselitz-Fontana shows mask market sluggishness (down 6% in H1 2025).
Associatively, this interrelates with fashion snippets—Simone Bellotti’s Jil Sander debut balancing “old and new”—evoking Walter Benjamin’s arcades as sites of commodified novelty (Benjamin, 1999). In non-fiction, Claire Bishop’s Artificial Hells (2012) critiques experiential art (e.g., Amsterdam’s Villa) as neoliberal spectacle, prioritizing “playful” immersion over critique. Causally, these cultural shifts link to tech: Accenture’s AI retraining “exits” unskilled workers, mirroring Preppi’s “stylish” survival gear for disaster preppers, a social response to climate anxieties amplified by Typhoon Ragasa’s Hong Kong havoc.
These geopolitical and economic anxieties are not confined to state actors; they permeate the corporate and cultural spheres. The newsletter’s coverage of the art world, particularly the opening of Thaddaeus Ropac’s Milan gallery, reveals a similar tension between global ambition and local fragility. Ropac’s pragmatic hope that Milan might follow Seoul’s trajectory as an art hub is juxtaposed against the sobering reality of Italy’s “false dawn” in the 2000s, when even a titan like Gagosian could not single-handedly transform a market hamstrung by bureaucracy and a lack of institutional infrastructure. This speaks to the fundamental truth that a market, no matter how global its players, is always embedded in a local social and political context—a concept central to the work of economic sociologist Mark Granovetter (1985). The art market’s “sluggish” state in 2025, with its gallery closures and fair cancellations, reflects a broader economic malaise, a “slowing of the music” that affects all speculative bubbles. The comparison to the dot-com crash is apt; both are moments where the “irrational exuberance” of a new technological or conceptual frontier collides with the hard realities of economic gravity.
The Ropac–Milan story is a useful window onto how tax and migration policy intersect with cultural economies. Italy’s VAT cut on art (22% → 5%) and attractive flat tax for non-doms are treated as instruments of place-making: governments use fiscal levers to attract capital, collectors, and cultural entrepreneurs — and dealers like Ropac respond by opening galleries to “test” the market. The newsletter documents the hopeful calculations and the cautionary memory of 2007’s false dawn.
Two analytical moves are helpful. First, Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital: art markets are a monetary translation of symbolic status (Bourdieu, 1984). Fiscal incentives that lower transaction costs for collecting convert private wealth into publicly legible cultural capital, which in turn feeds back into urban real-estate, hospitality, and luxury consumption. Second, financial cycles in cultural markets mirror broader credit/investor cycles (Reinhart & Rogoff’s longue durée on financial cycles suggests cultural booms can be fragile). The reminder that global art sales have fallen recently indicates that the VAT policy is a hedge: it lowers entry friction to capture a share of globalized collectors even if the art market cycle is down. Implication: cultural policy is now an explicit arm of place-based economic development; it commodifies symbolic distinction while exposing cities to volatility in global wealth flows.
The extensive art world coverage—Thaddaeus Ropac’s Milan gallery opening, the $106 million Picasso estimate in Hong Kong, Italian VAT cuts—functions as what Thornton (2008) called “seven days in the art world,” revealing how aesthetic value becomes financial instrument. Yet the newsletter’s discussion of Italy’s art market struggles despite tax incentives connects to Velthuis and Curioni’s (2015) analysis of how art markets depend not merely on fiscal policy but on what Bourdieu (1984) termed “cultural capital”—the accumulated prestige, networks, and institutional infrastructure that cannot be rapidly constructed.
The passage noting “Clare McAndrew...told ARTnews that her conservative estimate of the Italian art market last year was approximately $381 million to $425 million...the US totaled $24.8 billion” exposes what Brenner (1998) analyzed as “uneven development” operating even in supposedly globalized luxury markets. The concentration of art market activity in New York and London (60% of global sales) reflects broader patterns of financial hegemony. As Sassen (2001) demonstrated in The Global City, certain urban centers accumulate disproportionate command-and-control functions that resist geographic dispersion.
The observation that Gagosian’s 2007 Roman expansion “nearly 20 years later...the Italian capital’s art scene has not graduated to the big leagues” suggests limits to what Zukin (1982) called the “artistic mode of production” as economic development strategy. Cities cannot simply curate themselves into prosperity; the art market concentrates where financial capital concentrates, because, as Adorno (1970/1997) argued in Aesthetic Theory, under capitalism “art is magic delivered from the lie of being truth” (p. 19)—its value derives from its positioning within circuits of capital accumulation rather than intrinsic aesthetic properties.
The fashion industry coverage—”more than a dozen fashion houses are unveiling fresh directions for the upcoming spring-summer 2026 season under the direction of newly minted design teams”—connects to Bourdieu’s (1993) analysis of cultural production fields, where “the only legitimate accumulation consists in making a name for oneself” (p. 75). The newsletter’s observation that creative directors must “strike a fine balance between old and new” exemplifies what Reckwitz (2017) called the “society of singularities,” where aesthetic innovation becomes simultaneously economic imperative and source of precarity.
The discussion of OTB Group (owning Jil Sander, Diesel, Maison Margiela, Marni) alongside Lanvin’s “art of the rebrand” reveals fashion’s oligopolistic structure despite surface diversity. As Godart (2012) demonstrated, apparent pluralism masks concentration of ownership and manufacturing. The newsletter’s claim that successful brands “have been able to maintain their relevance despite industry fluctuations” obscures the structural fact that very few survive—fashion’s creative destruction operates ruthlessly, and survival depends more on financial backing than aesthetic merit.
This compendium’s assemblage logic—juxtaposing art auctions with data center energy consumption, Argentine debt crises with fashion week, legal prosecutions with typhoon damage—enacts what Jameson (1991) identified as postmodernity’s “cultural logic”: the inability to construct coherent narrative or causal relationships across domains. Yet patterns emerge. Every section reveals institutions under strain: democratic norms corroding, energy systems inadequate to technological demands, financial systems requiring repeated interventions, cultural markets concentrating despite rhetoric of globalization.
Hedging under uncertainty. Whether states (Gulf), institutions (art markets), or platforms (Meta), the dominant pattern is hedging: policy maneuvers that shift risk onto others, lower the visibility of failure, or pre-commit resources to a particular imagined future.
Recomposition of public/private burden. Climate risk and security guarantees are increasingly privatised: insurers, private galleries, sovereign funds, and tech giants absorb, price, or monetise risk once centrally held.
Political economy of signalling. Many moves (VAT cuts, Saudi–Pakistan pacts, US swap lines) are as much about signaling — to elites, voters, investors — as about immediate functional change. Signalling stabilises expectations but can entrench uneven power relations.
Uneven institutional capacity. Institutions that once mediated risk centrally (US security guarantees; robust public weather infrastructure; broad-based higher-education pipelines) are fragmenting or re-norming under political pressure, creating openings for private actors to set agendas.
The newsletter format itself—what Gitelman (2014) called “paper knowledge”—has migrated to email, carrying with it assumptions about attention, authority, and information hierarchy increasingly incompatible with digital media’s affordances. Reading this compilation produces what Williams (1977) termed “structures of feeling”—the inchoate sense that existing frameworks inadequately grasp present reality. The newsletter’s relentless presentness, its refusal of synthesis or conclusion, mirrors what Stiegler (2010) called “symbolic misery,” the reduction of experience to disconnected data points.
Yet perhaps this fragmentation constitutes the newsletter’s deepest insight. As Benjamin (1940/1968) wrote in “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” “To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was.’ It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger” (p. 255). These newsletters, read critically, flash with such dangerous memories—of abandoned climate commitments, instrumentalized justice systems, financialized culture, and the persistent gap between technological capability and social organization.
In conclusion, the newsletters paint a world in a state of anxious recomposition. The old certainties of American hegemony and globalized free trade are dissolving, replaced by a more fragmented, contested, and performative landscape. States seek new forms of sovereignty, markets confront their embedded vulnerabilities, and individuals navigate a world where reality itself is increasingly a curated spectacle. This is not a moment of simple decline but of complex, often contradictory, transformation—a world that is, in the words of the poet W. B. Yeats, “turning and turning in the widening gyre,” where “the centre cannot hold” (Yeats, 1919/1920, p. 61). The challenge for the actors in this drama, from Gulf princes to European policymakers to crypto billionaires, is to find a stable footing in a world that is fundamentally, and perhaps permanently, unmoored.
Subscribe
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown.
Achebe, C. (1958). Things fall apart. Heinemann.
Adorno, T. W. (1997). Aesthetic theory (R. Hullot-Kentor, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1970)
Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (K. Attell, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Arrighi, G. (1994). The long twentieth century: Money, power, and the origins of our times. Verso.
Balkin, J. M., & Levinson, S. (2001). Constitutional crises. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149(3), 707-753.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
Benjamin, W. (1968). Theses on the philosophy of history. In Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans., pp. 253-264). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1940)
Benjamin, W. (1999). The arcades project (H. Eiland & K. McLaughlin, Trans.). Belknap Press. (Original work published 1940)
Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. Verso.
Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The history of a dangerous idea. Oxford University Press.
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism (G. Elliott, Trans.). Verso.
Bordo, M. D., & Meissner, C. M. (2016). Fiscal and financial crises. In J. B. Taylor & H. Uhlig (Eds.), Handbook of macroeconomics (Vol. 2, pp. 355-412). Elsevier.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature (R. Johnson, Ed.). Columbia University Press.
Brenner, N. (1998). Between fixity and motion: Accumulation, territorial organization and the historical geography of spatial scales. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16(4), 459-481.
Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., & Eyre, N. (2013). Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy, 53, 331-340.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.
Clark, G. L., & Monk, A. H. B. (2017). Institutional investors in global markets. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. E. (2019). Between truth and power: The legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford University Press.
Debord, G. (1994). The society of the spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Zone Books. (Original work published 1967)
Eichengreen, B. (2011). Exorbitant privilege: The rise and fall of the dollar and the future of the international monetary system. Oxford University Press.
Eichengreen, B., & Hausmann, R. (1999). Exchange rates and financial fragility. Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 329-368.
Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199905/06)4:5<41::AID-CPLX9>3.0.CO;2-F
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00351
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979 (G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1978)
Gholz, E., & Press, D. G. (2001). The effects of wars on neutral countries: Why it doesn’t happen. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002701045003004
Gitelman, L. (2014). Paper knowledge: Toward a media history of documents. Duke University Press.
Godart, F. (2012). Unveiling fashion: Business, culture, and identity in the most glamorous industry. Palgrave Macmillan.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
Haberly, D., & Wójcik, D. (2022). Earth inc.: Shareholder cooperation in the global firm network. Economic Geography, 98(1), 1-30.
Harari, Y. N. (2016). Homo deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Harvill Secker.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
International Monetary Fund. (2023). World economic outlook: Navigating global divergences. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2023/10/10/world-economic-outlook-october-2023
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.
Katzenstein, P. J. (2005). A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Cornell University Press.
Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Simon & Schuster.
Loach, K. (Director). (2016). I, Daniel Blake [Film]. Sixteen Films.
Malm, A. (2016). Fossil capital: The rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. Verso.
Mann, M. (1986). The sources of social power: Volume 1, A history of power from the beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy, Volume 1 (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867)
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton.
Milanovic, B. (2019). Capitalism, alone: The future of the system that rules the world. Harvard University Press.
Nexon, D. H., & Wright, T. (2007). What’s at stake in the American empire debate. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 253-271.
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
Parenti, C. (2011). Tropic of chaos: Climate change and the new geography of violence. Nation Books.
Parks, L., & Starosielski, N. (Eds.). (2015). Signal traffic: Critical studies of media infrastructures. University of Illinois Press.
Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293-310.
Reckwitz, A. (2017). The invention of creativity: Modern society and the culture of the new. Polity.
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 & Company.
Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Shklar, J. N. (1964). Legalism: Law, morals, and political trials. Harvard University Press.
Slobodian, Q. (2018). Globalists: The end of empire and the birth of neoliberalism. Harvard University Press.
Smil, V. (2010). Energy transitions: History, requirements, prospects. Praeger.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Stiegler, B. (2010). For a new critique of political economy. Polity Press.
Streeck, W. (2014). Buying time: The delayed crisis of democratic capitalism. Verso.
Thornton, S. (2008). Seven days in the art world. W. W. Norton.
Thucydides. (1972). History of the Peloponnesian War (R. Warner, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published ca. 400 BCE)
Velthuis, O., & Curioni, S. B. (Eds.). (2015). Cosmopolitan canvases: The globalization of markets for contemporary art. Oxford University Press.
Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Cornell University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford University Press.
Yeats, W. B. (1920). The second coming. In Michael Robartes and the dancer (p. 61). The Cuala Press. (Original work published 1919)
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
Zukin, S. (1982). Loft living: Culture and capital in urban change. Johns Hopkins University Press.
[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (October 3, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (October 3, 2025).]
[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (October 3, 2025). The Fracturing Hegemon: Strategic Hedging, Infrastructural Power, and the Metabolism of Late Capitalism. Open Economics Blog.
Share Dialog
Pablo B. Markin
Support dialog