The newsletters from Monocle, The Economist, The New York Times, Bloomberg, CNBC, Semafor and ARTNews from January 8-14, 2026, collectively present a world at a precipice—one where geopolitical tectonic plates collide while new digital and economic forces simultaneously reshape our social landscapes. These fragmented missives form not merely a news digest but a Rorschach test revealing the anxieties and aspirations of our historical moment. Through this lens, we witness a global order experiencing what historian Adam Tooze might term “shockwave economics”—where political shocks propagate through financial systems, and economic disruptions reverberate through geopolitics in increasingly unpredictable feedback loops (Tooze, 2023).

The collected fragments present a striking, internally consistent tableau: (a) abrupt geopolitical transitions and the renewed practice of hard power (Venezuela, US operations; ongoing tactical shifts in Syria), (b) the simultaneous, complicated work of economic repair and financial reintegration (Syria’s redenomination, easing of payment-system sanctions), (c) domestic fractures and performative nostalgia (Iranian protests and talk of the Shah), and (d) the commodification and re-pricing of cultural goods and institutions (Louvre ticketing, art-market fragilities). These items are not isolated vignettes; they are conjunctural symptoms of a reordering in which state sovereignty, capital flows, social legitimacy and cultural access are being renegotiated in public view.

This week presents a portrait of a world rapidly shedding the diplomatic niceties of the post-1945 order in favor of a raw, muscular mercantilism. The newsletter snippets coalesce into a singular, jarring narrative: the return of “Great Power” politics in its most kinetic and transactional form. From the aggressive extraterritorial seizure of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro to the commodification of Greenland and the criminalization of technocratic dissent within the U.S. Federal Reserve, the events of this week suggest we have entered an era where sovereignty is conditional and economic might is indistinguishable from military force.

The opening weeks of 2026 have laid bare what scholars of international relations have long theorized but liberal democracies have been reluctant to acknowledge: the international system is undergoing a fundamental transformation from rules-based multilateralism toward a more Hobbesian arrangement of competing spheres of influence. As Mearsheimer (2018) presciently argued in The Great Delusion, “Liberal hegemony is destined to fail because nationalism and realism almost always trump liberalism when they clash” (p. 174). The January newsletters chronicle this clash with remarkable clarity.

President Trump’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and subsequent assertion of U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil industry represents not merely a geopolitical gambit but a conscious rejection of the post-1945 international legal architecture. As The Economist noted, Trump’s declaration that “the only limits on my powers are my own morality, my own mind” rather than international law marks a watershed moment. This echoes Carl Schmitt’s (1985) formulation in Political Theology that “sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (p. 5)—Trump has positioned himself as the sovereign who determines when international norms apply and when they do not.

The ramifications extend far beyond Latin America. Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong articulated the anxiety felt by smaller states: “From the point of view of a small country, if that is the way the world works, we have a problem” (Semafor, January 9). His observation recalls Thucydides’ (1972) account in The History of the Peloponnesian War of the Melian dialogue, where the Athenians declare that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (p. 402). The international system appears to be reverting to this logic.

What makes this transformation particularly profound is its simultaneity with other assertions of sovereign prerogative. Trump’s threats toward Greenland, his economic coercion of Venezuela, and his declaration of secondary tariffs against Iran’s trading partners all follow a similar pattern: the unilateral exercise of power unconstrained by multilateral frameworks. As Ikenberry (2011) warned in Liberal Leviathan, “The breakdown of the liberal international order would leave the world more conflictual and dangerous” (p. 336). The newsletters document this breakdown in real time.

Central to these newsletters is Donald Trump’s administration pushing American foreign policy beyond the norms that have governed international relations for decades. His attempted acquisition of Greenland and intervention in Venezuela—described as an assertion of “the strong tak[ing] what they can” (The Economist, January 9)—challenges the post-WWII institutional framework. This represents not merely policy change but a philosophical rupture with the Westphalian tradition, echoing Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature where “there is no place for industry... because the fruit thereof is uncertain” (Hobbes, 1651/1996, p. 88).

The criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell reveals a deeper institutional crisis. As Jamie Dimon warns, “anything that chips away at the Federal Reserve’s independence is probably not a great idea, and... will have the reverse consequences. It’ll raise inflation expectations and probably increase rates over time” (Bloomberg, January 13). This assault on central bank independence resonates with economist Daron Acemoglu’s warning about “extractive institutions” that serve narrow interests at the expense of economic stability (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The markets’ reaction—gold and silver hitting record highs while the dollar weakened—demonstrates investor anxiety about institutional erosion.

Two themes stand out: the revival of muscular foreign policy as a tool of rapid regime change and the fragility of successor political orders. The reports about the US operation in Caracas and its reverberations through Latin American diplomacy show how modern interventions can topple a figurehead yet leave complex governance problems in their wake—clientelist networks, multiple centers of coercive authority, and weak civil institutions (the “many-headed hydra” of Chavismo).

Political science and development economics warn us that regime removal does not automatically produce inclusive institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The newsletters’ empirical snapshots confirm that danger: a removed leader produces a political vacuum that competing actors (security forces, patronage networks, militias) rush to fill, making stabilization a problem of state-building as much as of military victory. That insight returns us to a classical observation about the administrative and economic capacity of states: power must be followed by credible institutions if the promise of “order” is to translate into welfare gains rather than predation (Polanyi’s concerns about the social embeddedness of markets are relevant here). See Acemoglu & Robinson (2012) and Polanyi (1944).

At the same time, interventions designed primarily for geopolitical advantage—oil security, sphere-building, signaling—create moral hazards. Polling and reportage cited in the briefings suggest Venezuelans may welcome regime change as an instrument of relief, but the newsletters also show the immediate social cost: arrests of journalists, armed civilian patrols, and a collapsed public sphere.

The most striking development of the week is undoubtedly the United States’ assertion of what The Economist dubs the “Donroe Doctrine”—a hyper-aggressive reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The extraction of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. special forces, followed immediately by the seizure of Russian-flagged oil tankers and the summoning of oil executives to the White House to “reboot” Venezuela’s energy sector, represents a paradigm shift. This is no longer the “nation-building” of the early 2000s; it is closer to the extractive imperialism of the 19th century.

As John Mearsheimer (2001) argues in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, great powers are rarely satisfied with the status quo and will use force to maximize their share of world power. President Trump’s actions in Venezuela, coupled with the brazen (and transactional) pressure campaign to annex Greenland for its rare earth minerals, exemplify Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism.” The administration views the Western Hemisphere not as a community of nations, but as a resource inventory. The Semafor report that Washington is considering “paying Greenlanders up to $100,000 each” treats national identity as a tradable asset, echoing the cynical price-tagging of everything that philosopher Michael Sandel warned against in What Money Can’t Buy (2012).

The reaction from small states is telling. As Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted in Bloomberg, “If that is the way the world works, we have a problem.” This anxiety reflects the “Melian Dialogue” of Thucydides, where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (Thucydides, 1972). The normalization of seizing territory or heads of state sends a tremor through the international system, suggesting that the Westphalian concept of sovereignty is now subordinate to U.S. resource security.

Perhaps no development in early 2026 more starkly illustrates the erosion of institutional independence than the Trump administration’s criminal investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. This represents not merely a personal attack but a fundamental challenge to the institutional separation between political authority and monetary policy that has underpinned economic governance in advanced democracies since the post-war period.

Alesina and Summers (1993) demonstrated empirically in their seminal paper “Central Bank Independence and Macroeconomic Performance” that “there is a negative relationship between inflation and central bank independence and no relationship between central bank independence and real economic performance” (p. 151). The Trump administration’s pressure on Powell directly contradicts this accumulated wisdom, prioritizing short-term political objectives over long-term economic stability.

Powell’s response—that “the threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president”—represents a rare public defense of institutional autonomy. His statement echoes Max Weber’s (1946) classic formulation in “Politics as a Vocation” distinguishing between different forms of authority: the rational-legal authority of institutions versus the charismatic authority of individual leaders (p. 78). Powell defends the former against encroachment by the latter.

The market response to this confrontation reveals the fragility of confidence in institutional frameworks. As Bloomberg reported, “Futures on the S&P 500 fell 0.7%, while the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index dropped 0.2%. Gold and silver climbed to records.” Investors fleeing to safe-haven assets signal their recognition that the independence of central banking—long considered a cornerstone of modern economic governance—can no longer be taken for granted.

Eichengreen (2019) in Globalizing Capital traces how central bank independence emerged as a response to the failures of political manipulation of monetary policy in the 1970s: “The great inflation convinced policymakers that insulating monetary policy from political pressures was essential for price stability” (p. 189). The current assault on this independence risks a return to the policy failures that made such insulation necessary.

Syria’s redenomination (removing two zeros) and the lifting of payment-system sanctions make for an instructive case study in the political economy of reconstruction. On one level, removing regime iconography from banknotes is symbolic: it erases a daily reminder of the prior personalist order and can have a measurable psychological effect that supports confidence-building for markets and investment. On another level, normalization of payment rails and access to international banking are preconditions for re-embedding local producers in regional value chains (the newsletter stresses the importance of electronic transfers for traders who had exported widely before 2011).

Scholarship on sanctions (Hufbauer et al., 2007) and post-conflict economic recovery highlights both the potential and pitfalls: sanctions may coerce regimes at the cost of impoverishing civilians; lifting them can produce a rapid inflow of capital but also invite rent-seeking and unequal redistribution unless fiscal and institutional safeguards are in place. Syria’s fragile housing stock, spiking rents, and the presence of wartime profiteers underline the central lesson: macroeconomic normalization must be paired with mechanisms that limit elite capture and foster broad-based reconstruction (cf. Sen’s emphasis on capabilities and the distributional element of development). See Hufbauer et al. (2007) and Sen (1999).

Domestically, the U.S. administration is waging a parallel war against institutional independence, specifically targeting the Federal Reserve. The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Chair Jerome Powell—ostensibly over building renovations but transparently about interest rates—marks a dangerous escalation in the politicization of monetary policy.

This move recalls the warnings of Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) in How Democracies Die, regarding the “capture of the referees.” By weaponizing the legal system against the central bank, the administration threatens to dismantle the firewall between short-term political populism and long-term economic stability. As The New York Times noted, this is an attempt to break the administrative state. The silence of some business leaders, contrasted with the vocal opposition of former Fed chairs, highlights a fractured elite class, some of whom are willing to trade institutional integrity for the promise of cheap credit—a classic Faustian bargain found in Thomas Mann’s Doctor Faustus (1947).

The proliferation of prediction markets and their increasing entanglement with political events represents another dimension of institutional transformation documented in these newsletters. The controversy over Polymarket’s Venezuela “invasion” contract—and the suspicious $400,000 profit made by an unidentified trader shortly before U.S. forces seized Maduro—raises profound questions about the relationship between financial markets, insider knowledge, and democratic governance.

MacKenzie (2006) in An Engine, Not a Camera demonstrated how financial markets do not merely reflect reality but actively construct it through their pricing mechanisms and institutional practices (p. 12). Prediction markets intensify this performativity, as Congressman Ritchie Torres recognized in proposing legislation to bar government officials from betting on policy outcomes: “There’s a real risk that the anonymous trader was a government insider.”

The deeper issue concerns what happens when markets become the primary mechanism for aggregating information about political events. As Polanyi (1944) warned in The Great Transformation, the extension of market logic into ever-broader domains of social life creates fundamental instabilities: “To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society” (p. 76). Prediction markets on military operations and regime changes represent precisely this kind of extension.

The newsletters also document the extraordinary concentration of wealth in technology firms and their founders, with Google’s parent Alphabet joining the $4 trillion market capitalization club. This concentration has profound implications for democratic governance. As Piketty (2014) argued in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, “When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based” (p. 1).

The departure of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin from California in response to a proposed wealth tax illustrates Piketty’s concerns in practice. States and nations compete to attract and retain billionaires, creating a race to the bottom in taxation that undermines collective capacity to address shared challenges. As Hirschman (1970) theorized in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, when elites have ready “exit” options, their incentive to exercise “voice” to improve institutions diminishes (p. 30). Mobile capital can abandon problematic jurisdictions rather than working to reform them.

Perhaps most striking is the emergent resource politics shaping global relations. China’s record $1.2 trillion trade surplus (Bloomberg, January 14) exists alongside U.S. pressure on Venezuela’s oil reserves and heightened competition for critical minerals. The Danish decision to invest $13.8 billion in Greenland’s military defense and the EU’s proposed NATO Arctic mission reflect the strategic importance of these supposedly frozen territories.

This scramble for resources echoes what political ecologist Jason Moore (2015) terms the “capitalocene”—the understanding that capitalism’s crises are fundamentally ecological crises rooted in resource extraction. The newsletter’s juxtaposition of Saudi Arabia opening a $1 billion theme park while simultaneously exploring the reintroduction of lions to its nature reserves (The Economist, January 12) embodies the contradictions of late capitalism’s attempts to reconcile ecological consciousness with growth imperatives.

Running through these newsletters is a persistent concern with affordability and economic anxiety that shapes political responses across multiple domains. Trump’s proposals for a 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates, his directive for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage bonds, and his ban on institutional investors buying single-family homes all respond to a perceived affordability crisis that threatens Republican electoral prospects.

Case and Deaton (2020) documented in Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism how economic insecurity has created profound social dysfunction in advanced economies: “The destruction of the white working class has been fundamentally economic in origin, driven by globalization and technology, but it has ramified through American life, destroying communities and eliminating the chances of good lives” (p. 2). The political response to this destruction increasingly takes forms that challenge established institutional arrangements.

The housing affordability crisis documented in the newsletters—from London’s property market where sellers increasingly take losses, to the “fragile dream” of Florida retirement, to Trump’s interventions in U.S. housing markets—reflects a fundamental tension in contemporary capitalism. As Piketty (2020) argues in Capital and Ideology, housing has become the primary form of wealth accumulation for middle classes even as homeownership becomes increasingly unattainable: “The rise of property values has been a central mechanism of wealth concentration in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries” (p. 134).

Trump’s proposed interventions treat symptoms while potentially exacerbating underlying causes. A credit card interest rate cap without addressing the reasons consumers carry high-interest debt may simply reduce credit availability for those who most need it. Institutional investor bans without addressing housing supply constraints may reduce liquidity without meaningfully improving affordability. These policy responses resemble what Minsky (2008) in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy called “money manager capitalism”—short-term interventions that stabilize immediate crises while perpetuating longer-term instabilities (p. 86).

The Louvre’s decision to raise prices for non-EEA visitors sits at the intersection of cultural policy, fiscal necessity and questions of universalism (the newsletter notes the trade-union outcry and the museum’s defence that the hike will fund structural needs). The move indexes a wider tension: global cultural institutions face rising maintenance costs and shrinking subsidies while simultaneously confronting post-colonial critiques about provenance and universalist claims (the file even cites Bénédicte Savoy’s interrogation of the museum’s histories).

Two analytical strands are useful here. First, the neoliberalization of culture: as public support recedes, museums behave increasingly like firms, extracting revenue from tourists and premium experiences (Harvey, 2005). Second, the epistemic critique in post-colonial studies (Said, 1978; Savoy’s interventions) insists that the “universal” museum has always been imbricated with imperial histories. The consequence is a political economy of cultural access: pricing policies that explicitly differentiate by nationality reinforce inequalities in symbolic access and produce the ethical problem the unions evoked—are masterpieces a common human heritage or a commodified tourism product? The newsletters show this debate is not merely academic; it is now a live, contested policy choice.

Beneath the geopolitical headlines lies a subtle but profound generational shift. Reports of widespread protests in Iran, anti-corruption demonstrations in the Balkans, and student-led rallies in Serbia reflect what sociologist Manuel Castells (2015) describes as “networked social movements” organized around authenticity and moral outrage rather than traditional political structures.

Meanwhile, cultural indicators suggest profound demographic transitions: Japan’s potential snap election under Sanae Takaichi, China’s record-low birth rate in Hong Kong, and Singapore’s anxiety over U.S. unilateralism all point to societies negotiating new identities amid demographic and geopolitical flux. These shifts resonate with historian Yuval Noah Harari’s observation that “the greatest political and social revolutions began not with angry workers but with thoughtful students” (Harari, 2018, p. 124).

Subscribe

The newsletters document both extraordinary technological optimism—particularly around artificial intelligence—and growing anxiety about technology’s social implications. The bifurcated response to AI companies illustrates this tension. On one hand, Anthropic pursues a $350 billion valuation just months after its last fundraising, and Alphabet’s market capitalization soars on AI partnerships with Apple. On the other hand, xAI’s Grok chatbot generates “sexualized pictures of women and children,” prompting government crackdowns and revealing the dark underbelly of unrestricted AI deployment.

Zuboff (2019) in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism identified the fundamental tension in contemporary technology development: “Surveillance capitalism unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data” (p. 8). The newsletters document this claiming in multiple domains—from Meta’s hiring of Dina Powell McCormick to secure government backing for AI infrastructure, to concerns about AI-driven job displacement, to prediction markets leveraging insider information.

The question posed by Saritha Rai in Bloomberg‘s India Edition resonates beyond consumer electronics: “India may churn out smartphones and home appliances by the millions, yet the brands that dominate CES tend to hail from Shenzhen, Seoul or Silicon Valley.” This observation points to a broader dynamic in technological development—the concentration of innovation capture and value extraction in a small number of firms and geographies, even as production and consumption become globally distributed.

Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) in Why Nations Fail argued that “inclusive economic institutions” are characterized by “secure private property, an unbiased system of law, and a provision of public services that provides a level playing field” (p. 74). The technology sector increasingly exhibits the opposite characteristics: oligopolistic concentration, regulatory capture, and the privatization of common resources (data, attention, public space) for private gain.

The AI revolution features prominently across these newsletters, with Alphabet joining the “$4 trillion club” (Bloomberg, January 13) while Chinese AI firms like Zhipu and MiniMax pursue listings in Hong Kong. This technological race transcends mere economic competition, representing what philosopher Shannon Vallor describes as “technomoral” contestation—determining not just who builds AI systems, but which values will shape their development (Vallor, 2022).

The controversy over xAI’s Grok generating non-consensual sexualized images highlights a central tension in digital governance: the mismatch between technological speed and regulatory pace. As legal scholar Lawrence Lessig observed decades ago, “Code is law” (Lessig, 2006, p. 5), yet our institutions remain ill-equipped to govern the moral dimensions of algorithmic systems. The global regulatory response—involving Malaysia, Indonesia, and the UK—portends a fragmented digital landscape where technological innovation collides with increasingly divergent governance regimes.

While the U.S. exerts kinetic power, the digital realm faces a crisis of epistemic anarchy. The newsletters highlight the rapid rise of AI valuations (Alphabet hitting a $4 trillion market cap) alongside the social corrosion caused by unchecked technology. The scandal involving Elon Musk’s Grok generating non-consensual deepfake pornography of children and women illustrates the “Frankenstein complex” inherent in rapid technological advancement.

This resonates with Shoshana Zuboff’s (2019) concept of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, where human experience is dragged into the marketplace as raw material. However, here the dynamic is darker: it is not just surveillance, but the synthetic fabrication of reality. Simultaneously, the Iranian regime’s internet blackout to hide its brutal crackdown on protesters (killing an estimated 2,000 people) demonstrates the state’s counter-move: the “kill switch.” As Manuel Castells (2009) observed in Communication Power, the battle for the mind is fought through the control of communication networks. The week’s events show a bifurcation: the West suffers from a glut of synthetic, chaotic information (Grok), while the East (Iran, China’s censorship) suffers from a vacuum of it.

Moderna chair Noubar Afeyan’s warning that we live simultaneously in “the utopian age” where genetic conditions can be cured and a “dystopia” where vaccine-preventable diseases return captures a fundamental crisis of expertise and institutional trust documented throughout these newsletters. The Trump administration’s attacks on scientific institutions, its withdrawal from international research collaborations, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s influence over health policy all reflect what Nichols (2017) calls “The Death of Expertise”—a broader rejection of specialized knowledge in favor of populist intuition (p. 3).

This rejection has profound implications across domains. The newsletters document skepticism toward climate science (Sweden’s backsliding on environmental commitments), public health (the return of measles amid “corrosive doubt”), and economic expertise (Trump’s dismissal of economist warnings about tariffs and credit card rate caps). As Habermas (1975) argued in Legitimation Crisis, modern democracies face a fundamental tension between technical rationality and political legitimacy: “The expansion of state activity creates an increasing need for legitimation” even as “the expansion of state activity leads to a legitimation deficit” (p. 68).

The response to this legitimation crisis increasingly takes the form of what Mouffe (2005) calls “the return of the political”—the reassertion of friend-enemy distinctions and partisan identity over technocratic management (p. 3). The newsletters document this return across multiple domains: Iran’s protests framed as revolution versus reaction; Venezuela’s transformation presented as liberation versus imperialism; monetary policy recast as serving “the people” versus serving elites.

The discussion of Iran’s protests and the revival of nostalgia for the Shah captures a recurring political motif: when present institutions are discredited, memory becomes a political resource. Svetlana Boym’s distinction between restorative and reflective nostalgia helps sharpen the analysis: calls to restore the Shah would be “restorative” nostalgia—an attempt to retrieve an imagined past as a political program—yet the newsletters rightly caution that such a return would risk substituting one autocracy for another and ignore structural demands for rights and participation.

Those who traffic in nostalgia often elide the social inequalities and exclusions of the predecessor order—an omission that political philosophers from Hannah Arendt to more recent authors have cautioned against when diagnosing totalitarian legacies and the instrumentalization of memory (Arendt, 1951; Boym, 2001). The practical policy takeaway is modest but urgent: support for movements seeking democratic openings must be calibrated to avoid uncritical romanticization of past regimes—truthful historical reckoning must accompany political support.

The macro-political tensions are mirrored by micro-level violence and social fragmentation. The fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, and the administration’s immediate branding of her as a “terrorist” without evidence, underscores the militarization of domestic policing. This incident, set against the backdrop of “hundreds more” federal agents being dispatched to the city, evokes the atmosphere of J.M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians (1980), where the state’s obsession with security creates the very terror it claims to fight.

Culturally, the newsletters present a world trying to normalize the abnormal. Monocle discusses tidying desks with leather trays and “Alpine whimsy” in hotel design, a jarring juxtaposition to the burning streets of Tehran and the seizing of oil tankers. This disconnect brings to mind W.H. Auden’s poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” (1939), where “everything turns away / Quite leisurely from the disaster.” The wealthy insulate themselves in “blue zones” in Sardinia or luxury bunkers in Dubai, while the structural integrity of the global order fissures.

The newsletters document what might be characterized as a hegemonic interregnum—a period when an existing order has lost legitimacy and capacity but no clear successor has emerged. As Gramsci (1971) wrote in the Prison Notebooks, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear” (p. 276). The “morbid symptoms” of early 2026 include:

• The weaponization of trade relations (secondary tariffs, IEEPA abuse, conditional access to resources)

• The militarization of economic policy (Venezuela oil seizures, threats against Greenland)

• The politicization of independent institutions (Fed independence, central bank appointments)

• The erosion of multilateral frameworks (U.S. withdrawal from 66+ international organizations)

• The privatization of governance functions (prediction markets, corporate control of AI policy)

China’s response to this turbulence reveals the complexity of hegemonic transition. Beijing’s record $1.2 trillion trade surplus masks deeper vulnerabilities documented in the newsletters: zero inflation for 2025, a persistent property crisis, and what Andy Browne calls the “involution spiral” of deflationary competition. As Arrighi (1994) argued in The Long Twentieth Century, hegemonic transitions involve not merely the transfer of power from one state to another but fundamental transformations in the organization of capitalism itself (p. 27).

The newsletters suggest such a transformation may be underway, characterized by:

1. From multilateral rules to bilateral power relationships: Trump’s approach to Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran all emphasize direct coercion over institutional frameworks.

2. From market-based allocation to political allocation: Whether AI chips, critical minerals, or housing access, political authority increasingly overrides market mechanisms.

3. From specialized expertise to generalized power: Technical knowledge (Fed economics, climate science, public health) becomes subordinated to political authority.

4. From universalist norms to particularist interests: Sphere-of-influence logic replaces claims to universal values.

The newsletters’ most profound insight emerges not from their individual stories but from their juxtapositions. The same week that Trump threatens tariffs on any country “doing business” with Iran, Chinese and U.S. firms are quietly negotiating over NVIDIA chip exports. While the U.S. administration threatens the Federal Reserve’s independence, global central bankers issue unprecedented statements of solidarity with Powell. This pattern of simultaneous convergence and divergence suggests what scholar Anne-Marie Slaughter (2017) calls “the chessboard and the web”—a world where hierarchical power structures coexist with networked influence, often pulling in opposite directions.

The luxury market offers another lens into this duality. Monocle’s coverage of London’s new Portuguese restaurant Luso alongside Bloomberg’s report on Prada’s $939 “Made in India” Kolhapuri sandals reveals how globalization’s economic patterns both homogenize and hybridize culture. As anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1996) presciently observed, “modernity is not homogenizing; it is diversifying in its global reach” (p. 11).

Beneath the high politics of hegemonic competition and institutional crisis, the newsletters document a crisis of social reproduction—the inability of existing economic arrangements to maintain and reproduce the conditions necessary for human flourishing. This manifests in multiple forms:

Housing unaffordability: From London property losses to Florida’s fading retirement dream to Mumbai’s slum-dwelling majority, housing has become simultaneously the primary form of middle-class wealth accumulation and increasingly inaccessible to new generations.

Demographic decline: Hong Kong’s 14% drop in births, Japan’s aging crisis, China’s one-person household boom all signal the breakdown of reproductive capacity.

Health system strain: Universal concerns about obesity, GLP-1 drug impacts on food spending, and the return of vaccine-preventable diseases reflect healthcare systems under pressure.

Educational stress: From Singapore retraining 35,000 bank employees for AI to concerns about mass unemployment, the relationship between education, employment, and economic security grows increasingly fraught.

Fraser (2016) argues in “Contradictions of Capital and Care” that capitalism faces an inherent contradiction: “Capital has a parasitical relation to its own conditions of possibility, including above all those that sustain and replenish the human beings who labor in capitalist society” (p. 100). The newsletters document this parasitism across domains—the inability of market mechanisms alone to ensure housing, healthcare, education, and economic security for broad populations.

The political responses to this crisis increasingly take authoritarian or nationalist forms. As Polanyi (1944) observed during the 1930s, when market mechanisms fail to ensure social reproduction, “protection of society” demands political intervention, but “the protectionist movement against economic liberalism and laissez-faire possessed all the unmistakable characteristics of a spontaneous reaction” that could take reactionary forms (p. 152). Trump’s interventions in credit card rates, housing markets, and monetary policy; China’s regulatory crackdowns on platform companies; India’s Mumbai election focused on identity rather than infrastructure—all reflect this reactive politics.

A striking feature of the newsletters is the compression of political time horizons even as long-term challenges intensify. Trump’s focus on November midterm elections drives policy on monetary policy, housing affordability, and trade relations. Indian elections shift from development issues to identity politics for immediate mobilization. Chinese officials pursue quarterly results while structural challenges accumulate.

This temporal mismatch between political incentives and social/ecological challenges recalls Schumpeter’s (1942) concern in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy that democracy might prove unable to address long-term challenges: “The democratic method is incapable of fully appreciating the long-run interests of the nation which are not perceived as important by those who have the voting power at the moment” (p. 282).

Climate change provides the clearest example. The newsletters document Sweden’s climate backsliding, the U.S. withdrawal from renewable energy organizations, and the revival of fossil fuel development in Venezuela—all while the long-term climate crisis intensifies. As Jameson (2003) argued in “Future City,” late capitalism exhibits “an inability to think the future except as a repetition of the present” (p. 76). Political systems optimize for electoral cycles while challenges operate on generational or geological timescales.

The temporal crisis extends to technology development. AI companies pursue valuations based on future promises while social adaptation lags. As Rosa (2013) argues in Social Acceleration, modern societies exhibit “a systematic pattern of growth, acceleration and innovation logics that systematically outpace the ability of individuals, communities and democratic institutions to develop adequate response strategies” (p. 2). The newsletters document this outpacing across domains—AI development outrunning regulation, financial innovation exceeding governance capacity, geopolitical change overwhelming diplomatic frameworks.

Amid these turbulent geopolitical and economic narratives, a quieter human question persists: How do we maintain meaningful connection in a fragmented world? The newsletter coverage of Ai, the chimpanzee who could recognize Chinese characters and draw paintings before dying at 49 (Bloomberg, January 13), juxtaposed with reports of AI systems generating harmful content, raises profound questions about consciousness, creativity, and what we value.

Similarly, Monocle’s feature on China’s “#1 app” “Are You Dead?”—designed for people living alone to check on loved ones—speaks to a world where technology simultaneously connects and isolates. As philosopher Zygmunt Bauman (2013) observed in his final works, we inhabit a world of “liquid modernity” where “human bonds are easily established and still more easily cut” (p. 12). The app’s popularity reveals not just economic loneliness but a deeper yearning for connection that no algorithm can fully satisfy.

These newsletters collectively sketch a world in transition—not simply geopolitically or technologically, but existentially. They document humanity negotiating its relationship to power, progress, and each other during a period when old certainties crumble and new ones have yet to coalesce. The most profound question they pose is not whether the U.S. will acquire Greenland or whether AI will create a bubble, but whether we can develop institutions and values capable of navigating multipolar challenges while preserving the human connections that give our lives meaning.

As we stand at this historical inflection point, historian Rebecca West’s words from nearly a century ago resonate with renewed relevance: “We are such stuff as revolutions are made of, and we must go on making them for the revolution is never over” (West, 1934/2015, p. 342).

Read together, the newsletters outline a contemporary grammar: geopolitical maneuvering creates opportunities for economic re-integration (or exploitation); economic shocks and rollbacks (sanctions, redenominations) shape political legitimacy at home; cultural institutions and markets register and refract those changes in the form of pricing, exhibitions, and rhetorical frames. For example, the same state that negotiates debt and sanctions may also be the entity that defends or cuts cultural budgets; the public’s sense of grievance may be expressed through protests that produce nostalgic yearnings, which in turn make the political terrain more hospitable to interventionist arguments abroad.

This is a systemic picture: scholars like Acemoglu and Robinson argue that political institutions and economic incentives co-produce one another. The newsletters repeatedly show that when institutional complements are absent (courts, free press, stable fiscal institutions), both markets and democracy suffer—whether in Caracas, Tehran, or a cash-strapped museum in Paris.

1. Reconstruction must be institutionally sequenced. Economic normalization (access to payment systems, redenomination, foreign investment) must be paired with anti-corruption safeguards, judicial reform, and transparent asset-recovery mechanisms—otherwise flows of capital will reproduce wartime extraction. (See Hufbauer et al., 2007; Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012.)

2. Interventions need exit strategies designed around governance, not only regime change. Military or covert action may remove a leader quickly but does not replace the public goods and legitimacy that underpin a stable polity. International actors contemplating intervention must invest in multilateral institution-building rather than rely on short-term coercion. The Venezuelan case in the briefings is a cautionary instance.

3. Cultural institutions must reconcile revenue models with principles of equity. Museums facing structural deficits should be required to publish transparent plans showing how price differential revenues will be deployed toward restitution, access programs, and provenance research; absent that, measures risk deepening historical injustices under a veneer of “sustainability.” The Louvre example makes this urgent.

The newsletters from early 2026 document not merely political turbulence but the breakdown of institutional frameworks that have structured global economic, political, and social life for decades. As older certainties dissolve—central bank independence, international law, multilateral frameworks, expertise-based governance—the question becomes: what new institutional arrangements might emerge?

Three possibilities suggest themselves from the materials reviewed:

1. Neo-Imperial Spheres of Influence: The U.S., China, and perhaps regional powers establish zones of hegemonic control within which different rules apply. This resembles nineteenth-century imperialism updated for twenty-first-century technology and finance.

2. Authoritarian Market Coordination: Increased political control over economic activity—whether Trump’s interventions in monetary policy and housing markets, China’s regulatory authority over platforms and AI, or other nations’ attempts to manage technology and capital—creates new forms of state-directed capitalism.

3. Fragmented Pluralism: Different regions and nations develop distinct institutional arrangements in response to local conditions, with limited coordination beyond narrow functional domains (perhaps trade in specific commodities or management of particular technologies).

None of these alternatives appears particularly promising for addressing the fundamental challenges documented in the newsletters: climate change, inequality, democratic legitimacy, technological governance, or social reproduction. As Streeck (2016) argues in How Will Capitalism End?, we may be entering “an interregnum of indeterminacy” in which “the social world is no longer predictable” and “the conditions for the accumulation of capital have become too contradictory” (p. 73).

Yet moments of institutional breakdown also create possibilities for institutional innovation. The key question is whether new frameworks can be constructed that reconnect political authority with expertise, short-term responsiveness with long-term planning, national sovereignty with global coordination, and market efficiency with social reproduction. The newsletters suggest this reconstruction has barely begun.

As Arendt (1958) observed in The Human Condition, “The human artifice of the world separates human existence from all mere animal environment, but life itself is outside this artificial world, and through life man remains related to all other living organisms” (p. 7). The challenge facing contemporary societies is to construct institutional arrangements that honor both our capacity for artifice—the creation of complex social, economic, and political systems—and our embeddedness in natural and social systems we cannot fully control. The January 2026 newsletters document how far we remain from meeting this challenge.

The week’s newsletters, thus, offer a salutary reminder: narratives (of liberation, nostalgia, universalism, decline) are instruments of politics and markets. They shape what citizens accept as possible and what elites can get away with. An analytic posture that refuses quick moral triumphalism—one that looks for institutional depth, historical honesty, and distributional outcomes—will serve better than the rhetorical seductions of instant fixes. Political economy teaches us that durable change is a slow, institution-building process; the items you shared show how the short, dramatic moves of politics and media can accelerate crises when that work is neglected.

This week marks an acceleration toward a post-liberal world order. It is defined by the naked assertion of power over law, the prioritization of resource extraction over diplomatic consensus, and the subjugation of technocratic institutions to political will. Whether it is the U.S. looking at Greenland and seeing only copper and zinc, or the Iranian regime looking at its youth and seeing only a threat to be extinguished, the prevailing logic is one of domination.

As we observe these interrelations—economic coercion in Venezuela linked to inflation politics in the U.S.; AI booms in Silicon Valley linked to energy crises for power grids—we see a world that is highly interconnected yet deeply fractured. We are witnessing what Antonio Gramsci (1971) famously described: “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

Subscribe

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2019). The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. Penguin 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.

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

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

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.

Auden, W. H. (1939). Musée des Beaux Arts. Random House.

Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. John Wiley & Sons.

Boym, S. (2001). The future of nostalgia. Basic Books.

Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of despair and the future of capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

Coetzee, J. M. (1980). Waiting for the barbarians. Secker & Warburg.

Eichengreen, B. (2019). Globalizing capital: A history of the international monetary system (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Fraser, N. (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100, 99-117.

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

Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

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

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

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1651)

Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., Elliott, K. A., & Oegg, B. (2007). Economic sanctions reconsidered (3rd ed.). Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.

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

Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And other laws of cyberspace, version 2.0. Basic Books.

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

MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press.

Mann, T. (1947). Doctor Faustus. Alfred A. Knopf.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. Yale University Press.

Milani, A. (2011). The Shah. Palgrave Macmillan.

Minsky, H. P. (2008). Stabilizing an unstable economy. McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1986)

Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the web of life: Ecology and the accumulation of capital. Verso Books.

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge.

Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.

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

Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

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

Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity (J. Trejo-Mathys, Trans.). Columbia University Press.

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

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

Schmitt, C. (1985). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (G. Schwab, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1922)

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

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Slaughter, A.-M. (2017). The chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. Yale University Press.

Streeck, W. (2016). How will capitalism end? Essays on a failing system. Verso.

Thucydides. (1972). History of the Peloponnesian War (R. Warner, Trans.). Penguin Books.

Tooze, A. (2023). Shutdown: How COVID shook the world’s economy. Viking.

Vallor, S. (2022). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds. & Trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77-128). Oxford University Press.

West, R. (2015). Black lamb and grey falcon: A journey through Yugoslavia. Canongate Books. (Original work published 1934)

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

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, Gemini, Google, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Qwen, Alibaba, tools (January 17, 2026). The featured image has been generated in Canva (January 17, 2026).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (January 17, 2026). The Interconnected Turbulence: Sovereignty, Resources, and the Unraveling of Institutional Order. Open Culture.

Share

The newsletters from Monocle, The Economist, The New York Times, Bloomberg, CNBC, Semafor and ARTNews from January 8-14, 2026, collectively present a world at a precipice—one where geopolitical tectonic plates collide while new digital and economic forces simultaneously reshape our social landscapes. These fragmented missives form not merely a news digest but a Rorschach test revealing the anxieties and aspirations of our historical moment. Through this lens, we witness a global order experiencing what historian Adam Tooze might term “shockwave economics”—where political shocks propagate through financial systems, and economic disruptions reverberate through geopolitics in increasingly unpredictable feedback loops (Tooze, 2023).

The collected fragments present a striking, internally consistent tableau: (a) abrupt geopolitical transitions and the renewed practice of hard power (Venezuela, US operations; ongoing tactical shifts in Syria), (b) the simultaneous, complicated work of economic repair and financial reintegration (Syria’s redenomination, easing of payment-system sanctions), (c) domestic fractures and performative nostalgia (Iranian protests and talk of the Shah), and (d) the commodification and re-pricing of cultural goods and institutions (Louvre ticketing, art-market fragilities). These items are not isolated vignettes; they are conjunctural symptoms of a reordering in which state sovereignty, capital flows, social legitimacy and cultural access are being renegotiated in public view.

This week presents a portrait of a world rapidly shedding the diplomatic niceties of the post-1945 order in favor of a raw, muscular mercantilism. The newsletter snippets coalesce into a singular, jarring narrative: the return of “Great Power” politics in its most kinetic and transactional form. From the aggressive extraterritorial seizure of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro to the commodification of Greenland and the criminalization of technocratic dissent within the U.S. Federal Reserve, the events of this week suggest we have entered an era where sovereignty is conditional and economic might is indistinguishable from military force.

The opening weeks of 2026 have laid bare what scholars of international relations have long theorized but liberal democracies have been reluctant to acknowledge: the international system is undergoing a fundamental transformation from rules-based multilateralism toward a more Hobbesian arrangement of competing spheres of influence. As Mearsheimer (2018) presciently argued in The Great Delusion, “Liberal hegemony is destined to fail because nationalism and realism almost always trump liberalism when they clash” (p. 174). The January newsletters chronicle this clash with remarkable clarity.

President Trump’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and subsequent assertion of U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil industry represents not merely a geopolitical gambit but a conscious rejection of the post-1945 international legal architecture. As The Economist noted, Trump’s declaration that “the only limits on my powers are my own morality, my own mind” rather than international law marks a watershed moment. This echoes Carl Schmitt’s (1985) formulation in Political Theology that “sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (p. 5)—Trump has positioned himself as the sovereign who determines when international norms apply and when they do not.

The ramifications extend far beyond Latin America. Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong articulated the anxiety felt by smaller states: “From the point of view of a small country, if that is the way the world works, we have a problem” (Semafor, January 9). His observation recalls Thucydides’ (1972) account in The History of the Peloponnesian War of the Melian dialogue, where the Athenians declare that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (p. 402). The international system appears to be reverting to this logic.

What makes this transformation particularly profound is its simultaneity with other assertions of sovereign prerogative. Trump’s threats toward Greenland, his economic coercion of Venezuela, and his declaration of secondary tariffs against Iran’s trading partners all follow a similar pattern: the unilateral exercise of power unconstrained by multilateral frameworks. As Ikenberry (2011) warned in Liberal Leviathan, “The breakdown of the liberal international order would leave the world more conflictual and dangerous” (p. 336). The newsletters document this breakdown in real time.

Central to these newsletters is Donald Trump’s administration pushing American foreign policy beyond the norms that have governed international relations for decades. His attempted acquisition of Greenland and intervention in Venezuela—described as an assertion of “the strong tak[ing] what they can” (The Economist, January 9)—challenges the post-WWII institutional framework. This represents not merely policy change but a philosophical rupture with the Westphalian tradition, echoing Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature where “there is no place for industry... because the fruit thereof is uncertain” (Hobbes, 1651/1996, p. 88).

The criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell reveals a deeper institutional crisis. As Jamie Dimon warns, “anything that chips away at the Federal Reserve’s independence is probably not a great idea, and... will have the reverse consequences. It’ll raise inflation expectations and probably increase rates over time” (Bloomberg, January 13). This assault on central bank independence resonates with economist Daron Acemoglu’s warning about “extractive institutions” that serve narrow interests at the expense of economic stability (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The markets’ reaction—gold and silver hitting record highs while the dollar weakened—demonstrates investor anxiety about institutional erosion.

Two themes stand out: the revival of muscular foreign policy as a tool of rapid regime change and the fragility of successor political orders. The reports about the US operation in Caracas and its reverberations through Latin American diplomacy show how modern interventions can topple a figurehead yet leave complex governance problems in their wake—clientelist networks, multiple centers of coercive authority, and weak civil institutions (the “many-headed hydra” of Chavismo).

Political science and development economics warn us that regime removal does not automatically produce inclusive institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The newsletters’ empirical snapshots confirm that danger: a removed leader produces a political vacuum that competing actors (security forces, patronage networks, militias) rush to fill, making stabilization a problem of state-building as much as of military victory. That insight returns us to a classical observation about the administrative and economic capacity of states: power must be followed by credible institutions if the promise of “order” is to translate into welfare gains rather than predation (Polanyi’s concerns about the social embeddedness of markets are relevant here). See Acemoglu & Robinson (2012) and Polanyi (1944).

At the same time, interventions designed primarily for geopolitical advantage—oil security, sphere-building, signaling—create moral hazards. Polling and reportage cited in the briefings suggest Venezuelans may welcome regime change as an instrument of relief, but the newsletters also show the immediate social cost: arrests of journalists, armed civilian patrols, and a collapsed public sphere.

The most striking development of the week is undoubtedly the United States’ assertion of what The Economist dubs the “Donroe Doctrine”—a hyper-aggressive reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The extraction of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. special forces, followed immediately by the seizure of Russian-flagged oil tankers and the summoning of oil executives to the White House to “reboot” Venezuela’s energy sector, represents a paradigm shift. This is no longer the “nation-building” of the early 2000s; it is closer to the extractive imperialism of the 19th century.

As John Mearsheimer (2001) argues in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, great powers are rarely satisfied with the status quo and will use force to maximize their share of world power. President Trump’s actions in Venezuela, coupled with the brazen (and transactional) pressure campaign to annex Greenland for its rare earth minerals, exemplify Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism.” The administration views the Western Hemisphere not as a community of nations, but as a resource inventory. The Semafor report that Washington is considering “paying Greenlanders up to $100,000 each” treats national identity as a tradable asset, echoing the cynical price-tagging of everything that philosopher Michael Sandel warned against in What Money Can’t Buy (2012).

The reaction from small states is telling. As Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted in Bloomberg, “If that is the way the world works, we have a problem.” This anxiety reflects the “Melian Dialogue” of Thucydides, where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must (Thucydides, 1972). The normalization of seizing territory or heads of state sends a tremor through the international system, suggesting that the Westphalian concept of sovereignty is now subordinate to U.S. resource security.

Perhaps no development in early 2026 more starkly illustrates the erosion of institutional independence than the Trump administration’s criminal investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. This represents not merely a personal attack but a fundamental challenge to the institutional separation between political authority and monetary policy that has underpinned economic governance in advanced democracies since the post-war period.

Alesina and Summers (1993) demonstrated empirically in their seminal paper “Central Bank Independence and Macroeconomic Performance” that “there is a negative relationship between inflation and central bank independence and no relationship between central bank independence and real economic performance” (p. 151). The Trump administration’s pressure on Powell directly contradicts this accumulated wisdom, prioritizing short-term political objectives over long-term economic stability.

Powell’s response—that “the threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president”—represents a rare public defense of institutional autonomy. His statement echoes Max Weber’s (1946) classic formulation in “Politics as a Vocation” distinguishing between different forms of authority: the rational-legal authority of institutions versus the charismatic authority of individual leaders (p. 78). Powell defends the former against encroachment by the latter.

The market response to this confrontation reveals the fragility of confidence in institutional frameworks. As Bloomberg reported, “Futures on the S&P 500 fell 0.7%, while the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index dropped 0.2%. Gold and silver climbed to records.” Investors fleeing to safe-haven assets signal their recognition that the independence of central banking—long considered a cornerstone of modern economic governance—can no longer be taken for granted.

Eichengreen (2019) in Globalizing Capital traces how central bank independence emerged as a response to the failures of political manipulation of monetary policy in the 1970s: “The great inflation convinced policymakers that insulating monetary policy from political pressures was essential for price stability” (p. 189). The current assault on this independence risks a return to the policy failures that made such insulation necessary.

Syria’s redenomination (removing two zeros) and the lifting of payment-system sanctions make for an instructive case study in the political economy of reconstruction. On one level, removing regime iconography from banknotes is symbolic: it erases a daily reminder of the prior personalist order and can have a measurable psychological effect that supports confidence-building for markets and investment. On another level, normalization of payment rails and access to international banking are preconditions for re-embedding local producers in regional value chains (the newsletter stresses the importance of electronic transfers for traders who had exported widely before 2011).

Scholarship on sanctions (Hufbauer et al., 2007) and post-conflict economic recovery highlights both the potential and pitfalls: sanctions may coerce regimes at the cost of impoverishing civilians; lifting them can produce a rapid inflow of capital but also invite rent-seeking and unequal redistribution unless fiscal and institutional safeguards are in place. Syria’s fragile housing stock, spiking rents, and the presence of wartime profiteers underline the central lesson: macroeconomic normalization must be paired with mechanisms that limit elite capture and foster broad-based reconstruction (cf. Sen’s emphasis on capabilities and the distributional element of development). See Hufbauer et al. (2007) and Sen (1999).

Domestically, the U.S. administration is waging a parallel war against institutional independence, specifically targeting the Federal Reserve. The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Chair Jerome Powell—ostensibly over building renovations but transparently about interest rates—marks a dangerous escalation in the politicization of monetary policy.

This move recalls the warnings of Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) in How Democracies Die, regarding the “capture of the referees.” By weaponizing the legal system against the central bank, the administration threatens to dismantle the firewall between short-term political populism and long-term economic stability. As The New York Times noted, this is an attempt to break the administrative state. The silence of some business leaders, contrasted with the vocal opposition of former Fed chairs, highlights a fractured elite class, some of whom are willing to trade institutional integrity for the promise of cheap credit—a classic Faustian bargain found in Thomas Mann’s Doctor Faustus (1947).

The proliferation of prediction markets and their increasing entanglement with political events represents another dimension of institutional transformation documented in these newsletters. The controversy over Polymarket’s Venezuela “invasion” contract—and the suspicious $400,000 profit made by an unidentified trader shortly before U.S. forces seized Maduro—raises profound questions about the relationship between financial markets, insider knowledge, and democratic governance.

MacKenzie (2006) in An Engine, Not a Camera demonstrated how financial markets do not merely reflect reality but actively construct it through their pricing mechanisms and institutional practices (p. 12). Prediction markets intensify this performativity, as Congressman Ritchie Torres recognized in proposing legislation to bar government officials from betting on policy outcomes: “There’s a real risk that the anonymous trader was a government insider.”

The deeper issue concerns what happens when markets become the primary mechanism for aggregating information about political events. As Polanyi (1944) warned in The Great Transformation, the extension of market logic into ever-broader domains of social life creates fundamental instabilities: “To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society” (p. 76). Prediction markets on military operations and regime changes represent precisely this kind of extension.

The newsletters also document the extraordinary concentration of wealth in technology firms and their founders, with Google’s parent Alphabet joining the $4 trillion market capitalization club. This concentration has profound implications for democratic governance. As Piketty (2014) argued in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, “When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based” (p. 1).

The departure of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin from California in response to a proposed wealth tax illustrates Piketty’s concerns in practice. States and nations compete to attract and retain billionaires, creating a race to the bottom in taxation that undermines collective capacity to address shared challenges. As Hirschman (1970) theorized in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, when elites have ready “exit” options, their incentive to exercise “voice” to improve institutions diminishes (p. 30). Mobile capital can abandon problematic jurisdictions rather than working to reform them.

Perhaps most striking is the emergent resource politics shaping global relations. China’s record $1.2 trillion trade surplus (Bloomberg, January 14) exists alongside U.S. pressure on Venezuela’s oil reserves and heightened competition for critical minerals. The Danish decision to invest $13.8 billion in Greenland’s military defense and the EU’s proposed NATO Arctic mission reflect the strategic importance of these supposedly frozen territories.

This scramble for resources echoes what political ecologist Jason Moore (2015) terms the “capitalocene”—the understanding that capitalism’s crises are fundamentally ecological crises rooted in resource extraction. The newsletter’s juxtaposition of Saudi Arabia opening a $1 billion theme park while simultaneously exploring the reintroduction of lions to its nature reserves (The Economist, January 12) embodies the contradictions of late capitalism’s attempts to reconcile ecological consciousness with growth imperatives.

Running through these newsletters is a persistent concern with affordability and economic anxiety that shapes political responses across multiple domains. Trump’s proposals for a 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates, his directive for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgage bonds, and his ban on institutional investors buying single-family homes all respond to a perceived affordability crisis that threatens Republican electoral prospects.

Case and Deaton (2020) documented in Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism how economic insecurity has created profound social dysfunction in advanced economies: “The destruction of the white working class has been fundamentally economic in origin, driven by globalization and technology, but it has ramified through American life, destroying communities and eliminating the chances of good lives” (p. 2). The political response to this destruction increasingly takes forms that challenge established institutional arrangements.

The housing affordability crisis documented in the newsletters—from London’s property market where sellers increasingly take losses, to the “fragile dream” of Florida retirement, to Trump’s interventions in U.S. housing markets—reflects a fundamental tension in contemporary capitalism. As Piketty (2020) argues in Capital and Ideology, housing has become the primary form of wealth accumulation for middle classes even as homeownership becomes increasingly unattainable: “The rise of property values has been a central mechanism of wealth concentration in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries” (p. 134).

Trump’s proposed interventions treat symptoms while potentially exacerbating underlying causes. A credit card interest rate cap without addressing the reasons consumers carry high-interest debt may simply reduce credit availability for those who most need it. Institutional investor bans without addressing housing supply constraints may reduce liquidity without meaningfully improving affordability. These policy responses resemble what Minsky (2008) in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy called “money manager capitalism”—short-term interventions that stabilize immediate crises while perpetuating longer-term instabilities (p. 86).

The Louvre’s decision to raise prices for non-EEA visitors sits at the intersection of cultural policy, fiscal necessity and questions of universalism (the newsletter notes the trade-union outcry and the museum’s defence that the hike will fund structural needs). The move indexes a wider tension: global cultural institutions face rising maintenance costs and shrinking subsidies while simultaneously confronting post-colonial critiques about provenance and universalist claims (the file even cites Bénédicte Savoy’s interrogation of the museum’s histories).

Two analytical strands are useful here. First, the neoliberalization of culture: as public support recedes, museums behave increasingly like firms, extracting revenue from tourists and premium experiences (Harvey, 2005). Second, the epistemic critique in post-colonial studies (Said, 1978; Savoy’s interventions) insists that the “universal” museum has always been imbricated with imperial histories. The consequence is a political economy of cultural access: pricing policies that explicitly differentiate by nationality reinforce inequalities in symbolic access and produce the ethical problem the unions evoked—are masterpieces a common human heritage or a commodified tourism product? The newsletters show this debate is not merely academic; it is now a live, contested policy choice.

Beneath the geopolitical headlines lies a subtle but profound generational shift. Reports of widespread protests in Iran, anti-corruption demonstrations in the Balkans, and student-led rallies in Serbia reflect what sociologist Manuel Castells (2015) describes as “networked social movements” organized around authenticity and moral outrage rather than traditional political structures.

Meanwhile, cultural indicators suggest profound demographic transitions: Japan’s potential snap election under Sanae Takaichi, China’s record-low birth rate in Hong Kong, and Singapore’s anxiety over U.S. unilateralism all point to societies negotiating new identities amid demographic and geopolitical flux. These shifts resonate with historian Yuval Noah Harari’s observation that “the greatest political and social revolutions began not with angry workers but with thoughtful students” (Harari, 2018, p. 124).

Subscribe

The newsletters document both extraordinary technological optimism—particularly around artificial intelligence—and growing anxiety about technology’s social implications. The bifurcated response to AI companies illustrates this tension. On one hand, Anthropic pursues a $350 billion valuation just months after its last fundraising, and Alphabet’s market capitalization soars on AI partnerships with Apple. On the other hand, xAI’s Grok chatbot generates “sexualized pictures of women and children,” prompting government crackdowns and revealing the dark underbelly of unrestricted AI deployment.

Zuboff (2019) in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism identified the fundamental tension in contemporary technology development: “Surveillance capitalism unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data” (p. 8). The newsletters document this claiming in multiple domains—from Meta’s hiring of Dina Powell McCormick to secure government backing for AI infrastructure, to concerns about AI-driven job displacement, to prediction markets leveraging insider information.

The question posed by Saritha Rai in Bloomberg‘s India Edition resonates beyond consumer electronics: “India may churn out smartphones and home appliances by the millions, yet the brands that dominate CES tend to hail from Shenzhen, Seoul or Silicon Valley.” This observation points to a broader dynamic in technological development—the concentration of innovation capture and value extraction in a small number of firms and geographies, even as production and consumption become globally distributed.

Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) in Why Nations Fail argued that “inclusive economic institutions” are characterized by “secure private property, an unbiased system of law, and a provision of public services that provides a level playing field” (p. 74). The technology sector increasingly exhibits the opposite characteristics: oligopolistic concentration, regulatory capture, and the privatization of common resources (data, attention, public space) for private gain.

The AI revolution features prominently across these newsletters, with Alphabet joining the “$4 trillion club” (Bloomberg, January 13) while Chinese AI firms like Zhipu and MiniMax pursue listings in Hong Kong. This technological race transcends mere economic competition, representing what philosopher Shannon Vallor describes as “technomoral” contestation—determining not just who builds AI systems, but which values will shape their development (Vallor, 2022).

The controversy over xAI’s Grok generating non-consensual sexualized images highlights a central tension in digital governance: the mismatch between technological speed and regulatory pace. As legal scholar Lawrence Lessig observed decades ago, “Code is law” (Lessig, 2006, p. 5), yet our institutions remain ill-equipped to govern the moral dimensions of algorithmic systems. The global regulatory response—involving Malaysia, Indonesia, and the UK—portends a fragmented digital landscape where technological innovation collides with increasingly divergent governance regimes.

While the U.S. exerts kinetic power, the digital realm faces a crisis of epistemic anarchy. The newsletters highlight the rapid rise of AI valuations (Alphabet hitting a $4 trillion market cap) alongside the social corrosion caused by unchecked technology. The scandal involving Elon Musk’s Grok generating non-consensual deepfake pornography of children and women illustrates the “Frankenstein complex” inherent in rapid technological advancement.

This resonates with Shoshana Zuboff’s (2019) concept of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, where human experience is dragged into the marketplace as raw material. However, here the dynamic is darker: it is not just surveillance, but the synthetic fabrication of reality. Simultaneously, the Iranian regime’s internet blackout to hide its brutal crackdown on protesters (killing an estimated 2,000 people) demonstrates the state’s counter-move: the “kill switch.” As Manuel Castells (2009) observed in Communication Power, the battle for the mind is fought through the control of communication networks. The week’s events show a bifurcation: the West suffers from a glut of synthetic, chaotic information (Grok), while the East (Iran, China’s censorship) suffers from a vacuum of it.

Moderna chair Noubar Afeyan’s warning that we live simultaneously in “the utopian age” where genetic conditions can be cured and a “dystopia” where vaccine-preventable diseases return captures a fundamental crisis of expertise and institutional trust documented throughout these newsletters. The Trump administration’s attacks on scientific institutions, its withdrawal from international research collaborations, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s influence over health policy all reflect what Nichols (2017) calls “The Death of Expertise”—a broader rejection of specialized knowledge in favor of populist intuition (p. 3).

This rejection has profound implications across domains. The newsletters document skepticism toward climate science (Sweden’s backsliding on environmental commitments), public health (the return of measles amid “corrosive doubt”), and economic expertise (Trump’s dismissal of economist warnings about tariffs and credit card rate caps). As Habermas (1975) argued in Legitimation Crisis, modern democracies face a fundamental tension between technical rationality and political legitimacy: “The expansion of state activity creates an increasing need for legitimation” even as “the expansion of state activity leads to a legitimation deficit” (p. 68).

The response to this legitimation crisis increasingly takes the form of what Mouffe (2005) calls “the return of the political”—the reassertion of friend-enemy distinctions and partisan identity over technocratic management (p. 3). The newsletters document this return across multiple domains: Iran’s protests framed as revolution versus reaction; Venezuela’s transformation presented as liberation versus imperialism; monetary policy recast as serving “the people” versus serving elites.

The discussion of Iran’s protests and the revival of nostalgia for the Shah captures a recurring political motif: when present institutions are discredited, memory becomes a political resource. Svetlana Boym’s distinction between restorative and reflective nostalgia helps sharpen the analysis: calls to restore the Shah would be “restorative” nostalgia—an attempt to retrieve an imagined past as a political program—yet the newsletters rightly caution that such a return would risk substituting one autocracy for another and ignore structural demands for rights and participation.

Those who traffic in nostalgia often elide the social inequalities and exclusions of the predecessor order—an omission that political philosophers from Hannah Arendt to more recent authors have cautioned against when diagnosing totalitarian legacies and the instrumentalization of memory (Arendt, 1951; Boym, 2001). The practical policy takeaway is modest but urgent: support for movements seeking democratic openings must be calibrated to avoid uncritical romanticization of past regimes—truthful historical reckoning must accompany political support.

The macro-political tensions are mirrored by micro-level violence and social fragmentation. The fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, and the administration’s immediate branding of her as a “terrorist” without evidence, underscores the militarization of domestic policing. This incident, set against the backdrop of “hundreds more” federal agents being dispatched to the city, evokes the atmosphere of J.M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians (1980), where the state’s obsession with security creates the very terror it claims to fight.

Culturally, the newsletters present a world trying to normalize the abnormal. Monocle discusses tidying desks with leather trays and “Alpine whimsy” in hotel design, a jarring juxtaposition to the burning streets of Tehran and the seizing of oil tankers. This disconnect brings to mind W.H. Auden’s poem “Musée des Beaux Arts” (1939), where “everything turns away / Quite leisurely from the disaster.” The wealthy insulate themselves in “blue zones” in Sardinia or luxury bunkers in Dubai, while the structural integrity of the global order fissures.

The newsletters document what might be characterized as a hegemonic interregnum—a period when an existing order has lost legitimacy and capacity but no clear successor has emerged. As Gramsci (1971) wrote in the Prison Notebooks, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear” (p. 276). The “morbid symptoms” of early 2026 include:

• The weaponization of trade relations (secondary tariffs, IEEPA abuse, conditional access to resources)

• The militarization of economic policy (Venezuela oil seizures, threats against Greenland)

• The politicization of independent institutions (Fed independence, central bank appointments)

• The erosion of multilateral frameworks (U.S. withdrawal from 66+ international organizations)

• The privatization of governance functions (prediction markets, corporate control of AI policy)

China’s response to this turbulence reveals the complexity of hegemonic transition. Beijing’s record $1.2 trillion trade surplus masks deeper vulnerabilities documented in the newsletters: zero inflation for 2025, a persistent property crisis, and what Andy Browne calls the “involution spiral” of deflationary competition. As Arrighi (1994) argued in The Long Twentieth Century, hegemonic transitions involve not merely the transfer of power from one state to another but fundamental transformations in the organization of capitalism itself (p. 27).

The newsletters suggest such a transformation may be underway, characterized by:

1. From multilateral rules to bilateral power relationships: Trump’s approach to Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran all emphasize direct coercion over institutional frameworks.

2. From market-based allocation to political allocation: Whether AI chips, critical minerals, or housing access, political authority increasingly overrides market mechanisms.

3. From specialized expertise to generalized power: Technical knowledge (Fed economics, climate science, public health) becomes subordinated to political authority.

4. From universalist norms to particularist interests: Sphere-of-influence logic replaces claims to universal values.

The newsletters’ most profound insight emerges not from their individual stories but from their juxtapositions. The same week that Trump threatens tariffs on any country “doing business” with Iran, Chinese and U.S. firms are quietly negotiating over NVIDIA chip exports. While the U.S. administration threatens the Federal Reserve’s independence, global central bankers issue unprecedented statements of solidarity with Powell. This pattern of simultaneous convergence and divergence suggests what scholar Anne-Marie Slaughter (2017) calls “the chessboard and the web”—a world where hierarchical power structures coexist with networked influence, often pulling in opposite directions.

The luxury market offers another lens into this duality. Monocle’s coverage of London’s new Portuguese restaurant Luso alongside Bloomberg’s report on Prada’s $939 “Made in India” Kolhapuri sandals reveals how globalization’s economic patterns both homogenize and hybridize culture. As anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1996) presciently observed, “modernity is not homogenizing; it is diversifying in its global reach” (p. 11).

Beneath the high politics of hegemonic competition and institutional crisis, the newsletters document a crisis of social reproduction—the inability of existing economic arrangements to maintain and reproduce the conditions necessary for human flourishing. This manifests in multiple forms:

Housing unaffordability: From London property losses to Florida’s fading retirement dream to Mumbai’s slum-dwelling majority, housing has become simultaneously the primary form of middle-class wealth accumulation and increasingly inaccessible to new generations.

Demographic decline: Hong Kong’s 14% drop in births, Japan’s aging crisis, China’s one-person household boom all signal the breakdown of reproductive capacity.

Health system strain: Universal concerns about obesity, GLP-1 drug impacts on food spending, and the return of vaccine-preventable diseases reflect healthcare systems under pressure.

Educational stress: From Singapore retraining 35,000 bank employees for AI to concerns about mass unemployment, the relationship between education, employment, and economic security grows increasingly fraught.

Fraser (2016) argues in “Contradictions of Capital and Care” that capitalism faces an inherent contradiction: “Capital has a parasitical relation to its own conditions of possibility, including above all those that sustain and replenish the human beings who labor in capitalist society” (p. 100). The newsletters document this parasitism across domains—the inability of market mechanisms alone to ensure housing, healthcare, education, and economic security for broad populations.

The political responses to this crisis increasingly take authoritarian or nationalist forms. As Polanyi (1944) observed during the 1930s, when market mechanisms fail to ensure social reproduction, “protection of society” demands political intervention, but “the protectionist movement against economic liberalism and laissez-faire possessed all the unmistakable characteristics of a spontaneous reaction” that could take reactionary forms (p. 152). Trump’s interventions in credit card rates, housing markets, and monetary policy; China’s regulatory crackdowns on platform companies; India’s Mumbai election focused on identity rather than infrastructure—all reflect this reactive politics.

A striking feature of the newsletters is the compression of political time horizons even as long-term challenges intensify. Trump’s focus on November midterm elections drives policy on monetary policy, housing affordability, and trade relations. Indian elections shift from development issues to identity politics for immediate mobilization. Chinese officials pursue quarterly results while structural challenges accumulate.

This temporal mismatch between political incentives and social/ecological challenges recalls Schumpeter’s (1942) concern in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy that democracy might prove unable to address long-term challenges: “The democratic method is incapable of fully appreciating the long-run interests of the nation which are not perceived as important by those who have the voting power at the moment” (p. 282).

Climate change provides the clearest example. The newsletters document Sweden’s climate backsliding, the U.S. withdrawal from renewable energy organizations, and the revival of fossil fuel development in Venezuela—all while the long-term climate crisis intensifies. As Jameson (2003) argued in “Future City,” late capitalism exhibits “an inability to think the future except as a repetition of the present” (p. 76). Political systems optimize for electoral cycles while challenges operate on generational or geological timescales.

The temporal crisis extends to technology development. AI companies pursue valuations based on future promises while social adaptation lags. As Rosa (2013) argues in Social Acceleration, modern societies exhibit “a systematic pattern of growth, acceleration and innovation logics that systematically outpace the ability of individuals, communities and democratic institutions to develop adequate response strategies” (p. 2). The newsletters document this outpacing across domains—AI development outrunning regulation, financial innovation exceeding governance capacity, geopolitical change overwhelming diplomatic frameworks.

Amid these turbulent geopolitical and economic narratives, a quieter human question persists: How do we maintain meaningful connection in a fragmented world? The newsletter coverage of Ai, the chimpanzee who could recognize Chinese characters and draw paintings before dying at 49 (Bloomberg, January 13), juxtaposed with reports of AI systems generating harmful content, raises profound questions about consciousness, creativity, and what we value.

Similarly, Monocle’s feature on China’s “#1 app” “Are You Dead?”—designed for people living alone to check on loved ones—speaks to a world where technology simultaneously connects and isolates. As philosopher Zygmunt Bauman (2013) observed in his final works, we inhabit a world of “liquid modernity” where “human bonds are easily established and still more easily cut” (p. 12). The app’s popularity reveals not just economic loneliness but a deeper yearning for connection that no algorithm can fully satisfy.

These newsletters collectively sketch a world in transition—not simply geopolitically or technologically, but existentially. They document humanity negotiating its relationship to power, progress, and each other during a period when old certainties crumble and new ones have yet to coalesce. The most profound question they pose is not whether the U.S. will acquire Greenland or whether AI will create a bubble, but whether we can develop institutions and values capable of navigating multipolar challenges while preserving the human connections that give our lives meaning.

As we stand at this historical inflection point, historian Rebecca West’s words from nearly a century ago resonate with renewed relevance: “We are such stuff as revolutions are made of, and we must go on making them for the revolution is never over” (West, 1934/2015, p. 342).

Read together, the newsletters outline a contemporary grammar: geopolitical maneuvering creates opportunities for economic re-integration (or exploitation); economic shocks and rollbacks (sanctions, redenominations) shape political legitimacy at home; cultural institutions and markets register and refract those changes in the form of pricing, exhibitions, and rhetorical frames. For example, the same state that negotiates debt and sanctions may also be the entity that defends or cuts cultural budgets; the public’s sense of grievance may be expressed through protests that produce nostalgic yearnings, which in turn make the political terrain more hospitable to interventionist arguments abroad.

This is a systemic picture: scholars like Acemoglu and Robinson argue that political institutions and economic incentives co-produce one another. The newsletters repeatedly show that when institutional complements are absent (courts, free press, stable fiscal institutions), both markets and democracy suffer—whether in Caracas, Tehran, or a cash-strapped museum in Paris.

1. Reconstruction must be institutionally sequenced. Economic normalization (access to payment systems, redenomination, foreign investment) must be paired with anti-corruption safeguards, judicial reform, and transparent asset-recovery mechanisms—otherwise flows of capital will reproduce wartime extraction. (See Hufbauer et al., 2007; Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012.)

2. Interventions need exit strategies designed around governance, not only regime change. Military or covert action may remove a leader quickly but does not replace the public goods and legitimacy that underpin a stable polity. International actors contemplating intervention must invest in multilateral institution-building rather than rely on short-term coercion. The Venezuelan case in the briefings is a cautionary instance.

3. Cultural institutions must reconcile revenue models with principles of equity. Museums facing structural deficits should be required to publish transparent plans showing how price differential revenues will be deployed toward restitution, access programs, and provenance research; absent that, measures risk deepening historical injustices under a veneer of “sustainability.” The Louvre example makes this urgent.

The newsletters from early 2026 document not merely political turbulence but the breakdown of institutional frameworks that have structured global economic, political, and social life for decades. As older certainties dissolve—central bank independence, international law, multilateral frameworks, expertise-based governance—the question becomes: what new institutional arrangements might emerge?

Three possibilities suggest themselves from the materials reviewed:

1. Neo-Imperial Spheres of Influence: The U.S., China, and perhaps regional powers establish zones of hegemonic control within which different rules apply. This resembles nineteenth-century imperialism updated for twenty-first-century technology and finance.

2. Authoritarian Market Coordination: Increased political control over economic activity—whether Trump’s interventions in monetary policy and housing markets, China’s regulatory authority over platforms and AI, or other nations’ attempts to manage technology and capital—creates new forms of state-directed capitalism.

3. Fragmented Pluralism: Different regions and nations develop distinct institutional arrangements in response to local conditions, with limited coordination beyond narrow functional domains (perhaps trade in specific commodities or management of particular technologies).

None of these alternatives appears particularly promising for addressing the fundamental challenges documented in the newsletters: climate change, inequality, democratic legitimacy, technological governance, or social reproduction. As Streeck (2016) argues in How Will Capitalism End?, we may be entering “an interregnum of indeterminacy” in which “the social world is no longer predictable” and “the conditions for the accumulation of capital have become too contradictory” (p. 73).

Yet moments of institutional breakdown also create possibilities for institutional innovation. The key question is whether new frameworks can be constructed that reconnect political authority with expertise, short-term responsiveness with long-term planning, national sovereignty with global coordination, and market efficiency with social reproduction. The newsletters suggest this reconstruction has barely begun.

As Arendt (1958) observed in The Human Condition, “The human artifice of the world separates human existence from all mere animal environment, but life itself is outside this artificial world, and through life man remains related to all other living organisms” (p. 7). The challenge facing contemporary societies is to construct institutional arrangements that honor both our capacity for artifice—the creation of complex social, economic, and political systems—and our embeddedness in natural and social systems we cannot fully control. The January 2026 newsletters document how far we remain from meeting this challenge.

The week’s newsletters, thus, offer a salutary reminder: narratives (of liberation, nostalgia, universalism, decline) are instruments of politics and markets. They shape what citizens accept as possible and what elites can get away with. An analytic posture that refuses quick moral triumphalism—one that looks for institutional depth, historical honesty, and distributional outcomes—will serve better than the rhetorical seductions of instant fixes. Political economy teaches us that durable change is a slow, institution-building process; the items you shared show how the short, dramatic moves of politics and media can accelerate crises when that work is neglected.

This week marks an acceleration toward a post-liberal world order. It is defined by the naked assertion of power over law, the prioritization of resource extraction over diplomatic consensus, and the subjugation of technocratic institutions to political will. Whether it is the U.S. looking at Greenland and seeing only copper and zinc, or the Iranian regime looking at its youth and seeing only a threat to be extinguished, the prevailing logic is one of domination.

As we observe these interrelations—economic coercion in Venezuela linked to inflation politics in the U.S.; AI booms in Silicon Valley linked to energy crises for power grids—we see a world that is highly interconnected yet deeply fractured. We are witnessing what Antonio Gramsci (1971) famously described: “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

Subscribe

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2019). The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. Penguin 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.

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

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

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.

Auden, W. H. (1939). Musée des Beaux Arts. Random House.

Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. John Wiley & Sons.

Boym, S. (2001). The future of nostalgia. Basic Books.

Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). Deaths of despair and the future of capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

Coetzee, J. M. (1980). Waiting for the barbarians. Secker & Warburg.

Eichengreen, B. (2019). Globalizing capital: A history of the international monetary system (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Fraser, N. (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, 100, 99-117.

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

Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

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

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

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1651)

Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., Elliott, K. A., & Oegg, B. (2007). Economic sanctions reconsidered (3rd ed.). Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.

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

Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And other laws of cyberspace, version 2.0. Basic Books.

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

MacKenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press.

Mann, T. (1947). Doctor Faustus. Alfred A. Knopf.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. Yale University Press.

Milani, A. (2011). The Shah. Palgrave Macmillan.

Minsky, H. P. (2008). Stabilizing an unstable economy. McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1986)

Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the web of life: Ecology and the accumulation of capital. Verso Books.

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge.

Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.

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

Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

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

Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity (J. Trejo-Mathys, Trans.). Columbia University Press.

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

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

Schmitt, C. (1985). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (G. Schwab, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1922)

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

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Slaughter, A.-M. (2017). The chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. Yale University Press.

Streeck, W. (2016). How will capitalism end? Essays on a failing system. Verso.

Thucydides. (1972). History of the Peloponnesian War (R. Warner, Trans.). Penguin Books.

Tooze, A. (2023). Shutdown: How COVID shook the world’s economy. Viking.

Vallor, S. (2022). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds. & Trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77-128). Oxford University Press.

West, R. (2015). Black lamb and grey falcon: A journey through Yugoslavia. Canongate Books. (Original work published 1934)

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

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, Gemini, Google, ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Qwen, Alibaba, tools (January 17, 2026). The featured image has been generated in Canva (January 17, 2026).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (January 17, 2026). The Interconnected Turbulence: Sovereignty, Resources, and the Unraveling of Institutional Order. Open Culture.

Share