The collected newsletter fragments from Monocle, the Economist, Bloomberg, CNBC, Semafor and ARTNews from November 27-December 3, 2025, present a dizzying mosaic of contemporary experience—one characterized by what the sociologist Hartmut Rosa (2013) termed “social acceleration,” wherein technological innovation, social change, and the pace of life itself compound into what feels like perpetual crisis (p. 67). Reading through these dispatches, one is struck by the sheer velocity of events: ChatGPT celebrates its third birthday even as its creator declares a “code red” over competitive pressures; Bitcoin oscillates wildly within 48-hour windows; geopolitical arrangements crafted over decades threaten to unravel in weeks; and tragic fires, corporate mergers, and cultural exhibitions blur together in an undifferentiated stream of “news.”

This compression of time mirrors what Paul Virilio (1986) presciently described in Speed and Politics: “The violence of speed has become both the location and the law, the world’s destiny and its destination” (p. 151). The newsletters themselves embody this phenomenon—brief, fragmented, perpetually updated, optimized for scanning rather than sustained attention. They are artifacts of what Jonathan Crary (2013) calls “24/7 capitalism,” a system that “incites the delusion of a world without waiting, without anything deferred, of instantaneous fulfillment” (p. 41).

Key threads include architectural reflections on human-centered housing (e.g., Tatiana Bilbao’s critique of standardized dwellings), societal shifts like Saudi Arabia’s cautious liberalization of alcohol access, economic volatility in stock markets and AI valuations, and acute policy challenges such as Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations, Hong Kong’s deadly fire, and Airbus’s software recalls. These snippets interrelate through themes of resilience and adaptation: cultural exhibitions foster “generous unity” amid fragmentation (Monocle, November 26), markets grapple with post-election uncertainties and crypto slumps (CNBC, December 1-2), and political maneuvers reveal power asymmetries (The Economist, November 28-December 3). Economically, they highlight growth amid precarity; socially, inequalities in dignity and safety; policy-wise, incremental reforms versus crises; and culturally, the tension between tradition and innovation. This interplay evokes a world in flux, where local designs echo global disruptions, much like the “rhizomatic” connections in Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980), branching unpredictably yet interdependent.

The newsletter bundle stages a compact atlas of contemporary capitalism’s cultural and infrastructural contradictions. It moves from Tatiana Bilbao’s plea that housing be rethought as a flexible, dignified polity of dwelling (rather than a standardised commodity) to reportage of incremental social liberalisation in Saudi Arabia; from the idealistic launch of a non-profit humanitarian airline to a catastrophic Hong Kong tower fire that reopens old questions about repair, regulation and corruption; and from markets for collectable design and luxury cultural projects to small civic rituals — late-night radio and dog-mayoralty — that give texture to public life (Monocle, Dec. 6, 2025).

The newsletters that populate our digital inboxes, thus, form a peculiar chronotope of contemporary life—not merely information vehicles but complex artifacts that both mirror and shape our temporal experience. In examining the newsletter corpus, one observes a fascinating dialectic between immediacy and reflection, between the urgency of the breaking story and the deeper currents of civilizational shift. This collection of snippets functions as a form of cultural sedimentology where the strata of our moment are simultaneously being deposited and interpreted.

Taken together, these items map three overlapping dilemmas of our moment: (1) the commodification and policing of everyday life (housing, hospitality, alcohol regimes); (2) resurgent attention to infrastructure and its politics (airport dress codes as civility politics, scaffolding and building maintenance, humanitarian logistics); and (3) cultural forms as both balm and market—craft, design, radio and curated museums literalise how value is made, performed and extracted.

ChatGPT’s third anniversary occasions considerable reflection across these newsletters, yet the analysis reveals profound ambivalence about artificial intelligence’s transformative potential. On one hand, we read of revolutionary breakthroughs—AI systems that can diagnose medical conditions, generate creative content, and potentially replace significant portions of white-collar work. An MIT study estimates that AI could displace 11.7% of the U.S. workforce, equivalent to $1.2 trillion in wages (CNBC, November 27, 2025). On the other, there’s Sam Altman’s “code red” memo, Nvidia’s defensive posturing despite 1,000% returns, and the sobering recognition that three years into the generative AI era, “this is still at base a story about an explosion in valuations for a select few companies viewed as likely winners” (Bloomberg, November 30, 2025).

This tension resonates with what the economic historian Carlota Perez (2002) identified as the characteristic pattern of technological revolutions: an initial “installation period” marked by financial speculation and bubble-like dynamics, followed eventually by a “deployment period” when technologies actually transform production and society (pp. 47-79). The newsletters suggest we remain firmly in installation mode—enormous capital expenditures on infrastructure, frenzied M&A activity, and soaring valuations, but limited evidence of productivity gains filtering through the broader economy.

The philosopher Hubert Dreyfus (1992) warned in What Computers Still Can’t Do that artificial intelligence often promised revolutionary transformations that consistently underdelivered, not because the technology was unimpressive, but because human intelligence and expertise involve embodied, contextual knowledge that resists algorithmic replication (pp. 3-71). The current AI moment exhibits similar dynamics: remarkable capabilities in narrow domains, profound limitations in general application, and a tendency for boosters to extrapolate exponentially from incremental advances.

What emerges most strikingly is the distributional character of AI’s impact. As one newsletter notes, “It’s not unusual for some company somewhere to grow this much in three years. It’s unprecedented for a firm that is already established among the world’s largest to do so” (Bloomberg, November 30, 2025). Nvidia’s near-monopolistic position and the concentration of gains among the “Magnificent Seven” technology companies exemplify what the economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee (2014) termed “the second machine age,” wherein returns increasingly accrue to owners of digital capital rather than labor (pp. 135-158). This dynamic recalls Thomas Piketty’s (2014) broader thesis in Capital in the Twenty-First Century that when the rate of return on capital exceeds economic growth (r > g), inequality inevitably increases (pp. 25-27).

The newsletters reveal an acute awareness of artificial intelligence’s maturation beyond hype into infrastructure. As Semafor’s Technology newsletter notes wryly on November 27, “ChatGPT turns 3,” marking what has become “a defining force of our time.” The text captures the industry’s ambivalence: despite the “relative infancy” of the technology, AI has already “transformed the world economy, geopolitics, education, and the internet,” while simultaneously entering what The Atlantic’s Charlie Warzel describes as “a world that is perpetually waiting for a shoe to drop” (Semafor, 2025, December 1).

This anticipatory anxiety resonates profoundly with Shoshana Zuboff’s conceptualization of surveillance capitalism, where “the digital architecture of surveillance capitalism constitutes a new form of power: the power to shape behavior according to others, not our own desires and intentions” (Zuboff, 2019, p. 10). The newsletters’ coverage of AI regulation in China reveals this tension starkly as “Beijing was using AI to censor sensitive photos, enable mass surveillance, and drive public-sentiment analysis among minority populations” (Semafor, 2025, December 2). What we witness is not merely technological advancement but what Benjamin Bratton (2016) terms “the stack”—an emergent planetary computational system that fundamentally reorders human governance.

The newsletters’ economic coverage similarly exposes this transformation. As Semafor Business notes on December 3, “Nvidia is now valued at $500 billion” and has created “a circular economy” where it invests in customers who then purchase its GPUs. This pattern illuminates what Mariana Mazzucato (2018) identifies as value extraction rather than value creation: “The financialization of the economy has created a system where the extraction of value is often confused with its creation” (p. 6). The newsletter snippets collectively document the early emergence of what might constitute a new political economy of artificial intelligence.

The newsletters document an accelerating dissolution of the post-Cold War liberal international order. The Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations—characterized by shuttle diplomacy, leaked proposals, and European anxiety about American reliability—signal not merely the end of a particular conflict but the exhaustion of an entire framework for managing great-power relations. Vladimir Putin’s declaration that Russia stands “ready for war” with Europe, the intensifying Sino-Japanese dispute over Taiwan, and Donald Trump’s transactional approach to alliances all point toward what the political scientist John Mearsheimer (2001) predicted in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics: the return of competitive multipolarity and security competition (pp. 1-28).

This geopolitical fragmentation intersects with economic decoupling in ways that previous eras of globalization did not experience. The newsletters describe China’s manufacturing contraction despite stimulus efforts, India’s rupee hitting record lows amid trade tensions, and Japanese bond yields surging as the country attempts to normalize monetary policy after decades of accommodation. These dynamics reflect what the historian Adam Tooze (2023) calls “polycrisis”—the interaction of multiple crises (geopolitical, economic, environmental, technological) in ways that create emergent risks beyond the sum of individual threats (p. 3).

The refugee crisis arising from the Ukraine war, the U.S. administration’s suspension of Afghan immigration after the National Guard shooting, and the broader rhetoric around “reverse migration” all exemplify how migration becomes increasingly weaponized in this fragmented order. The political theorist Michael Walzer (1983) argued in Spheres of Justice that the right to control borders is fundamental to political community and self-determination (pp. 31-63), yet the newsletters reveal how this principle collides with both humanitarian imperatives and the economic logic of labor mobility. When President Trump calls Somalis “garbage” and proposes halting immigration from “third-world countries,” the rhetoric recalls what the philosopher Giorgio Agamben (1998) termed “bare life”—the reduction of human beings to biological existence stripped of political recognition (pp. 1-12).

The parallel track of technological nationalism—restrictions on semiconductor exports, concerns about Chinese espionage through electric vehicles, and the race for AI supremacy—suggests that the next Cold War will be fought as much through supply chains and standards-setting as through traditional military means. The economist Dani Rodrik (2011) has long argued that globalization, national sovereignty, and democracy form an “impossible trinity” wherein only two of the three can be simultaneously pursued (pp. 184-202). The newsletters suggest a decisive shift toward prioritizing sovereignty and democracy (at least rhetorically) over deeper integration.

The newsletters capture a world in profound geopolitical flux. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to reverberate through global systems, with Semafor’s December 2 entry noting that US envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin while “a Putin aide said” negotiations produced “no tangible progress toward a truce.” This diplomatic theater occurs against a backdrop of Europe’s military recalibration, as France “aims to boost the country’s reservists to 100,000 by 2030” while Germany “secretly prepared a blueprint for war that envisions Germany as a vast NATO staging ground” (Semafor, 2025, November 28).

This fragmentation of the post-Cold War order brings to mind Henry Kissinger’s (2014) warning: “The contemporary international system is based on the state as the principal unit of international affairs... No other political system has ever been attempted on a global scale” (p. 360). The newsletters document the fraying of this system as new alignments emerge. China’s deepening relationships with Gulf states, as evidenced by Saudi Arabia’s “plan to more than double its investments in Japan by 2030” (Semafor Gulf, 2025, December 1), reveal what Parag Khanna (2016) terms “the end of nations” in favor of “a world of connected supply chains, mega-cities, and fluid populations” (p. 4).

The cultural dimensions of these geopolitical shifts are captured poetically in the ArtNews November 26 coverage of art markets: “The real story was the depth of bidding. After several seasons of sleepy salesrooms, last week’s auctions were peppered with bidding wars.” This metaphor of “depth of bidding” captures not merely the art market’s recovery but a broader search for value systems in an era of institutional fragmentation. As Fredric Jameson (1991) observed, “The cultural logic of late capitalism involves a perpetual movement of expansion and intensification, of incorporation and commodification” (p. 411). The newsletters document this logic as it operates across both financial and cultural domains.

Bitcoin’s dramatic 8% plunge and subsequent 10% recovery within 48 hours—ultimately returning to roughly its starting point—offers a perfect microcosm of contemporary financial markets: extreme volatility, unclear causation, minimal connection to underlying productive activity, and persistent faith among believers that vindication awaits just around the corner. The newsletters catalog various explanations for crypto’s travails: Federal Reserve policy uncertainty, the Bank of Japan’s hawkishness, declining stock volatility, Trump’s waning political dominance, and the ominous “McRib effect” (Bloomberg, November 27, 2025).

This explanatory proliferation itself signals something important: in hyperliquid, algorithm-driven markets, causation becomes genuinely indeterminate. As the sociologist Donald MacKenzie (2006) demonstrated in An Engine, Not a Camera, financial models don’t merely describe markets but performatively constitute them—the Black-Scholes options pricing formula didn’t discover how options should be priced but rather created a world in which they were priced according to its logic (pp. 119-177). Similarly, Bitcoin’s value derives substantially from narratives about its value, creating a reflexive loop that the financier George Soros (1987) termed “reflexivity”—where participants’ perceptions influence fundamentals, which in turn shape perceptions (pp. 26-58).

The contrast between Bitcoin’s gyrations and the “real economy” indicators scattered throughout the newsletters—manufacturing PMI declines, consumer sentiment surveys, labor market data—highlights what the economist Hyman Minsky (1986) called the tension between “financial” and “industrial” capital (pp. 172-189). Minsky argued that capitalist economies naturally evolve from stability to fragility as financial speculation increasingly dominates productive investment. The newsletters document this progression: record M&A activity driven by AI optimism, private equity firms sitting on massive dry powder, and household names like Michael Burry shorting Tesla while Strategy Inc.’s Bitcoin-leveraged stock collapses 60%.

Meanwhile, consumer staples stocks—representing the unglamorous companies that actually feed, clothe, and supply daily necessities—have suffered “unremitting underperformance” despite their defensive characteristics (Bloomberg, December 1, 2025). Bank of America’s Savita Subramanian argues this creates a contrarian opportunity, noting that “middle-income professional services employees have driven consumption growth for the past decade” but now face “aggressive inflation in their spend basket” (Bloomberg, December 1, 2025). This observation connects to Thomas Frank’s (2016) analysis in Listen, Liberal of how the Democratic Party’s shift toward professional-class interests has left working and lower-middle-class voters economically vulnerable and politically alienated (pp. 27-59).

Economically, the newsletters underscore a landscape of cautious optimism tempered by volatility. CNBC’s reports on U.S. stock indexes snapping winning streaks in November (e.g., Nasdaq down 2.15%) and crypto sell-offs (bitcoin below $86,000 on December 1) reflect broader market anxieties post-Trump’s election, diverging from historical post-election gains (Stock Trader’s Almanac data). This interrelates with The Economist’s coverage of oil output stability by OPEC+ (December 1) and India’s robust GDP growth (8.2% for Q3), illustrating how geopolitical stability—or its absence—fuels economic divergence. India’s resilience amid tariffs echoes Amartya Sen’s emphasis on “development as freedom,” where institutional reforms enable growth despite external shocks (Sen, 1999, p. 3: “Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means”). Yet, the Airbus A320 recall (November 28, The Economist) disrupts global travel, amplifying economic ripple effects in aviation-dependent sectors, akin to the supply-chain vulnerabilities dissected in Baldwin’s “The Great Convergence” (Baldwin, 2016), where technological glitches exacerbate globalization’s fragilities.

Subscribe

Tatiana Bilbao’s critique—housing reduced to “an engine that serves the industry,” and the push for modular, collective arrangements that enable life’s variability—resonates with long-standing theoretical claims about space and social reproduction (Monocle, Dec. 2025). Henri Lefebvre famously argued that space is produced socially and is a site of power struggles; Bilbao’s insistence that houses be malleable and culturally attuned is an insistence that spatial production be returned to social ends (Lefebvre, 1991). David Harvey’s intervention on the urban as terrain of accumulation is likewise instructive: contemporary housing crises are not simply supply problems but the trace of capital’s need to commodify shelter as asset (Harvey, 2012).

Economically, Bilbao’s project gestures toward alternative models of value—collective amenities, flexible units and co-production—that contest the financialised housing product. Practically, modular additions and shared laundries reduce the centrifugal pressure to treat housing as inert investment; politically, they recover notions of dwelling-as-right (Sen, 1999). Bilbao’s practice therefore sits at the junction of design ethics and urban political economy: it is design-as-politics.

Socially, the documents reveal profound inequalities in human dignity and community. Monocle’s interview with Tatiana Bilbao (November 26) critiques housing as a commodified “engine that serves the industry,” advocating modular designs that adapt to life’s fluidity—”None of our lives are the same.” This resonates with social implications in Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court fire (The Economist, November 28-December 3), where 151 deaths exposed vulnerabilities in poor, high-density housing, drawing parallels to Grenfell Tower’s tragedy. Both incidents highlight how urban design discriminates, reinforcing gender roles and cultural norms, as Bilbao notes with hammocks versus beds in Mexico. Interrelating these, policy failures in fire safety (e.g., substandard bamboo scaffolding) mirror broader social contracts fraying under rapid urbanization, evoking Henri Lefebvre’s “right to the city” as a cry against alienation (Lefebvre, 1968, p. 158: “The right to the city manifests itself as a superior form of rights: right to freedom, to individualization in socialization”). Culturally, Monocle’s pieces on art nouveau revival (Ransom & Dunn) and Scottish crafts (Bardware) counter this alienation, promoting “daily pleasures” in objects, a tactile resistance to commodification akin to William Morris’s Arts and Crafts ethos in “News from Nowhere” (Morris, 1890), where beauty in everyday life fosters communal thriving.

Amidst the geopolitical and technological tumult, one of the more fascinating threads concerns GLP-1 drugs—Ozempic, Wegovy, and their competitors. The newsletters describe Medicare’s 71% price cut for these medications, Eli Lilly’s soaring valuation making it the first healthcare company to cross $1 trillion in market capitalization, and Thanksgiving-season anxieties about weight management reshaping American holiday traditions. One particularly striking detail: some patients are “skipping their weekly injections to dig into Thursday’s feast, or changing the order of what they eat to aid digestion” (Bloomberg, November 27, 2025).

This vignette exemplifies what the philosopher Ivan Illich (1976) termed “medical nemesis”—the paradoxical way that medical advances generate new forms of dependency and disability (pp. 3-24). Illich argued that beyond a certain point, medical interventions damage health by medicalizing normal life processes, creating patient populations, and eroding autonomous capacity for self-care. The normalization of pharmaceutical intervention to permit holiday eating—the manipulation of metabolic machinery to accommodate social rituals—would strike Illich as precisely the kind of trap he warned against.

Yet one must acknowledge the genuine suffering obesity causes and the limited effectiveness of alternative interventions. The sociologist Abigail Saguy (2013) demonstrated in What’s Wrong with Fat? how obesity discourse oscillates between medicalization (obesity as disease requiring treatment) and moralization (obesity as personal failing requiring discipline), with neither frame adequately addressing the structural factors—food environments, labor conditions, urban design—that shape body weight (pp. 1-18). The GLP-1 revolution perhaps represents the ultimate victory of medicalization, pharmaceuticalizing what might otherwise demand political economic transformation.

The market dynamics also merit attention. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that the 71% Medicare discount could reduce Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk’s GLP-1 sales by $2 billion in 2026 despite potentially adding 10 million eligible patients (Bloomberg, November 27, 2025). This arithmetic—lower prices, vastly expanded access, uncertain net revenue impact—reflects the peculiar economics of government pharmaceutical pricing, where manufacturers accept margins on volume. The political economy of pharmaceuticals that Marcia Angell (2004) dissected in The Truth About the Drug Companies remains largely intact: massive profits on blockbuster drugs during patent exclusivity, followed by dramatic price competition once generics enter (pp. 3-48).

The Wang Fuk Court fire in Hong Kong, killing at least 151 people and leaving dozens missing, represents both a localized tragedy and a window into broader infrastructure and governance failures. The newsletters detail a cascade of problems: bamboo scaffolding that accelerated the fire’s spread, styrofoam panels that failed to meet safety standards, non-functioning fire alarms, renovation contractors using substandard materials to evade government testing, and residents’ unsuccessful appeals to anti-corruption authorities dating back to September 2024.

This catastrophe evokes Mike Davis’s (2006) concept of “slum ecology” from Planet of Slums, wherein inadequate building standards, corrupt inspection regimes, and concentrated poverty create zones of heightened vulnerability to disaster (pp. 121-149). Hong Kong’s particular twist—that Wang Fuk Court is government-subsidized housing built in the early 1980s and currently undergoing renovation—underscores how infrastructure decay affects even relatively formal settlements. The building maintenance sector’s documented corruption problems, including a 2023 anti-graft operation that arrested 49 people over HK$500 million in contracts, further illustrate what the political scientist Francis Fukuyama (2014) terms “political decay”: the erosion of institutional capacity and the capture of public functions by private interests (pp. 25-51).

The government’s response—arrests of construction company officials, promises to phase out bamboo scaffolding in favor of steel, and the creation of an independent judicial inquiry—follows a familiar pattern after major urban disasters. Yet as the sociologist Scott Frickel and his colleagues (2010) demonstrated in their study of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, post-disaster reforms often fail to address underlying structural inequalities that render some populations systematically more vulnerable (pp. 1511-1540). In Hong Kong’s case, the housing crisis that concentrates lower-income families in aging public estates remains fundamentally unaddressed.

The fire also raises questions about the politics of grief and accountability under authoritarianism. The newsletters note that the tragedy “has stoked a level of public anger not seen since major street protests about six years ago” and that “three people have been arrested on national security charges” for organizing petitions demanding investigation (Bloomberg, December 2, 2025). This suggests the regime’s anxiety about how disaster might catalyze political mobilization—a pattern the political scientist Dorothy Solinger (2015) observed in her analysis of how Chinese authorities manage contentious incidents that threaten to generalize beyond localized grievances (pp. 903-922).

The newsletter corpus includes several accounts of urban disasters and their aftermaths, most notably the “deadliest fire in Hong Kong since 1948” (Semafor, 2025, December 2). The tragedy becomes not merely an accident but a political event as “police reportedly arrested a man who started a petition calling for answers over possible ‘regulatory failures’ and accused him of sedition” (Semafor, 2025, December 2). This transformation of urban trauma into political liability reflects what Hannah Arendt (1958) described as “the public realm” becoming “the space of appearance in the widest sense of the word, namely, the space where I appear to others as others appear to me” (p. 199). In such moments of collective trauma, the boundaries between private suffering and public responsibility become intensely contested.

The newsletters similarly document urban spaces as sites of cultural reclamation. The ArtNews December 3 coverage of the Henry Moore Institute’s “Beyond the Visual” exhibition notes how it “aims to ‘challenge the dominance of sight in how we make and experience art,’ curators say, forcing visitors to unpack how perception can involve all the senses.” This sensory reorientation in museum practice resonates with Walter Benjamin’s (1936/1968) insight about “the age of mechanical reproduction” where “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition” (p. 221). The newsletters capture a moment where urban institutions seek to reclaim tactile knowledge in an increasingly digital public sphere.

The Bloomberg CityLab coverage of Belgrade’s belated subway construction crystallizes these urban tensions. As the newsletter notes on December 2, “Belgrade’s first, €4.4 billion subway line is set to open in 2030—almost a century since the city first tried to get an underground railway.” This urban infrastructure project becomes what Jane Jacobs (1961) might have termed “a physical manifestation of time-binding”—the city’s attempt to overcome what she called the “organized complexity” of urban life through deliberate planning (p. 438). The newsletters thus function as chronicles of urban time itself, documenting how cities negotiate between historical memory and future possibility.

Two items—Bluelight’s non-profit humanitarian airline and the Hong Kong fire—invite us to think about the governance of infrastructural risk in differently scaled registers. Bluelight’s plan to run a non-profit, fixed-rate air service for humanitarian response is analytically fascinating because it challenges market logics—especially dynamic pricing and asset-utilisation imperatives—in favour of a service logic attuned to need rather than yield (Monocle, Dec. 2025). The humanitarian logistics literature underscores how supply-chain design matters in crises: Van Wassenhove (2006) and Kovács & Spens (2007) show that speed, coordination and predictable pricing are crucial; a non-profit model aligned to steady cost recovery rather than profit maximisation can therefore be both more ethical and more effective in specific contexts (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Kovács & Spens, 2007).

Yet the operational risk is real—the aviation asset is costly and under-utilised aircraft threaten financial collapse unless the organisation secures bridging revenues or partnerships. Bluelight therefore exemplifies an institutional experimentation that must reckon with both altruistic mission and managerial constraints. Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court conflagration exposes the darker side of deferred maintenance, regulatory fragmentation and rent-seeking around repair work. The reporting emphasises how non-compliant materials and decentralized management can convert refurbishment into catastrophe—raising familiar questions about the political economy of repair (Monocle/Bloomberg reporting).

The history of post-disaster policy in Hong Kong (Shek Kip Mei, the Garley Building reforms) shows that tragedy often precipitates regulatory reform—but reform itself is contested and mediated through interests. Urban scholars (e.g., Harvey) would note that disasters unmask long-running inequalities and governance failures; the policy window following a blaze tends to favour technical fixes that may or may not address structural drivers of vulnerability (Harvey, 2012).

Threaded through these economic and political newsletters are scattered references to cultural production: art auctions testing the “fine art market” with a $18 million Warhol Muhammad Ali portrait; exhibitions of Nigerian pottery, Impressionist paintings, and Surrealist works; debates about whether video game writing deserves critical recognition; and the media scandal surrounding journalist Olivia Nuzzi’s alleged relationships with political figures.

These cultural fragments resist easy synthesis, yet collectively they suggest something about how meaning-making occurs under conditions of persistent instability. The art market’s reliance on provenance, the “fairy dust of rarity, provenance, and quality” that commands premium prices (ARTNews, November 27, 2025), represents perhaps the purest distillation of what the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1984) termed “cultural capital”—the way that aesthetic knowledge and refined taste function as markers of class distinction and mechanisms of social reproduction (pp. 1-7). That this market continues to function amid geopolitical upheaval, market volatility, and technological disruption testifies to wealth concentration’s capacity to create islands of continuity.

The video game writing question—why it remains “very much the unloved child” within the games industry despite games’ “transcendental” evolution into “a powerful and complex medium”—illuminates ongoing struggles over cultural hierarchies (Bloomberg, November 27, 2025). The literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) argued that new literary forms emerge when existing genres prove inadequate to represent changed social realities (pp. 3-40). Video games arguably represent such a form—interactive, algorithmic narratives that reflect computational culture in ways traditional linear storytelling cannot. Yet their legitimation proceeds slowly precisely because they disrupt established cultural gatekeepers’ authority.

The Olivia Nuzzi affair, meanwhile, exemplifies what the media scholar Mark Deuze (2007) identified as journalism’s increasing precarization and celebritization (pp. 140-156). Nuzzi’s trajectory—from Daily Beast correspondent at 21 to New York magazine’s Washington correspondent, then scandal and ouster, followed by a memoir deal and questions about her new employer—reflects how contemporary media careers are built on personal brand rather than institutional affiliation. The scandal itself, with its serialized revelations and competing narratives, becomes content to be consumed, blurring further the line between journalism and entertainment.

Across multiple domains chronicled in these newsletters—AI development, financial markets, pharmaceutical pricing, infrastructure maintenance, pandemic preparedness—we observe recurring tensions between expert knowledge and political/market pressures. The FDA’s controversial new guidelines making vaccine approval more difficult while citing an internal memo linking COVID-19 shots to children’s deaths exemplifies how expertise can be weaponized by political actors while maintaining the veneer of scientific authority (Bloomberg, November 28, 2025).

This pattern resonates with what the philosopher of science Naomi Oreskes and the historian Erik Conway (2010) documented in Merchants of Doubt—how a small number of contrarian experts, often funded by interested parties, can manufacture uncertainty around scientific consensus (pp. 1-9). The broader epistemological crisis they identified, wherein citizens lose capacity to distinguish between legitimate expertise and motivated reasoning, only intensifies in an AI-mediated information environment where content provenance becomes increasingly uncertain.

Simultaneously, we see enthusiasm for algorithmic solutions to problems of expertise and judgment. Chinese healthcare’s potential transformation through “Dr. Chatbot,” AI’s application to drug discovery and clinical trial optimization, and the deployment of AI for financial trading all reflect what Jenna Burrell (2016) terms “algorithmic folk theories”—simplified mental models about how algorithmic systems work that guide deployment decisions despite limited understanding of their actual functioning (pp. 1-9). The sociologist danah boyd (2017) has warned that “data and computational models” often “deepen inequality” by encoding historical biases while appearing objective (p. 1).

The tension between human judgment and algorithmic optimization emerges starkly in the Airbus A320 crisis, wherein 6,000 aircraft required emergency software updates after “intense solar radiation may corrupt data critical to the functioning of flight controls” (The Economist, November 29, 2025). This incident illustrates what the historian of technology David Nye (2006) terms “technological momentum”—how complex sociotechnical systems accumulate so much organizational, economic, and cultural investment that they become effectively irreversible even when vulnerabilities emerge (pp. 21-44). Aviation has chosen algorithmic flight control systems that deliver efficiency and safety gains under normal conditions but create novel failure modes—and the entire global fleet must now be updated mid-operation.

The interplay between central banks across these newsletters—the Federal Reserve telegraphing December rate cuts, the Bank of Japan hinting at increases, the European Central Bank navigating sluggish growth—illustrates what the monetary economist Perry Mehrling (2011) describes as the tension between “money and credit” views of the financial system (pp. 1-8). The ending of quantitative tightening by the Fed, detailed in the newsletters, represents the central bank’s return as a bond buyer after years of letting its balance sheet shrink, potentially nudging Treasury yields lower despite already-low unemployment and resilient consumer spending.

Yet monetary policy’s effectiveness appears increasingly constrained. Japan’s normalization efforts, after decades of near-zero rates and quantitative easing, have pushed 10-year JGB yields to their highest level since 2007, creating sympathy selling in U.S. Treasuries and raising questions about the sustainability of carry trades that have long channeled Japanese savings into American assets. As one analyst notes, “if JGBs are going to start offering a competitive yield, then that easy money is no more, and it makes sense to pull money from Treasuries to reallocate to Japan” (Bloomberg, December 1, 2025).

This dynamic exemplifies what the economist Hélène Rey (2015) termed the “global financial cycle”—the way that monetary conditions in core economies, particularly the United States, drive capital flows and credit conditions worldwide regardless of national economic circumstances (pp. 1-3). But the newsletters suggest this cycle may be fraying as Japan normalizes, China’s yields fall below both Japan’s and the U.S.’s, and peripheral economies like India and Pakistan face currency pressures despite divergent fundamentals.

The speculation about Kevin Hassett succeeding Jerome Powell as Fed chair adds another dimension. Polymarket puts Hassett’s odds at 84%, and he’s described as “the most dovish of the leading candidates” (Bloomberg, December 1, 2025). The prospect of a politically-chosen chair explicitly committed to easier money raises what the economist Alan Blinder (2018) identifies as the core challenge for central bank independence: maintaining credibility that policy serves macroeconomic stability rather than electoral or partisan interests (pp. 3-17). The Trump administration’s explicit pressure for rate cuts—treating monetary policy as just another lever of presidential power—represents precisely the kind of political capture that prompted the creation of independent central banks in the first place.

A fascinating thread running through the newsletters concerns the transformation of communication systems and their economic implications. The December 1 coverage of Denmark’s postal service noting “more than 100 million letters in 2024, this number has fallen 90 per cent over the past 25 years” (Semafor, 2025, December 1) documents the decline of epistolary culture despite its persistence as an economic category. This trend connects to what Benedict Anderson (1983) identified as the role of print capitalism in creating “imagined communities” (p. 44). As these physical communication networks decline, digital infrastructure emerges to fill the void, but with different social and economic logics.

The newsletters’ coverage of cryptocurrency markets captures this transition in financial terms. Semafor’s November 26 analysis of AI’s economic impact notes that “investment in data centers could reach $3 trillion” (Semafor, 2025, November 26). This capital flow illustrates what David Graeber (2011) termed “the human economy”—where “money is not a thing but a social technology, and the real measure of any currency is how widely it is trusted” (p. 23). The newsletters document a period where trust is being transferred from institutional systems (postal services, banks, governments) to algorithmic ones (cryptocurrencies, AI platforms, data networks).

This transfer is not without resistance. The December 3 Semafor Business coverage of retail transformations notes “Black Friday spending climbed 4.1% compared to 2024,” revealing the persistence of ritual consumption despite technological disruption (Semafor, 2025, December 3). As Zygmunt Bauman (2007) observed, “Liquid modernity is characterized by the ‘individualization’ of human beings; a process through which social problems are increasingly translated into personal troubles” (p. 12). The newsletters capture this individualization as consumers navigate between digital convenience and physical ritual.

The Saudi case—allowing Premium Residency holders limited access to alcohol outlets while excluding citizens—reveals the logic of calibrated liberalisation under authoritarian modernization: reforms are introduced as technocratic, market-facing adjustments rather than rights expansions (Monocle, Dec. 2025). This is classic “authoritarian neoliberalism,” where changes are paced to balance economic objectives (tourism, hospitality revenue) and regime legitimacy (Giroux, 2007). Rather than a rupture, the policy is a pressure valve: it opens a narrow, monetised corridor for mobility and consumption without interrogating deeper questions of citizenship, equality or secularism (Bauman’s reflections on liquid modernity also help us see how norms drift while core inequalities remain obscured). (Giroux, 2007; Bauman, 2000.)

The commercial logic is candid: international hospitality norms (and the ability to capture higher tourist spending) often depend on small but symbolic concessions—licensed hotels on the Red Sea, gradual loosening in airline service. The social friction this produces (outsiders allowed to drink, insiders not) also signals a deliberate political calculus—change that is market-enabling but politically palatable.

Policy dimensions weave through these narratives, often as incremental responses to crises. Saudi Arabia’s loosening of alcohol bans for select residents (Monocle, November 27) exemplifies “quiet, measured” liberalization, balancing conservative norms with economic imperatives like tourism, per Inzamam Rashid’s analysis. This interrelates with The Economist’s reports on Moldova’s drone spats with Russia (November 28) and Ukraine’s peace talks (December 1-3), where opacity in diplomacy—e.g., Putin’s readiness for “serious discussions”—masks power imbalances. Trump’s Venezuela rhetoric and airline bans (The Economist, November 28) further illustrate policy as performative theater, echoing Hannah Arendt’s warnings on totalitarianism’s erosion of truth (Arendt, 1951, p. 474: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction... no longer exists”). Economically, these policies intersect with AI’s rise: CNBC’s notes on Europe’s “slow and steady” AI edge (November 28) and Samsung’s multi-folding phone (December 2) suggest regulatory frameworks could temper U.S.-China bubbles, as analyzed in Acemoglu and Johnson’s “Power and Progress” (Acemoglu & Johnson, 2023), which argues for steering technology toward shared prosperity rather than elite capture.

Black Friday’s arrival, with retailers “hoping that markdowns entice cash-strapped Americans to shop away their anxiety” (The Economist, November 28, 2025), occasions reflection on contemporary consumption’s peculiar character. The newsletters note that American consumers “are sending mixed signals”—consumer sentiment is depressed even as spending remains strong, creating “divergence between spending and indicators of consumer sentiment, which normally move together” (The Economist, November 28, 2025).

This disconnect between affect and behavior illuminates what the sociologist Colin Campbell (1987) identified as modern consumption’s fundamentally romantic character—we consume not merely to satisfy needs but to pursue “self-illusory hedonism,” the pleasure of anticipation and fantasy that accompanies acquisition (pp. 77-95). The persistence of spending despite anxiety perhaps reflects not optimism but its opposite: a cultural exhaustion that turns to consumption as one of few available sources of agency and pleasure.

Target’s struggles—”stores that look like a tornado hit,” declining foot traffic, and a CEO succession that elevated a company veteran rather than bringing in outside transformation—exemplify retail’s broader challenges (Bloomberg, November 29, 2025). The article notes that Target succeeded during the pandemic but “the company’s sales have fallen in the past two years along with its share price.” This reversal suggests that pandemic-era consumption patterns—higher at-home spending, supply-chain disruptions that made convenience paramount, stimulus-supported purchasing power—represented a temporary aberration rather than a durable shift.

SharkNinja’s success, by contrast, offers a counternarrative: “reasonably priced products with instant payoff” delivered through social media virality and “show-stopping features” like the Shark floor mop’s “black-water tank that reveals an obscene amount of dirt” (Bloomberg, December 1, 2025). This model—affordable luxury, shareable “wow” moments, constant new product launches—represents what the marketing scholar Russell Belk (1988) termed “possessions and the extended self,” wherein consumption goods serve as both functional tools and identity markers (pp. 139-168). The Ninja Creami ice cream maker’s Reddit community with 62,000 weekly visitors sharing recipes reflects consumption’s social dimensions—purchases as entry tickets to communities of practice.

Subscribe

Several briefings celebrate craft (Scotland’s “Bardware”), collectable design (Design Miami) and luxury cultural projects (Chanel’s Shanghai library). These pieces collectively show how cultural capital is being recomposed into rent-bearing forms: museums, curated libraries, artisanal objects and auction markets become mechanisms through which scarcity is produced and monetised. Design fairs function as marketplaces for symbolic and financial value—what the newsletter calls a “collectable-design” surge (Monocle, Dec. 2025).

Saskia Sassen’s work on global cities helps us see how such cultural apparatuses are both markers and engines of urban economic positioning: cultural institutions and high-end hospitality are part of a city’s competitive package (Sassen, 2001). The counterpoint—radio shows that sustain nightly communities or local dog-officers—remind us that vernacular cultural practices continue to sustain sociality beyond high-end circuits (Monocle, Dec. 2025).

Culturally, the snippets celebrate hybridity amid disruption. Monocle’s “Radio Shinyabin” (November 29) combats loneliness through nocturnal companionship, paralleling the communal ethos in “On Display!” exhibition’s “generous unity” (November 26). These counter the isolation in Hong Kong’s fire or Airbus disruptions, evoking Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” formed via media (Anderson, 1983, p. 44: “The nation... is imagined as a community, because... the members... will never know most of their fellow-members, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion”). Philosophically, this ties to Heidegger’s “dwelling” in “Building Dwelling Thinking” (Heidegger, 1951/1971, p. 145: “To dwell... means to remain at peace within the free, the preserve, the free sphere that safeguards each thing in its nature”), resonating with Bilbao’s sanctuary-focused housing. Interrelations abound: AI’s cultural commodification (CNBC) risks eroding such authenticity, as Shoshana Zuboff warns in her critique of surveillance capitalism’s behavioral extraction (Zuboff, 2019, p. 8: “It is no longer enough to automate information flows about us; the goal now is to automate us”).

Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) famous observation—”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)—seems particularly apt for the period these newsletters document. The post-Cold War liberal international order is manifestly dying, as evidenced by the Ukraine war, U.S.-China decoupling, and reviving great-power competition. The neoliberal economic order that accompanied it likewise shows terminal symptoms: financialization detached from productive investment, inequality that corrodes social cohesion, and market mechanisms increasingly unable to address collective challenges like climate change or pandemic preparedness.

Yet what might replace these orders remains fundamentally unclear. Will AI actually transform productivity, or merely concentrate wealth further? Will the new Cold War stabilize around acknowledged spheres of influence, or slide toward conflict? Will climate adaptation proceed through market mechanisms, technological innovation, or systemic transformation? Will democratic institutions prove resilient, or continue their global retreat?

The newsletters offer no answers to these questions—nor should they, as daily journalism’s proper task is description rather than prophecy. But their very form—fragmentary, perpetually updated, jumping between scales and topics—embodies the difficulty of achieving what the sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) termed “the sociological imagination”: the capacity to grasp “the interplay of man and society, of biography and history, of self and world” (p. 4). In an age of information superabundance and attention scarcity, when newsletters must be “optimized for scanning rather than sustained attention” (as I noted earlier), the very conditions for synthetic understanding erode.

Perhaps the most valuable insight these newsletters offer, then, is indirect: they demonstrate through their form and content how difficult it has become to construct coherent narratives about our present, let alone our future. The economic historian Thomas McCraw (1984) observed that “in times of rapid change, the ability to adjust and to invent new institutions was more important than the protection of existing arrangements” (p. 300). We appear to be living through such a time—yet our adjustment mechanisms seem slow, our institutional innovation halting, and our political systems captured by interests invested in unsustainable arrangements.

The task ahead, suggested by but extending beyond these newsletters, requires what the philosopher Charles Taylor (1989) called “strong evaluation”—the capacity to not merely calculate between options but to articulate and assess the frameworks within which calculations occur (pp. 3-24). Whether emerging from this interregnum will demand such evaluation remains to be seen. The morbid symptoms Gramsci identified certainly proliferate—but whether they herald birth, further decay, or some previously unimaginable form remains among the great questions of our precarious present.

What ultimately emerges from these newsletters is not merely their content but their form as a cultural phenomenon. They function as what Roland Barthes (1977) might have termed “writerly texts”—texts that invite the reader to become a co-author through selective engagement, curation, and interpretation. Unlike traditional newspapers or magazines with fixed editorial hierarchies, newsletters offer what Marshall McLuhan (1964) described as “hot” and “cool” media in a single form—some demanding intense focus while others reward casual scanning.

Their temporal structure is equally significant. As the December 1 Semafor Flagship edition notes on a potential Ukraine peace deal, “it’s a pivotal week for diplomacy” (Semafor, 2025, December 1). This constant positioning within a perpetually unfolding present creates what Frank Kermode (1967) termed “the sense of an ending”—a narrative tension between daily immediacy and historical significance. Newsletters thus function as what Paul Ricoeur (1984) called “narrative identity,” constructing coherence from the fragmentation of contemporary experience.

The newsletters’ aesthetic presentation—their clean typography, strategic bolding, and visual hierarchy—creates a sensory experience that balances information density with readability. This design sensibility reflects what Susan Sontag (1977) termed “the aesthetics of silence” where “a work of art is not so much a representation of reality as it is a reality in itself” (p. 7). The newsletter as a form thus becomes not merely a container for information but a curated experience of contemporary time.

These newsletters collectively form what Walter Benjamin (1940/2003) might have termed a “constellation” of the present—a non-linear arrangement where past, present, and future momentarily illuminate each other (p. 462). Their brevity belies their complexity; they are not simply news summaries but cultural artifacts that document the textures of lived experience in an era of accelerating change.

As these newsletters move from our inboxes to the historical record, they will serve as what Carlo Ginzburg (1989) called “microhistories”—accounts that “reveal the threads of larger historical processes” through “the careful analysis of seemingly insignificant details” (p. 125). Their present immediacy will eventually transform into historical evidence of how information was produced, circulated, and consumed at this particular moment in human history.

In the end, these newsletters ask us to consider how we might live thoughtfully within time’s multiple registers—between the breaking headline and the slow arc of civilization, between the algorithmic present and the remembered past. They remind us that despite our technological sophistication, we remain what Heidegger (1927/1962) termed “being-toward-death”—creatures who must continually make meaning from the temporal materials at hand (p. 294). The newsletter form, in all its digital brevity, continues this ancient human project of making time itself comprehensible.

The newsletter snippets document a world in which the seams of everyday life—homes, airports, scaffolds, airlines, museums—are the sites of contention over value, dignity and governance. They invite us to read design not as mere ornament but as a vector of social possibility; to treat humanitarian logistics as subject to political economy; and to see incremental political reforms not as neutral technicalities but as carefully calibrated signals about who counts as a citizen and who counts as a consumer. The analytic task is to keep institutional imagination anchored to social ends—so that modular housing means more than market flexibility, and a non-profit airline becomes more than an affective gesture.

What holds these disparate items together is a shared tension between commodification and care. Bilbao’s architecture seeks to restore care and dignity to dwelling; Bluelight insists on an ethic of service in logistics; Hong Kong’s fire shows the lethal end of commodified, poorly governed repair economies; Saudi incrementalism reveals the state’s use of calibrated commodification to fund and enable development while tightly managing social outcomes. Cultural production both softens and markets these tensions: museums, design fairs and artisanal shops convert civic imaginings into legible commodities for particular demographics.

This suggests a political-economic research agenda: how might policy and practice align to produce infrastructures that centre dignity (housing, evacuation, healthcare logistics) while resisting purely extractive logics? Can design and cultural projects be reoriented toward broader distributive outcomes rather than exclusive markets? Lefebvre’s call for the “right to the city” feels freshly relevant here: the spatial and institutional decisions we make—about scaffolding materials, airport rules, library openings or housing prototypes—are simultaneously aesthetic choices and distributive acts (Lefebvre, 1991).

Thus, these newsletters portray a world where economic precarity fuels social innovation, policies navigate cultural fault lines, and interrelations demand associative thinking. As in Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” (Kafka, 1915), where alienation prompts reevaluation, these snippets urge us to reimagine dignity amid flux—balancing progress with humanity.

Share

Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity. PublicAffairs.

Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press.

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

Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House.

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Schocken Books.

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

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.

Baldwin, R. (2016). The great convergence: Information technology and the new globalization. Belknap Press.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image-music-text (S. Heath, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1964)

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

Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.

Benjamin, W. (1968). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 217-252). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1936)

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

Blinder, A. S. (2018). Through a crystal ball darkly: The future of monetary policy communication. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108, 567-571.

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

boyd, d. (2017). Toward accountability. Data & Society Research Institute.

Bratton, B. H. (2016). The stack: On software and sovereignty. MIT Press.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-12.

Campbell, C. (1987). The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. Basil Blackwell.

Crary, J. (2013). 24/7: Late capitalism and the ends of sleep. Verso.

Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. Verso.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press (Original work published 1980).

Deuze, M. (2007). Media work. Polity Press.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. MIT Press.

Frank, T. (2016). Listen, liberal: Or, what ever happened to the party of the people? Metropolitan Books.

Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. J. (2010). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444-473.

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

Ginzburg, C. (1989). Clues, myths, and the historical method (J. & A. Tedeschi, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2007). The university in chains: Confronting the military-industrial-academic complex. Paradigm Publishers.

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

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

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927)

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Harper & Row (Original work published 1951).

Illich, I. (1976). Medical nemesis: The expropriation of health. Pantheon Books.

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

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

Kafka, F. (1915). The metamorphosis (W. Muir & E. Muir, Trans.). Schocken Books.

Kermode, F. (1967). The sense of an ending: Studies in the theory of fiction. Oxford University Press.

Khanna, P. (2016). Connectography: Mapping the future of global civilization. Random House.

Kissinger, H. (2014). World order. Penguin Press.

Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2007). Humanitarian logistics in disaster relief operations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37(2), 99–114.

Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le droit à la ville. Anthropos.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)

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

Mazzucato, M. (2018). The value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. PublicAffairs.

McCraw, T. K. (1984). Prophets of regulation. Harvard University Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

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

Mehrling, P. (2011). The new Lombard Street: How the Fed became the dealer of last resort. Princeton University Press.

Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.

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

Morris, W. (1890). News from nowhere. Reeves & Turner.

Nye, D. E. (2006). Technology matters: Questions to live with. MIT Press.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press.

Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Edward Elgar Publishing.

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

Rey, H. (2015). Dilemma not trilemma: The global financial cycle and monetary policy independence. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21162.

Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative: Volume 1 (K. McLaughlin & D. Pellauer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

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

Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia University Press.

Saguy, A. C. (2013). What’s wrong with fat? Oxford University Press.

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

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

Solinger, D. J. (2015). Three welfare models and current Chinese social assistance: Confucian, socialist, or liberal? State and Society in East Asia, 1(2), 903-922.

Sontag, S. (1977). On photography. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Soros, G. (1987). The alchemy of finance. Simon & Schuster.

Talluri, K., & Van Ryzin, G. (2004). The theory and practice of revenue management. Springer.

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.

Tooze, A. (2023). Polycrisis: Prompts for an emerging worldview. Financial Times.

Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply chain management in times of crisis. INSEAD Working Paper.

Virilio, P. (1986). Speed and politics. Semiotext(e).

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books.

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

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (December 6, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (December 6, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (December 6, 2025). The Texture of the Present: Temporal Compression, Infrastructural Risk, and the Politics of Dignity. Open Culture.