The newsletter snippets from Monocle, Newsweek, Semafor, ARTNews, CNBC and the Economist from November 6-12, 2025, present a fascinating mosaic of our contemporary moment—a world where technology accelerates while social contracts strain, where climate imperatives clash with national interests, and where visions of the future compete in both concrete and digital realms. Reading these fragments together, one discerns not isolated developments but a complex ecosystem of change. As historian Yuval Noah Harari notes, “The greatest revolutions in human history were those of consciousness” (Harari, 2015, p. 46), and today’s fragmented headlines reveal precisely such a shifting consciousness.

These snippets weave a narrative of continuity amid disruption: persistent government shutdowns in the U.S., escalating geopolitical tensions, AI-driven market volatility, and cultural revivals in unexpected corners like Belém’s brega music scene. This assemblage evokes a world where economic precarity intersects with social unrest, policy paralysis, and cultural hybridity. Reflectively, it mirrors the “liquid modernity” described by Zygmunt Bauman (2000), where institutions dissolve into fluid, unpredictable forms, compelling individuals and societies to adapt ceaselessly.

When Zohran Mamdani claimed victory in New York City’s mayoral race on November 5, 2025, the reverberations traveled far beyond the five boroughs. The 34-year-old democratic socialist’s win represented what political theorist Chantal Mouffe (2018) might recognize as a “populist moment”—not merely a electoral outcome but a crystallization of antagonisms that had been simmering beneath the surface of neoliberal consensus (p. 11). The global attention paid to this municipal election—from progressive celebrations in London to anxious responses in Tel Aviv—reveals how thoroughly contemporary politics has been deterritorialized, with local elections serving as proxy battles for larger ideological struggles.

Yet the immediate pivot in Mamdani’s rhetoric from campaign poetry to governing prose, as Semafor noted, encapsulates a central tension explored by political scientist Yascha Mounk (2018) in “The People vs. Democracy”: the gap between populist mobilization and institutional governance. Mamdani’s transition team—composed of establishment figures who had served previous mayors—suggests what political theorist Nancy Fraser (2017) describes as the perpetual negotiation between insurgent politics and administrative necessity. His retention of Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, “not beloved by progressives,” demonstrates the gravitational pull of what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1994) termed the “field of power,” where symbolic capital accumulated through radical positioning must be exchanged for the practical capital needed to govern (p. 52).

The Wall Street response to Mamdani’s victory offers a particularly instructive case study. Despite apocalyptic rhetoric about business flight, commercial real estate executive Scott Rechler’s declaration that “We’re not changing any of our plans” reflects the structural inertia that urban economist Edward Glaeser (2011) identifies in “Triumph of the City”: agglomeration effects and network externalities create lock-in effects that transcend political cycles (pp. 34-58). JPMorgan’s $3 billion “gleaming, hypersustainable monument to capitalism” at 47th Street, mentioned in the Semafor Business briefing, serves as a physical instantiation of David Harvey’s (2012) observation about capital’s spatial fixes—once built environment investments are sunk, they resist easy relocation regardless of political headwinds (p. 405).

The COP30 conference in Belém offered a peculiar spectacle: a climate summit convened in the Amazon while global concern about climate catastrophe measurably cooled. The UN’s admission “for the first time, that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is no longer achievable” represented what philosopher Timothy Morton (2013) calls a confrontation with hyperobjects—phenomena so massively distributed in time and space that they defeat traditional perception and comprehension (p. 1). Yet rather than intensifying panic, this acknowledgment seemed to induce a kind of thermal torpor.

Bill Gates’s argument against a “doomsday” focus, favoring development over emissions reduction, reflects a deeper shift in climate discourse that sociologist Ulrich Beck (1992) anticipated in “Risk Society”: the transformation from apocalyptic prevention to adaptive management (pp. 21-23). When even Greta Thunberg, the movement’s most recognizable figure, redirects attention to Palestinian solidarity, it suggests exhaustion with what cultural critic Mark Fisher (2009) termed “capitalist realism”—the difficulty of imagining alternatives when catastrophe becomes ambient condition rather than imminent event (p. 2).

The Chinese paradox—simultaneously the world’s largest polluter and renewable energy deployer—embodies what environmental historian Jason W. Moore (2015) describes as capitalism’s dual movement: the simultaneous destruction and creation of nature as accumulation strategy (p. 3). China’s construction of 300 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity while maintaining coal dependence reflects not contradiction but what Moore calls the “Capitalocene,” where environmental transformation serves as foundation for further accumulation rather than its nemesis (p. 170).

Former US climate envoy John Kerry’s argument in Semafor Energy about renewable energy enabling “energy sovereignty” reveals the geopolitical subtext always present in environmental discourse. His contrast between “a vast network of pipelines and shipping lanes pulsing with oil, gas, and coal” and distributed renewable generation recalls Lewis Mumford’s (1934) distinction in “Technics and Civilization” between paleotechnic and neotechnic eras—not merely technological shift but fundamental reorganization of social metabolism (pp. 151-185). Yet Kerry’s vision of nations “producing energy close to where it is used” may underestimate the new dependencies created by renewable supply chains, as Elizabeth Chatterjee (2022) argues in “The Watt and the Warrant”: energy sovereignty proves elusive when critical minerals and manufacturing capacity remain concentrated in Chinese hands (pp. 15-42).

COP30 in Belém functions in the dispatches both as a diplomatic convening and as a cultural performance — the story of “brega divas” and water-time rhythms (“antes ou depois da chuva”) is not mere colour but a reminder that climate diplomacy is held within particular temporalities and social practices (Monocle, Cop30 coverage).

Two tensions are salient. First, the political economy of mitigation: the newsletter cites the UN’s admission that 1.5ºC may be unattainable and records diminishing political appetite in rich countries — an admission that reframes COP as a forum for managing loss, redistribution and adaptation rather than fast mitigation (Monocle). Second, the site specificity of the Amazon means that the summit’s staging in Belém attempts to harness moral geography (hosting the talks near an emblematic ecosystem) even as the substantive politics — burden sharing, finance flows, and energy transition — remain deeply inertial (IPCC, 2023).

Here the scholarship on global commons and collective action is instructive: Ostrom’s polycentricity and the literature on differentiated responsibility remind us that symbolic proximity (hosting COP in the Amazon) can create political opportunities, but not substitutes for durable finance and governance mechanisms (Ostrom, 1990; IPCC, 2023). The newsletter’s cultural detail — the city’s music, market life, and scheduling by rain — is a corrective: climate policy must negotiate local temporalities and livelihoods, not only global pledges (Monocle).

The NTU development — 3D printing concrete while trapping CO₂ — is presented in the newsletter as an emblem of incremental technical hope: turning a high-emission material into a carbon sink via process innovation (Y. Xu, Monocle).

Two observations. First, the narrative of techno-optimism is familiar: when the social and political appetite for deep systemic change is weak, technological fixes acquire a rhetorical prominence (e.g., geoengineering debates). But the concrete innovation differs from typical “silver bullet” solutions in that it integrates abatement directly into the production process, making mitigation contingent upon design choices rather than top-down carbon capture alone (Xu, Monocle).

Second, from a governance standpoint, such innovations require fast pathways to standards, scaling and circular material flows; otherwise they remain curiosities. The newsletter poses the right question rhetorically — can concrete ever be “better for the planet than no concrete?” — and the policy response must move beyond R&D subsidies to procurement policies, building codes, and incentives that create demand for lower-carbon materials (IPCC, 2023).

Liz Hoffman’s observation in Semafor Business that only 10% of S&P 500 companies’ assets are now “tangible” marks a fundamental transformation in capitalism’s material basis. The shift from physical assets to “corporate ectoplasm of code, data, and brand power” represents what Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake (2017) systematically document in “Capitalism Without Capital”: the rise of intangible investment as the dominant form of capital accumulation (p. 4). Where Alan Greenspan could note in 2001 that the economy was “getting lighter,” by 2025 this dematerialization has reached an extreme that would have seemed science-fictional even two decades prior.

This creates what Hoffman aptly terms a “minefield” for valuation. When Marriott is “a hotel company that doesn’t own hotels” and Delta’s credit card partnership proves more profitable than its airplanes, we witness what geographer David Harvey (2006) calls the “financialization of everything”—the reduction of material operations to revenue streams from increasingly abstract claims (p. 33). The resulting vulnerability to “fake spreadsheets” over “fake factories” recalls anthropologist David Graeber’s (2015) argument in “The Utopia of Rules”: bureaucratic abstractions ultimately rest on faith rather than material verification, making fraud simultaneously easier and harder to detect (pp. 23-25).

The $1 trillion pay package approved for Elon Musk by Tesla shareholders crystallizes the compensation logic of intangible capitalism. To earn this sum, Musk must elevate Tesla’s valuation from $1.5 trillion to $8.5 trillion—a requirement predicated entirely on market capitalization rather than profits, vehicles produced, or any material metric. This recalls Thorstein Veblen’s (1904) century-old observation in “The Theory of Business Enterprise” about the divergence between industrial processes and pecuniary valuations, but taken to an exponential extreme (p. 25). As Veblen noted, “the captain of industry has become a captain of solvency,” and in Musk’s case, solvency means sustaining belief in valuations that strain credulity (p. 156).

The sports betting scandals enumerated in Semafor Business—Cleveland Guardians pitchers rigging obscure bets, NBA players allegedly throwing games—represent another facet of dematerialization: the proliferation of derivative markets on human activity. When every pitch, every play, every granular moment becomes a separately tradeable asset, we approach what sociologist Arjun Appadurai (2015) terms the “derivatization of the social,” where financial instruments penetrate ever deeper into lived experience (p. 8). The insider trading charges against the pitchers are telling: this isn’t technically insider trading (which isn’t criminal for non-securities), but rather fraud, suggesting our legal categories haven’t caught up with the financialization of embodied performance.

Economically, the snippets paint a landscape of fragility punctuated by speculative booms. CNBC‘s reports on U.S. tariffs, AI investments, and market slumps highlight a trade war hangover, with Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs facing Supreme Court scrutiny, potentially refunding billions and inflating Treasury yields. This echoes the protectionist impulses analyzed in Rodrik’s (2018) Straight Talk on Trade, where he argues that such policies, while politically expedient, exacerbate global inequalities by distorting supply chains—much like the U.S.-China truce allowing rare earth exports but leaving tensions fragile (CNBC, November 11, 2025). Interrelatedly, The Economist notes China’s Singles’ Day sales faltering amid consumer caution, signaling deflationary pressures in a post-stimulus economy, reminiscent of Pettis’s (2013) warnings in The Great Rebalancing about China’s overreliance on exports amid domestic demand weakness.

AI emerges as a double-edged economic force: CNBC celebrates SoftBank’s $22.5 billion pivot to OpenAI, yet warns of overvaluation bubbles, with Michael Burry critiquing “understated depreciation” in AI firms (CNBC, November 12, 2025). This associates with Zuboff’s (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, which critiques how tech giants extract value through data monopolies, inflating stocks while masking structural risks—like the 33,281 tech layoffs in October (CNBC, November 7, 2025). Philosophically, it resonates with Heidegger’s (1954/1977) notion of technology as “enframing” (Gestell), reducing the world to a “standing-reserve” of exploitable resources, where AI’s promise masks job displacement and market instability. In Newsweek‘s Geoscape, Venezuela’s oil fields tempt U.S. seizure, linking energy economics to geopolitical strategy, as explored in Yergin’s (2020) The New Map, where resource grabs redefine global power amid declining fossil fuel dominance.

These economic threads interrelate with social dynamics: tariff-induced price hikes could fuel inequality, while AI-driven layoffs exacerbate precarity, potentially sparking unrest akin to the Gen Z protests in Newsweek (November 12, 2025).

The newsletter’s coverage of AI developments sits uneasily alongside reports of a government shutdown that has grounded flights and suspended data collection. This juxtaposition evokes Jaron Lanier’s warning that “technological determinism has always been more of a psychological comfort than a reliable guide to the future” (Lanier, 2018, p. 112). While Microsoft announces its pursuit of “humanist superintelligence” and Google explores space-based data centers, the United States grapples with 40-day shutdown that has brought mundane governance to a standstill. This duality reflects what philosopher Bernard Stiegler (2010) termed “the paradox of progress”: as our technological capabilities expand, our social and political systems struggle to adapt.

The piece on Bratislava’s TU-BA architecture center offers a hopeful counterpoint—a physical space designed for “difficult conversations” about urban planning. This resonates with Jane Jacobs’ enduring insight that “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody” (Jacobs, 1961, p. 254). Physical spaces for dialogue remain essential even as digital platforms promise connection.

Subscribe

The auction season reportage in ARTnews provides an unusually transparent window into wealth’s circulation through cultural objects. The revelation that billionaire Steve Cohen is consigning Maurizio Cattelan’s golden toilet, “America,” with an opening bid of $10 million, offers rich material for analysis. The toilet—already notorious for being stolen from Blenheim Palace and never recovered—embodies what sociologist Thorstein Veblen (1899) termed “conspicuous consumption,” but with a self-aware irony that complicates the category (p. 75). When the artwork itself satirizes wealth while simultaneously serving as its vehicle, we encounter the recursive loops that art critic Dave Hickey (2012) identified as characteristic of contemporary art’s relationship to capital (p. 23).

The provenance investigations detailed by ARTnews reveal the art market as a network of relationships rather than a simple exchange mechanism. When works from the “formidable collection of the late Nelly Arrieta de Blaquier” appear at Christie’s amid reports of customs challenges and a collection worth $350 million, we glimpse what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1984) termed “cultural capital” in its most concentrated form (p. 1). The Blaquier family’s possession of a $300 million van Gogh, combined with their challenges in moving works internationally, illustrates how cultural capital, unlike financial capital, resists liquidity—its value inheres partly in its immobility, its rootedness in place and history.

The $21.5 million Manny Davidson sale at Sotheby’s Paris, yielding “the highest total for a single-owner sale in France this year,” demonstrates what economist David Throsby (2001) terms the “dual value” of cultural goods—they exist simultaneously as aesthetic objects and financial assets, with the two forms of value existing in tension (p. 28). The top lot, Michael Sweerts’s 1648 painting selling for €1.6 million, exemplifies this tension: its value derives from aesthetic qualities, historical significance, and rarity, yet these are ultimately expressed through price, converting cultural distinction into pecuniary terms that Veblen would recognize.

The consignment of Kerry James Marshall’s work to Sotheby’s from Neda Young’s collection illustrates the contemporary art market’s peculiar temporality. A 2008 painting carrying a $10 million estimate reflects Marshall’s meteoric rise in market value—driven partly by aesthetic recognition, partly by the belated acknowledgment of African American artists, partly by collectors like Young who accumulated works before the price surge. This recalls art historian Pamela Lee’s (2012) argument in “Forgetting the Art World” about how market mechanisms create their own form of historical consciousness, where artistic value becomes retrospectively visible through price appreciation (p. 156).

Bulgari’s expansion of manufacturing in Valenza — framed by its CEO as both investment in craft and a defensive financial hedge — exposes the paradoxes of luxury as cultural-economic practice (Monocle interview with Babin).

Luxury scholarship (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009) shows that luxury’s value depends on narratives of scarcity, lineage, and workmanship; by doubling capacity and reinforcing “Made in Italy” provenance, Bulgari is both scaling and staging heritage. The CEO’s rhetoric — that jewellery is a “defensive investment” that “won’t fall to zero” — invokes a broader cultural logic under conditions of economic uncertainty: conspicuous goods are reframed as stores of value. This is simultaneously financialization of taste and investment in artisanal ecosystems (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009).

Culturally, the point is that heritage brands translate local craft ecologies into global capital circuits; politically, they become nodes where national identity, export strategy, and social reproduction of craft labour all intersect. Monocle’s reportage captures both the gloss and the stakes: preserving craft requires real capital and an institutional ecosystem that will channel returns into training, wages and quality controls.

The newsletter’s coverage of Belém’s “brega” music scene alongside its urban planning initiatives suggests that cultural identity remains central to place-making in an increasingly homogenized world. When Fernando Augusto Pacheco writes of Joelma performing “atop a giant water-lily-shaped stage floating on the Guamá river,” he captures the irreducible local character that resists global standardization.

This resonates with sociologist Saskia Sassen’s observation that “the city is not simply a space of consumption but a space of production” (Sassen, 2001, p. 3). The “Omani design studio rethinking shared cultural spaces” and “Bab Al Salam Mosque” represent attempts to create architecture that reflects local identity rather than importing foreign models—a crucial distinction in our era of standardized global design.

Similarly, Monocle’s profiles of independent publishers like Wetlands in Venice and Studio Ūma in London suggest a counter-current to digital homogenization. Their work embodies what literary theorist Homi Bhabha (1994) terms “hybridity”—the creative blending of traditions that produces something new yet rooted. This approach offers an antidote to what Pico Iyer (2014) calls “the age of the copy,” where authenticity becomes increasingly rare.

The Monocle newsletter’s opinion piece on US air traffic control, advocating privatization based on Canadian and Swiss models, arrived with darkly comic timing as the prolonged government shutdown forced flight cancellations and pushed air traffic controllers to work without pay. This juxtaposition illustrates what political scientist Steven Teles (2013) calls the “kludgeocracy”—America’s tendency toward jury-rigged institutional arrangements that satisfy no one while persisting indefinitely (p. 3).

The argument for privatizing air traffic control follows the logic Paul Starr (1987) anatomized in “The Limits of Privatization”: public functions transferred to private or quasi-private entities that remain heavily regulated and monitored, ostensibly gaining efficiency while shedding political accountability (pp. 124-142). Yet the shutdown itself revealed the fragility of this logic. When essential government functions depend on workers laboring without compensation during political standoffs, the question becomes not whether private alternatives might be more efficient but whether public infrastructure should be hostage to budgetary brinkmanship at all.

The $12.5 billion plan to replace systems “running on old technology such as floppy disks” represents what economist Mariana Mazzucato (2013) identifies as the state’s entrepreneurial function—long-term infrastructure investment that private capital consistently underprovides (p. 3). The Trump administration’s “little appetite for big-ticket spending on civilian infrastructure” despite massive military outlays exemplifies what political scientist Jacob Hacker (2019) terms the “anti-government politics” paradox: ideological opposition to public investment coexisting with extensive state apparatus (pp. 45-67).

The irony that America’s airports were finally improving—LaGuardia’s overhaul completed, JFK and Newark undergoing renovation—just as air traffic control collapsed captures what urbanist Bent Flyvbjerg (2017) calls the “infrastructure trap”: the disconnect between physical assets and operational capacity (p. 12). Magnificent terminals mean little when planes can’t land safely, but physical infrastructure proves easier to finance and celebrate than the mundane operational requirements that make it functional.

A recurrent thread in the week’s dispatches is anxiety about collective systems that underpin everyday life: air traffic control, national parks, and airports. The Monocle piece on US air-traffic control stages what is effectively a crisis of stewardship: aging systems, furloughed controllers, and political dysfunction are used to argue for a privatized or quasi-market governance model as a remedy (Scruggs, Monocle).

This framing — austerity and public failure producing a market fix — sits at the intersection of two intellectual debates. One is the long catalogue of critiques of privatization as a political project that offloads risk and erodes democratic accountability (Klein, 2007). The other, more sympathetic, argument is that well-designed non-profit or corporatized entities can deliver durable public services, especially when insulated from short-term politics and funded predictably (Mazzucato, 2013). Both positions are visible in the newsletter’s exemplars: comparison with Canada, Switzerland and the UK (that mix public and non-profit provision) is offered as pragmatic precedent, while the account’s lament about federal paralysis gestures to the market solution (Scruggs).

Analytically, the important question is not “private vs public” as a binary but institutional design: who bears systemic risk, who has transparency and voice, and how are safety externalities priced? Elinor Ostrom’s work on polycentric governance is helpful here: many critical shared infrastructures are best governed through nested, accountable institutions, not single-actor markets (Ostrom, 1990). The newsletter’s narrative — crises prompting ad-hoc privatization pleas — should be read as evidence that policymakers still lack robust polycentric mechanisms for allocating maintenance, capital renewal and labor incentives across federal, local and commercial actors (Ostrom, 1990; Mazzucato, 2013).

The newsletters reveal tensions between scales of governance and development. Tom Vanderbilt’s anecdote about internet shutdowns in Tanzania during elections exposes the fragility of digital infrastructure in the face of political instability. His advice to “always travel with a carry-on” takes on existential significance in a world where connections can be severed overnight.

This fragility contrasts sharply with Oman’s deliberate approach to urbanism, as described by Colin Nagy: “In a region where perpetual transformation has become the default, Oman’s relative stillness feels almost subversive.” This observation touches on what political economist Albert Hirschman (1970) described as the “exit, voice, and loyalty” framework—whereby societies choose between transformation (exit), reform (voice), or maintaining status quo (loyalty). Oman’s “measured densification” represents a different temporal rhythm than the accelerated development of its Gulf neighbors.

The newsletter’s coverage of the US government shutdown’s impact on air traffic control juxtaposes micro and macro challenges. It illustrates Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction” (Schumpeter, 1942/1976) in reverse—where institutional decay threatens the functioning of complex systems. As economist Mariana Mazzucato (2018) argues, “The state has been a crucial actor not just in fixing market failures but in actively creating and shaping markets” (p. 8). When governance falters, the market mechanisms themselves begin to collapse.

The US military buildup in the Caribbean, with the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group deployed ostensibly for drug interdiction, represents what political scientist Andrew Bacevich (2010) terms “permanent war”—the normalization of military deployment as default foreign policy tool (p. 15). Venezuela’s conviction that the force aims to topple Nicolás Maduro may or may not be accurate, but as Semafor noted, the deployment raises questions: if not regime change, then what justifies such overwhelming force for speedboat interdiction?

The historical resonance with the 1989 Panama invasion to remove Manuel Noriega—also justified by drug trafficking concerns—suggests recurring patterns in US-Latin American relations that historian Greg Grandin (2007) documents in “Empire’s Workshop”: the use of anti-drug rhetoric to legitimize intervention while pursuing broader strategic objectives (pp. 89-112). Venezuela’s vast oil reserves—the world’s largest—combined with Chinese and Russian presence in the hemisphere, create what geographer John Agnew (2005) calls “geopolitical imaginaries” where resources, ideology, and strategic positioning blur together (p. 67).

The situation recalls political theorist Carl Schmitt’s (1950/2003) concept of the “nomos of the Earth,” where spatial organization reflects power relations (p. 67). The Monroe Doctrine’s invocation—asserting US hemispheric dominance—attempts to re-establish a spatial order challenged by Chinese Belt and Road investments and Russian military cooperation. Yet as international relations scholar John Mearsheimer (2014) argues, such reassertions of regional hegemony often reveal anxiety about declining capacity rather than confident power projection (p. 334).

The Thailand-Cambodia ceasefire collapse, just weeks after Trump brokered it, illuminates the fragility of peace agreements imposed from outside. International relations scholar Virginia Page Fortna (2008) demonstrates in “Does Peacekeeping Work?” that successful ceasefires require either genuine conflict exhaustion or ongoing enforcement mechanisms (pp. 89-93). Trump’s personal prestige as agreement guarantor proves insufficient when material conflicts—like the colonial border dispute—remain unresolved. This pattern, recurring across Trump’s various peace initiatives (India-Pakistan, Azerbaijan-Armenia, etc.), suggests what political scientist Kenneth Waltz (1979) called “structural” constraints: even great powers cannot easily overcome local antagonisms through mere diplomatic theater (p. 88).

Policy-wise, the U.S. government shutdown—lasting 40 days (The Economist, November 11, 2025)—exemplifies gridlock, with Democrats yielding on health-care credits. This associates with Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) How Democracies Die, warning of partisan erosion undermining governance, as seen in aviation woes (Monocle, November 6, 2025), where privatization is floated as a fix amid federal unreliability. Globally, Trump’s Nobel-nominated peacemaking falters, with Thailand suspending its Cambodia deal (Newsweek, November 11, 2025), highlighting policy’s performative nature—echoing Mearsheimer’s (2014) realist critique in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, where deals mask power imbalances.

Climate policy at COP30 (Newsweek, November 7, 2025) shows waning urgency, with “cooling panic” despite record heat, interrelated with economic shifts like Gulf states’ AI pivots (CNBC, November 12, 2025). This evokes Oreskes and Conway’s (2010) Merchants of Doubt, on manufactured skepticism delaying action, while Singapore’s green-fuel tax (The Economist, November 11, 2025) exemplifies proactive policy amid global inertia.

Cultural policies, like Oman’s “slow growth” (Monocle, November 11, 2025), interrelate with economic diversification, drawing from Sen’s (1999) Development as Freedom, where sustainable paths enhance human capabilities over spectacle.

The coverage of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, arrives as US President Trump announces he will not attend, while simultaneously negotiating deals to lower the cost of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs—a fitting metaphor for our moment. The newsletter’s observation that “the vibes at COP conferences resemble those of a middle-school cafeteria” captures the performative aspect of international climate diplomacy.

This moment echoes Naomi Klein’s warning in On Fire that “climate change is not a discrete issue with a technical solution. It is a civilizational wake-up call” (Klein, 2019, p. 14). The United States’ absence from COP30 while continuing to subsidize fossil fuel consumption exemplifies what political scientist David Victor (2011) describes as the “inevitability of failure” in global climate governance—where national interests consistently undermine collective action.

The juxtaposition of climate policy with the NEOM project in Saudi Arabia reveals competing visions of the future. While COP30 grapples with immediate climate mitigation, Saudi Arabia pursues a “linear city taller than the Empire State building” that the Financial Times describes as “undone by the laws of physics and finance.” This tension between visionary utopianism and pragmatic incrementalism recalls philosopher Karl Popper’s distinction between “utopian social engineering” and “piecemeal social engineering” (Popper, 1945/2013), with the latter offering more realistic pathways to progress.

The dramatic volatility in AI-related stocks—the sector’s steep losses in early November followed by Monday’s rebounds—reflects what economist Hyman Minsky (1986) termed “euphoric markets” transitioning toward instability (p. 232). The concerns about Palantir, trading at “137 times its sales over the past 12 months,” and broader questions about whether AI represents a bubble, recall economist Robert Shiller’s (2000) analysis of “irrational exuberance”: asset prices detached from fundamental values through narrative-driven speculation (p. 3).

Yet the situation is more complex than simple bubble dynamics. As Carlota Perez (2002) argues in “Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital,” new technological paradigms consistently generate speculative frenzies that both overshoot and enable genuine transformation (pp. 65-89). The challenge lies in distinguishing between productive investment in transformative technology and speculative excess—a distinction impossible to make in real time. The $380 billion that Microsoft, Alphabet, and other tech giants are spending on AI infrastructure this year represents either visionary investment or catastrophic misallocation, depending on whether AI capabilities advance as projected.

The debate between Microsoft’s Mustafa Suleyman advocating “humanist superintelligence” (prioritizing human control over maximum capability) and OpenAI’s trajectory toward artificial general intelligence reflects a deeper philosophical divide. Philosopher Nick Bostrom’s (2014) “Superintelligence” outlined scenarios where advanced AI misaligned with human values poses existential risks (pp. 90-113). Suleyman’s position—that sacrificing some capability for controllability is prudent—follows what Bostrom terms the “differential technological development” strategy: slowing dangerous capabilities while advancing safety measures (p. 246).

Yet as technology critic Evgeny Morozov (2013) argues in “To Save Everything, Click Here,” framing technological development as neutral tool responding to human choices obscures how technologies embed values and reshape possibilities (pp. 5-8). The $1 trillion that SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son promises to pour into OpenAI, funded partly by selling Nvidia shares, demonstrates what financial theorist Hyun Song Shin (2010) calls “risk-taking channel”: low interest rates and abundant liquidity enabling speculative investments that might otherwise seem imprudent (p. 89).

The jobs data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas showing October’s tech sector layoffs at 33,281—nearly six times September’s figure—reveals AI’s paradox: workers developing the technology face redundancy from it. This recalls economist John Maynard Keynes’s (1930/2010) prediction of “technological unemployment” as a “temporary phase of maladjustment” (p. 3). But as economic historian Robert Allen (2009) demonstrates, whether technological displacement proves temporary or permanent depends on institutional arrangements for distributing productivity gains—historically anything but automatic (pp. 234-256).

The BHV–Shein episode (Shein’s shop-in-shop, street protests, and a governmental threat of banishment) crystallizes a cultural-economic contradiction: cheap, hyper-fast consumption systems generate enormous demand and urban footfall but simultaneously provoke legitimacy crises over legality, labor, and cultural fit (Monocle briefings).

Two interpretive registers matter. The first is political economy: cheap-fashion’s model — enormous SKU turnover, offshore production, algorithmic demand capture — externalizes environmental and labor costs while internalizing speed and low price (Cline, 2012). The second is symbolic: national or municipal brands (BHV) trade reputational capital for footfall. This Faustian bargain calls to mind Jean-Noël Kapferer’s account of luxury and authenticity: brand value depends on credible narratives of scarcity, craft and provenance; a sudden association with massified global supply chains risks eroding that narrativity (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009). Monocle captures both registers: merchants pull stock, politicians threaten bans, and the public stages a ritual contest over what it means for an icon to host the very form of commerce that seems to undermine its cultural authority.

From a policy standpoint, the episode illustrates the limits of voluntary governance: reputational sanctions can be fast (brands pulling product), but law and enforcement must catch up if duties of care — product safety, compliance, labour transparency — are to be upheld without resorting to blunt bans that invite political theatre (Cline, 2012; Farrell & Newman, 2019).

The BBC crisis—Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness resigning over selective editing of Trump’s January 6 speech—exemplifies what philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1989) termed the “structural transformation of the public sphere”: the corruption of rational-critical discourse by partisan imperatives (p. 175). The controversy wasn’t that BBC reporting was false—Trump did incite the Capitol attack regardless of whether he said “peacefully” at some point—but that selective editing betrayed institutional credibility.

Semafor’s observation that “American broadcasters and news organizations expect pushback from the president” and thus “button up their reporting” when covering Trump suggests a troubling dynamic: journalism adapting to authoritarian pressure through anticipatory compliance. Political scientist Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (2018) identify this as characteristic of democratic backsliding, where institutions preemptively accommodate autocratic tendencies rather than resisting them (p. 8). The BBC’s particular vulnerability—as a public broadcaster dependent on government-set license fees and facing charter renewal—illustrates what media scholar Robert McChesney (2015) calls the “structural weakness” of public media in neoliberal contexts (p. 134).

Trump’s threat to sue BBC for $1 billion raises the specter of what legal scholar Cass Sunstein (2009) terms “chilling effects”: the deterrence of legitimate journalism through litigation threats that prove costly even when ultimately unsuccessful (p. 45). The fact that one of Trump’s lawyers made the threat, with all the resources of the presidency behind it, against an institution already weakened by internal crisis and external pressure, demonstrates the asymmetric warfare between politicians and media that characterizes contemporary information conflict.

The broader context—described in Semafor Media as “ten years into covering Donald Trump... American news media organizations seem to have mostly figured out how to cover Donald Trump”—suggests exhausted adaptation rather than principled resistance. When the lesson learned is merely “button up” reporting to avoid accusations of bias, journalism approaches what communication theorist Michael Schudson (1978) called “thinness”: technically accurate but substantively evasive reporting that avoids antagonizing power (p. 198).

Culturally, the snippets celebrate hybridity: Belém’s brega as COP30’s “real stars” (Monocle, November 7, 2025) blends funk and calypso, associative with Bhabha’s (1994) The Location of Culture on hybrid spaces challenging colonial legacies. Nostalgia permeates French heritage brands (Monocle, November 12, 2025), warning against archival fixation, echoing Eco’s (1986) Travels in Hyperreality, where simulacra supplant innovation.

Literature and media revive: Monocle‘s nods to Popeye magazine and Wetlands books (Monocle, November 7 and 11, 2025) highlight cultural production amid crises, resonant with Adorno and Horkheimer’s (1944/2002) “culture industry” critique, yet offering resistance. Philosophically, Tanzania’s internet shutdown (Monocle, November 10, 2025) evokes Habermas’s (1989) public sphere, where digital detoxes fracture discourse.

Interrelations abound: cultural revivals like brega soften policy failures at COP30, while economic AI booms fuel cultural imposters in family offices (CNBC, November 12, 2025), linking wealth to identity fraud.

The Open Access Blogs is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe

Japan’s deployment of military forces to Akita Prefecture for bear culling offers a darkly emblematic image of demographic transition’s consequences. As rural depopulation advances—part of what demographer Nicholas Eberstadt (2019) calls the “global fertility collapse”—bears reclaim territory that humans can no longer defend (p. 12). The shortage of hunters reflects both population aging and the loss of rural skills as traditional ways of life dissolve.

This scenario recalls anthropologist Anna Tsing’s (2015) concept in “The Mushroom at the End of the World”: the “ruins” left by capitalist extraction become sites where non-human life flourishes in unexpected ways (p. 6). Japan’s abandoned villages and forests, no longer economically productive, revert to wildness—but a wildness that threatens remaining human settlements. The 100+ bear attacks and 12 deaths in 2025 represent what political theorist Jane Bennett (2010) terms “vibrant matter”: the agency of non-human forces that refuse accommodation to human plans (p. 2).

The Economist’s coverage of what it terms “the great relationship recession” connects to this demographic story. As singlehood rises globally—driven by economic precarity, changing gender relations, and what sociologist Eva Illouz (2012) terms the “commodification of intimacy”—fundamental assumptions about social reproduction collapse (p. 87). The fact that China celebrates Singles’ Day (11/11) as its largest shopping festival rather than mourning relationship decline speaks to capitalism’s capacity for metabolizing dissolution into consumption opportunity.

Yet as demographer Wolfgang Lutz (2017) argues, fertility decline represents women’s empowerment and increased human capital investment rather than social pathology (p. 456). The question is whether economic and political systems designed around population growth can adapt to stable or declining populations without catastrophic disruption. Japan’s experience—three decades of stagnation, mounting debt, and spatial shrinkage—offers one cautionary model, though recent data suggest some adaptation success.

Monocle’s feature on Oman positions “slow” urbanism — measured densification, preservation of low-rise skylines, human-scale projects — as an intentional policy alternative to Gulf spectacle (Nagy, Monocle).

This casts an instructive theoretical contrast to the megaproject ethos. Jane Jacobs emphasized the social life of cities and the importance of incremental, organic urbanism for resilience and civic vibrancy (Jacobs, 1961). Conversely, megaprojects often presuppose speculative returns and performative modernity. Oman’s Vision 2040 gamble is interesting because it reasserts place-based values in the face of competitive urban spectacle — a reminder that urban strategy is also a strategy of identity and selective scarcity (Jacobs, 1961; Schumacher, 1973).

The policy implication is not conservatism per se but a political economy question about path dependency: can a polity reliant on resource rents credibly underwrite low-growth urbanism that prioritizes social capital over tourist spectacle? Monocle’s reporting suggests the experiment is fragile — and that investors will test the limits of restraint.

Socially, the snippets reveal fractures in cohesion, from protests against Shein’s Paris store (Monocle, November 6, 2025) to Gen Z uprisings questioning post-revolutionary change (Newsweek, November 12, 2025). The Shein controversy—protesters decrying a “Faustian pact” with fast fashion—highlights globalization’s human costs, associative with Klein’s (2007) The Shock Doctrine, which critiques how neoliberalism exploits crises to entrench exploitative labor. In Belém, Monocle‘s spotlight on brega divas like Joelma amid COP30 (Monocle, November 7, 2025) explores cultural resistance in marginalized spaces, echoing Gilroy’s (1993) The Black Atlantic on hybrid identities as subversive tools against hegemonic narratives.

Migrations and displacements underscore social vulnerabilities: Newsweek‘s reports on bear attacks in depopulated Japan (November 12, 2025) symbolize human retreat from rural areas, linking to Davis’s (2006) Planet of Slums, where urbanization displaces populations, fostering environmental conflicts. Interrelatedly, The Economist‘s notes on Iraq’s election amid fragile calm (November 11, 2025) and Pakistan’s “state of war” (November 6, 2025) reveal how political instability breeds social fragmentation, resonant with Appadurai’s (1996) Modernity at Large, where global flows intensify ethnic tensions.

Policy responses, like U.S. shutdown resolutions (The Economist, November 11, 2025), interlink with social welfare: furloughed workers’ back pay offers temporary relief, but prolonged disruptions erode trust, as Fukuyama (2018) argues in Identity, where institutional failures fuel identity-based divisions.

The US government shutdown reaching 40+ days before resolution, with food stamps cut, flights cancelled, and economic data suspended, reveals institutional dysfunction at a scale that would have seemed unthinkable in earlier eras. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama (2014) termed this “political decay”: the mismatch between institutions designed for 18th-century conditions and 21st-century challenges (p. 5). The specific dispute—over healthcare subsidies and Affordable Care Act funding—masks deeper conflicts about governance capacity and legitimacy.

The shutdown’s economic toll, estimated at $15 billion weekly, illustrates what economist Douglass North (1990) called “institutional inefficiency”: the costs imposed when political systems cannot perform basic functions (p. 88). Jerome Powell’s metaphor—”if you’re driving in the fog, you slow down”—captured the uncertainty created when official economic data disappeared. Yet the fog was artificial, created by political choice rather than epistemic limitation.

The resolution, when it finally emerged, came through Democratic capitulation rather than Republican concession, despite public opinion favoring Democrats. This pattern—where Democrats negotiate from positions of apparent strength only to fold—reflects what political scientist Jacob Hacker (2019) terms “asymmetric polarization”: Republicans willing to risk systemic breakdown in ways Democrats consistently aren’t (p. 178). The guarantee of a vote on healthcare subsidy extension proved insufficient to satisfy progressive Democrats, creating party division at the moment of apparent victory.

Monocle’s short on the US Army’s recruitment success traces the institutional importation of advertising practice into statecraft: a $4bn contract and corporate marketing logic are redeploying “best practices” from the private sector into public enlistment (Monocle).

This development should cause little surprise given neoliberal normalisation of market logics across the public sphere; yet it raises normative questions about the commodification of civic duties and the privatized shaping of consent. Scholars have traced how neoliberal governance uses branding and affect to make public institutions legible as consumer choices (Brown, 2015). The Monocle item illustrates that the state increasingly speaks in the idiom of the marketplace, with attendant implications for citizenship, consent, and recruitment ethics (Monocle).

Exploratively, these dimensions interweave into a tapestry of precarity: economic tariffs fuel social protests, policy shutdowns erode cultural trust, and AI’s cultural allure masks economic inequality. Associatively, this recalls Camus’s (1942/1955) The Myth of Sisyphus, where absurd repetitions—like recurring shutdowns or AI bubbles—demand defiant creativity, as in Oman’s restraint or Belém’s divas.

Yet, possibility glimmers: climate “cooling panic” might foster pragmatic policies, per Latour’s (2018) Down to Earth, grounding globalism in local realities. Ultimately, these snippets invite reflection on Arendt’s (1958) The Human Condition, urging action amid vita activa’s erosion by economic instrumentalism.

In sum, this 2025 vista, though speculative, probes enduring tensions, urging interdisciplinary synthesis for resilient futures.

Reading the snippets together yields a composite diagnosis: contemporary governance contends with chronic temporal dissonance. Political bodies (national governments, heritage institutions, urban planners) are forced to manage short-term crises (shutdowns, scandals), long horizons (climate, urban transformation), and cultural rhythms (local festivals, craft cycles). The newsletter’s vignettes dramatize how different social actors — brands, states, technocrats, designers, protestors — co-produce the public sphere’s meaning.

Three conceptual anchors might help to orient policy responses:

Polycentric institutionalism (Ostrom, 1990). Many of the newsletter’s failures and experiments point to the need for nested, accountable governance that links local knowledge to regional and global finance (air traffic, climate, urban development).

Reclaiming the temporal politics (Jacobs, 1961; Schumacher, 1973). Cities and cultures that succeed in the long run are those that align economic strategy with lived rhythms and social reproduction rather than theatrical acceleration.

A political economy of legitimacy (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009; Cline, 2012). Whether in luxury, retail, or military enlistment, institutions that ignore the moral economy of their publics risk reputational crises that law alone cannot heal.

Reading these newsletter fragments collectively—spanning art auctions and AI valuations, climate conferences and military deployments, demographic decline and political upheaval—reveals a world characterized not by stability with occasional disruption but by perpetual turbulence as baseline condition. What sociologist Hartmut Rosa (2013) terms “social acceleration” has reached a threshold where events outpace sense-making capacity (p. 74). The newsletter format itself—daily digests of discrete items, each demanding attention but none offering resolution—embodies this temporal structure.

Yet patterns emerge from the chaos. The financialization of everything—from art and agriculture to relationships and carbon—suggests capitalism’s tendency toward what geographer David Harvey (2003) calls “accumulation by dispossession”: the conversion of previously non-commodified domains into exchange values (p. 149). The simultaneous centralization and fragmentation of power—tech monopolies alongside state dysfunction, billionaire influence amid democratic forms—reflects what political theorist Sheldon Wolin (2008) termed “inverted totalitarianism”: managed democracy where corporate power supersedes political sovereignty (p. 44).

The climate catastrophe proceeding amid declining public concern; artificial intelligence simultaneously promising salvation and threatening displacement; infrastructure crumbling while wealth concentrates—these are not separate crises but aspects of a single transformation. What that transformation means, whether it’s sustainable, what comes after—these questions remain radically open. The newsletters can only chronicle the present’s disintegration; synthesizing its fragments into coherent narrative exceeds their remit and perhaps ours.

The 19th century French poet Charles Baudelaire (1863/1964) wrote in “The Painter of Modern Life” about modernity as “the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent” (p. 13). Reading newsletters in 2025, one confronts modernity’s acceleration beyond even Baudelaire’s imagination—ephemera so fleeting that yesterday’s catastrophe becomes today’s forgotten headline. Yet the task remains what it was: to extract from the transient some durable understanding, to discern in the flux of events some pattern that might orient action. Whether such understanding remains possible amid such velocity is perhaps the question underlying all others.

These newsletters capture a world in transition, where the threads of technology, climate, culture, and governance form an intricate tapestry. The juxtaposition of Shein’s controversial Paris store opening with Oman’s architectural innovations, the contrast between AI stock valuations and consumer sentiment declines, the tension between COP30 aspirations and domestic political realities—all suggest a reality where contradictions coexist.

As philosopher Walter Benjamin (1940/2007) presciently observed, “[t]here is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism” (p. 246). The newsletters document both our aspirations and our failures, our connective technologies and our fragmenting societies.

In this context, the most hopeful elements may be those that recognize interdependence—Bratislava’s civic dialogue space, the cultural specificity of Belém’s musical celebrations, even the pragmatic trade accommodations between the US and China. These represent what environmental philosopher Timothy Morton (2017) calls “the ecological thought”—the recognition that “all beings are interconnected in a mesh of relations” (p. 11).

Perhaps the ultimate lesson is that progress cannot be technologically determined while socially neglected. As economist E.F. Schumacher (1973) wisely noted decades ago, “[t]echnology is not the problem; the problem is the attitude toward technology” (p. 23). Our future depends not on which AI system becomes dominant or which megaproject captures imaginations, but on whether we can develop systems of governance, economics, and culture that honor both human dignity and planetary boundaries.

In the interstices between these newsletter fragments, we glimpse not just our present moment but the contours of possible futures—some more hopeful than others. It is in these spaces that our collective choices will determine whether we navigate toward resilience or collapse, connection or fragmentation, abundance or scarcity.

Share

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1944)

Agnew, J. (2005). Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Allen, R. C. (2009). The British industrial revolution in global perspective. Cambridge University Press.

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

Appadurai, A. (2015). Banking on words: The failure of language in the age of derivative finance. University of Chicago Press.

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

Bacevich, A. J. (2010). Washington rules: America’s path to permanent war. Metropolitan Books.

Baudelaire, C. (1964). The painter of modern life. In The painter of modern life and other essays (J. Mayne, Trans., pp. 1-40). Phaidon Press. (Original work published 1863)

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

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

Benjamin, W. (2007). Theses on the philosophy of history. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans., pp. 245-255). Schocken Books. (Original work published 1940)

Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.

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

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.

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

Bourdieu, P. (1994). Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 1-18.

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

Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1942)

Chatterjee, E. (2022). The watt and the warrant: The state, the grid, and the energy transition in India. Princeton University Press.

Cline, E. L. (2012). Overdressed: The shockingly high cost of cheap fashion. Portfolio/Penguin.

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

Eberstadt, N. (2019). With great demographics comes great power. Foreign Affairs, 98(4), 146-154.

Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyperreality (W. Weaver, Trans.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

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

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

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

Flyvbjerg, B. (2017). The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.

Fortna, V. P. (2008). Does peacekeeping work? Shaping belligerents’ choices after civil war. Princeton University Press.

Fraser, N. (2017). The end of progressive neoliberalism. Dissent, 64(2), 130-134.

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

Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gilroy, P. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness. Harvard University Press.

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. Penguin Press.

Graeber, D. (2015). The utopia of rules: On technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy. Melville House.

Grandin, G. (2007). Empire’s workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the making of an imperial republic. Metropolitan Books.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press.

Hacker, J. S. (2019). The great risk shift: The new economic insecurity and the decline of the American dream (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.

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

Harvey, D. (2006). The limits to capital. Verso.

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

Haskel, J., & Westlake, S. (2017). Capitalism without capital: The rise of the intangible economy. Princeton University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans., pp. 3–35). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1954)

Hickey, D. (2012). The invisible dragon: Essays on beauty. University of Chicago Press.

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

Illouz, E. (2012). Why love hurts: A sociological explanation. Polity Press.

IPCC. (2023). Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) — Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Iyer, P. (2014). The art of stillness: Adventures in going nowhere. Vintage.

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

Kapferer, J.-N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing to build luxury brands. Kogan Page.

Keynes, J. M. (2010). Economic possibilities for our grandchildren. In Essays in persuasion (pp. 321-332). Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1930)

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

Klein, N. (2019). On fire: The burning case for a Green New Deal. Simon & Schuster.

Lanier, J. (2018). Dawn of the new everything: Encounters with reality and virtual reality. Henry Holt.

Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth: Politics in the new climatic regime (C. Porter, Trans.). Polity Press.

Lee, P. M. (2012). Forgetting the art world. MIT Press.

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

Lutz, W. (2017). How population change changes everything. Population Studies, 71(S1), S1-S13.

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Anthem Press.

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

McChesney, R. W. (2015). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. The New Press.

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

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

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

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

Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press.

Morton, T. (2017). Humankind: Solidarity with nonhuman people. Verso.

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. Verso.

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

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and civilization. Harcourt, Brace and Company.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University 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.

Pettis, M. (2013). The great rebalancing: Trade, conflict, and the perilous road ahead for the world economy. Princeton University Press.

Popper, K. (2013). The open society and its enemies (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1945)

Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton University Press.

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

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

Schmitt, C. (2003). The nomos of the earth in the international law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum (G. L. Ulmen, Trans.). Telos Press. (Original work published 1950)

Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. Basic Books.

Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. Harper & Row.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1976). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (3rd ed.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1942)

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Knopf.

Shiller, R. J. (2000). Irrational exuberance. Princeton University Press.

Shin, H. S. (2010). Risk and liquidity. Oxford University Press.

Starr, P. (1987). The limits of privatization. In S. H. Hanke (Ed.), Prospects for privatization (pp. 124-137). Academy of Political Science.

Stiegler, B. (2010). For a new critique of political economy (D. Ross, Trans.). Polity Press.

Sunstein, C. R. (2009). On rumors: How falsehoods spread, why we believe them, what can be done. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Teles, S. M. (2013). Kludgeocracy in America. National Affairs, 17, 97-114.

Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge University Press.

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

Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. Macmillan.

Veblen, T. (1904). The theory of business enterprise. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Victor, D. G. (2011). Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge University Press.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.

Wolin, S. S. (2008). Democracy incorporated: Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton University Press.

Yergin, D. (2020). The new map: Energy, climate, and the clash of nations. Penguin Press.

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

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (November 14, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (November 14, 2025).]

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

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (November 14, 2025). The Velocity of Fragmentation: Polycentric institutionalism, Temporal Politics, and the Political Economy of Legitimacy. Open Culture.