Saturday, July 25, 2026

The Tiger Eats Its Keeper: On Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab States, and the Empire That Trained Its Own Executioner



Photograph: a man walks a tiger through Dubai.

The Tiger Eats Its Keeper: On Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab States, and the Empire That Trained Its Own Executioner 

By Sirantos Fotopoulos

7-25-26

 

In October of 2003, on a stage in Las Vegas built entirely on the proposition that a man could tame the untamable, a seven-year-old white tiger named Montecore closed his jaws around the throat of Roy Horn and dragged him into the dark behind the curtain. The show was called Siegfried and Roy, and for fourteen years it grossed 45 million dollars annually. For fourteen years it had grossed that sum on the premise that domination over a wild animal could be permanent, choreographed, and safe for a paying audience of 1,500 people a night. Horn had never once been so much as scratched during those fourteen years. He had built an empire of spectacle on the back of an animal whose nature he believed he had rewritten through decades of proximity and control. The tiger, as it turned out, harbored other ideas entirely. Whether Montecore was attacking Horn or dragging him toward what the tiger perceived as safety remains disputed to the present day, and it hardly matters at all. The point stands regardless of the animal's intention that night. The thing you cage never stops being what it always was underneath. It waits for the moment the choreography slips.

 

Six thousand miles east of that stage sits a kingdom that has spent fifty years perfecting an identical act. Saudi Arabia caged the hydrocarbon economy and called the performance modernization. It caged its own population and called the performance stability. It caged the international community's dependency on its oil and called the performance leverage. Mohammed bin Salman inherited the act from his father's generation and decided the trick needed bigger cats. He commissioned skyscrapers that mirror the sky for 106 miles. He commissioned floating opera houses and coral-reef ski resorts and a cube in Riyadh eight times the volume of the Empire State Building. He called the whole apparatus Vision 2030, and he staged it as a spectacle for an audience that included sovereign wealth funds, Formula One executives, LIV Golf players, and the credulous business press of three continents. The kingdom trained its zoo in public for a decade. This summer of 2026 is teaching a captive audience what happens when the animal remembers what it is.

 

A state built atop a single subterranean commodity finds itself with barely any structural need to develop the institutions that broad-based production requires. It needs barely any educated workforce beyond the technicians who run the wells. It needs barely any independent judiciary to adjudicate contracts between competing domestic industries because competing domestic industries scarcely exist. It needs barely any representative political settlement because the revenue arrives from beneath the ground rather than from the taxed labor of citizens who might, in exchange for taxation, demand a voice. Political economists have documented that pattern across a hundred years of extractive economies on every continent that has produced a single dominant export commodity, and the pattern reads the same everywhere, a state grows immensely rich and immensely brittle at the same time, rich in the commodity and brittle in every institution that would let it survive the commodity's decline. Saudi Arabia stands as the purest specimen of that pathology ever produced, because the Saud family faced no colonial metropole extracting the surplus abroad, no foreign administrator skimming the revenue before it reached Riyadh. The family kept the entire sum for itself and built the cage with its own hands, bar by bar, palace by palace, out of money that arrived from beneath the sand rather than from the labor of anyone the family needed to answer to.

 

Consider what the tamer actually trains when he trains a tiger to sit, to roar on command, to allow a man to place his head inside its jaws for a paying crowd. He trains a suppression of instinct so total that the animal appears to have forgotten it is a predator. The training itself never actually removes the instinct underneath. It merely buries the instinct beneath thousands of repetitions until the audience, and eventually the trainer himself, mistakes suppression for genuine transformation. Fifty years of oil wealth performed the identical function on a captive population inside Saudi Arabia's own borders. Subsidized fuel arrived as the first sedative dose. 

 

Free education arrived next, offered without any accompanying labor market capable of absorbing the graduates it produced. Public sector employment came bundled as a bribe for political silence rather than as genuinely productive work. Zero income tax got framed as generosity, functioning instead as a mechanism to sever the link between taxation and representation that every modern parliamentary tradition on Earth was built upon. A population sedated for two generations mistakes its own sedation for contentment, exactly as an audience watching a tiger balance on a ball mistakes the animal's suppressed instinct for genuine tameness. The instinct waits patiently beneath both the tiger and the citizen. 

 

The cage worked exactly as designed for seventy years running. Oil was discovered beneath the peninsula in 1938. Aramco was nationalized in stages across the years between 1973 and 1980. A state apparatus constructed around the principle that legitimacy could be purchased directly, cash for quiescence, subsidized fuel and public sector employment in exchange for a population unlikely to ask who governed it or how. The theorists of rentier statehood have a name for that bargain and it survives contact with any Riyadh taxi driver's daily routine. What the bargain never managed to solve, what it remained structurally incapable of solving, was the question of what happens when the oil well runs less profitable than the ambition built on top of it. Every ruling family in the Gulf has understood that question was coming since the 1970s. Mohammed bin Salman's answer was Vision 2030, unveiled in 2016, a program to diversify the economy away from oil before oil diversified away from Saudi Arabia. The tragedy, and it stands as a tragedy in the technical sense, is that the plan to escape the resource curse was itself financed entirely by the resource, staffed entirely by a state apparatus capable of nothing beyond extraction logic, and imagined entirely as spectacle rather than production. The kingdom tried to out-build its way out of a rentier trap using rentier money and rentier methods. It amounts to Roy Horn training a bigger tiger to solve the problem of the first tiger.

 

Consider what that spectacle has become in recent years. NEOM, the flagship, the 500-billion-dollar centerpiece of the entire Vision 2030 architecture, has been gutted from the inside by its own directors. The Line, promised as a 106-mile mirrored city housing nine million residents in a car-free linear utopia, sits suspended on all substantial new work until after 2030, the very year the whole program was named for. Population targets for the broader NEOM zone, once set at 1.5 million residents by decade's end, were quietly cut to 300,000 two years ago and now sit at a mere 100,000, a reduction of roughly 93 percent from the original promise made to the world's business press in 2021. Trojena, the mountain resort engineered to host the 2029 Asian Winter Games in a country whose average summer temperature exceeds 113 degrees Fahrenheit, will see zero further investment until after 2030 either, and the Games themselves were postponed indefinitely in January. The Mukaab, a colossal cuboid skyscraper planned for Riyadh, sits cancelled outright. Contracts for tunneling and dam construction awarded to a South Korean consortium and to the Italian contractor Webuild were terminated in March. Saudi Arabia now faces roughly 16 billion dollars in termination and cancellation penalties simply for having promised things it lacked the capacity to build.

 

None of the foregoing happens in isolation from politics. The Iran war that erupted this year amounted to far more than a coincidence alongside the unraveling of Vision 2030. It accelerated the unraveling and exposed the fiction beneath it. Commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz collapsed by more than 90 percent after the outbreak of hostilities. Iranian strikes on March 1 sent smoke over Jebel Ali port in Dubai while yachts fled the harbor on camera, the exact tableau of a Gulf luxury economy discovering in real time that luxury requires peace and peace was guaranteed by absolutely nobody. Qatar's Ras Laffan liquefied natural gas facility took a direct hit, cutting the country's LNG export capacity by nearly 17 percent for the next three to five years, a wound to a state whose government draws 80 percent of its revenue from that single gas field. Data centers in the UAE and Bahrain sustained damage severe enough that Amazon Web Services listed 31 disrupted services and told enterprise customers to migrate their operations elsewhere, an admission that the Gulf's bid to become the world's cloud-computing backbone had run directly into the region's oldest vulnerability, a war zone sitting beside a hostile neighbor across a 21-mile strait.

 

The tourism numbers alone tell the story of an empire's underlying fragility better than any position paper produced by a Gulf sovereign wealth fund's public relations office. In 2025, tourism contributed 178 billion dollars to Saudi Arabia's GDP, 70 billion to the UAE, 16 billion to Qatar. Those figures represented the entire non-oil diversification thesis given a dollar sign. Then came the first quarter of 2026 and arrivals across the Middle East fell by roughly 14 percent year on year, a decline the World Travel and Tourism Council estimated was costing the region's travel industry up to 600 million dollars per day at its peak. Forecasting models from Oxford Economics, published as the conflict intensified, showed a range running from an 11 percent contraction under a short conflict scenario to a 27 percent collapse should hostilities grind on for two months, with Gulf Cooperation Council states specifically facing a swing from an anticipated 8 percent expansion into a possible 26 percent decline. German cruise passengers found themselves stranded in the Persian Gulf while the strait sat closed to everything but vessels with Chinese or Russian ties. Hotels in the UAE and Qatar were forced to comp meals and rooms for travelers unable to leave. A region that spent fifteen years marketing itself to Europe and North America as a stable oasis discovered that stability, once it becomes a luxury product rather than a governing fact, evaporates the moment a missile lands within view of a five-star infinity pool.

 

The fiscal mathematics underneath the spectacle prove worse than the spectacle itself admits. Saudi Arabia's central government budget assumes a fiscal break-even oil price near 87 dollars a barrel. Once the full weight of Public Investment Fund obligations gets folded in, obligations to NEOM, to the Diriyah Gate heritage project, to a development package extended to Pakistan, to international bond service, the consolidated break-even climbs past 108 dollars a barrel by Bloomberg Economics' own accounting. Saudi output in April ran 3.4 million barrels per day below the OPEC+ quota, a gap the Hormuz disruption and damage to Eastern Province infrastructure rendered functionally impossible to close. The kingdom's finance ministry budgeted a 44-billion-dollar deficit for the full year of 2026 and burned through 33.5 billion dollars of it, 76 percent of the annual target, in the first ninety days alone. The Public Investment Fund itself entered the war holding roughly 15 billion dollars in liquid cash, the lowest level since 2020, against a portfolio exceeding 930 billion dollars in total assets and a sprawling network of commitments running from Lucid Motors to Nintendo to the Saudi Pro Football League. 

 

Aramco, the fountain from which every other institution in the kingdom ultimately drinks, generated a mere 18.6 billion dollars in free cash flow during the first quarter against a mandated dividend obligation of 21.89 billion, forcing the company to raise its own gearing ratio by 26 percent in three months simply to keep paying the government and the fund that depends on it. Here stands zero diversified economy weathering a shock. Here stands a single-commodity state discovering that every diversification project it built functioned as a further liability denominated in the very commodity it aimed to replace.

 

Every tiger act needs a supporting cast the audience never watches, the animal handlers who feed the beast, clean the cage, and absorb the risk the star performer is paid millions to appear immune from. 

 

The Gulf built its entire spectacle economy on a supporting cast of its own, and the story of that cast is the story of the region's actual character, stripped of the marketing budget. Qatar imported roughly two million migrant workers, a labor force nearly ten times the size of its own citizenry, to build the stadiums, roads, hotels, and metro lines for the 2022 World Cup. The workers arrived under the kafala sponsorship system, a legal architecture inherited from the era of British colonial administration that ties a worker's visa, ability to change jobs, and right to leave the country entirely to the permission of a single private employer. 

 

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Trade Union Confederation spent a decade documenting the results, passport confiscation, unpaid wages stretching for months, dormitories built for a fraction of the men crammed into them, and outdoor construction shifts conducted through desert afternoons exceeding 122 degrees Fahrenheit with rest breaks and hydration access left to the discretion of foremen paid to hit deadlines rather than protect lives. 

 

A Guardian investigation published in February of 2021 tallied more than 6,500 deaths among migrant workers from five South Asian nations alone during the decade of Qatar's World Cup preparation, a majority of them recorded under the vague administrative category of natural causes, a classification human rights investigators have repeatedly argued conceals heat stroke and cardiac failure brought on by extreme occupational heat exposure rather than examining it. Qatar's own organizing committee has acknowledged between 400 and 500 deaths connected to World Cup construction specifically, and just 3 deaths it classifies as directly work related among 37 total fatalities on stadium sites, a gap between official accounting and independent investigation that itself constitutes a form of testimony. This tragedy describes a workforce which a wealthy nation imported, then enslaved, worked past the edge of human tolerance in furnace heat, killed off, and buried under paperwork engineered to avoid a count. FIFA's own commissioned report in 2024 concluded that football's governing body bears responsibility for compensating the people who survived.

 

Saudi Arabia has watched this entire spectacle unfold next door and drawn precisely the lesson one would expect from a monarchy immune to embarrassment. The kingdom is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup under the identical kafala architecture Qatar deployed, and Human Rights Watch's 2026 assessment finds migrant workers across Saudi employment sectors facing labor abuses that may amount to forced labor, with a large majority of migrant deaths still classified as natural and neither investigated nor compensated. Saudi authorities announced the formal end of kafala in mid-2025, a reform the kingdom's own state media promoted heavily to a Western audience already primed by NEOM's marketing department to believe in Saudi transformation, and yet the reform arrived alongside mass deportation sweeps that removed thousands of workers without due process and a labor penalty schedule that Amnesty International found had been quietly reduced for offenses including passport confiscation and denial of rest days. 

 

The kingdom executed at least 300 people in 2025, a figure surpassing every prior year on record and including at least two individuals convicted for crimes allegedly committed as children, along with a journalist put to death in June for the crime of speech. The same Public Investment Fund financing NEOM's cancelled towers finances the Saudi Pro Football League, LIV Golf, and a portfolio of global sporting and entertainment ventures that Human Rights Watch describes plainly as an instrument for laundering the kingdom's reputation abroad. 

 

The tiger act and the human rights record are the identical performance, staged for the identical audience, financed by the identical fund. Both depend on convincing spectators that the danger has been tamed. Neither one has actually removed a single tooth from the animal's jaw.

 

The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain complete the pattern rather than complicate it. The UAE's own construction and domestic labor sectors depend on a migrant population numbering in the millions, the overwhelming majority from South Asia and East Africa, working under labor conditions that United Nations special rapporteurs and international labor bodies have flagged for identical abuses, recruitment debts that function as indentured servitude before a single day's wage is earned, employer control over exit visas, and a judicial system offering migrant workers close to no independent recourse against an employer who withholds pay or confiscates documents. Every skyline photograph the Gulf uses to sell itself to Western tourists and investors, every mirrored tower and floating opera house and climate-controlled ski slope, rests on a foundation poured by men who arrived in debt, worked in furnace heat, and in thousands of documented cases never went home. The tiger performs the trick under bright lights for a paying crowd. The men who built the stage the tiger performs on are never once invited to take a bow.

 

The regional pattern of decline confirms the diagnosis rather than complicating it. The UAE's Masdar City, once marketed as the world's first zero-carbon city, has been quietly reduced to a modest neighborhood indistinguishable from a hundred other Abu Dhabi developments. Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar all logged double-digit tourism contractions in the same quarter Saudi Arabia did, because the entire Gulf built a single regional brand, safety, luxury, frictionless capital, on top of a single regional fault line that Iran demonstrated it could rupture whenever domestic politics in Tehran demanded a demonstration. Every Gulf monarchy spent the 2010s and early 2020s selling the same magic trick to the same audience of sovereign investors and international tourists, funded by the same underclass of imported labor stripped of the right to leave. Every one of them now watches the curtain fall on the same stage at the same moment, because the trick amounted to something other than a trick, it was a bet, and the bet assumed the region's oldest and most dangerous neighbor would remain permanently docile in exchange for nothing.

 

The energy question sits beneath the whole apparatus like the foundation beneath a mirrored skyscraper nobody finished building. Every serious projection of global decarbonization trajectories through mid-century assumes demand for Gulf hydrocarbons declines, gradually rather than catastrophically, but declines steadily enough that a petrostate needs three decades of disciplined reinvestment to convert oil rents into a durable, diversified successor economy. Saudi Arabia held that entire thirty-year runway in its hands. It spent the runway building a linear city nobody will live in at scale, a ski resort in a desert that regularly exceeds 122 degrees Fahrenheit, and a cube-shaped skyscraper it later cancelled outright. It spent the runway on spectacle rather than on the unglamorous, uncinematic work of building institutions capable of taxing, representing, and retaining a population once the oil money thinned. The war with Iran merely exposed a vulnerability decades in the making rather than creating one. The war simply arrived early enough, and violently enough, to make the vulnerability visible to everyone at once, tourists and bondholders and ratings agencies included, years before the kingdom's own internal projections expected the reckoning to land.

 

What happens next follows the logic of the tiger rather than the logic of the trainer. Montecore required zero decades of provocation before he acted. He required a single broken procedure, one moment where the choreography slipped and the animal's actual nature reasserted itself over the fiction imposed on top of it. The Gulf states have spent fifty years imposing an identical fiction on a region defined by resource scarcity, sectarian fracture, and a hostile theocratic neighbor across a 21-mile channel that carries a fifth of the world's oil supply. They called the fiction stability and sold it as a luxury good to European retirees and American private equity funds, financed by a workforce with no vote, no union, and in thousands of documented instances no path home. Iran's 2026 campaign supplied the broken procedure on the geopolitical stage. A sustained campaign of years proved unnecessary to make the point. A single public demonstration sufficed, cameras rolling on fleeing yachts and stranded German cruise passengers, to reveal that the barrier between the spectacle and the danger existed only in the marketing material.

 

Every absolute monarchy carries within its own design the seed of the exact contradiction now devouring the Gulf, and the contradiction runs deeper than a single war or a single cancelled skyscraper. A hereditary system of rule asks an entire population, citizen and migrant alike, to accept that political legitimacy descends from bloodline rather than consent, in a century when every surrounding current in global politics runs the opposite direction. Ordinary people the world over have spent the last decade plus demonstrating in the streets against exactly that proposition, that an accident of birth should determine who commands an army, controls a treasury, or decides which journalist gets executed and which dissident gets a decade in prison for a tweet. 

 

The Gulf monarchies have purchased forty years of insulation from that current using oil revenue as an anesthetic, spending lavishly enough on subsidized fuel and public housing and imported spectacle that the anesthetic occasionally resembled genuine legitimacy. Anesthetic always wears off eventually, no matter the dosage administered. Every population sedated by cash eventually confronts the arithmetic underneath the sedation, and the arithmetic in 2026 reads plainly: declining oil revenue, a collapsing tourism sector, a sovereign wealth fund scraping the bottom of its liquid reserves, and a flagship city that will never remotely resemble the promotional video that sold it to the world. A monarchy can survive indefinitely only if it can indefinitely fund the bribe that substitutes for consent. The moment the bribe shrinks, the population underneath it remembers what every subject of hereditary rule throughout history eventually remembers, that nobody consented to any of it in the first place.

 

A civilization built on caste, on a citizenry that rules by blood and a migrant underclass that dies in service of stadiums it will never sit inside, cannot simply modernize its way around the fact of its own foundation. You cannot mirror-glass a monarchy into a democracy. You cannot brand your way out of kafala. You cannot build enough floating opera houses to make an executed journalist stay executed only in the past tense rather than the present one. The world outside the Gulf's carefully lit promotional footage has spent the last two centuries dismantling precisely that arrangement everywhere the arrangement previously existed, monarchies falling to republics, empires falling to independence movements, colonial labor systems falling, however slowly and incompletely, to the minimum recognition that a human being amounts to something other than a fixture of infrastructure. The Gulf states are asking the twenty-first century to make an exception for them alone, on the theory that enough oil money and enough Formula One races and enough Messi appearance fees can suspend a historical current that has swallowed every comparable arrangement that came before it. History has never once granted that exception to anyone who asked nicely, and the reasoning behind why a hereditary petrostate financing its own executions with the same fund that finances its golf tour should expect to become the first exception remains conspicuously absent.

 

Mohammed bin Salman will likely survive the present season, propped up by American security guarantees, Chinese capital hungry for a foothold, and a domestic security apparatus with every rival center of power already purged after a decade of crackdowns dressed up as anti-corruption campaigns. But survival of the man differs entirely from survival of the project, and the project, rather than the individual, is what Vision 2030 asked the world to bet on. A monarchy that financed its escape from the resource curse by borrowing against the resource, that built its diversification thesis atop tourism and sports revenue evaporating at 14 percent a quarter and a sovereign fund down to 15 billion dollars in liquid cash, that built its stadiums and skylines atop a workforce numbering in the millions with no vote and, in thousands of documented cases, no way home, has demonstrated the one lesson every extractive empire eventually teaches its own ruling class free of charge. The zoo stays tame only for as long as nothing forces the question, and something, sooner or later, always does. 

 

Roy Horn spent forty-four years insisting he had rewritten a tiger's nature through proximity, discipline, and love. The tiger needed ninety seconds to correct him. The Gulf has had fifty years and several trillion dollars to rewrite the nature of its own economic, political, and moral foundations. Iran needed a single season of missiles to remind the region, and the bondholders now assessing the wreckage of NEOM's cancelled contracts, exactly how much of those fifty years amounted to theater and how much amounted to structure. History is already writing the same verdict about the caste system underneath the theater, one execution, one deportation sweep, one unmarked grave in a labor camp cemetery at a time. The stage lights remain switched on for now. The curtain hangs still short of falling all the way. But as the tiger walks, it remembers precisely what it is, a wild animal, and it has finally noticed that the men holding the whip were never as many, nor as strong, as the domestic crowd of the caged and the buried dead standing behind them. Soon, the tigers will break free.

Friday, July 24, 2026

Michael Roberts: AI and productivity

AI and productivity

Alphabet (Google) announced its earnings results yesterday.  At first sight, the results were spectacular: revenue was up 24%, with revenue from its ‘cloud’ business up 82%.  Earnings per share were $9.11, which is very high.  But more than two-thirds of those earnings were based on booking $77bn from ‘unrealised’ gains from its purchase of shares in Anthropic, a major AI model firm.  In other words, these ‘gains’ are just ‘on paper’ and depend on Anthropic shares staying up.  

Google is one of the so-called ‘hyperscalers’, the mega tech companies that are ploughing huge of amounts of funds into AI, hoping and expecting it to lead to a sharp rise in profits down the road.  Google’s investment in AI has pumped so much money into AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI and into data centres to run AI with expensive ‘chips’ made by Nvidia, that its huge cash revenues are no longer covering the cost of investment. ‘Free cash flow’, as it is called, went negative for the first time in Alphabet’s history.

Google is increasing its AI investment massively this year, like its rivals, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon, to build AI infrastructure, with the four hyperscalers combined on track to spend more than $725bn in 2026. Before Wednesday’s results, Google had been seen as the hyperscaler best placed to withstand the AI arms race, with cash flows from its vast search business expected to cushion the financial pressure. But now, its cash burn to fund AI capex will require raising debt and/or issuing equity shares. Alphabet has already taken on nearly $100bn in debt, and in June it moved to raise about $85bn in its first share sale in more than two decades.

All this tells us that the AI stock market ‘bubble’, and that is what it is, is getting closer to bursting. The hyperscalers are hugely profitable, based on their existing businesses, with current earnings about 59 per cent above trend.  But such is the size of the AI investment boom being conducted by these hyperscalers, that even these profits are being sucked into AI like water disappearing into the Sahara desert.

As argued in previous posts, the US economy is one big bet on AI.  The stock market value of the hyperscalers now accounts for roughly 40 per cent of the S&P 500’s total market capitalisation. If there is any sign that: first, they cannot sustain their current investment growth; and second, they are eating away their profits with no return on those AI investments, their stock values could turn south and take the whole stock market with them.

The US capitalist economy is balanced on the apex of AI.  All will be well if: first, the AI models become in heavy demand and start to be used across companies in the US and globally, thus boosting profitability for the hyperscalers and eventually the rest of the corporate sector.  Second, the generalised use of AI technology in all sectors of the economy also leads to a step change in the level of productivity, which can take the US economy into a new age of prosperity.

Before the advent of the AI boom, the US information technology had already become the driver of relatively faster economic growth in the US compared to the rest of the G7 economies during the Long Depression of the 2010s.

But in the 2010s, all the G7 economies, including the US, saw a slowdown in the growth of real GDP output, investment and productivity. Then, after the pandemic slump, inflation returned in most economies, threatening to introduce a new period of ‘stagflation’ (slow or no growth alongside faster and high inflation) not seen since the 1970s.  Now the Iran war is accelerating energy price inflation. Central bank monetary policy failed to get economies going in the 2010s with low or zero interest rates and monetary injections (quantitative easing).  And central bank monetary policy is failing to keep inflation from rising since 2020 using higher interest rates (ECB) and quantitative tightening (BoE).  That’s because the only way economies can grow without inflation rising is by increasing growth in the productivity of labour.

The new Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Reserve expects a productivity boom from AI.  Kevin Warsh says that “AI is perhaps the most significant change in our economy in my adult lifetime. AI will be a significant disinflationary force, increasing productivity and bolstering American competitiveness.”  He reckons that productivity improvements from AI would drive “significant increases in real take-home wages. A one-percentage-point increase in annual productivity growth would double standards of living within a single generation.”  He is right. Even just a 1% point rise in current US productivity growth over 20 years would not only keep inflation down, it would provide income and revenue that could end the deficits in government budgets, without raising taxes or making cuts in spending.  Public debt to GDP ratios would fall.

But will AI deliver this step change in productivity?  From 2005 through 2019, US productivity growth averaged about 1.5% per year. The pace remained similarly slow during and immediately after the pandemic (2020-2022).  But US labour productivity has accelerated since 2022. Output per hour grew around 2.5% per year from the end of 2022 to the start of 2026, exceeding its pre-pandemic pace by 1 percentage point.

So is AI delivering?  Most of the acceleration in labour productivity growth comes from faster growth of what mainstream economics calls total factor productivity (TFP). TFP is not something real that can be measured; it is just a mathematical residual from analysing the drivers of productivity growth. More workers working harder plus more machines working longer is what delivers most productivity from labour. TFP is the residual that is assumed to be from the impact of ‘innovation’ (eg AI).  

But the rise in US TFP is not yet the result of AI application in the economy.  According to economists at Barclays, AI adoption has been gradual and steady rather than rapid and transformative, with most households and businesses still reporting limited exposure to the technology. The rise in productivity growth since 2022 is really due to more intensive use of existing technology after the end of the pandemic, not the introduction of AI. 

How do we know this?  Well, Barclays economists looked at the St Louis Fed’s nationwide Real-time Population Survey (RPS) of working-age US adults. The most recent survey shows that, while AI has found its way into work routines for 45 per cent of respondents, the usage of AI in time is miniscule. Assuming an eight-hour workday, the average AI adopter has gone from roughly 20 minutes of usage in late 2024 to around 30 minutes by mid-year 2026, the RPS survey shows. And what’s not known is whether the workers are using their extra 2 per cent of work time per day to be more generally productive, or to verify and fix whatever the AI has produced, or to slack off!

Indeed, most surveys of AI adoption by companies show only modest progress. The US Census Bureau’s bi-weekly Business Trends and Outlook Survey shows just 21 per cent of businesses were knowingly using AI, 69 per cent reported no use, and 11 per cent weren’t sure either way! A Fed Board of Governors discussion paper finds that “productivity trends across all three levels have been relatively consistent over time, suggestive of micro-level productivity gains not adding up in aggregate.”   It seems that ‘micro-level’ experiments typically measure task-level productivity, like the speed that a programmer generates code, rather than job-level or firm-level output. A 10% improvement on a task does not necessarily lead to proportional gains for a firm if adjustment costs or other bottlenecks lie elsewhere in the production process and erode the upstream productivity gains.

By running a series of complicated regression analyses on RPS survey data, the US Fed found that no evidence that AI’s doing anything positive: correlations between industry-level adoption rates and improvements in productivity are “not statistically distinguishable from zero”, it says. Any observable improvement “largely reflects persistent differences across industries rather than a measurable acceleration in productivity growth attributable to AI”.

However, the AI optimists remain just that – optimistic. They refer to the ‘J-curve’ that the productivity impact of new technologies generally follow.  First, there is a slow, even negative, effect on productivity as companies invest heavily in the technology. And then the boom comes. Such a J-curve was seen in US manufacturing productivity growth, which fell in the mid-1980s and then, after the recession of 1991, accelerated sharply until the mid-2000s.

But even that optimistic view has its caveats. First, it seems that those workers exposed to AI are resisting its use. An April survey of 2,400 knowledge workers by AI firm Writer and Workplace Intelligence—both firms with commercial stakes in AI adoption — found the 29% of employees admit to actively sabotaging their company’s AI strategy. Among Gen Z (under 25) workers, that figure was 44%, up from 41% a year earlier. A separate WalkMe survey of executives and employees across 14 countries, conducted the same month, found that more than 54% of workers had bypassed their company’s AI tools in the past 30 days to do the work manually instead. The survey commissioners found that a “Fear of Becoming Obsolete” is driving much of this active and passive, and even passive aggressive resistance. Similarly, The Economist reported that AI usage among US workers, after an early spike, dipped as initial enthusiasm faded. 

In the early 19th century at the start of the industrial revolution in Britain, a group of skilled weavers tried to resist the introduction of machine weaving in the early 19thcentury by various means, including sabotaging and wrecking the machines. They were called Luddites. Now it seems that a form of Luddism has returned over AI. Just as the Luddites had a case about protecting their livelihoods, so do Gen Z workers now. 

The AI optimists, Stanford’s Erik Brynjolfsson and ADP Research, are tracking 4.6 million workers across more than 730 occupations through their Canaries Dashboard. They find that jobs for workers aged 22 to 25 in AI-exposed occupations are shrinking more than 4% annually.  Goldman Sachs analysis suggests information, professional services, insurance, and finance are best positioned for early productivity gains—but these are where the ‘sabotage’ surveys find the highest rates of resistance.

Goldman Sachs US economist Elsie Peng supports the J-curve thesis for AI.  Her study of industry technology adoption found a modest drag for the first four years, statistically significant gains only after eight, and a peak impact of roughly 0.6 percentage points in year 12. If ChatGPT’s 2022 launch is the equivalent of the PC’s 1981 debut, that J-curve puts the productivity payoff arriving around 2030 at the earliest, and peaking around 2034.  According to Peng’s analysis, significant labour productivity boosts from ICT didn’t show up until roughly 50% of businesses had adopted the technology. Not bought it, not piloted it. Actually adopted it into their core operations.

Peng’s ‘J curve’ echoes what the OECD’s economists argued some time ago, that transformative technologies historically take about 20 years from their breakthrough moment to deliver meaningful productivity gains at the macroeconomic level. If that pattern holds for generative AI, we’re looking at the early-to-mid 2030s or even later before the real payoff arrives. So there is a long way to go for generalised AI that can deliver a significant rise in labour productivity growth.

The step change in productivity growth that Fed chair Warsh puts all his hopes on still seems some way off. But what about profits from AI?  So far, any revenue that the AI model companies are making is way, way short of covering the costs of AI R&D development and the building of data centres all over the US. And Goldman Sachs estimates that each dollar of ICT hardware investment requires at least another $1.70 of complementary “intangible” investment—software, data systems, and the hardest category to measure, organizational overhaul. There is now 15 times more data centre capacity than the demand to use them.

And debt is building up. Bloomberg estimates that there’s over $500 billion in outstanding AI data centre debt. Nikkei Asia reported this week that Meta, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle have accrued around $1.65 trillion in outstanding debt in the last five years, with an additional hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of “off balance sheet” debt, meaning that the corporate structure allows the company to not include it as part of its liabilities. 

What revenues are being collected by the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic are just coming from the hyperscalers’ investments in their operations. There are no profits at all being made from the use of Chat GPT or Claude, partly because the AI companies are not charging the proper cost of using ‘tokens’ (compute units) to the users. So the AI companies are now trying to switch consumers from flat fees to usage-based pricing.  But this has led to an exponential rise in the cost of using AI for companies, such that companies faced with ballooning AI bills are moving from“token maxxing” to ‘token rationing’.  And US companies are switching to using ‘open-source’ AI models coming out of China that can nearly match the performance of the US models at a fraction of the cost.  

First, there was DeepSeek that strikingly hit the industry back in early 2025.  Now there is the newest Chinese AI model, Kimi K3, just released by the Beijing-based startup Moonshot AI.  Chinese models are 112x cheaper than Anthropic per million tokens (ie. “barrel of intelligence”). One token costs $56 from Anthropic, $26 from OpenAI, $1.50 from Meta, $1 from xAI and Google, and $0.50 from the Chinese models.  No wonder the proportion of tokens used by US firms that run through Chinese AI models is up to a record 58%. American companies now use Chinese AI models more than US-made ones.

But the optimists have not given up. Some suggest the so-called Jevons paradox that argues that increased efficiency (from AI) will lead to increased demand as unit costs of spending on AI falls.  That will generate the profitability that AI companies are seeking and the stock market is hoping for. But only 2% of S&P 500 companies mentioned AI productivity during Q1 2026 earnings calls. And among those that did, the focus was overwhelmingly on cost savings rather than revenue growth. This raises serious questions about how the hundreds of billions in investment can be expected to turn into profits, let alone revenue. 

The AI bet rests on two big assumptions. The first is that AI will be profitable – eventually. But just because a technology leads to a huge increase in productivity doesn’t mean it will generate strong returns. The second assumption is that there will be widespread demand for AI, and soon. AI adoption has risen, but it is still a long way from peak adoption. As above, Goldman Sachs estimates that it could take as long as 15 years; the OECD says 20 years.  Can the current AI companies survive that long; can the stock market wait that long before the bubble bursts? 

Thursday, July 23, 2026

Israel: Religious Mythology and Settler Colonialism






John Clarke

Toronto

7-23-26

 

Herzog's claim to be a proven descendant of King David is completely absurd. He has a name that originated in Europe and any cursory check will show that the existence of David is debatable. Just as significantly, the historical role this king is supposed to have played is unsupported by any evidence outside of the scriptures. Indeed, Herzog's own claim is based on rabbinical writings.


This use of religious myth as if it were serious historical evidence is something that the Zionist movement and the Israeli educational system has concentrated on to a huge degree. Moreover, while Herzog's claim would be met with hoots of derision throughout the Global South, such has been the level of support for the Zionist political ideology in the West that he is taken seriously when he lets fly with this nonsense.

 

Such irrationality isn't the unique preserve of Zionism and its colonial project of course. All forms of settler-colonialism have based themselves on a claim (often divinely mandated) to take someone else's land on the basis of alleged superiority. The co-option of religious tradition created particular notions of return to a God given homeland but these ideas aren't fundamentally different to those used to justify dispossession in other places, including Canada.

 

It is inherently futile to debate religious ideas and, if the groundless belief that he is descended from a mythical ancient King who worked closely with the Supreme Being gets Herzog out of bed in the morning, good luck to him. 

 

The problem arises when such ideas are put into effect at the expense of others. Herzog's role in the Gaza Genocide and the broader dispossession of the Palestinians show very clearly that he has crossed this line with terrible results.

 

The issue, then, isn't to focus on refuting the distorted and mythical elements of the Zionist ideology but to directly challenge the ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide that have resulted from their application. We need to take into our efforts to end Western sponsorship and material support that is so essential for Israel, a clear opposition to the criminal injustices that have arisen when this ideology has been put into practice.

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

The US-Saudi nuclear deal makes no sense

Republished from Trita Parsi on Substack.

The US-Saudi nuclear deal makes no sense

How will Washington get Tehran to accept intrusive inspections beyond the JCPOA when Saudi is offered enrichment with no IAEA inspections? 


Trita Parsi July 22nd 2026
AP Photo/Evan Vucci

A few points on the shocking U.S.–Saudi nuclear deal announced.

1. This reflects a weaker American bargaining position, not a stronger one.

The broader context is China. The Biden administration pursued a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, as part of a broader expansion of Trump’s Abraham Accords, in part to pull Riyadh closer to Washington and away from Beijing. But Washington’s position has deteriorated since then. The credibility of the U.S. security umbrella has weakened, GCC states have become more strategically autonomous, and Saudi Arabia has gained leverage by diversifying its partnerships.

The result appears to be that Washington had to offer substantially more to try to keep Saudi from drifting further toward China, while getting substantially less in return.

2. By any historical standard, this is an extraordinary Saudi victory.

Compared to previous negotiations, Riyadh has secured remarkable concessions. It no longer appears to have to normalize relations with Israel as part of the package. It is reportedly not required to sign a traditional Section 123 agreement that would deprive KSA of enrichment technology. And there are no comprehensive IAEA safeguards comparable to those Washington has long insisted upon elsewhere.

If these reports hold, Saudi Arabia has achieved what few thought Washington would ever accept.

3. Biden was going down the same path…

The Biden administration reportedly considered similar arrangements, but its efforts were derailed by the repercussions of the October 7 attacks.

Biden officials also understood the risks, although it did not prevent them from pursuing it and signalling willingness to offer Saudi major nuclear concessions. Some of the contingency ideas reportedly discussed bordered on the surreal: having American troops physically guard Saudi enrichment facilities from the Saudis themselves, or designing systems that would allow the United States to disable—or even destroy remotely—the facilities if necessary.

The fact that such safeguards were seriously contemplated should itself have been a warning. If your proposal requires extraordinary mechanisms to prevent your own ally from using the technology you are providing, perhaps the proposal is fundamentally flawed.

4. This may prove a stepping stone toward an even greater disaster: Security Guarantees for Saudi

As Rosemary Kelanic points out, this deal provides Riyadh with leverage it can use in the future to force Washington to provide it with security guarantees. Saudi Arabia can threaten to build nuclear weapons unless the U.S. offers it Article 5-level security guarantees - a disastrous move that would further entangle the US in the region militarily instead of allowing America to come home from the Middle East.

As Kelanic argues, there is ample historical precedent. South Korea and West Germany both advanced nuclear programs that alarmed Washington. Rather than allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons, the United States ultimately strengthened its military commitments and security guarantees in exchange for abandoning those programs.

As a result, this nuclear deal may prove to be a prelude to an even more damaging concession to Saudi down the road.

5. This likely weakens Washington’s negotiating position with Iran.

If there is eventually another U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement, today’s decision establishes an entirely new benchmark.

It becomes impossible to argue that Saudi Arabia may enrich uranium while Iran cannot, although Tehran was never going to accept zero enrichment in the first place. But proposals that earlier had been entertained - such as a 5- to 10-year moratorium on enrichment - may now also be out of reach.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it becomes harder to insist on intrusive international inspections for Iran while accepting a far lighter non-IAEA inspection regime for Saudi Arabia. And it becomes much more difficult to portray enrichment itself as an unacceptable proliferation risk.

Washington has made the type of deal it wants from Iran more complicated.

6. Israel has every reason to be deeply unhappy.

Much attention will focus on the loss of the Saudi normalization card, which has been one of Israel’s strategic objectives.

But the more consequential issue may be that Saudi Arabia now appears to have a far more credible pathway toward a nuclear weapons capability should it ever choose to pursue one.

That represents a fundamental shift in Israel’s long-term strategic environment.

7. Is this about widening the war with Iran?

Possibly. One interpretation is that Washington made these concessions to secure greater Saudi cooperation in the current (or a future) confrontation with Tehran.

But Tehran itself does not appear particularly alarmed.

Saudi Arabia’s direct military contribution to a war with Iran would likely remain limited, and the Kingdom’s participation does little to alter Iran’s fundamental geographic advantages in the Persian Gulf. More importantly, Saudi leaders have spent years trying to reduce—not increase—the risk of becoming a battlefield in a U.S.-Iran conflict.

If that remains Riyadh’s strategic priority, this agreement is unlikely to fundamentally change the military balance in the war.

Taken together, it is difficult to see today’s announcement as advancing US interest, let alone being compatible with other existing efforts such as finding an acceptable resolution to the conflict with Iran. It raises further questions as to whether a cohesive Middle East policy exists.