Did Kamala Harris lose the election because of the economy or in spite of the economy? Listening to pollsters, pundits and analysts on both parties the answer is clear: the American people are in a sour mood about where the country is heading: high grocery prices, lack of housing affordability, and a perceived deterioration in real incomes are among the…

Did Kamala Harris lose the election because of the economy or in spite of the economy? Listening to pollsters, pundits and analysts on both parties the answer is clear: the American people are in a sour mood about where the country is heading: high grocery prices, lack of housing affordability, and a perceived deterioration in real incomes are among the…

A day after the British voted to leave the European Union (EU), the BBC conducted random interviews in the streets of London and the answers from two ladies struck me as symptomatic of what had just happened.

One “Leave” voter said that she was feeling some remorse, and if given the opportunity to vote again she would likely support to “Remain”, but her vote had been motivated by fear of what was going on. The other voter, also a Brexiteer, said she had voted to leave because she was angry at politicians, but really didn’t know what the EU was.

When regional Catalonian president Carles Puigdemont read the unilateral declaration of independence from Spain approved by the region’s Parliament on October 27, the whole of Europe held its breath. What started as an intramural dispute for political control in Spain, rapidly evolved into the country’s gravest constitutional crisis since the 1930s and Europe’s latest threat to economic and political stability. Just hours before Catalonia’s move, the Spanish Senate had approved the application of article 155 of the constitution that allows the central Government to take direct control of the rebellious region, and Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy had called for fresh elections in Catalonia. How did we get here? Was all of this necessary? Who is to blame? On whose side is history? And, most importantly, what next?

Since March of 2014, when the first signs of a major money laundering and corruption scheme at Petrobras became evident, the Brazilian judicial system has been working overtime and the country’s overcrowded jails are bursting at the seams. Dozens of high executives, company owners and prominent politicians are serving sentences for their participation in a bribery operation, in which large contractors and service providers overcharged Petrobras for several years and deposited the difference in offshore accounts of the governing party (PT), to oil the party machinery and personally enrich their leaders. But until recently, most Brazilians felt that the real “big fish” were getting away with impunity. That changed dramatically on April 4, when judge Sergio Moro issued an arrest warrant to former President Luiz Ignacio Lula Da Silva.

When the late Chris Christensen from the Harvard Business School first used the term “Disruptive Innovation” in 1997 he was not thinking of the auto industry. Rather, Mr. Christensen was referring to companies that, in trying to protect their traditional business, fail to see the threat from upstarts, often poorly capitalized, offering cheaper products in seemingly insignificant markets. Once these…