The Long Term Costs of Short Term Thinking

  By Ali-Asghar Abedi,  class of 2021

By Ali-Asghar Abedi, class of 2021

Few predicted the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. However, despite his lack of political credentials, he has demonstrated a talent for understanding what motivates the average American voter. Americans appear to be anxious about their future which, I will argue, may be explained by the short-term thinking that pervades American boardrooms.

Firstly, consider paid time off. Most Americans passively accept two weeks off per year and many do not use their full vacation allowance. Although this policy solves employers’ immediate staffing needs, a lack of vacation leads to greater incidences of depression and heart disease. Additionally, such miserly vacation policies make travel more difficult.

Nineteenth century German philosopher Alexander van Humboldt contended that the most dangerous world views are of those who have not viewed the world; a maxim that can be applied to this discussion. Restrictive time-off policies can undermine intellectual development which may make people more susceptible to dogma and likely to view foreign people and concepts with disdain or even as a threat.  Conversely, more generous time-off policies can help employees pursue travel and other intellectually stimulating endeavors that broaden perspectives, increase tolerance for ambiguity and cultivate more robust worldviews. This in turn better equips employees to build coalitions and solve complex problems. In addition, rested employees are likely to be more productive on the job.

Secondly, management teams across the country are highly under pressure (often from hedge funds and mutual funds favoring shorter term returns) to impress Wall Street by beating quarterly EPS estimates. Such quarterly capitalism has seen CEOs and CFOs offer increasingly higher dividends and stock buybacks. For example, over the past three years The Gap has counter-intuitively increased dividends successive years of declining net income. Every dollar spent on returning cash to shareholders is a dollar that cannot be spent on investing longer-term growth via capex, R&D, eco-initiatives or human capital development. Attracting investors seeking longer-term returns may help avoid the pitfalls of quarterly capitalism. For example, management at Sky plc (Europe’s leading pay TV provider) attributes much of the firm’s success to 21st Century Fox’s large controlling stake which allows the C-suite to play the long game.

Today’s rapid pace of change compounds the impact of short-term thinking. Think of the household names that didn’t exist twelve years ago: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Uber, Snapchat, Airbnb and Whatsapp. The emergence of these firms and the coming third internet wave (pertaining to IoT) has eliminated the need for many of yesterday’s jobs. Moreover, according to the World Economic Forum, 65% of the jobs that today’s primary school children will end up holding do not exist today. In such a time, there is an urgent need to invest in employee education and training.  

This lack of training is a particularly acute development given the prospect of automation. Faced with minimum wage pressure, restaurants are motivated to reduce reliance on human capital. Why pay someone $15 per hour when an iPad can take an order and a robot can make a pizza? Furthermore, complex tasks and functions no longer require human input. Today, robot lawyers are helping people get out of parking tickets and claim airline compensation; investment banks are hiring math PhDs to their trading desks to write complex algorithms and the world is moving towards driverless cars and robot pilots.

  More than trade deals, automation and a lack of training threatens the future livelihood of many American workers

More than trade deals, automation and a lack of training threatens the future livelihood of many American workers

Overcoming short-term thinking does not necessarily require legislative or regulatory solutions and may instead be achieved with a change in management incentives (e.g. compensation structure). In additionally, assembling a diverse Board of Directors could help prevent management teams from operating in an echo chamber and highlight the long-term consequences of decisions.

Considering the long-term is particularly warranted because short-term thinking has left many Americans short-changed. When the overwhelming majority of economic gains since 2008 go to the top 1%, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the American Dream is in peril. Driven by anxiety, voters affected by short-term corporate thinking opened Pandora’s Box. The result can be seen in the country’s choice for 45th President.

Al is a first year MBA student who is trying to balance business interests with social impact

I am a Mexican, Mr. Trump.

  By Rafael Tuachi , class of 2017

By Rafael Tuachi, class of 2017

By now you are probably annoyed at how much people have been discussing the results of the presidential election, or about how appalled people are about them. Given how close the election was, the experience must have been at the very least nerve-wracking. I won’t discuss the results, or offer my critique of them. I will speak from the heart because I am Mexican, and I am nervous.

I don’t know or care about what the upcoming administration holds in store for the likes of me. People have proved time and time again that the “average Joe” is quite resilient, regardless of inertia at the public policy level, as they will be implemented over long periods of time, during which Latinos, Muslims, Blacks and other minorities will eventually adjust. What keeps me up at night is the problem of perception that Mr. Trump’s campaign infused in the American population. Millions in the USA pride themselves of being open-minded, but we have to face the reality that this is not the world at  least 60 million Americans, through no fault of their own, were wooed into. I am not talking about the ones who were ex-ante racists, but of those whose view was neutral or absent, but that now are ruled by a proponent who came to power advertising his propaganda. These people were essentially taught that it is ok to hate, because it gets the job done (at least it did for Trump). The results are obvious and immediate; Twitter is testament to that.

I am nervous and scared because policies like the ones in the minds of Trump-voters (even if they do not exist and will never be proposed) give free range to speak out directly against minorities with arguments fitting of the 1940’s. I’m not saying that America has gone 70 years into the past in terms of social politics, but I am implying that many people certainly have a reason today to rewind their mentalities– after all, the president thinks that way, right?

 Certain behaviors have seemed to become normalized after the election.

Certain behaviors have seemed to become normalized after the election.

I am nervous not because of what the economy might do, or how the tax cuts will drive deficits up. I am nervous that if I go walking on the street or climb into an Uber, the driver or my fellow pedestrians might yell at me, or attack me, simply because I am Mexican… and to think that the US *was* a model country, a beacon of light to be followed. On a larger scale, I am nervous of what the ramifications will be for generations of college and grad students, American or otherwise, with foreign heritage, to have as many opportunities by how corporations will perceive them, simply by the shift in mindset of what is permissible brought by the new administration.

I am optimistic, however, that people cannot be that ignorant and retrogressive. My mom used to say “think wrong and you’ll get it right!”. I pray to God, that in which America trusts, that she was wrong.

Rafael Tuachi (’17) is a Mexican Boothie living in the States, scared but hopeful.

Monetary Policy in Emerging Markets: Bringing a knife to a gun fight?

   By     Jesús Badiola,       Class of 2018

By Jesús Badiola,      Class of 2018

Oh, how far we’ve come.

It’s been three years since Professor Raghuram Rajan was pronounced Governor of India’s Reserve Bank, and what a journey it’s been for emerging markets (EM) in recent years.

After the 2008 financial crisis, Bernanke introduced the Quantitative Easing program  which flooded the market with liquidity. A lot of the cash flow was directed at emerging economies, which enabled them to bounce back strongly from the Great Recession.

But, as every MBA student knows, no easy-flowing-liquidity party can keep on going forever.  

In 2013, after the announcement that the QE program would be scaled down, EM experienced a sharp reversal of capital flows. This fleeing of money from EM started creating inflation pressures on countries that were starting to reveal their stagnant growth realities. Professor Rajan, and most of his central banks counterparts, have all had a busy schedule these past years, deciding how to use their monetary policy levers to both maintain their currency acquisitive power and support growth.

  When Professor Rajan started as governor, India's inflation was around 11%. Today it's around 4.31%

When Professor Rajan started as governor, India's inflation was around 11%. Today it's around 4.31%

Unfortunately, this has not been an easy task. A recent study by Aoki, Benigno and Kiyotaki notes that, given the heavy interconnectivity of EM and industrialized nations, an increase in the foreign interest rate (i.e. the U.S.) leads to a strong depreciation of EM currencies, given investment switching channels and the lower intermediation capacity of EM banks exposed to foreign currency liabilities.

So, with strong macroeconomic forces depreciating EM currencies, countries with the objective of fighting inflation (such as Brazil, Indonesia and India) encountered a policy trade-off decision: either depreciate their currency, boosting inflation, or fight to maintain the acquisitive value of their currency and experience lower GDP growth. Some countries have been more successful than others. This year, Brazil is expected to see prices rise by 8.5% (above target), Indonesia by 3.07% and India by 5.05% (both around` target).  

In these three years, there’s also been an insurgence of another force in currency market: greater financial globalization. With the emergence of currency-trading hedge funds essentially flooding the currency market with readily movable capital, EM currencies have been subject to strong capital shocks from short term profit-seekers.

To counter these external threats, many EM have tried to gather defenses to fend off possible capital shocks looking to make a run on their currencies. For example, the Mexican Central Bank has held $179 billion USD in official reserve assets, and also hold an undrawn, unconditional credit line provided by the IMF for $73 billion, to counter monetary shocks that might be drawn against the Mexican Peso.

So what do EM Central banks do with their ongoing conundrum? Do they fight for more macroeconomic stability, using both their interest rates and reserves to maintain their currencies acquisitive value in an era of growing short term profit-seeking in currency markets and scarify financial stability? Or do they use their policies to support greater growth, at the expense of seeing inflation soar?

Jesus is a Mexican first year student on a daily fight against FOMO

Reuniting the divided states of America

   By Darryl Koh,  Class of 2017

By Darryl Koh, Class of 2017

Michigan schoolchildren are chanting “build the wall” while rounding up their Hispanic classmates. A Californian woman was harassed on public transit for speaking Assyrian on the phone. In Minnesota, an Asian woman was arrested for defending herself against assault from a group of Trump supporters. In Alabama, the Ku Klux Klan has started openly recruiting.

Before he even formally takes power, Donald Trump has transformed America. Our first priority should be to ensure that everyone is free from harassment and physical harm. Against those who would overtly strike out against someone merely due to the color of their skin, gender, or sexual orientation, we should be unyielding and merciless.

But when the antics are quelled and recently emboldened bigots retreat to their daily lives, there is another critically important task at hand.

To the readership of ChiBus, you are disproportionately young, educated, urban, and diverse (and foreign) compared to the American population. This tells me that most of you voted, or would have voted had you been American, for Hillary Clinton. There is no point in ranting to you about the flaws of Donald Trump or the about the terrible mistake the most powerful national in the world has just made. Instead, I want to ask for your help in changing the underlying societal issues that made a Trump presidency possible.

 Protestors take to the streets after the election last Tuesday.

Protestors take to the streets after the election last Tuesday.

America, and the world, stands divided. Left and Right. Establishment and Outsiders. Globalists and Nationalists. Liberals and Conservatives. Us versus Them.

Institutions and authority in today’s world are so distrusted that people would rather believe the “man on the street” over an established expert; to those who are probably not reading this article, the world is out to get them.

Take anti-vaxxers for a moment. In order to believe that vaccines are bad, you have to believe that the entire medical establishment – not just pharma companies, but doctors, nurses and pharmacists everywhere – is out to make a quick buck at the expense of the general population. To us, this seems ludicrous, and it is; but to millions of Americans it is perfectly plausible. To them, the establishment has been making a quick buck at their expense for decades.

Now, get this; we are the establishment. We are guilty of discrimination, just like the so-called “deplorables” that form a significant portion of Trump’s support. They write us off as insufferable liberals and we write them off as appalling bigots.

We are MBA students. We benefit from and understand globalization. We understand the dangers of skill-biased technological change and how globalization disproportionately punishes certain communities. We understand how the pipeline in the US public education system is broken beyond salvage. And we have to fix it right.

Because if we do not, they will fix it wrong.

We are all complicit in this crime, whether you are a citizen of this country or a foreigner living here. Before you blame those who voted for a third party, sat at home on election night, or supported Trump, just remember that we are not free of guilt either.

So the next time you meet a Trump supporter and are tempted to flip them off and walk the opposite direction, don’t. Do not dismiss, engage. Do not condescend, respect. Do not lecture, listen.

If we continue to fight, we continue the polarized narrative that has dominated global politics for the better part of our adult lives. As we sever social media ties with those whose views differ from ours, and as we continue to discuss behind closed doors within our tight-knit groups of young, educated professionals, we only serve to further divide society where it matters most. We accentuate the confirmation bias of our own views as we fail to reach out.

So to my classmates here at Booth, I ask for your help:

Lead, engage, fuel, transform.

Darryl is a second year full-time MBA student. He was born in Singapore, but grew up in Vancouver, Canada. Prior to Booth, Darryl was based in Toronto, Canada, but spent half his time in the US on various consulting projects.

 

A short history of campaign typography

For a long time, the slogan of a political campaign was more important than the support. Not anymore. To the exception of Trump, most politicians have raised their typography games as they came to realize the importance of the right font for the purpose of communicating their message.

  Coolidge campaign in 1924 was innovative for its time. Even though it used a boring font (Trade Gothic), it was mainly successful because it hammered the slogan through the new medium of radio.

Coolidge campaign in 1924 was innovative for its time. Even though it used a boring font (Trade Gothic), it was mainly successful because it hammered the slogan through the new medium of radio.

  1952 - President Eisenhower’s nickname was Ike, and simple as it may sound, people really liked him and, thus, the slogan stuck. Note the avant-garde use of italics. This was also the first presidential slogan aired on national television, with a catchy song manufactured by Hollywood studios and NY advertisers.

1952 - President Eisenhower’s nickname was Ike, and simple as it may sound, people really liked him and, thus, the slogan stuck. Note the avant-garde use of italics. This was also the first presidential slogan aired on national television, with a catchy song manufactured by Hollywood studios and NY advertisers.

  For his 2008 campaign, McCain used Optima, a popular 70s font. It is mostly known for its use in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and was an understated reminder of his history as a war hero. The slogan was criticized for using a slightly larger font for Palin than McCain.

For his 2008 campaign, McCain used Optima, a popular 70s font. It is mostly known for its use in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and was an understated reminder of his history as a war hero. The slogan was criticized for using a slightly larger font for Palin than McCain.

 

 

 

 

 

  Obama’s marketing team used a highly disciplined approach to fonts. They used Gotham systematically in every communication, to the point where it is now known as the Obama’s font. Seeing the results, politicians have put much more effort into the typography choices after the 2008 campaign.

Obama’s marketing team used a highly disciplined approach to fonts. They used Gotham systematically in every communication, to the point where it is now known as the Obama’s font. Seeing the results, politicians have put much more effort into the typography choices after the 2008 campaign.

  Trump started his campaign with the amateurish Times New Roman and Arial, bold capitalized. As he advanced in the campaign, he changed to a 19  th   century font (Grotesk), still bold and capitalized.

Trump started his campaign with the amateurish Times New Roman and Arial, bold capitalized. As he advanced in the campaign, he changed to a 19th century font (Grotesk), still bold and capitalized.

  Clinton commissioned a new font specifically for her campaign. The typeface, named Unity, is a clear product of design-by-focus-group. Its rounded dots and tails desperately attempt to convey friendliness and non-cynicism, at odds with the rest of her campaign.

Clinton commissioned a new font specifically for her campaign. The typeface, named Unity, is a clear product of design-by-focus-group. Its rounded dots and tails desperately attempt to convey friendliness and non-cynicism, at odds with the rest of her campaign.

  Bernie’s campaign produced a high-quality slogan. Its use of Jubilat is flawless. It is friendly, approachable, modern still retro. In addition, Bernie had the luck of a really catchy name.

Bernie’s campaign produced a high-quality slogan. Its use of Jubilat is flawless. It is friendly, approachable, modern still retro. In addition, Bernie had the luck of a really catchy name.

 

 

 

 

The state of the other Union

  By Ziad Abouchadi , class of 2017

By Ziad Abouchadi, class of 2017

While an election year is about to end in the US, an extremely vital political year is starting in Europe. With Dutch, French and German general elections scheduled for 2017, voters will decide the future of the old continent. All three elections will be harshly fought with the established parties on one side and populist ones on the other.

In France, after an extremely unpopular first term, socialist Francois Hollande may become the first incumbent President to be absent of the ballot. 70% of voters wish Mr. Holland resigns from the political life forever, making him the least popular president since the war.

He is blamed for the state of the economy, the crumbling of the ideals of the EU and several terrorist attacks under his watch. To his credit, he has begun the process of structural and labor reforms that so many countries desperately need but it was too little and too late to have any effects by the election date.

Consequently, his departure will leave the field open for a fight between the French right (Alain Juppe) and the extreme right (Marine Le Pen). The likely absence of the left from the second round of the elections will focus the political discourse to anti-immigration, anti-trade and anti-EU. Just recently, the government dismantled the refugee camp in Calais as a signal to the UK that French priorities have shifted from the EU to France. Since France will have a strong say in what happens to Europe post-Brexit, the rhetoric may have destabilizing effects well outside the French borders.

  Marine Le Pen (left, France) and Geert Wilders (right, Netherlands) lead the European anti-EU wave.

Marine Le Pen (left, France) and Geert Wilders (right, Netherlands) lead the European anti-EU wave.

The results of the elections in the Netherlands and Germany will be based solely on immigration policy, rather than the state of the economy. The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) has moved from a fringe party to a serious contestant for next year’s elections. Since Angela Merkel decided to make the dramatic decision of accepting Syrian refugees, her electoral base has been slowly eroding in favor of AfD. As she has been defeated in many local elections, she is now weakened and increasingly unpopular.

In the Netherlands, the far-right Party for Freedom of Girt Wilders is the most likely to win the general elections since it is the highest polling party at the moment. The party’s manifesto is an interesting read, calling for the closure of all mosques, a ban on the Koran and immigration from Islamic countries. The party is also famously Eurosceptic, calling for a Dutch version of Brexit that would signal the end of the Union.

Uncertainty over politics and the future of the European Union has been the biggest drag on the continent’s investment and growth since 2010. The President of the European Commission, J.C. Juncker said it best: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”. Let us hope next year’s elections will be the catalyst that will unleash the full potential of the European Union and save it from self-inflicted irrelevance.

Ziad is the editor of the Opinion column of Chicago Business.

The Colombian Three-way Peace

   By Carlos Navarro,  Class of 2017

By Carlos Navarro, Class of 2017

53,894 out of 12.8 million votes… That was the minuscule margin of votes that allowed the “NO” win over the “YES”, rejecting the peace treaty between the Colombian government and the FARC guerrilla. Before trying to understand this outcome, let’s take a quick look back at the conflict. The FARC guerrilla was founded in the 1960’s as a Marxist movement that vouched to fight for the rights of the poor rural people in Colombia. Many factors, including a lack of state presence in the countryside and rampant inequality, led to the strengthening of this group over the following decades. But it was in the 1980’s and 90’s that this guerrilla started to heavily finance its operations with drug trafficking to the point of becoming one of the biggest drug cartels in the world (and where many believe their political ideologies got very blurry). After Pablo Escobar was murdered and many other drug kingpins captured, the conflict with the FARC became the national priority. In these more than 50 years of conflict, we’ve had more than 7 million people displaced (1 out of every 7 Colombians), over 220,000 people killed, and two other failed formal peace processes.

So how could it be possible that after 6 years of intense negotiations, and having arrived for the first time to an agreement to end this conflict, 50.2% of the voters said “NO”? The first thing to realize is that 99.9% of voters do want peace, it just so happens that a majority felt that the cost of the agreement (what was granted to the FARC) was higher than what we were getting out of it (mainly the disarmament of the FARC and their transition into legitimacy and democracy). The remaining points of discord with the “NO” campaign are:

1- No jail time for the FARC leaders. While the agreement stated a restriction of their mobility to certain towns of Colombia and community work; many people felt that wasn’t proportionate with the horrendous crimes they have committed – murdering, kidnapping, bombing, etc .

  Source: Author's attempt of drawing

Source: Author's attempt of drawing

2- Creation of a justice body above the current “Supreme Court” that had scope over anything related to the conflict (which in Colombia is almost everything) and that could reopen previously closed cases. Although this was to guarantee justice to all the victims of the conflict, people felt there was ambiguity over how this institutional Godzilla would work);

3) Lack of precision about the guerrilla having to hand back all the profits from the drug trafficking business. The agreement made the FARC transition from a drug cartel into a political party, so people feared the implications of a narco funding of the party.

4) Concerns that the many obligations of the government under the agreement were either impossible to carry out or would deviate focus from other economic and social priorities.

So is every hope lost? No! There is still a chance that what was a devastating blow in the voting could become an opportunity to unite a clearly divided country and create a stronger, more effective peace agreement that can finally carry us to the long yearned peace. The challenge is the transition from a two way negotiation (FARC – Colombian government) to a three way one (with the “NO” movement as the third party – under former president Uribe as its leader). Let’s hope it can quickly become again a two way negotiation that comes to an agreement and puts an end to the conflict allowing the country to tackle the many other challenges it’s facing.

Carlos is a second year MBA, who never learned how to properly draw, and is focused on corporate finance in the energy industry

The president America needs

Many voters are still not convinced by the options they face in the upcoming presidential election. The candidates have been scrutinized under different angles, to the point where the most important thing is forgotten: Beyond whether we like them, can the candidates do the job?  Voting should be about solving the issues one cares about, not just a popularity contest.

 Hillary Clinton is not the mere lesser of two evils, she is the most competent presidential candidate in decades

Hillary Clinton is not the mere lesser of two evils, she is the most competent presidential candidate in decades

For a start, most voters expect Clinton not to be able to tackle the ugly Washington practices nor to break the political status quo. That is a fair assessment out of an unfair expectation. If you are frustrated with the way Washington works, you should be. But the real problem is that Senators reelection rates are above 90% (95% for the House). Are they that popular? Not really. These are the people that make laws, not the President. These are the people that have the power on domestic policy, not the President. These are the people that frustrate you, not the President. Their seats are so safe and secure, that they don't have any incentive to reach across the aisle or compromise, resulting in vitriolic discourse, divisiveness and frustration. Notwithstanding election rhetoric, expecting any president, Clinton or otherwise, to change that is beyond naïve. Two reasons:

  1. The US is the only developed country where self-interested politicians govern the redistricting process (gerrymandering), tailoring their district to only include people that vote for them. Congressmen choose voters instead of voters choosing congressmen.

  2. Turnout rates for congressional elections are the lowest they have ever been and declining. 60 to 70% of minorities don’t show up to vote and are then surprised that their voice is not heard.

Until that is fixed (by pushing your Senator to support anti-gerrymandering bills and not forgetting to vote), all that can be expected from a president is to work around the current structure to move the country forward. One’s personal preference might be for a conservative or liberal agenda, but until we find a way to eliminate differences of opinions, compromise is the best we can hope for. Ms. Clinton is a unifier, to the right of most Democrats and to the left of most Republicans. If elected president, she will have the needed credibility with the left wing of her party (Sen. Sanders and Warren come to mind), with Republicans, technocrats and CEOS alike. A stance less confortable or appealing than pure ideology but, contrary to the latter, with a certain usefulness beyond election rallies. 

  Declining Congressional elections turnout rates. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Declining Congressional elections turnout rates. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

On the international front, if the presidency had a job description, it would have Hillary’s resume as the ideal candidate. She has shown herself to be thoughtful, ponderate and open to being wrong. She is one of the most seasoned politicians in Washington, experienced in international negotiations and crisis-resolution. She is committed vis-à-vis strategic allies to restore the ties that have been strained during the Obama’s second term. She has a clear vision for what the international role of the US should be, between Obama’s isolationism and Bush’s hawkishness. No other candidate, left or right, holds a candle to Hillary’s grasp of the world stage and the necessary role that the US has to play in it.

Furthermore, the widely held belief that Clinton is the lesser of two evils is a myth. Running any country, a fortiori the USA, is a grueling and thankless task. As such, it requires resilience, level-headedness, prudence, a minimum grasp of facts and the willingness to be advised, just to name a few. Clinton is not the lesser of two evils: she is the most competent presidential candidate facing the most unscrupulous, empty, demagogic soapbox orator in decades. 

If it is so clear cut, why is it that there is still a contest? One reason is that the next president will likely nominate 4/9 Supreme Court justices (a replacement for late J. Scalia, and three likely ones for Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer). If all the new appointed justices are on the liberal side of the spectrum, the balance would move from 5 to 4 in favor of conservatives to 3 to 6 in favor liberals. that would dramatically change the balance of power in one the most relevant institutions in the US, with rippling effects decades afterwards.  As a result, the Republican party is rightly halfheartedly supporting Trump and focusing on the Congressional elections, trying to avoid losing by a historically wide margin, which would give Democarts free rein to nominate justices. Even though the presidential election is lost, it still makes sense for the party not to lose by a wide margin.

Another reason is that is populism is raging worldwide and it will take sociologists years to determine what is fueling it. Easy radical slogans, from the NHS millions to the Mexican wall, find attentive ears looking for a radical change. We should remember that for all the attention grabbing headlines, the US is doing pretty well. Its economy is the most dynamic in the world, its military unchallenged, the price for discriminating against minorities is rising every day and most people, if given the choice, would move to the US. Radicalism is an intellectually lazy path and we owe it ourselves to exert the highest standard of scepticism toward the political fringes that come with simple solutions to civilizational problems. The challenges are real and pressing but shouldn’t excuse throwing the baby with the bathwater.

By Ziad Abouchadi, Class of 2017
This opinion is representative of views held by the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions and beliefs  of the editor in chief or the entire Chicago Business staff.