Category: The World is Flat

In his book, The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman analyzes how innovation and new technologies, among other factors are “flattening” the world, making interaction and trade between nations more convenient and efficient, making some nations, like China and India more competitive, and revolutionizing the global market. Friedman discusses many complex factors that are, in many ways, interacting with each other to drive further the globalization of what were once more independent national markets, connecting people, groups, and corporations to those far away in different parts of the world. To his credit, Friedman explains these complex factors in play in the creation and transformation of the global market in a wellorganized and clear way. I agree with Friedman’s argument that globalization is growing as a phenomenon, shrinking the world and making citizens of every nation more connected than ever before. However, he may be exaggerating its effect on the global economy while underestimating other factors. While I agree that globalization will continue in to have a major impact in many ways, I see some ways in which his argument can be improved.

Thomas Friedman’s main argument is that certain factors have contributed to what he refers to as the ‘flattening’ of the world, interconnectedness of people, groups, and corporations in different parts of the world. He describes 10 factors responsible for the shrinking and flattening of the world.

First, is the fall of the Berlin Wall, which liberated parts of the world that were once isolated like China and India, made the once independent nations to see themselves as part of a global market, and allowed billions of people in those countries to become players in that global market. With this came also the rise of Windows PCs, which united the world in a whole new way, revolutionizing the global market, as this new technology allowed people to connect with people in other nations through the innovations of internet and email.

The next phase of this flattening came about with Netscape. Netscape gave people the first internet browser with which to surf the internet, making it available to everyone. With Netscape, came strong demand for software and networks so people could share pictures, videos, data, and music on the internet. Soon, Windows 95 was created with built in internet support. These two technological innovations used each other to become mainstream and popular and their popularity even more so interconnected the world through the World Wide Web.

The next factor in the world’s flattening was software that allowed machines to talk to each other which improved workflow. More people were allowed to share and work on projects than ever before. While this process took many years and a lot of determination and brainpower, this improvement of workflow on a global scale made the fourth factor, outsourcing, possible. The interconnected global market created a global workforce and, as it has always been, any job will go to the most qualified, most skilled, most experienced, or the cheapest. He also mentions that shared standards is a huge flattener, using Microsoft Word and Paypal as examples. He mentions using a German version of Word to write a book and, after becoming used to the format of Word, he was able to navigate his way through the toolbars and menus despite not knowing the German language the words were in. The interconnectivity that created these shared standards enabled outsourcing and also enabled another flattener, offshoring. Offshoring is the relocation of a business to another country where means of production may be better, cheaper, or both. Outsourcing and offshoring made more people adopt shared standards which also made open source projects like Wikipedia possible and easier, further contributing to the flattening of the world. Supply-chains like Wal-Mart are also a flattener. As they communicate with businesses that sell a product, offering to make the product more accessible to customers and add value, they also force these businesses to adopt shared standards.

Insourcing, of which Friedman cites UPS as the best example, is a synchronizing of global supply chains through logistics, which Friedman calls the tightening of weak links in the interconnected global economy. He claims that with all of the collaboration between many supply chains around the world, if not UPS or FedEx, someone would have had to take the role of packaging and delivering the products being demanded.

The ninth flattener is in-forming, which he cites Google as the most well-known example of. Never before has all of the information known to all of humankind been so easily accessible to each individual, from the most world renown scientist to my grandma. Any information we want to find is available at just the hit of a few keys on a keyboard.

The last flattener he describes he refers to as “the steroids.”They are the “mobile, digital, personal, and virtual” technologies that are “amplifying and turbocharging” the other flatteners, like smartphones for example. Today just about everyone has a smartphone and can connect to the World Wide Web from absolutely anywhere, even while on the go.

Friedman also describes 3 eras of globalization. Globalization 1.0 which started in 1492 when the “Old World” started trading with the “New World” and lasted until about 1800. During Globalization 1.0, nations were the primary players. Globalization 2.0 lasted from 1800 to 2000, though it was interrupted by two World Wars. Its primary players were the growing multinational companies. Globalization 3.0 started in 2000, continuing to this day, and includes the interconnecting of nations and what Friedman calls the “shrinking and flattening of the world.”

Thomas Friedman describes globalization and its factors in the first part of his book and later goes on to explain what America needs to do to stay competitive in a more globalized market, explicitly telling American workers to get a job that they are passionate about, because those are the jobs that won’t be replaced by machines. He tells the reader this, not as a feel good message but as a survival strategy in the ever-changing, ever-evolving global market. He mentions that the change of model in the global market from vertical, which he describes as “command and control,” to a more collaborative, horizontal model will change not only how business is done, but everything else, claiming that political identities will change in the aftermath of globalization, a period he calls, “the Great Sorting Out.” Here, he may be overstating its impact.

However, I do see his point to an extent when he brings up the Dell theory of conflict prevention. Basically, if one nation is collaborating with another nation economically, they are less likely to go to war. As Friedman explains, “The Dell Theory stipulates: No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.” He cites many examples like China and Taiwan. Economic prosperity through political partnership can certainly be a major deterrent to violent conflict between two nations. However, I don’t think that globalization will be an avenue for absolute peace; just peace between nations. I think it will give rise to a different type of war between entities that have no nation-state and thus no allegiance to one, as we have seen recently with the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS.

While I see Friedman’s point that new innovations and new technologies are making the world more interconnected than ever before, I think describing the world as ‘flat’ as he does underestimates geography’s impact on global economics. Geography can play a big part in who gets to benefit from the effects of globalization. There is a massive difference between America and developing countries like Syria, for example, which is likely to continue for many years despite technological advances. Some countries do not have access to these technologies nor can it be afforded. Some countries have oppressive regimes that restrict access to the technologies responsible for globalization. Also, everyone who is born becomes a product of the culture they were born into. Culture can play a large part in a person’s choice of (or being forced into) profession, education, learned skill set, and ultimately who they will become in life. So, I think in this way, Friedman overestimates the force of globalization and at the same time underestimates the impact of geographical location and culture.

Thomas Friedman’s examination of the impacts molding business and rivalry in an innovation filled worldwide condition is a suggestion to take action for governments, organizations and people who must remain in front of these patterns so as to stay focused. As we investigate America’s place in the quick advancing world monetary stage, Friedman presents the issues we face, yet precaution measures and conceivable arrangements. The World is Flat is a recorded and topographical voyage, with stories and tales. Crossing a wide scope of enterprises, societies and schools of thought, this present reality models displayed as proof of his hypothesis are irrefutable. The World is Flat investigates every possibility in a journey for answers to an issue that most can’t characterize. This realism is with regards to the topic of the whole book, in that we should figure out how to get the hang of, instructing ourselves to remain inquisitive and inventive, in the event that we are to exceed expectations in a worldwide economy. As he moves towards the finish of this introduction of his hypothesis, Friedman cautions of the powers that could truly hurt or moderate the smoothing of the world, especially the risk acted by fear monger systems such like Al-Qaeda. His point of view is invigorating in a media driven to a great extent by panic strategies and dread mongering as he empowers a sensible and target way to deal with this risk.

Friedman proceeds to talk about powers that are smoothing the world. He takes note of that when the Berlin Divider fell, the world turned into somewhat compliment. Friedman contends that albeit numerous powers made the Divider fall, the ‘first among equivalents’ was the utilization of data innovation like fax machines to spread data. Friedman at that point talks about the ‘triple assembly.’ The main ‘intermingling’ was that of the flatteners, which gave another playing field to working together. These flatteners have been around for a considerable length of time however after they set up roots, they started to blend with each other.

The second union is the merger of the new playing field with better approaches for working together. Friedman calls attention to that another stage for working together, for example, the development of PCs in the working environment, isn’t sufficient to expand profitability. Friedman contends that the”’winners will be the individuals who gain proficiency with the propensities, procedures, and abilities most rapidly—and there is nothing that promises it will be Americans or Western Europeans for all time driving the way.” Friedman takes note of that there was a second triple assembly that kept individuals from completely understanding that the first was going on. The website bust was ‘wrongly likened’ with the finish of globalization.

Regardless if the world is flat or if it is not, we still have an unprecedented situation to deal with. The world’s economy is being enlarged, or as Thomas Friedman explains, becoming tinier. At this very moment, a fifteen-year-old child in Spain can look at the exact same content as a college professor at Harvard. With this occurring all around the world with even more extreme examples, the question arises, is this good for our world, or can it be devastating? Thomas Friedman argues it is unbelievable for the world and going to send us to reaches we never thought we could attain, however others argue that this flattening has horrific affects as others argue that this flattening does not even exist.

Any individual in the world can access virtually anything. This is causing a revolution of technology, knowledge, relationships, and things never thought possible. Not only does this flattening affect our economy but every single aspect of our lives. In the article Why the World is Flat by Daniel H. Pink, Pink sits down with Friedman and interviews him on his theory of the flat world. Pink asks Friedman about his book as he explains that China and India are parts of the world that are going to greatly influenced by flattening. Friedman replies with an astonishing example: “Bill Gates has a nice line: He says, 20 years ago, would you rather have been a B-student in Poughkeepsie or a genius in Shanghai? Twenty years ago you’d rather be a B-student in Poughkeepsie. Today? ” This exemplifies the key aspect of how the flat world can change lives. The answer is the boy from Shanghai. In the past, only the countries that were atop the wealthiest had abilities to create futures for students and give them proper schooling. However now, anyone with a ten-year-old computer or a phone can access any piece of knowledge on the Internet. Friedman also mentions more support in Pinks article. After Friedman explains how he first got the idea why the world is flat he says, “Several technological and political forces have converged, and that has produced a global, Web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration without regard to geography or distance – or soon, even language.” This promotes the stance of why a flat world can give anyone anything. However, anyone can talk about this subject, but can anyone back it up with statistics to prove it?

With all the talk from Thomas Friedman, it is easy to get caught up in the movement of the flattening world. However, is the world as interconnected as Friedman believes it to be? Dr. Pankaj Ghemawat, a professor at IESE in Barcelona, explains that using statistics, we really are not that interconnected at all. We discussed in class that Ghemawat says that only two percent of calls around the world are International, six percent including skype and web chats. This supports the idea that our world is not flat, in fact far from it. If the world is so flat why are only six percent of the calls around the world are international? Also, Ghemawat brings up the idea that maybe immigration could show us how the world is beginning to be flattened. He poses the question, how many first generation immigrants currently are in different countries around the world. The answer is three percent. This is a harsh blow to Friedman’s theory because if it were correct, the “No-boarder effect” would mean there are upwards to one hundred percent immigration. Lastly, Ghemawat uses a term, Globaloney, saying that Friedman is in fact exaggerating the conception of how technology is going to over power all cultural, political, and geographical barriers. Friedman believes that maybe with in the next ten years, technology will be the cause for the flat world. Although it may seem very likely, until the teleporter is invented, geographical barriers will always exist. Cultural and language barriers as well are very hard to overcome although they have a more likely chance of being accomplished.

In contrast to why the world is not flat, Ghemawat had only looked at the exact numbers currently standing, however he had not looked into the past. However, if you look into the past, you may be a little convinced the world is actually flattening. Each of the statistics that Ghemawat found: International calls and immigration as well as technology. These all have increased insanely in the past twenty years and are expected to skyrocket in the future. Although the future is always unknown, Ghemawat may want to prepare for Friedman’s theory, because I think I can feel the world flattening.

Could it be that the problem has been wrongly perceived? The combination of many countries have shown that extremist groups are no match for the various countries. Many countries are striving for more of a modernized society and this contributes to societal values of the country. This will take a long time, but is already taking away from the extremists that undermine societal values. That doesn’t mean countries will be falling behind. Countries in the Middle East in particular have been losing when it comes to globalization. The United States have to find ways to help the countries that are falling behind and come up with a strategy to make it less difficult to increase production.

The flat world that is referred to by Friedman described globalization, as innovated It was brought upon him after hearing an Indian software executive explain how the world’s economic standards is being leveled. Nowadays an individual or company anywhere can be competitive nationally or globally. China and India are talked about a large amount in Friedman’s story because they are the two big countries benefiting the most from the flat world. The Indian case is less intensive and still in action, though it has been increasingly rising throughout the years. But Friedman understands that China and India represent not just threats to the developed world, but also great opportunities. After all, the changes he is describing have the net effect of adding hundreds of millions of consumers. That is an opportunity that many companies and people can’t take for granted and have to take at the face value of what is being given to them. People in advanced countries have to find ways to move up the chain, to have special skills that create superior products for which they can charge extra. UPS is a great example of this because delivering goods didn’t have a great value, but in today’s day and age it has a high customer base.

The ultimate example is a detailed report on the computer company Dell’s construction of Friedman’s latest laptop. Journalists are notorious for interviewing their typewriters, but this must be the longest example of the genre: a typewriter’s complete biography.Throughout the book the metaphor of a flat Earth is reproduced again and again. What was not a particularly useful image to begin with is flogged to death until only the bones remain. At the same time, Friedman’s laptop may need the ‘I’ key replacing, such is the hammering it must have absorbed from the author’s use of the personal pronoun. In the course of the book we learn much about Friedman’s family, friends and eating habits, culminating in a paean to his school journalism teacher.

It would not matter so much if there were any value in his argument. There isn’t. He roves the world interviewing the likes of Bill Gates, and concludes that high technology is changing everything. That’s like studying the UK labour market by only talking to Premier league footballers. The problem is that Friedman is attempting to write a book on international economic without knowing much about it. He does talk to a couple of economists, but he soon gets carried away and there is a full-blown crisis. ‘Our kids will be increasingly competing head-to-head with Chinese, Indian and Asian kids,’ writes Friedman. Actually, they won’t, but Friedman then loses it completely. ‘What can happen is a decline in our standard of living, if more Americans are not empowered and educated to participate in a world where all the knowledge centres are being connected.’ This is a statement of such vacuity as to be meaningless.

Although at times it may seem like the world got flat almost overnight, that’s not exactly the case. According to Friedman, globalization has so far gone through three distinct phases. With each phase of globalization, the world became just a tiny bit flatter. But today, with the explosion of new technologies, the flattening process is in overdrive. Friedman explains that the first phase of globalization took place from 1492 to 1800, during which European countries opened up trade with each other, and with the New World. This first phase was largely driven by military expansion, and success depended on the amount of raw manpower and horsepower countries could employ. The second phase was from 1800 to 2000, where multinational corporations drove global integration. The dominant technologies were railways and autos. And the defining technology of our era is a worldwide network of fiber-optic cable, capable of transmitting reams of electronic data from one end of the globe to the other in seconds.

It’s clear that the flattening of the world is creating profound challenges, as well as opportunities, for those of us in North America. It’s a watershed moment in our history. “If this moment has any parallel in modern history,” writes Friedman, “it is the height of the Cold War around 1957 when the Soviet Union leapt ahead of America in the space race by putting up the Sputnik satellite.” Of course, the main challenge at that time came from those who wanted to put up fences and walls. The main challenge we face today comes from the fact that all the walls are being taken down and many other people can now compete with us much more directly. The main threat we faced at that time was from those practicing extreme Communism, namely Russia and China. The main threat today is from those practicing extreme capitalism, namely China and India.

In Friedman’s view, meeting the challenges of a flat world requires just as energetic and focused a response as did meeting the challenge of Communism a generation ago. In other words, it requires political leaders who can summon the nation to work harder, get smarter, attract more young people to science and engineering, and build the broadband infrastructure, portable pensions and health care that will help every citizen become more employable in an age in which no one can guarantee lifetime employment. Admittedly, the challenges of competing in a flat world are markedly different than those formerly presented by the threat of Communism. For starters, today’s challenges don’t exactly involve nuclear missiles aimed at our cities. It is more of a quiet crisis this time around, but in Friedman’s estimation, that doesn’t make it any less real, or less pressing. As he makes the rounds on the American talk show circuit, and in other forums, Friedman has made it his personal mission to draw the nation’s attention to this threat.Of course, in order to deal effectively with the quiet crisis, we must first understand its roots. Friedman believes the crisis is a product of three gaps currently plaguing North American society. The first is an ”ambition gap.” Compared with the young, energetic Indians and Chinese, too many people in the West have simply gotten lazy. Or, as David Rothkopf, a former official in the Clinton Commerce Department, explained to Friedman: “The real entitlement we need to get rid of is our sense of entitlement.”

Friedman argues we have a serious “numbers gap.” We are not producing enough engineers and scientists. The United States and Canada used to make up for that by importing them from India and China, but in a flat world, where people can now stay home and compete with us, and also in our post-9/11 world with all its security concerns, we can no longer rely on immigration to cover the gap. And finally, Friedman argues we are experiencing an education gap. “There’s a dirty little secret that no CEO wants to tell you,” he says. “Companies are not just outsourcing to China and India to save on salaries and benefits. They are doing it because they can often get better-skilled and more productive people than their North American workers.”