Why do people love Tom Friedman's the World is Flat? Is this really such a fantastic insight into China and India? He makes some decent points but the idea that people are suddenly competing on an equal playing field internationally is ludicrous.
First of all, if you look at something that should be perfectly competitive globally, like a call center, it is clear that location is still an advantage over price. When you talk to a center in India or the elsewhere in Asia, usually the service sucks. I'm not saying this to be anti-Asian or anything like that, but I'm just trying to say that there are differences in expectation and service that cannot be duplicated around the world.
Second, while it's possible that at some point down the road most people will be able to compete across borders, right now it's just not true for the most part. Look at China. There is a segment of the population--a very small segment--that can legitimately compete with US and EU workers. However, that's overwhelmingly the uber upper class types. Most people just do not have the same skill sets that other workers have. Anyone who has ever hired or had employees, KNOWS this to be true. That's not to say things can't change or that many Chinese workers aren't extremely good, but the idea that people are competing on equal footing everywhere for the identical jobs is utter nonesense.
Even within a developed country like the US, the dirty little secret is that the upper class has a tremendous advantage over everyone else. They have access to better schools, and better business connections. If the richest country in the world isn't even flat, why do people believe this idea that the global economy is flat? It sounds nice, and there is limited validity to the argument, but why do people hold this guy up a good when the theory is so...theoretical?
Sorry for the rant, but I don't see how anyone who lives out here can buy this slop. I wonder if I'm alone on this.
The prob
Comments
I'm on board
I'd have to say you make some good points my Latino amigo (you are Latino, right?)
Alternatives
I can accept that Friedman's view of the world may not be perfect, but who has an alternative explanation/vision that is a better fit?
In many ways Friedman may have intentionally overstated his argument to prove the overall logic of his point. It's true that a boy growing up in the Yunnan countryside would not have much chance to compete with American or British professionals, but the fact that a lot of people from Beijing and Shanghai can, and they couldn't twenty years ago, has to be taken as a valid point.
Just my thoughts.
Alternate theory
Basically Friedman's theory is a variation on Francis Fukuyama's in the End of History and the Last Man. Stay with me because this is a bit of a leap of faith. Both are arguing that we're a reaching an end point in terms of political economy. In Fukuyama's case he thought that liberal democracy had won out as demonstrated by the end of the Cold War and that other countries would all begin to move that way until we reach an end point.
Friedman's thesis is quite similar in that he also sees the political economy (mostly the economy side) as having neared an end point. In this case he argues that barriers are going down and people around the world have to compete in a truly global system.
There are a few problems in this. First, neither argued that we were actually AT the end point, but rather NEARING it. Second, Fukuyama completely ignored, or misread the strength or militant Islam and the desire for many people to accept authoritarianism (see Russia). So basically he set up a very nice little theory, that didn't work very well at all.
Time will tell, but I suspect Friedman has also vastly oversimplified the world. But at least he sold a lot more books and got more famous than Fukuyama outside of academia.
I have to say I'm also not a
I have to say I'm also not a fan of Friedmans books. Essentially, as soon as the international business community start to treat someones published theories as 'gospel truth' - I tend to automatically assume that actually the reverse of what has just taken the corporate world by storm is probably rather more accurate. I'm not a big fan of self help books either - I never read them and it hasn't exactly done me any harm. Rather the same for MBA programmes. Out of date and often not relevant to the real world.
Friedman
Isn't Friedman the same guy who was saying the Iraq war was the way to spread democracy throughout the middle east. you know like a thousand flowers blooming? I think you automatically lose all credibility if you've done that. It's not just that he was like "well, the situation is a mess, so it can't be worse" he was like "worked in Korea" like that was ever a good analogy. And I think he's supposed to be a Middle East EXPERT. Imagine the crap he spouts about the rest of the world.
I think I've become bitter in the last few years
;-)
Missing the point
You're reading into this far too much. Friedman's basic point that there's more competition on an international basis is obviously true. You tend to be clinging on to specifics of the argument rather than the wider point that countries and companies can't assume they have huge advantages over their counterparts in developing nations.
This is his point, and it's not generally argued with.
flat as his theory
the only flat things in this book is his theory,flat and superficial so perfect to be sold as a bestseller.
He ignore totally a large part of popolation who dont wan't such kind of future for they own,who believes in things other than just cold economy targets and maybe he never really moves from his office.
the world could be flat as he said just if there would be a ground zero to rebuild everything again and a universal ideology stronger then just such kind of corporative globalisation.
However
Isn't the point just that we need to recognize that other countries can compete in a way they couldn't before? Sure it's a simplified outlook on the world, but you could make that point that he is not exclusively arguing this, just emphasizing it so that people reach a different starting point in the globalisation discussion. It's not a be-all end-all, but rather the beginning.
Post new comment