NYT Book Review: Thomas Friedman on globalization, “The World is Flat”

Nothing Without Hope

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-29-05 09:02 PM
Original message

NYT Book Review: Thomas Friedman on globalization, “The World is Flat”

Glowing review of NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s new book, ''The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.'' Surely the evolution of globalization is something we all need to try to understand, and this book looks to be an insightful, broad-ranging primer.

Let’s hope someone in the Bush administration reads this book and gets a clue. (Okay, call me Polyanna.) Their "We're the strongest, we get to tell you all what to do" worldview is not only reprehensible, it simply cannot work in the real, increasingly globalized world. In fact, we may all be paying the price for their blind bullying for a long time to come if they are not removed from office and efforts made to repair the damage they have done to our relationship with the rest of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/books/review/01ZAKARIA.html?8bu&emc=bu

’The World Is Flat': The Wealth of Yet More Nations

By FAREED ZAKARIA
Published: May 1, 2005

Over the past few years, the United States has been obsessed with the Middle East. The administration, the news media and the American people have all been focused almost exclusively on the region, and it has seemed that dealing with its problems would define the early decades of the 21st century. ''The war on terror is a struggle that will last for generations,'' Donald Rumsfeld is reported to have said to his associates after 9/11.

But could it be that we're focused on the wrong problem? The challenge of Islamic terrorism is real enough, but could it prove to be less durable than it once appeared? There are some signs to suggest this. The combined power of most governments of the world is proving to be a match for any terror group. In addition, several of the governments in the Middle East are inching toward modernizing and opening up their societies. This will be a long process but it is already draining some of the rage that undergirded Islamic extremism.

This doesn't mean that the Middle East will disappear off the map. Far from it. Terrorism remains a threat, and we will all continue to be fascinated by upheavals in Lebanon, events in Iran and reforms in Egypt. But ultimately these trends are unlikely to shape the world's future. The countries of the Middle East have been losers in the age of globalization, out of step in an age of free markets, free trade and democratic politics. The world's future -- the big picture -- is more likely to be shaped by the winners of this era. And if the United States thought it was difficult to deal with the losers, the winners present an even thornier set of challenges. This is the implication of the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman's excellent new book, ''The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.''

The metaphor of a flat world, used by Friedman to describe the next phase of globalization, is ingenious. It came to him after hearing an Indian software executive explain how the world's economic playing field was being leveled. For a variety of reasons, what economists call ''barriers to entry'' are being destroyed; today an individual or company anywhere can collaborate or compete globally. Bill Gates explains the meaning of this transformation best. Thirty years ago, he tells Friedman, if you had to choose between being born a genius in Mumbai or Shanghai and an average person in Poughkeepsie, you would have chosen Poughkeepsie because your chances of living a prosperous and fulfilled life were much greater there. ''Now,'' Gates says, ''I would rather be a genius born in China than an average guy born in Poughkeepsie.''

(snip - this is a long article)