The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, the runaway bestseller by New York Times columnist Friedman has now been on the New York Times Bestseller list for over 85 weeks and has sold over 2 million copies in hardcover alone. Ronald Aronica and Mtetwa Ramdoo, authors of The World is Flat? â€“ A Critical Analysis of Thomas L. Friedman’s New York Times Bestseller, point out that Friedman’s book is also full of factual and argumentative inaccuracies, some deliberate and some as a result of living in the CEO bubble. In their book, Ramdoo and Aronica conduct a step by step demolition of nearly all the points that Mr. Friedman makes in his book.
Q) What prompted you to write this book? Were you primarily motivated by wanting to straighten the record? Can you also talk a little more about your background and how this book came about?
RA: With a 30-year career at the intersection of business and technology under my belt, I coauthored a book in 2001, The Death of â€œEâ€ and the Birth of the Real New Economy. In that book, we described how the technology-enabled globalization of white-collar work would be the new frontier in the world economy. The book is about business transformation as a result of the world being wired and the capability that the Internet provides to interconnect business processes around the globe. It was time to prepare for a whole new way of operating a business. In 2006, I picked up a copy of Friedmanâ€™s book and was floored by its superficiality. But what was more shocking to me was the fact that millions of copies had been sold and its influence on leaders in business and government. Indeed, I wanted to set the record straight, for Globalization is the greatest reorganization of the world since the Industrial Revolution, and the stories Friedman spun are but a small piece of the overall tapestry of this monumental transformation.
Globalization is a highly complex interaction of forces. Not only does it exhibit integration, it also exhibits disintegration. It is rooted in cooperationâ€”and it is rooted in violence. For some, it represents the triumph of free-market capitalism over communism, ushering in democracy, world peace and universal prosperity; for others, it represents conflict, unbridled greed, deregulated corporate power, and an utter disregard for humanity.
Yet, the person on the street, especially in America, has little clue what globalization is all about. Few have any doubt that change is placing the world under great stressâ€”that it is being turned upside down. And they may suspect that it has to do with the word, globalization, which increasingly appears in the press and other media. But what does it really mean? It would be great if a popularizer, a famous personality or pundit, would explain the many political, economic and social issues connected to the phenomenon of globalization. Desperate for such information, millions of people, including leaders in government and education, have turned to Friedmanâ€™s mass market book to gain an understanding of globalization. Unfortunately, they are served up stories about Friedmanâ€™s friends, elite CEOs and other personal contacts.
The notion of globalization has been around for centuries, and has taken many forms: political, economic, cultural, and technological, to name a few. But the twenty-first century-style globalization that Friedman writes about is unique. It has a name: â€œcorporateâ€ globalization.
What we want our book to do is to go beyond Friedmanâ€™s superficial treatment of globalization and encourage readers who were awed by his book to â€œthink again.â€
The aim of our short monograph is to provide a counterbalance to Friedmanâ€™s cheerleading for corporate globalization. To help readers get a fuller understanding of the issues, we provide suggested readings at the end of our book and at our Web site, www.mkpress.com/flat Globalization is so important to all of us that we need become more fully informed, not misinformed by story after story based on personal anecdotes, and stories spun from meeting Friedmanâ€™s daughterâ€™s friendâ€™s boyfriend at Yale, or playing golf with rich and famous corporate executives. While readers might be unable to find a single falsehood in Friedmanâ€™s book, neither can they find the whole truth, nor most of the critically important facets needed for a full picture of globalization.
Q) The current way of globalization, according to you, seems like a race to the bottom. It seems like a system largely driven by large corporations and their obsession with lowering the cost of production. Let me juxtapose this thought with something which is oft mentioned â€“ that success of US from the 1950’s onwards was largely buttressed by robust middle class with decent disposable incomes. My question to you is that is there a chance that the vanishing middle class will translate into a vanishing consumer, and what will that mean for the whole enterprise?
MR: Thatâ€™s a very good question, for it touches on some of the more profound aspects of twenty-firstâ€“century style globalization. We have a whole section in our book, â€œAmericaâ€™s Former Middle Classâ€ that talks about the plight of the American middle class. Three pillars: land (material resources); labor; and capital form the foundation of industrial economies. In the early years of the Industrial Revolution, Dickensonian industrialists kept labor down when it came to any stake in wealth. Then, in 1901, Republican Teddy Roosevelt became President. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and, as a Trust Buster, dissolved 40 monopolistic corporations. His Square Deal promised a fair shake for the average citizen, including regulation of railroad rates, and pure foods and drugs. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906, he attacked big business and suggested that the courts were biased against labor unions. In short, you might say Roosevelt gave birth todayâ€™s American middle class. Recognizing the capitalistsâ€™ excesses during the Industrial Revolution, leaders, such as Roosevelt, reigned in raw capitalism and created a â€œmixed economy,â€ not the pure laissez-faire form of capitalism advocated by the Dickensonians.
Fast forwarding to today, free-market Friedman seems to assert that now, with his utopian, digitally connected flat world, even the nation-state could wane as flat-world capitalists create, in the words of Marx and Engels, â€œa world after its own image.â€
Henry Ford was a pioneer of â€œwelfare capitalismâ€ designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men a year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers. In January 1914, Ford announced his five-dollar a day program. The revolutionary program called for a reduction in length of the workday from 9 to 8 hours, a 5-day work week, and a raise in minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers.
Wall Street criticized Ford for starting the 40-hour work week and the minimum wage, but he showed that by paying his people more, Ford workers would be able to afford the cars they were producingâ€”which would be good for the economy. Ford labeled the increased compensation profit-sharing rather than wages.
With todayâ€™s corporate globalization, we are seeing a return to Dickensonian capitalism on a grand scale. Not only do we need a strong American middle class, we need a strong global middle class, not a global 3rd world that is seeing America heading toward 3rd world status. We need a new Teddy Roosevelt and thinking capitalists in the likes of upstart Henry Ford if the world is to avoid Wall Streetâ€™s rule and its preeminent goal of only increasing shareholder value.
Q) You raise multiple points in your book illustrating ways in which the world is not particularly â€œflatâ€. If I read you right, you are not against â€œflat worldâ€ but a Friedman conception of a neo-liberal â€œflat worldâ€ that exists today. Tell us a little more about your thoughts the current â€œflatâ€ world and the kind of â€œflatâ€ world that you would like to see. In other words, how does the current global economic regime look like and what would you like to see changed?
RA: Neo-liberals believe that free markets, free trade, and the free flow of capital are the most efficient ways to produce the greatest social, political, and economic good. They argue for reduced taxation, reduced regulation, and minimal government involvement in the economy. They include privatizing health and retirement benefits, dismantling of trade unions, and generally opening our economy to foreign competition. Detractors see neo-liberalism as a power grab by economic elites and as a race to the bottom for everyone else.
The current economic regime unleashes neoliberalism. Agriculture, indigenous peoplesâ€™ resources, water, genes, medicinesâ€”increasingly, they are all being privatized and placed in the hands of transnational corporations. The field of economics has always addressed both private and public goods. But todayâ€™s neoliberal philosophy views all goods as private goodsâ€”perhaps even our laws are becoming private goods.
Corporations no longer influence our lawsâ€”now, they write them! Multinationals, working behind closed doors are writing the worldâ€™s economic agreements unfettered by any one nationâ€™s interests and unaccountable to individual nationsâ€™ citizens. For example, the WTO, which emerged from GATT, which covered international trade and tariffs, is an organization that protects multinationals. And Chapter 11 of the supposed free-trade agreement of NAFTA, establishes a new system of private arbitration for foreign investors to bring injury claims against governments. The operative principle is that foreign capital investing in Canada, Mexico or the United States may demand compensation if the profit-making potential of their ventures are injured by government decisions. This gives foreign-based companies more rights than have domestic businesses operating in their home country. Global corporations are free to litigate on their own without having to ask national governments to act on their behalf in global forums. The national identity of multinationals will become less and less relevant, since they have status to challenge governments. NAFTA creates, as Lydia Lazar, a Chicago attorney, puts it, â€œan open class of legal equals.â€ She adds that â€œNAFTA is really an end run around the Constitution.â€
What weâ€™d like to see changed is the form of governance needed for global trade. Current forums and trade agreements (WTO, World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, CAFTA) have stripped many nation-statesâ€”hence, their peopleâ€”of their former roles governing trade. Not doing this, indeed, could lead to the scenarios described in Harvardâ€™s David Kortenâ€™s book, When Corporations Rule the World.
Because globalization is the greatest reorganization of the world since the Industrial Revolution, thereâ€™s no pat checklist to instantly change policy and strategy. Weâ€™re talking about a multi-year struggle for individuals, companies and nations to adjust and readjust. Although we do not in any way provide cookie cutter solutions in our book, we enumerate many of the issues that must be addressed. Here are some examples:
- Reform of the dependence on Treasury securities, which funds U. S. over-consumption with borrowed dollars from China, Japan and other export driven nations.
- Reform the IMF, World Bank, and WTO to make their decision-making more transparent.
- Provide education subsidies, not farm subsidies in the U.S. and Europe
- Establish worldwide regulation that would restrict continuing damage to the environment and maintain biodiversity.
- Have government once again govern corporations versus the reverse as it is today (e.g. put trade policy back into Congress, not in trade agreements written behind closed doors).
- Establish a U.S. Federal Competitiveness cabinet position.
- Break the bribery cycle between poor countriesâ€™ governments and international companies.
- Establish tripolar trading blocs, not American unipolar hegemony (e.g. establish true economic unions, not asymmetric trade agreements).
- Separate public goods (the commons) from private goods.
- Foster. increased savings (e.g., with automatic 401K plans).
- Develop energy policies and strategies that will break our dependency on oil (e.g. rethink and reorganize Americaâ€™s sprawling suburbs (exurbs)).
- Globalize health care, e.g., allow people to spend Medicare dollars overseas (Mexico would boom, solving much of the illegal immigration problem in the U.S.). We are well overdue for a wakeup call to address these and other issues. And an open debate could just lead to peoplesâ€™ active engagement in creating a just, sustainable, economic world.
Q) You spend a fair amount of time on describing the underbelly of the beast â€“ the 998 million Indians with no access to Internet, the farmers coming suicide there, or the laid off workers in Detroit. The global middle class and under class are suffering. But certainly the number of Chinese below poverty line has taken a dramatic nose dive in the past two decades. It also seems clear to me that the 9% growth rates in India are benefiting some poor. Certainly the story of globalization is not all doom and gloom. Tell us about the cross cutting forces at work in globalization today.
MR: Today, leading economists, both advocates and critics of globalization, agree that international trade has improved the lives of many across the world, bringing technology and knowledge to virtually every corner of the globe, and has raised many above the tyranny of backward and often repressive cultures. No doubt volumes could be filled with success stories of international trade. Itâ€™s â€œcorporate globalizationâ€ thatâ€™s at issue in the 21st century. Neoliberal free-trade proponents too often frame the issues in a polarizing way: â€œfree-tradeâ€ versus â€œprotectionism,â€ â€œgoodâ€ versus â€œbad.â€ â€œYour are either for us, or against us,â€ they might say. â€œFree-trade reduces poverty, protectionism creates poverty.â€ Of course, this is bullshit. Globalization is not a bipolar issue, while the case can be made that â€œcorporate globalizationâ€ is.
Defining poverty is key to any discussion of the so-called poverty lines. Is economic globalization the only form of globalization? Should some goods be off limits to corporate globalization and, if so, which ones? To answer these questions, weâ€™ve included a large section in the book devoted to the concept of the Privatization of the Commons. We quote Indian ecologist Dr.Vandana Shiva, â€œPeople do not die for lack of incomes. They die for lack of access to resources. Here too Jeffrey Sacks (The End of Poverty) is wrong when he says, â€˜In a world of plenty, 1 billion people are so poor, their lives are in danger.â€™ The indigenous people in the Amazon, the mountain communities in the Himalaya, peasants whose land has not been appropriated and whose water and biodiversity has not been destroyed by debt-creating industrial agriculture are ecologically rich, even though they do not earn a dollar a day. On the other hand, even at five dollars a day, people are poor if they have to buy their basic needs at high prices. Indian peasants who have been made poor and pushed into debt over the past decade to create markets for costly seeds and agrochemicals through economic globalization are ending their lives in thousands.â€
After China announced plans to adopt a new law that seeks to crack down on sweatshops and protect workers’ rights by giving labor unions real power for the first time since it introduced market forces in the 1980s, guess who started lobbying the Chinese politicians? As David Baboza reported in the New York Times, â€œThe move, which underscores the government’s growing concern about the widening income gap and threats of social unrest, is setting off a battle with American corporations that have lobbied against it by hinting that they may build fewer factories here. The workersâ€™ advocates say that the proposed labor rulesâ€”and more important, enforcement powersâ€”are long overdue, and they accuse the American businesses of favoring a system that has led to widespread labor abuse.â€ â€œYou have big corporations opposing basically modest reforms,â€ said Tim Costello, an official of the Global Labor Strategies and a longtime labor union advocate. â€œThis flies in the face of the idea that globalization and corporations will raise standards around the world.â€
What’s currently going on is called â€œcorporate globalization,â€ where powerful transnational corporations, backed by supposed â€œfree tradeâ€ treaties penned by corporate lobbyists in Washington, go to the ends of the earth to exploit slave-like labor. No one of us wants continuing poverty in China, India, or elsewhere. But is making $2.00 a day (the oft quoted dollar amount to be â€œout of povertyâ€) the goal, the only goal?
Out of Poverty?
Life in rural communities in China, India and elsewhere is tough. Are we to displace a non-money economy with formerly self-sufficient peoples moving to the mega cities to live in slums? In the recent PBS documentary, â€œChina From the Inside,â€ rural people dislocated due to the damming of rivers were given new high density housing. But as one of them exclaimed, we have no jobs and cannot raise our food anymore. Relocation from dam areas, like the Three Gorges, is causing huge social upheaval (75,000 riots in China in 2005).Thousands of families are divided throughout China as parents spend most of the year in large cities making a living, while their children remain in rural villages with grandma tending to all the chores and to the fields. In other cases, women are left in the villages to raise children while husbands go off alone to the cities to work. Expectant mothers still abort female fetuses or abandon newborn girls because of the long-held view that women are not as valuable to the culture as men. China is the only nation in the world where the suicide rate for women is higher than that for men. Of course, relocated peasants cannot afford the shoe strings on the brand-named shoes they manufacture in sweatshops. But then, again, they do get to see their children 4 days out of the year! So yes, they are â€œout of povertyâ€ according to the $2.00 a day rule, but at what cost? Is there hope for a Global Middle Class? Why, when the Chinese Communist Partyâ€™s latest five-year plan called for increased focus on unions, did multinationals threaten to relocate jobs to Viet Nam or other dirt-cheapâ€“labor countries?
China is run by the Communist Party, which bases its legitimacy on delivering both stability and the conditions for prosperity. But stability is under threat as the economic boom strands millions at the margins. Meanwhile, rampant corruption is sapping people’s trust in the Party. Officials are seen, increasingly, not as public servants but as profiteers. Is China Corporate Globalizationâ€™s 21st century poster child where the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer in social as well as monetary terms? We donâ€™t have the answers in our book, but we identify the essential questions, such as, Is earning $2.00 a day the end of poverty? Youâ€™ll see little discussion of these matters in Friedman.
Q) Thomas Friedman in his book, â€œThe World is Flat: A brief history of the 21st Centuryâ€ quotes Bill Gates, â€œThirty years ago, if you had a choice between being born a genius on the outskirts of Bombay or Shanghai or being born an average person in Poughkeepsie, you would take Poughkeepsie, because your chances of thriving and living a decent life there, even with average talent, were much greater. But as the world has gone flat, and so many people can plug and play from anywhere, natural talent has started to trump geography.â€ It seems to me Bill Gates is comparing a child born to fairly rich educated parents near Bombay or Shanghai given only a tiny fraction (about 1% in India) of people in India and China have access to â€œplug and playâ€, something which you point out in your book. Even if we agree with Mr. Gates, we still miss the close to 95% of population with its share of geniuses that don’t live close to Mumbai and Shanghai. Can you shed some light on their chances for â€œsuccessâ€ or integration in the global economy?
MR: What Gates and Friedman are discussing are the opportunities for the elite. Friedman writes, â€œI cannot tell any other society or culture what to say to its own children, but I can tell you what I say to my own: The world is being flattened. I didnâ€™t start it and you canâ€™t stop it, except at a great cost to human development and your own future. But we can manage it, for better or for worse. You can flourish in this flat world, but it does take the right imagination and the right motivation. While your lives have been powerfully shaped by 9/11, the world needs you to be forever the generation of 11/9 [the fall of the Berlin wall]â€”the generation of strategic optimists, the generation with more dreams than memories, the generation that wakes up each morning and not only imagines that things can be better but also acts on that imagination every day.â€
While these lessons display concern for his children, he leaves it up to their imagination as to the way forward. Friedmanâ€™s daughter attends Yale, and there he sees the â€œprecisely the sort of young person we want the America education system to keep churning out.â€ People getting degrees in biomedical engineering while having medical doctors and science professors for fathers.
If only every kid in America had these advantages and could graduate from Yale, all would be well in the Kingdom of Flat. All they need is a wealthy daddy, a degree from U.S.-President-producing Yale, and we are off to the races. But for those of us whose children do not breathe such rarefied air, Freidman tells them to use their imagination.
Ditto for our children that donâ€™t breathe such rarefied air Chindia (China and India). The haves and have-nots are growing further apart in both rich countries and poor. But there is hope in programs such as microbanking. Bangladeshi Grameen Bank and its founder Muhammad Yunus received the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to create economic and social development from below. Indeed, there is a fortune at the bottom of the pyramid, but few multinationals seem to notice. While most IT activity is focused on urban centers such as Bangalore, Indiaâ€™s Netcore is producing the $100 PC for the next billion. So, the big hope for addressing poverty isnâ€™t about the â€œzippiesâ€ in Bangalore that Friedman writes about, itâ€™s about the bottom of the pyramid. And when innovations happen there, entrepreneurs in Chindia will take them global at Chindia prices. Change is being driven by the bottom of the pyramid and not in the chrome and rosewood boardrooms and halls of the WTO or the World Bank or Wall Street.
Q) Friedman has all sorts of suggestions for parents living in suburbs like Poughkeepsie. What would you like to say to the parents of young kids across America â€“ Is it to vote to change the economic and social policy of the government?
MR: Americans are just beginning to think about what can happen as early as 2010. Some forecasts show that, with an average growth rate of 8â€“10%, Chinaâ€™s GDP will, by 2010, have surpassed Japanâ€™s, by 2030, China will have the worldâ€™s largest economy, and, by 2050, it could be double that of the U.S.
Meanwhile, Washington leaves industrial policy up to the â€œfree marketâ€â€”or, as we write in our book, Washington has no industrial policy, which is perhaps the real issueâ€”America does not have a national industrial policy that identifies and strengthens the industries in which it wants to be the master in the twenty-first century. Americaâ€™s economic policies are, by and large, set by transnational corporations who wield excessive power in Washington. Their interests are not in America, but are in their stockholders. As more than one CEO has said, their interests may indeed lie outside of the United Sates. So, keeping this in mind, Friedmanâ€™s thesis could translate into â€œGo East, young man. Get your engineering degree, and move to Bangalore, because thatâ€™s where your job is going.â€
For starters, Iâ€™d tell parents to read Sen. Byron Dorganâ€™s book, Take this Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain-Dead Politics Are Selling Out America. Itâ€™s a real eye opener. Then visit his Web site, http://dorgan.senate.gov, to see the kind of legislation that is needed to put Americaâ€™s industrial policy back on track. He calls for: (1) antisweatshop legislation that bar imports produced under internationally defined â€œsweatshopâ€ conditions and hold companies accountable for using forced labor or denying basic human rights to workers, including the right to organize; (2) repealing tax incentives for American companies that enjoy all the benefits of being â€œAmericanâ€â€”government services and subsidies, and U.S. Military protectionâ€”while discarding reciprocal obligations to the countryâ€”jobs, economic investment, and paying a fair share of the tax burden; And (3) capping trade deficits and stopping the $800-billion-a-year trade deficit hemorrhaging. These recommendations do not deal with every disorder caused by globalization, but they could jump-start a debate that Congress has long avoided. And they are not about â€œprotectionism.â€ Instead they are about America formulating an industrial trade policy, because as, as former Reagan commerce advisor Clyde Prestowitz said, , â€œChina and India have very clear national industrial policies. America does not.â€
Q) You bring out a variety of points that dismantle nearly all of arguments that Friedman makes in the book. What, according to you, did Friedman get right in his book? What does he get about global economic regime?
RA: The main thing Friedman got right was that there is a need for a book on globalization that can reach the general population. Unfortunately, his book misinforms the public. We could not find a single falsehood in Friedmanâ€™s book. What he wrote, he mostly got right. But itâ€™s what he didnâ€™t writeâ€”itâ€™s what he left outâ€”that makes the book so problematic. Thereâ€™s little more in his book beyond being a cheerleader for unfettered corporate globalization. And its important to recognize that, in some sense, this globalization stuff he writes about really does seem to work; if you consider that if four average blue-collar Americans join Friedman at a bar, the five of them, on average, would be a group of millionaires. As some of our politicians like to remind us, America is the economic envy of the world, and similar statistics to the bar scenario prove them right. Thatâ€™s right, eh?
Q) Thomas Friedman started of as a successful Middle-East pundit, something for which he has actually received training. It is at best a strange transition from being a Middle-East pundit to being an â€œexpertâ€ on globalization. Do Friedman’s flaws in his economic analysis, as pointed out by you and numerous other scholars, emanate primarily from his lack of intellectual training in economics or his lack of intellectual honesty or is it something else entirely?
MR: It seems Friedman is an opportunist. Remember, he started on his globalization quest when he was on assignment for the Discovery Channel doing â€œThe Other Side of Outsourcing.â€ It seems to have occurred to him during that assignment, â€œAha. A book!â€ Youâ€™ll see that he based many of the stories in his book on the Discovery documentary. Being a well-placed smart person, Friedman did what any capitalist would do, he used his celebrity assets to make money. And to him, we say kudos. Stiglitz, Bagwhati, Roach, Leamer and other well-respected, fully-qualified economists and business analysts can write their hearts out, but who will read them? Celebrity has its privileges.
Whatâ€™s unnerving is not Friedman, but the overwhelming traction of his book. This is best explained by Professor Roberto Gonzalez, â€œUltimately, Friedmanâ€™s work is little more than advertising. The goal is not to sell the high-tech gadgetry described in page after page of the book, but to sell a way of lifeâ€”a world view glorifying corporate capitalism and mass consumption as the only paths to progress. It is a view intolerant of lives lived outside the global marketplace. It betrays [unconsciously reveals] a disregard for democracy and a profound lack of imagination. This bookâ€™s lighthearted style might be amusing were it not for the fact that his subjectâ€”the global economyâ€”is a matter of life and death for millions. Friedmanâ€™s words and opinions, ill informed as they are, shape the policies of leaders around the world. Many consider him to be a sophisticated thinker and analystâ€”not a propagandist. It is a sobering reminder of the intellectual paralysis gripping our society today.â€ Today we donâ€™t play sports; we sit on the couch and play our sports vicariously through celebrity sports stars. Today, we donâ€™t have much time to think; we let our celebrity pundits do that for us.
Q) You heavily rely on paraphrasing and quotations from others authors to put forth your case. Was that a conscious decision or was it strictly a result of time pressures?
RA: Weâ€™ll give you yet another quote to tell why! Here is Bill Moyers at the 2007 National Conference on Media Reform, â€œThe degree to which this [free trade] has become a purely ideological debate, devoid of any factual basis that people can weigh the gains and losses is reflected in Thomas Friedman’s astonishing claim, stated not long ago in a television interview, that he endorsed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) without even reading it. That is simply because it stood for â€˜free trade.â€™
We have reached the stage when the Poo-bahs of punditry have only to declare that â€˜the world is flat,â€™ for everyone to agree it is, without going to the edge and looking over themselves. It’s called reporting.â€
And thatâ€™s exactly what we want to accomplish with our book, going to the edge and doing some â€œreportingâ€ on what those qualified to analyze and report on 21st century globalization has to say.
We have 46 footnote references on our sources of information. Friedman has zero. We donâ€™t make stuff up and tell stories about friends and elite CEOs. And we explore nine critical issues Friedman ignores or glosses over, along with an enumeration of 22 action items. Our book would be hundreds more pages if we expounded on each of these strategies and their rationales. We meant only to set the record straight on what Friedman is saying by providing the views of the experts, and then to provide the reader with a roadmap for exploring this vital subject further, for globalization affects all our lives and will be of even greater significance to our children and grandchildren. Simply stated, we all must learn about globalization and our available choices as we define our place in a global economy.
We hope our analysis of Friedmanâ€™s book provides readers who were awed by his 600 pages of bafflegab with a second take on the monumental subject of globalization.
To help our readers to develop their understanding of the issues, we have a shortlist of suggested readings and a comprehensive and growing resource list at www.mkpress.com/flat. Our message is â€œWake up!â€ itâ€™s past time to come to grips with the greatest reorganization of the world since the Industrial Revolution.
Q) Friedman is often accused of writing newspaper plain speak, speaking in clichÃ©s and in analogies but avoiding facts and avoiding substance to story telling. The idea is, according to Friedman, to be a translator of the economic jargon and make it accessible to the public. Is there any merit in this idea? Are economic facts about the current global regime so complex?
RA: A translator of economic jargon would be great. We open our book saying that the person on the street, especially in America, has little clue what globalization is all about. But few have any doubt that change is placing the world under great stress, that it is being â€œturned upside down.â€ And the person on the street may suspect that it has to do with the word, which increasingly appears in the press and other media: globalization. But what does it really mean? It would be great if a popularizer, a famous personality or pundit, would explain the many complicated political, economic and social issues connected to the phenomenon of globalization. Walter Cronkite or Bill Moyers could probably do that.
Desperate for such information, millions of people, including leaders in business, government and education, have turned to Friedmanâ€™s mass market book to gain an understanding of globalization. Unfortunately, they are served up stories from friends, CEOs and other personal contacts of the author. These stories are not harmless, for they become solemn writ for lawmakers and opinion mongers.
Itâ€™s not so complex to explain that multinational corporations, are by their very nature, aimed at maximizing shareholder value. To achieve this corporate goal, multinational corporations are literally going to the ends of the earth in search of dirt-cheap labor for both manufacturing and high-end knowledge-based workers. IBM recently laid off 15,000 employees in America, while hiring 45,000 in India. There is nothing complex about that idea.
But shipping jobs overseas and hollowing out Americaâ€™s middle class is only part of the picture. America is exporting its pollution by relocating manufacturing facilities to countries where environment laws are lax or non-existent. Letâ€™s not forget about the human abuses lurking behind famous brand names and companies. Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee cites Wal-Mart among others as repeat offenders. Friedman has nothing but awe for Wal-Martâ€™s supply chaining, failing all mention of Wal-Martâ€™s darker side cited by Kernaghan. Like other US retailers, Wal-Mart claims to be enforcing decent labor conditions, but investigators find otherwise. Kernaghan points out that the same companies have won enforceable rules in trade agreements to protect their trademarks, labels and copyrights, yet regard protections for workers as â€œan impediment to free trade.â€ â€œUnder this distorted sense of values,â€ says Kernaghan, â€œthe label is protected but not the human being, the worker who makes the product.â€
Whatâ€™s so hard for the laymen to understand about that? Plain newspaper speak is great if it conveys substance. Friedman is especially destructive when he opines on public matters outside his supposed expertise. His thinking seems to be anchored by Ayn Rand’s social philosophy: Let the strong prevail, let the weak pay for their weakness. There is no doubt that many of those who read Friedman are now convinced the world is flat (perhaps they also believe the moon is made of green cheese). But newspaper plain talk doesn’t make it so. Having paid the price of wading through Friedmanâ€™s almost 600 pages of grandiloquent prose and bafflegab, there are those who want to protect that investment by clinging to the idea that they have gained a full understanding of globalization. Albert Einstein once wrote, â€œEverything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.â€ Friedmanâ€™s simplistic treatise on globalization fails that test.
While Friedmanâ€™s personal anecdotes fascinate many readers and make for good tales at cocktail parties, itâ€™s whatâ€™s left out of story after story after story that makes the book such a flawed distillation of globalization. Thus, it is whatâ€™s ignored on the many issues that Friedman touches upon that makes the book dangerous, for it gives average readers a false sense that they are gaining a true understanding of this broad and complex subject, globalization.