Ch 15: CONCLUSION: 11/9 vs. 9/11

I was happy to reach this chapter, not only because it was the last chapter, but also I wanted to hear his view on 9/11 with the global world. He had been mentioning throughout the whole book briefly, and now I finally got to hear what he had to say. He basically compares 11/9 (the fall of the Berlin Wall) to 9/11 (the most tragic day in the U.S.) Friedman had a theory that while 9/11 was the fresh new start of the globalization world and freedom, the evil masterminds involved in 9/11 were trying to put it all into reverse. His theory makes sense to me. 9/11 was meant to impress fear upon people (the U.S. particularly) and to make us second guess our freedom. These evil masterminds involved were against globalization and prosperity through rising countries. I feel that this event is definitely a major flattening stopper (or a slowing) on globalization. The fear that people have from the event make us to be more cautious about certain information, security in public places, security on the internet, and numerous other things. I remember when it happened was my junior year of high school and we were watching it in our classrooms. It was a very sad day. It was then that firefighters were being regarded again as heroes and the saying “United we stand” could be heard everywhere. While it is a terrible event and countless lives were lost and households broken, I think it is important to learn from these experiences. I thought it was very beautiful that in the time of tragedy, U.S. citizens put aside their differences and all stood together. Everyone viewed each other as a sister or brother, not “just someone with a different religion, education, or political party as me.”

I agree with Friedman when he said that we as Americans must set an example by not running away from the world, but becoming good global citizens. We should change people’s thoughts from the fears of 9/11 into the hopes of a 11/9 world. If we are afraid and try to break out of contact with the global world, then no good can come of that. Fear does no good. We must be cautious in our nation’s and world’s safety, but we should keep moving on into the global world that can bring abundance to everyone involved.

Ch 14: Dell

We are talking about good old supply chains again. And what better example than Dell? (well, besides Wal-Mart which we have already used enough…oh wait, they joint-ventured with Wal-Mart, can’t get away from them I guess.) A good amount of my friends have a Dell, so they must have done a good job marketing in the past. However, now I’ve seen more of a variety of computers that people are having, even in class. I have a Compaq. It is not terrible but it has given me some problems and half the time it doesn’t turn on, so that is why I never take it to class. And when it is acting up I have to hit I to turn on. I don’t want to take it in because it is too expensive.

Friedman is right on the dot, in my opinion, that countries that are in major global supply chains together would have a decreased probability to engage in war against each other. If his theory is correct, then that is very good news for our world, when it is a time of terrorism. He points out that more of the Asian countries have much to lose in a war against each other so they would most likely not risk it and would want to put any of their differences aside. However, the Middle Eastern countries are not involved in any major supply chain. It makes me wonder why. I think they should get involved with us and other countries so we can be more at peace about wars. However, then I am second guessing myself because he also points out that supply chains are not always good news. He refers to terrorist groups and Osama bin Laden in that if they have a hold on supply chain technology they may be more prone to use it to our disadvantage by attacking us. So now I am not sure of what side of the fence I am sitting on with his theory.

Ch 13: Globalization and the Local

Just when Friedman is done admitting in the previous chapter that the world is not completely flat, he talks in this chapter that the cultural revolution is about to begin. He proceeds to state that as long as you have a computer, camera and microphone, then you are good to go into the global world. And he claims that this applies for anyone. Well I do not totally agree. For instance, take people in China. Just because many may have these “three tickets into globalization” does not fully mean that they can take in the full benefits of it. I remember reading somewhere that China’s government still dictates what they can and cannot read in their country. We learned in Dr. Christiansen’s class that they are very private about what they will allow their people to know and especially about what they share about China to the outside world. They are also the only country in the world that will not allow the Pope to visit (so not open to religious freedom.) Yahoo! And Google have censorship rules in China that they must adhere to. So, even if they have very equipped with the global tools, then they will not be fully able to partake in all the benefits of globalization.

In addition to all of this I do not agree with his argument that globalization is not in the form of “Americanization.” I think that we are taking over the world. He claims that the internet will be able to have everyone’s culture broadcasted. Yea that’s true, but America has the most power so our businesses will most likely prevail. So the products, restaurants and clothes will be in American form, but will only be altered to the point that a very different culture will accept them. And if this is so, it will be changed only in their geographic area for them. For example, take McDonalds. It has a restaurant in India. They do not eat cows over there for religious reasons, so McDonalds wants their money and changed hamburgers to chicken burgers. In all other McDonalds across the world, it has regular “beef.” McDonalds only changed it because the had to for India otherwise there is no way that their people would buy it.

Ch 12: The Unflat World

Just when Friedman is getting me to fully believe that the world is indeed flat, he throws a curveball and admits that it is not yet. So I guess my original idea was right. Well- at least for now… He gives three scenarios for why the world will remain unflattend for some people. The first one is those that are “too sick.” Places that are largely infected with diseases, according to Friedman, are so because the people are too poor to have funds to cure it, or people are uneducated about how it’s spread. This is very sad and I believe it is our duty as member in the flat world, to educated fully those impoverished people and keep them safe and “in the know.” He mentions that these people will not compete in the flat world. While this is probably true, (and unfortunate) why the heck did he call the book the world is flat?! Because clearly, it is not. Not everyone is competing.

He also goes on about listing two other excluded people that will not be able to compete in the “flat world.” Those that are too disempowered, those that basically do not have the tools or skills to participate but know what’s up. The other group are the ones that are “too frustrated” involving terrorists. He also mentions five forces that drove antiglobalization movements, lead by the antiglobalization people. Which to me sounds like a bunch of modern day hippies. I guess every generation has its share of hippies… By this point in the book I just want to throw it into the dumpster because now I feel he is just yapping away trying to talk to us as much as he can, so I will conclude this blog right now.

Ch 11: How Companies Cope

“Everybody wants economic growth, but nobody wants change.” This statement is so true. I think as human beings, most of us are opposed to change, or at least initially. Sometimes people have the view, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Even if your business is not doing terrible, if there is the opportunity for growth and innovation that comes through change, why not then take advantage of it? Maybe if a corporate culture would be drawn to embrace change and see it as a fun and exciting way to improve one’s self, then more businesses would be able to flourish in the long run. Sometimes businesses want to, but they have trouble getting their employees to enthusiastically go along for the ride.

Friedman says that all of the top businesses are the ones that are constantly changing. He gives a few rules that the top businesses go by. The first one is when the world is flat, whatever can be done will be done, the only question is if it will be done by you. This is important because if you have a good idea, just go for it. If you hesitate, with all the available information that is out there, chances are someone will tap into your new market first and steal your market share with a similar idea. The third rule that I like is “And the small shall act big…” This gives hope to small companies that they are just as competitive as the big ones with all the money.

My favorite rule that I always thought about (which was before I read this book) is that big companies shall act small. Starbucks is a great example. They are always listening to what their customers want. They do not dictate what services they will provide their customers, rather they let their customers dictate to them what service they want. They treat you in every Starbucks as a person, not just a number that is boosting their revenue. They make your experience a relationship as opposed to a transaction. They greet you by name, and not once have I ever came across a rude employee. Their coffee may be overpriced, but I am willing to pay a couple extra bucks to get the up most personal service I receive there. Friedman also mentions six other rules, but I feel most of them are pretty much obvious after reading the book so far.

Ch 10: The Virgin of Guadalupe

I couldn’t help but laugh when Friedman used the example of China exporting statues and symbols of the Virgin of Guadalupe to Mexico. It is one of Mexico's claim to fame, and most of the people in the factories in China probably are not Catholic nor really care about the symbolism behind it. I would think that Mexico would produce their own, however I guess in the global world, everything is treated more like a transaction business mindset and the most efficient way wins. He uses this example to show that China is becoming a "powerhouse" of low-cost manufacturing. (As if we didn’t know this already…) He uses this chapter to open up into his discussion of the flat world and developing countries.

The first step that Friedman makes is that developing nations must know where it stands with the ten flatteners. I agree with his next step that these countries must be more involved in open and more competitive markets. This is the only tool out of poverty. If I am a poor country, I obviously will not be as prosperous as America, and cannot just randomly get there. Since my country would already be behind the game, the only way to get back into it, is to start deciding what I do best, and then trade that with other countries who will need my competitive advantages. I guess I just tied my idea back into that whole free trade theory. I agree with his statement that countries whose cultures undermine the woman in the work place do put it at a competitive disadvantage in the truly existing global world. While men and women do work/relate differently in the workforce at times, it is a good thing because the more diversity, the better. If you have a country that is male dominated in the workforce, then those males may not know everything that is needed to tap fully into other markets. Friedman later provided a comparison between Mexico and China demonstrating why Mexico is behind China. It was a really good eye-opener. Like Erica, I wondered why we were always exporting from China, when we could be from Mexico which is closer to us. Now I better understand it.

Ch 9: This is Not a Test

Friedman talks about compassionate flatism that has the goal of changing the old welfare state to give Americans the outlook, education and skills needed to compete across the globe. He says that the main objective that we have is to build strong individuals. This is imperative since one of the themes of this book is that we are competing as individuals against other individuals. There were five action areas that he suggested that are imperative for the government to help Americans remain competitive.

He says that politicians should help educate and explain to people what world they are truly living in and what they need to do if they want to thrive in it. He says they are our leaders that should lead us to reality. I agree with his point. Instead of just making empty promises and what they are going “to do” they should try to make us rise and become better citizens.

With Muscles he is talking about creating a legal and institutional framework for universal portability of pensions and healthcare. It is sad that 50% of Americans do not have a job-based pension plan other than S.S. They should make a universal plan like the author suggests. I like his suggestion that when on worker moves to another job, the investment in that particular 401 K would automatically dump into his universal pension account. Also education was brought up by Friedman that the government needs to improve it. Dr. Christiansen said before in the summer that government has a role to upgrade the educational level system of the entire workforce. Everyone should have a chance to be well educated. I agree with Friedman's view that instead of putting bad teachers to teach a class, why not project the good teachers on a flat screen. I mean, what is the purpose of suffering with bad teachers if the technology today can help us to be at an advantage?

Friedman also made a key distinction that some "good fat" should be kept. SS is good, but a welfare system that discourages people from working needs to be changed and gotten rid of "bad fat." I agree with him because again back in Dr. Christiansen's class, he opened my eyes that the current system is not good, and if it is not good, why keep it around? I also agree on Friedman's parenting section that parents should motivate their kids to make something of themselves and not just sit around all day and play video games.