Why the world isn't flat

Pankaj Ghemawat's analysis of Friedman's flat-world theory is sound. Ghemawat's theory about voters favoring protectionism particularly resonated with me. Looking at the United States as an example and the immigration crisis, the mood of the American people, according to public opinion polls, seems to indicate a need to secure our borders immediately and stop the flow of illegal immigrants. While illegal immigrant workers in this country do not represent direct outsourcing, jobs are being outsourced from American workers in this manner. Yet, we see Americans stridently rejecting this.

Furthermore, the media portrays a backlash to so many American corporations moving their operations out of the country. Political candidates talk about rebuilding industry in America; maybe the rhetoric is nothing more than that, but perhaps these politicians are hitting a key note with the American people: the protection of our economy and the need for job creation at home.

I thought Ghemawat's argument was particularly strong when he used statistics to back up his point. Often, Friedman employed statistics that were difficult to understand or so large and other-worldly that it was difficult to understand his point. Ghemawat paints a clear picture to indicate that the flat world is not developing as fast as some experts may think.

This article also points to a fundamental flaw in Western media, particularly American media, and that is a rush to judgment. Ghemawat's television interview is particularly telling, in that the anchor has seemed to accept Friedman's views as fact because they are mainstream, without bothering to do any independent research to check the validity of his claims. It is this willingness to accept the "mainstream" that is a major flaw in our media today.