Chompsky vs. Friedman

Chompsky:
Noam Chompsky does not take a strong stand on either side of the globalization debate. He takes the stand that it is both beneficial and destructive; beneficial to the rich, destructive to the rest. If the rich were to continue to prosper from using  "rational peasants" to strengthen themselves the gap between socioeconomic classes will widen further. These rational peasants are not unskilled, disposable labor, but instead people who can no longer profit from their previous trades due to globalization, and the wealthy's ability to manipulate the working class.
Friedman:
Friedman focuses on the evolution of globalization and how it is inevitable. His main point can be simplified in his quote where he says, "Whatever can be done, will be done. The question is will it be done by you or for you?" Relating this to the 3rd era of globalization dealing with the globalization of the individual it is clear that Friedman thinks there needs to be some adjustments to control the rapid spread of  globalization. Because the world is flat, whether we like it or not.

I tend to agree with Friedman.