Chomsky v. Friedman

It's clear that Chomsky has mixed feelings about globalization. While it does help "those that matter", he discusses that poor people have minimal control and advantage to the current system. The main example is of the classic poor farmer who economically fails when consumers prefer the imported products from other countries; either he continues to lose money or he goes to the city to pursue a low-wage factory job. Either way, the outlook is meager.
Friedman, on the other hand, ignores the shadows of globalization and instead insists that the world is "flat". In his discussion, he describes three different eras of globalization throughout human history with the main focus being that currently globalization is at the individual level. Friedman urges the listeners to take initiative and to not wait when innovation strikes because someone else will think of it soon enough; this is because globalization allows for all 7 billion people in the world to compete with ideas. His main example is a little comical: a Peruvian man who sells his Peruvian dishes that are actually made in China; the man took initiative and now makes more profit because China offers cheap labor.
While the "flat" outlook does seem optimistic, I still favor Chomsky's perspective.