Chomsky vs Friedman

Chomsky:
He points out some of the negative effects of globalization. He makes the point about how the system really only benefits the wealthy because jobs moving overseas really only help the corporation rather than the workers. The jobs move to low income areas of china or japan and these workers are given extremely low wages and are essentially turned into rational peasants because they will accept any payment they can get. This means that the workers are barely paid, the corporation saves money, and the consumer gets products cheeper at the expense of practically slave labor.
Friedman:
He focuses his talk on his three eras of globalizations and their positive effects. The first era is how the country was what promoted globalization. That meant that to do something overseas, the individual would go to the king/queen etc. and ask for ships and men to travel somewhere on a trade or colonization mission. The second era was companies promoting globalization, where you would go to a large corporation to move your work, wares overseas. The third era is the individual going global. This means that a person can sell something globally on their own, travel to anywhere in the world, and reach anyone on the planet. All these era's slowly shrunk the scope of the world until a single person is able to connect with anyone/any market.
I tend to agree more with Friedman because we truly live in a unique age where anyone can reach anyone and the world is now a relatively small place where the individual can have more world reaching power than the corporation or country.