Chomsky vs. Friedman

Noam Chomsky:
Chomsky's view is all based upon one of his opening remarks in which he states the following: "...our system brings reward to all, at least to all that matter." Chomsky is stating that globalization has the potential to do good and help all; however, as of right now it is only helping "those that matter," aka, the wealthy. He states that globalization is wiping out the domestic producers, such as local farmers, because it forces them into cheaper labor and lower wages. Although he hints at the fact that globalization has the ability to produce positive outcomes, he never states how that can be done.
Tom Friedman:
Friedman, unlike Chomsky, elaborates on the positives of globalization. He meshes his idea that the world is flat with his three eras of globalization to state that individuals should be taking advantage of these qualities of the world and be innovating. He states that "whatever can be done, will be done" and therefore individuals of the third era of globalization should be competing with other individuals around the world to come up with the next best idea. His main idea is that globalization is inevitable and it comes down to the question, "Will you do it or will it be done to you?" It is up to the individuals around the world to determine the answer to that question through innovation.

I tend to agree with Friedman.