Friedman VS. Chomsky*

Noam Chomsky believes that Globalization only helps the rich or the “people that matter” never the poor. It is just one small (and unbeneficial) form of international migrations where nations need to open up to free imports to other nations. Because of this, a possible third world country’s domestic production is obliterated next to the needs of a well off state. Without domestic production, farmers flee to urbanized cities looking for work. The surplus of workers in return lowers the wages and rights of the people

Thomas Friedman talks about three eras of globalization. the 1 era (1492-1820) is globalization from the countries expanding. The 2 era (1820-2000) is globalization from the companies expanding. The 3 era (2000-present) is globalizations built around individuals. This flattens the global economic playing field, hence why the world is “flat”. With this new globalization whatever can be done will be done so Friedman advises that if you have an idea you better do something with it.

I lean more towards Chomsky simply because he put the dangers of globalization into terms, whereas with Friedman he only spoke about how globalization now benefits one. His case with Peruvian dishes may show the smart innovative minds behind the new leaders of this Globalistic era, but what about the workers in china making the plates? Because of the sudden increase in jobs more and more workers will flow in, actually taking away time that could be used toward education and instead thinning out the income of every worker there. Overall, I’m pretty skeptical of the idea that other nations should be manufacturing products for other nations other than their own .