Friedman discussed the fact that the word is becoming easier to do global business in. Friedman assumes that the world is becoming much more globally integrated. He optimistically portrays the world as changing for the better.
I appreciate Friedman’s enthusiasm. Throughout the lecture, he gave some information that felt should be relevant. As soon as I view Ghemawat’s video, I began to see the counterpoints and realize that Friedman really puts an optimistic view on the whole situation. He does not really assert his authority as anything other than a foreign correspondent in his video. That in all makes his believability as sketchy and seemingly more agenda setting (political) than academic. He does give an ounce of information relevant to the time. Being in the IT field myself, I would agree that, or at least that the businesses I worked for would agree with what he is saying. For example, he outlines several of the workers for the future, such as special, specialized, great collaborators, etc. If adding in the fact of other countries beating out the US because of the fact that academics are taken in much different ways in Asian and East Asian countries, then certainly the US falls behind in education. I just wish Friedman would be a prognosticator in his speech and book. He doesn’t go onto globalization 4.0 and 5.0. It is by this fact that I always ask that folks display no end goal and only give a momentary snapshot of what the world was and is. Certainly, the way Friedman talks about it, and the way economists describe education inflation or academic inflation (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Education%20Inflation) I agree because I’ve seen it happen. The adaptability and, as he describes it, the creation of learners tends to leave me shaking my head. The counterpoint to the argument is the fact that if everyone took the subject and studied the teacher that is the most interesting, what does that leave progress at. Scientists, Engineers, and Health Professionals are needed the most, but what if a person had an aptitude for the subject and a love of it but a certain teacher or professor by their quality of teaching deterred said student from taking classes. For example, a friend I know that is an IT Systems Administrator had his professor tell him that he was there to weed out the wannabees. His response to the professor was that the professor wasn’t there to do that but to teach them.
Ghemawat on the other hand points out that Friedman uses stories rather than facts to support his assertations. Ghemawat brings in facts about globalization. He specifically orients on technological innovation that drives global integration. He points out through statistics that the number of international phone calls are less than the public believes they are. He challenges the audience to look up the statistics themselves. He traces the origination of the flattening of the world phrasing back to the implementation of railroads in Africa.
The fact that Ghemawat was accused of thinking of the world as round in his talks over in India, make me wonder about corporate backed subsidiaries. Whether, it is in the best interest of foreign corporations to back a view of a flattening world now (rather than later) in order to challenge controversial views of a western dominated media and corporate influence. The fact that he does not believe that the world is integrating or is integrated already does not mean he is right or wrong, it merely means that facts can be supposed to say that the world is not as integrated as we would like to believe. I admire Ghemawat that he is willing to look up the information and rather being a voicebox for all statistical data, challenges the audience to look up data separately from the Ted talks. However, it is this scapel for the details fact that leads me to differ on his lecture. While he wants to help everyone be savvy on statistics, his choice of statistics on phone calls is limited. If he would compare more computer based statistics then the argument would be much more relevant today.